ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI — September 30, 2026 — A St. Louis jury has awarded $36,500 to Tower Grove South homeowners Steven McClanahan and Richard Baumhoff after they sued the City of St. Louis over a sidewalk encampment that remained outside their South Spring Avenue home for nearly four years.
The verdict followed a three-day trial examining whether the city did enough to address the situation and whether its response caused harm to the homeowners and their property.
The homeowners had originally sought $66,000, arguing that the conditions interfered with their use of the property and represented the equivalent of lost rental value.
The jury ultimately awarded $36,500.
According to testimony and reporting from the trial, a Sudanese couple, identified in court reporting as Eisa Ali Agbar Nimir and Zerigha Osman Boia Agbar, began staying outside the homeowners’ property around August or September 2020.
What initially appeared to be a temporary stay eventually developed into a permanent-looking makeshift structure.
The shelter was constructed using materials including tarps, blankets and shopping carts.
Trial testimony described a hibachi grill, kerosene containers, bucket showers and a bucket used as a toilet.
The homeowners said the conditions produced persistent odors and attracted rats.
The structure was located on the public sidewalk area near South Spring Avenue and Chippewa Street.
The homeowners said the situation substantially affected how they used their home.
Richard Baumhoff described keeping their home closed up because of the smell and said they could not comfortably open their windows or shades.
McClanahan testified that he repeatedly contacted the city’s Citizen Services Bureau about the situation.
His messages to the bureau eventually totaled more than 27 pages, according to trial coverage.
The homeowners also said they contacted police, the health department, their alderwoman and then-Mayor Tishaura Jones seeking assistance.
At one point, according to testimony, police offered to remove the encampment during the winter.
McClanahan and Baumhoff declined that particular opportunity because they did not want the couple removed into the cold.
That detail became part of the broader discussion at trial:
the homeowners said they wanted the situation addressed but also expressed compassion toward the people living outside their home.
The City of St. Louis disputed the characterization that it simply ignored the problem.
During the trial, Valerie Russell, deputy director of the city’s Department of Human Services, testified that city workers and outside organizations repeatedly engaged with the couple.
According to city testimony, the couple declined various offers of assistance, including an offer involving one of the city’s tiny homes.
Russell testified that officials could offer services but could not force someone to accept them.
Assistant City Counselor Erin McGowan argued that the city had devoted resources to a difficult and unusual situation and that the city did not cause the nuisance.
The homeowners’ attorney argued the response wasn’t enough
Attorney W. Bevis Schock, representing McClanahan and Baumhoff, argued that the city had documented and monitored the situation for years but failed to resolve it quickly enough.
The homeowners’ case included an inverse-condemnation theory, arguing that the prolonged situation and the city’s response harmed their property interests.
Their requested $66,000 figure was based on an estimated $1,500 per month in rental value.
The case also involved nuisance allegations concerning the conditions surrounding the encampment.
The encampment eventually came down.
After approximately four years, the city removed the structure in April 2024, about two months after McClanahan and Baumhoff filed their lawsuit.
According to trial reporting, the couple later returned to the area and established another living arrangement several blocks away near South Spring and Gravois.
The lawsuit, however, concerned the prolonged situation outside McClanahan and Baumhoff’s home.
Jurors considered several factors, including disagreement over exactly when the encampment’s presence became a continuing nuisance.
They did not award damages for the earliest portion of the situation, reasoning that the city could not reasonably have been expected to resolve the problem immediately.
Jurors also apparently found the homeowners’ $1,500 monthly rental-value estimate too high.
The result was an award of somewhat more than half of what the homeowners had requested.
“It wasn’t about the amount”
After the verdict, Baumhoff described the judgment as
“a long time coming.”
McClanahan was asked about the jury’s decision not to award the full $66,000.
His response emphasized that the dollar amount was not his primary concern.
He said the case was about holding the city accountable for how it handled the situation.
The case now stands as a notable St. Louis legal dispute involving property rights, homelessness, public sidewalks, municipal responsibilities and the limits of government intervention.
It also highlights the difficult balance between providing services to people experiencing homelessness and addressing the effects that long-term encampments can have on surrounding residents and property owners.
