“This article examines the city’s oversight of the Von Loh development and evaluates whether available municipal planning tools were employed. It is based on extensive email exchanges with City Administrator Phil Green, public records, and council meeting coverage. Green’s responses are quoted in full to ensure his position is accurately represented.”
On September 23, 2025, Blair City Administrator Phil Green stood before the City Council and said: “We are concerned that because of how the building is situated right now that it’s allowing decay to occur on the structure, which is a property maintenance concern…”
That was five weeks after an email exchange I had with Mr. Green.
The August 21 Exchange
On August 21, 2025, I sent City Administrator Phil Green three questions about the Von Loh downtown development:
- What is the city’s position on this situation?
- What can residents expect to be done?
- Are there ongoing discussions about what will happen if the Von Loh developments cannot be completed?
Green responded the next day with a detailed explanation of the city’s oversight approach:
“The City of Blair Community Development Department does not establish a work schedule for contractors, other than the standard practice that a building permit is active once issued and can turn ‘inactive’ if no work is done or no inspections are requested for 180 days (approximately six months). An inactive permit is also different than an expired permit. In Blair, permits are valid for two years and can be renewed for two one-year periods.”
He continued: “Von Loh Developments has been in contact with Building Inspector Ethan Roe every few weeks, and limited work continues at each of his sites in Blair. Our hope is that he is able to concentrate his efforts on one site and get significant work done at that location.”
Then came a line that, to me, defines a key issue:
“It would be a waste of limited time to have ongoing or detailed discussions about a potential scenario that may never happen. Blair staff are always prepared to step in and ensure that abandoned construction sites are secured, if that were to occur.”
Five weeks later, Green was before the City Council talking about “decay” and drafting letters about “suspended and abandoned” work. Apparently, to the city, a “potential scenario” occurred.
The Fundamental Disagreement
To be clear: I don’t question Phil Green’s hope to see the downtown development succeed. Nor do I doubt Justin Von Loh’s intention to complete quality housing. This is about whether the governance framework adequately protected both parties and Blair taxpayers from foreseeable risks.
Green contends I’ve been dishonest in how I’ve characterized his “waste of limited time” comment. You can read the questions and his answer for yourself to judge. Phil, I believe, would say he was specifically answering my question about discussions regarding Von Loh’s potential project failure—not dismissing all planning or foresight.
But, that distinction, to me, is a distinction without a difference.
Here’s the point: Having detailed discussions about what happens if a major development project cannot be completed is not a waste of time. It’s the bare minimum of responsible city administration.
Performance bonds exist because projects fail. Benchmark requirements exist because projects stall. Vacant property ordinances exist because developers run out of money. These tools weren’t invented for theoretical scenarios—they were created because municipalities learned, the hard way, that hope is not a plan.
I believe Green’s position in August was: Von Loh is still working, we’re in contact with him, our hope is he can concentrate his efforts, so we don’t need to sit around discussing what happens if he fails. “Blair staff are always prepared to step in and ensure that abandoned construction sites are secured, if that were to occur.”
That’s all fair.
But, here are questions that need to be addressed:
- Prepared with what?
- Without a performance bond, where does the money come from?
- Without benchmark conditions in the permit, what triggers action?
- Without a vacant property ordinance, what enforcement tools does the city have beyond the standard permit rules Green described—180 days to inactive status, two-year validity with renewal options?
Professional governance means having protective measures in place BEFORE you approve major projects, so IF failure happens—and it often does—taxpayers aren’t left holding the bag.
Every competent business, every responsible organization plans for scenarios they hope won’t happen. It’s called risk management.
From “Waste of Time” to “Decay” in Five Weeks
Between August 22, when Green said discussing failure scenarios would be a “waste of limited time,” and September 23, when he made unscheduled comments to the City Council about “decay,” did something change?
If “decay” means cosmetic weathering from exposure to elements—which is how Green now defines it—then that decay was visible in August. It was visible when I asked my questions. Anyone walking past Fernando’s corner could see exposed what the city now calls “decay.”
So what prompted Green’s unscheduled, off-agenda comments about “decay” to the City Council?
When I pressed Green on his use of the word “decay,” he provided detailed clarification. According to Green: “To date, the City of Blair has not had, nor have we requested, an inspection to determine the degree of decay that may exist.”
He used the word “decay” in a public meeting about a downtown development, but has not conducted an inspection to determine whether decay actually exists or to what extent?
Green explained that Building Inspector Ethan Roe “may have previously determined some components of the historic building were deteriorated sufficiently that they needed to be replaced or reinforced. That is not uncommon in a historic remodel.”
He provided his technical definition: “The word ‘decay’ is used in the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code but is not defined in that code. A term that is defined is ‘deterioration’, which is ‘to weaken, disintegrate, corrode, rust or decay and lose effectiveness.’ The key to grading ‘deterioration’ is the ‘loss of effectiveness.’ ‘Decay’ is a natural action that will occur unless protected against; a condition or situation which, if not corrected, will lead to deterioration. It is very important to not assume that decay automatically implies a level of deterioration.”
Green further clarified his September 23 statement: “The structure is open to the elements, thus allowing decay to occur. Ethan Roe will be evaluating the extent of deterioration during future inspections.”
