State Supreme Court sends Kinston property dispute back to appeals court

KINSTON, Lenoir County — The state Supreme Court rules on a property dispute in Kinston, sending the case back to the appeals court. A group called “Soul” is fighting to save properties that they consider historic.

The owner of a now-empty lot, Doctor Joseph Askew, says the city of Kinston condemned the building that once stood on it. He also owns the property next door.

Askew says that home is also at risk as the legal battle drags on. Dr. Askew says he and others believe their properties have been targeted for condemnation, because of their race.

The properties are in black neighborhoods.

Tuesday, July 2 Dr. Askew held a community meeting to talk about the latest updates on the suit. He says his group won’t give up.

Dr. Joseph Askew/property owner stated, “The right thing is that if a person is working on their property and you can see that they are working on their property. I don’t care how long it takes. It matters that you believe that justice is on your side and that you believe that you think you’re doing the right thing.”

According to court papers, the City of Kinston started a blight removal plan more than a decade ago. It called for mass condemnation of buildings in high traffic areas. At first, the list included 150 buildings. Then, it was narrowed to 50.

In 2017, two of Dr. Askew’s properties were condemned.

Mayor Don Hardy says the city is not being discriminatory.

“If it’s been to court several times you know locally, to appeals court and to Supreme Court and back to Court of Appeals, that should probably send a signal as to what we’re doing," says Mayor Don Hardy.

The group first filed a suit in 2017 and again in 2022. The State Supreme Court says the suit wasn't handled properly and sent it back to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

A supreme court opinion says the plaintiffs brought two 'Corum' suits. With sending the case back, the state advises treating the suits separately. Meaning, the Court of Appeals needs to revisit the quote "Administrative Scheme" to see if it meets the plaintiffs' claims of violating equal protection and due process.