Roanoke's housing authority maintained in court Tuesday that its South Jefferson Redevelopment plan was valid and the finding of blight was supported as it responded to a challenge by B&B Holdings to its condemnation of two adjacent properties.

"We don't think that anything we've heard came close to what they [B&B] would have to prove to affect the validity of the plan," Mark Loftis, the attorney representing the housing authority, said after the day's proceedings ended.

Still, during the second day of a bench trial before Judge William Broadhurst in Roanoke Circuit Court, B&B continued to focus attention on claims that the methods for determining blight in the plan were flawed and the redevelopment plan was based on unsubstantiated facts. And the principal owners of B&B, Stephanie and Jay Burkholder, said they were optimistic about an outcome in their favor.

The case focuses on the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority's lawsuit to condemn properties owned by B&B on Reserve Avenue. The properties house the flooring company Surfaces Inc.

Joseph Waldo, the attorney representing B&B and the Burkholders, said he believes that testimony given during the two-day trial supports his clients' claim.

"The city adopted a plan that is fraught with errors. I mean major errors," Waldo said in comments after the trial.

The day ended with extensive testimony given by Kenneth Poore, a Richmond-based urban and regional planning consultant who wrote the redevelopment plan that encompasses 110.5 acres.

Called as a witness for the housing authority, Poore said he followed standard practices in writing the plan and determining the blight designations.

He also testified that neither the housing authority nor the city tried to control how he conducted or wrote the report. Loftis asked Poore about any outside pressure or influence from the housing authority and the city, because B&B contends that the redevelopment plan was written to support an already negotiated deal with Carilion Clinic to turn the land into a biomedical park.

In questioning Poore, Waldo asked how he determined that 74.4 percent of the area, or 82.2 acres, were blighted. When asked to add up the blighted areas from a spreadsheet listing each parcel in the 110.5 acres, Poore reached a different number: 59.1 acres.

Given more time by Broadhurst during a recess, Poore said he was able to identify some mistakes but could not immediately explain the difference between the plan's figure and the one he calculated in court.

Waldo said the point was significant.

"Time after time, I believe the property owners demonstrated that the housing authority overreached in determining blight," Waldo said. "This is just another instance of that."

But Loftis said it didn't matter if the number of blighted acres was 59 or 82 because either way it still represented a majority of the property within the redevelopment area. By law, a majority of the area must be blighted in order for the housing authority to adopt a redevelopment plan and exercise eminent domain.

The case will resume July 30 to hear testimony from two more witnesses. It will likely be fall before Broadhurst issues a ruling.

If Broadhurst rules in B&B's favor, the housing authority will be unable to take the property. If the housing authority prevails, the case will go to a jury trial in December, when it will be determined how much money should be given to B&B for the property.