Fresh Air

Nice to see our Town Council conducting business in an open and respectful way. A great start for Chair Jim Hendricks and Vice Chair Kristina Egan. Here's hoping the trend continues.

Sons of

your sons
And sons passing by
Children we lost in lullabys
Sons of true love and sons of regret
All of your sons you can not forget
Some built the roads, some wrote the poems
Some went to war, some never came home

Sons of your sons or sons passing by

Children we lost in lullabys

Longtemps aprés....Longtemps aprés

Send in the clowns

So the Chamber of Commerce's return to the public on the investment of $36k in tax money is supposed to be a public clown show. I can't wait.

He's shocked. Shocked!

to find that public business must be conducted publicly.

A few weeks ago the Town received a request from a citizen and member of this distribution list for a copy of all of the email addresses used in a particular email.  Upon receiving the request the Council sought a legal opinion as to whether the release of email addresses was required under the FOAA or whether the addresses were protected as personal information.  The legal opinion stated that the FOAA did not protect the address distribution list and that if requested the Town was obligated to release any address information used to convey information related to Town business.  The Council subsequently sought a second opinion which confirmed the original finding.

<snip>

I can not help being disappointed with the legal requirements related to this matter.  Many of you have asked to be included on the distribution list with an understanding that your personal information will remain private and I wish that I could have honored that request.  I have found these email distributions to be an excellent forum for getting information out to the public and for receiving public feedback and sincerely hope that each of you will choose to remain on the distribution list.  That being said I can not prevent this type of request from happening in the future so if any of you feel that remaining on the list is not in your best interest please let me know and I will remove you from the distribution list. 

-Jim Cassida, Freeport Town Council Chairman

FOAA is Maine's Freedom of Access Act that requires public business be conducted publicly. I would like to like Jim personally, but I also think he does misunderstand the obligations he took on when he ran for and accepted his post as a Councilor. He mistakes the role he has assumed as one he controls and entirely inhabits, not one constrained by law, both written and common. Rather than acknowledging that in transacting public business people should be aware that they should be held accountable for their words, he suggests to his readership that they may secure themselves from direct contact by using the good offices of Facebook. This may be fine for a political campaign, but in governing, it stills open discussion and leads to bitter divisiveness.

In my opinion, people should be encouraged to be involved in their government openly, without fear or shame, except such that they might bring upon themselves.

It really makes me sad that apparently Jim would rather bemoan the minimum legal requirements of openness in governance than enthusiastically comply with them, and provide some leadership by example.

Why I love this community

This will no longer be the nor southeast corner of a 62,000 square foot commercial structure thanks to the very hard work and dedication of hundreds of Freeport residents who believe our town's rural character needn't be sacrificed while striving to be accommodating to Maine's most dynamic businesses. Our Council did the right thing last night in keeping their eye on the future.We are a growing community, with room for growth in areas that have the needed services that the commercial sector requires for their development. I am hopeful that Coastal Soccer will find a suitable place to site their business in our town, and confident that we can find a place for them as good neighbors.

Rules Seminar

Wikipedia:

A direct free kick is a method of restarting play in a game of association football following a foul. Unlike an indirect free kick, a goal may be scored directly against the opposing side without the ball having first touched another player. 

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team when a player commits a penalty foul, for example, pushing or tripping an opponent.[1] However, if the offence was committed by the defending team within their own penalty area, the kick becomes a penalty kick.

Steve Twombley, Paul Willis, and Mike Healy of Seacoast United Maine have complained in their recent letter to Freeporters that  "The anonymous people that claim we are getting 'a Free Kick' are making an intentional misrepresentation." Perhaps they don't understand that it's the Referees that award a Free Kick, and that the "anonymous people" on this Facebook page, 373 of whom have signed either this online petition or a hard copy of it,  are complaining about the award, not their taking advantage of it. Seacoast wants to site their 62,000 square foot industrial building that will serve as an indoor soccer stadium in a Rural Residential District where the use is not allowed.

The "anonymous people", unlike Seacoast in their mailer, have published their e-mail address and telephone number on every flyer they have distributed. In two separate votes by the Freeport Planning Board, Seacoast's request to change the zoning of the site in two different ways was turned down. Now they'd like the refs (the Town Council) to award them a third shot. The residents of Freeport have committed no penalty foul, yet are forced once again to ask the Town Council and Planning board to enforce our zoning ordinances. They do not allow Seacoast's project to be built as Seacoast likes where Seacoast likes it. Who, exactly, is misrepresenting what?

Musical Interlude

Read 'em and weep.

Chairman Cassida writes:

If you honestly believe that your opinion is representative of 70% of Freeporters I wish you could walk in my shoes for a couple of days.  There are a lot of opinions out there and finding the path that is best for the community is not easy when you actually give consideration to all the perspectives.  If I simply listened to my own thoughts or the thoughts of one individual or group I could do this job in my sleep.  Unfortunately that is not the case!