Regarding future action, Green wrote: “If work commences again on the project within the next few weeks, city staff is not planning to require an inspection solely ‘to determine to what extent there is decay’. As with any historic remodel, our building inspector will be watchful for deterioration and will require modifications when appropriate. If work continues to be abandoned for a significant period of time, further remedial actions will be required.”
If the city contends there is enough “decay” to send a letter to Mr. Von Loh, then why wouldn’t the city want an immediate inspection?
Green also explained the code definitions that guide the city’s assessment: “Paint, stain or other wood protection is required ‘to eliminate decay.’ An ‘unsafe structure’ is ‘so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, structurally unsafe … that partial or complete collapse is possible.'”
He emphasized: “Regarding my comment to the city council on September 23rd, I said, ‘we are concerned that because of how the building is situated right now that it’s allowing decay to occur on the structure, which is a property maintenance concern…’ The structure is open to the elements, thus allowing decay to occur.”
- But, a serious question is, if the “decay” Green referenced is cosmetic—weathering and exposure—then it was visible for months before his September 23 comments. What changed that made it suddenly worth unscheduled remarks before the City Council?
- If the “decay” is serious enough to warrant public comments and letters threatening permit revocation, why isn’t it serious enough to warrant a professional engineering inspection?
- And if Blair staff are “prepared to step in” when sites are abandoned, but the city hasn’t inspected the site to document current conditions, how does the city know what it might need to do so?
The City Approved It—Again and Again
April 11, 2023: The council voted 8–0 to grant Justin Von Loh a 10-year Conditional Use Permit for a single apartment at 1626 Washington. Parking rules waived.
August 8, 2023: The council approved condos at 1600 Washington with a 20-year permit, waiving parking again. Phil Green praised Von Loh as “an advocate for downtown redevelopment and this project does fit into the city’s long-term plans.”
August 2023: The council passed Ordinance 2508, amending Article 11 of the zoning code to facilitate downtown residential development—changes that cleared the way for projects like Von Loh’s.
August 9, 2024 (Enterprise): “Redevelopment plans are moving forward” for Fernando’s. Upscale restaurant run by El Vallarta’s owners. Ten condos called The Lofts @ 1600 with a gym and mailroom. Even an arcade in the basement.
August 13, 2024 (Enterprise): Mayor Mindy Rump’s Housing Advisory Committee held up Von Loh’s project as part of Blair’s housing solution. Rump said, “We obviously need more housing… I think we need more of the apartment-style homes, condos, duplexes and quadplexes.”
Ed Matthews
Before the city voted, some voiced concerns. In a letter entered into the August 1, 2023 council minutes, Blair resident Ed Matthews wrote:
“Residential downtown not desirable for business. Old buildings cannot withstand a 3rd story. ADA access required. Fire systems, rated stair well, sprinklers etc.”
“Insufficient information provided to grant the request at this time…”
“This is a very significant decision that will need to have community supporting the choices being made by you.”
Matthews also raised state parking requirements and argued that CUPs (Conditional Use Permits) were being granted in ways that conflicted with International Building Code standards.
These concerns were written, submitted, and entered into the public record.
Green clarified that parking waivers for downtown properties are explicitly allowed under existing CCB (Central Business District) zoning regulations. He provided the complete code section: “802.12 OFF-STREET PARKING: : Off-street parking is required per Section 1111. Properties located South of the alley of Blocks 35 through 39 and Block 46 and North of the alley of Blocks 44 through 48 are eligible to receive a waiver to the parking requirements granted by the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Off-street parking shall be hard surfaced in conformance with the provisions of Section 204 of this Ordinance.”
That’s accurate. The code allows parking waivers. The code is not a special rule for Von Loh, per se.
But residents who raised concerns about residential parking weren’t wrong to discuss it. A restaurant generates daytime traffic and shares street parking turnover with other businesses. Residential units mean permanent, overnight parking demand that’s harder to absorb without dedicated spaces. The city had the authority to waive parking; residents questioned whether it should. That’s a legitimate policy debate that the city resolved in Von Loh’s favor.
The Tools That Could Have Been Used
Now that the city says the site is “allowing decay to occur,” here’s what could have been done—what other towns do:
Benchmarks & Conditions on Permits: Require developers to hit progress milestones (e.g., enclose the structure by winter, keep the site maintained, show proof of financing). Failure triggers suspension or revocation of permits.
Permit Extensions with Strings Attached: Building permits can expire or be denied renewal if no substantial progress is made. Councils can condition extensions on meeting specific benchmarks.
Nuisance Powers: Under Nebraska law, cities can declare abandoned or unkempt sites a public nuisance. This allows fines, abatement, or direct cleanup/demolition at the owner’s expense.
Performance Bonds: Require a bond (essentially insurance) before approving large projects. If the developer fails, the city can draw on the bond to finish or stabilize the site without taxpayers footing the bill.
Vacant Property Registration Act (LB 256, 2018): Nebraska law authorizes cities to require vacant properties to be registered, inspected, and charged escalating fees. These can double every six months and become liens if unpaid. It also gives cities inspection rights, turning concerns about exposure and weathering into documented, enforceable issues.
