Voters to decide fate of Hotel of Terror

Jeff Schrag: Charter compels council to take action on infrastructure issue.

Brandon Jenson: Cultural asset poses difficulty in assigning monetary value.

• 
• 

On Aug. 4, voters will decide whether the city will be allowed to legally seize the downtown haunted attraction Hotel of Terror to make way for a bridge replacement. 

Springfield City Council on March 23 weighed two options for moving forward with plans for the commercial property at 334 N. Main Ave., with one measure that would rescind council’s Dec. 15, 2025, ordinance to acquire the property via eminent domain and the other to send the issue to a citywide vote.

The body opted for the latter option with a unanimous 9-0 rejection of the ordinance to rescind followed by unanimous passage of the ordinance to put the matter to a citywide vote.

The Hotel of Terror, established in 1978 with custom-built scare features within a 1910s-era hotel, is located adjacent to a Main Avenue bridge that has been rated poor by the Missouri Department of Transportation, which recommends its replacement.

City officials maintain that the bridge cannot be replaced without removing the building, which led to the December council vote to acquire the property through eminent domain.

The city and the hotel owners, Sterling and Melissa Mathis, have been unable to come to an agreement about the price of relocating the attraction’s contents to the location of another haunted attraction owned by the Mathises – the Dungeons of Doom, a former dog food factory at 701 W. Wall St., a few blocks west of the Hotel of Terror.

Through the seizure process, a panel would determine what its members believe to be a fair price for the property, and that recommendation can be appealed to a jury, according to past Springfield Business Journal reporting.

But that is only if voters uphold council’s declaration of eminent domain.

The ballot language approved by council asks Springfield residents if the city should declare the necessity of acquiring certain real property for the purpose of replacing the Main Avenue bridge over Jordan Creek.

A previous council declaration of eminent domain was passed in February 2023 and then repealed three months later upon the Mathises’ submission of a successful referendum petition. Avoiding an election saved the city an estimated $250,000, according to past SBJ reporting.

Agreement still possible
There is still a chance for the factions to negotiate a deal and avoid the expense of an election, as Mayor Jeff Schrag noted in remarks before the council votes.

“I continue to hope that a negotiated solution may be agreed upon for the property at 334 N. Main; however, tonight the charter compels us to take action, even as negotiations continue,” he said.

Schrag pointed to one of the sticking points for relocation in noting that the Mathises would prefer that the city use a 2018 building code, which allows exceptions to certain safety and accommodation requirements for amusement attractions, rather than an updated version of the code, which Sterling Mathis has said the city introduced during the negotiation process.

“Even if the existing building code could be used, the proposed size of the scope that is being proposed would still require that the entire building be brought up to current minimum life, health and safety codes, which includes fire and accessibility issues,” Schrag said.

Schrag said the Main Avenue bridge at the heart of the controversy is an aging transportation structure that requires replacement due to safety and capacity issues.

“This location is where the replacement bridge and its supporting structure must be built,” he said. “Engineering analyses state the building was constructed directly next to the bridge structure, leaving insufficient space to safely construct the foundations and expand the channel needed for modern replacement.”

He said the bridge replacement would increase stormwater capacity and reduce downtown flooding.

“Engineers have stated that replacing the bridge without removing the adjacent structure would create unacceptable structure and flood risk issues,” he said.

Cultural asset
Councilmember Brandon Jenson, representing city Zone 3, where the Hotel of Terror is located, said he wanted to put into the record the cultural value of the attraction.

“I don’t think it’s a question for anybody of whether this is a cultural asset of our community,” he said of the haunted attraction.

He called visiting the Hotel of Terror a rite of passage that he tried once and was “scared witless.”

Jenson also noted the value of work being done as part of the Renew Jordan Creek project, which aims in part to improve stormwater infrastructure that he said serves 10 square miles of the city while also creating a public park amenity.

“At the center of this issue as I understand it is a focus on fair treatment,” he said. “The way that we typically do that is to use a rational, repeatable calculation or dollar amount to determine how much a property owner should receive in terms of compensation when negotiations do not lead to a successful outcome.”

A property that has recognized cultural value complicates the matter with that intangible component, he said.

“There’s not research that really provides a repeatable, justifiable approach to determining that,” he said.

For Jenson, the just compensation question is one that in part ensures government entities use taxpayer dollars effectively without risk of waste, fraud or abuse.

“The issue, then, is how do we find that rational value? And that’s really where the rub has been on all of this,” he said.

Jenson contrasted the owners’ original appraisal for the property and the business at $1.3 million with the council’s subsequent offer of $2 million, a figure that he said attempted to take cultural value into consideration. The Mathises then returned with a counteroffer of more than $3 million because of changes in the code that would apply to construction of the new attraction. Sterling Mathis has said that he was prepared to move ahead under the previous code and even bought building materials that have been degrading with non-use.

Jenson also said that the Mathises’ proposed site plan would include 11,000 square feet of tenant space to be rented out, accounting for 20% of the floor plan.

“I struggle to understand why citizen tax dollars should be responsible for covering those costs that would normally be borne by a private property owner,” Jenson said.

He concluded that the Renew Jordan Creek project is too important to allow one property owner to stand in its way.

“I will always be in favor of responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,” he said, adding that if necessary, voters can decide how they want their tax dollars to be spent.