Again, to credit Mr. Green, he confirmed that LB 256 “has been on our ‘to do’ list” and he expects “an ordinance to be before the council sometime in October.”
The city can still adopt LB 256, require performance bonds on future approvals, tie permit extensions to clear benchmarks, and use nuisance authority when conditions are documented. Practically, that means: commission a structural engineer’s report to replace opinion with evidence; draft benchmark conditions for any extension; introduce a performance-bond policy for large projects; and notice a public hearing on a Vacant Property Registration ordinance under LB 256.
According to the Washington County Enterprise, Green told the council, “So we have a letter that’s being drafted right now. We’ll try to get it out in the next seven to ten days to the property owner and the contractor, letting them know that, in our opinion, they have suspended and abandoned the work.” He continued, “We will let them know that we are concerned that because of how the building is situated right now that it’s allowing decay to occur on the structure, which is a property maintenance concern…”
Green has confirmed the letter will be finalized and available as a public record.
Von Loh Is Not the Villain
This isn’t about Justin Von Loh abandoning Blair. When I spoke with him while he was working at the site, he was cordial, confident, and willing to talk. I would even use the word cheerful. His past statements have been clear: “We want to bring quality housing to Blair, nothing more, nothing less.” My assessment is that he hopes and is working to complete what he started.
Von Loh has a vision. The city’s job was to plan for the “what if” scenarios should that vision take longer than expected or hoped. It is not an excuse for an unfinished project, but rather a real-world description of what can happen. The city, if it now says the building is “allowing decay to occur,” should have planned and guided differently.
And, that is not on Mr. Von Loh.
Developers build inside the expectations cities set. Blair imposed few requirements beyond standard permit timelines. Stronger oversight tools could have protected both the developer’s investment and the city’s interests.
The Black Swan
Author Nassim Taleb, in his book The Black Swan, calls it “black swan blindness”—when leaders dismiss possible scenarios as too unlikely, then are shocked when they happen.
Phil Green’s August 22 email said discussing what happens if the Von Loh developments cannot be completed would be “a waste of limited time” because it’s “a potential scenario that may never happen.”
I asked three questions. Green answered all of them. He explained the city’s permit process, noted that Von Loh had been in regular contact with the building inspector and that limited work continued, and expressed hope that the developer could concentrate his efforts on one site. His answer to the third question—about whether there were ongoing discussions about project failure—was that such discussions would be a waste of time.
But here’s the fundamental issue: Having detailed discussions about what happens if a major development cannot be completed is not a waste of time. It is exactly what I believe responsible city administration requires.
However, I believe the city’s current position wasn’t entirely unforeseeable. Ed Matthews’ 2023 letter flagged structural, ADA, and fire safety concerns. Residents questioned parking and delays. For over a year, everyone in Blair watched exposed materials in plain sight. And the tools to protect against what the city now says is allowing “decay”—performance bonds, benchmarks, vacant property ordinances—have been available the entire time.
What Happens Next?
If Von Loh pushes back on the city’s letter, it could end up in court—and taxpayers pay legal costs. If he lacks resources to complete the project, the city inherits the problem with no financial backstop. Either way, residents lose—not just in dollars, but in lost time, lost credibility, and a downtown corner that continues to sit unfinished.
Litigation over an abandoned or disputed construction site can take years, during which the building continues to weather and downtown remains disrupted. Without a performance bond in place, the city has no ready source of funds to secure, repair, or demolish the property, leaving taxpayers responsible for any eventual intervention.
In practical terms, litigation over stalled developments in Nebraska can stretch from 18 months to more than three years before resolution. Demolition of a downtown commercial building of this size could cost anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000 (or more) depending on asbestos, utilities, and site restoration—expenses the city would have to cover up front if the owner cannot.
Blair has already invested in this project through zoning changes and years of staff and council time. Nearby businesses have carried the indirect costs of reduced foot traffic and lost opportunities. Each month the structure sits unfinished compounds both the financial burden and the damage to Blair’s downtown momentum.
I believe Justin Von Loh intends to see this project through. When I’ve spoken with him, he’s been serious, committed, and resolute. I hope his vision succeeds. You should hope that, too. And, you should hope that if Phil Green’s new opinion on potential “decay” is accurate, that the city and Mr. Von Loh will work to find a solution – for the good of all.
But our hope is not a plan a city should rest on.
Elections Matter
If you want a city that requires performance bonds, adopts vacant property ordinances before they’re needed, sets clear benchmarks for major projects, commissions professional assessments instead of relying on visual observation, and treats contingency planning as essential—then the next election is your opportunity to choose leaders who will make those things happen.
While not a plan for a city, this is not a time for unhinged anger. It is a time for unbridled hope—because Blair has a choice.
Hope that Von Loh’s vision succeeds. Hope that new leadership emerges to plan wisely in the future. Hope that “decay” is never again a word used to describe any part of our community.
And, what some may call “waste,” we should all embrace as wisdom.
City Administrator Phil Green has indicated that the letter to Von Loh regarding the suspended and abandoned work has been finalized and will be available as a public record upon request.