What I wrote:

It's too bad, and telling, that you think making a decision between protecting the residential investments of 70% of the town and the private wishes of one profit making enterprise's potential for gain is a difficult one. Seacoast can find properly zoned land for its building. They should be encouraged to do so. 

What I did not write:

I honestly believe that my opinion is representative of 70% of Freeporters. 

For the record, I honestly believe that my opinion is representative of me. I hope any doubt on the matter is now settled.

Credit when due

"It's never a good idea to have zoning come from projects," [Wendy] Caisse said.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/soccer-club-seeks-a-new-zoning-change_2012-02-03.html

She's catching on.

Putting the sale before the zoning

So the town staff, the town council, and apparently Seacoast United failed to discern any need for changing the zoning for the parcel where Seacoast's proposed 86 62,000 square foot building is supposed to go.

The Laws of the Game of soccer cover 130 pages. The Freeport Zoning Ordinance covers 216. In neither do you have to look too far for a definition of offside.  I hope they teach the kids the rules before they start to play the game. I wonder why they didn't check the Laws of Zoning before they decided to sign a purchase and sale agreement? You know something? I have a hunch they did, really.

More discussion

From the Town Council Chairman to a citizen 12/15/11:

Council Leadership has met with them [Seacoast] informally to discuss their options and we are working very hard to find a solution that will keep this development in Freeport.  The Council is very sensitive to the concerns of residents in the project area and we will not make any final decisions without giving all a chance to weigh in on the matter.  There is just nothing concrete to discuss at this point as Seacoast is doing their investigation of options.  Once the Council has heard from them on the 17th we will be better able to assess next steps and build a process that is inclusive for all who would like to comment.

 From the Maine Municipal Association on Board Member Bias:

Maine courts have repeatedly recognized that the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process presupposes a fair and impartial decisionmaker. 

For example, in Mutton Hill Estates, Inc. v. Town of Oakland, 468 A.2d 989 (Me. 1983), the Law Court held that a planning board violated a developer's procedural due process rights when it invited the developer's opponents to assist in making factual findings sufficient to support the denial of the developer's proposal, without giving the developer notice or permitting the developer's representative to attend the meeting. The Law Court agreed with the Superior Court that "the findings of the Planning Board were irreversibly tainted by this procedural impropriety" and echoed the Superior Court's grave doubts that the developer could ever get "a fair, impartial, and expeditious hearing and decision from the Planning Board." Because of the irreversible bias, the Law Court removed the decision of whether to approve the developer's application from the Planning Board and authorized the Superior Court to make that decision for the board. Mutton Hill thus stands for the proposition that board member bias can so affect the fairness and impartiality of a municipal proceeding that a procedural due process violation results.

The Superior Court in Burns v. Town of Harpswell, No. CV-90-1083 (Me. Super. Ct. Cum. Cty., July 10, 1991) approached the issue of board member bias and procedural due process from a slightly different angle. In that case, a group of abutters successfully challenged a ZBA's action approving a special exception as violative of procedural due process by pointing out that one of the members of the ZBA was both an abutter and a friend of the applicant. Prior to the hearing, the board member's husband had written a letter in support of the special exception which was entered into the record. Although the board member abstained from voting, she participated in the ZBA's discussion of the application which was ultimately approved. The court found her abstention from voting insufficient to overcome the procedural due process error. It noted that "[g]enerally, due process requires neutrality of the decision-makers" and held that "[w]here a member's bias or conflict of interest is of sufficient magnitude to disqualify that person from voting, the member should not participate in debate or advocacy of the matter." The court therefore sustained the appeal on procedural due process grounds.

A similar result was reached in Sevigny v. City of Biddeford, 344 A.2d 34 (Me.1975). There, the Law Court held that procedural due process was violated by the participation of the mayor, as the presiding officer, in a city council hearing regarding the dismissal of another city official. The Law Court noted that because of his interest the mayor could not approach his duties with the "requisite freedom from bias and prejudgment." 

These cases demonstrate that a fair and impartial decision-maker is an integral component of procedural due process and that a decision made in the absence of this component may be constitutionally deficient.

When is a discussion not a discussion?

Hmm. Planning Board FAQ

How may I contact a Board member? The State of Maine's prohibition against Ex Parte communication requires Board members not to have private discussions about projects pending before the Board. Members of the public and applicants may contact the Board by writing them a letter and sending it to the Town Planner prior to the scheduled meeting. The Town Planner will make copies for all Board members and the letter will become part of the public record. Members of the public may also speak to the Board during a scheduled Public Hearing.

PB Minutes 11-2-11.doc

Sande Updegraph of FEDC explained that this project [Seacoast, ed.] was discussed at their last Board meeting. The Trustees took no action but asked her to convey their consensus that they view this field area as being in a buffer area. They are very concerned and very respectful of the abutting residents. They would not support contract zoning but they would give some consideration to an overlay district since it is a strong project, in the right place, provides a good tax base and traffic has been addressed. They would like to make an informal recommendation to this Board.

FEDC Board Meeting Minutes, October 25,2011

Seacoast Update Wendy Caisse said that the Planning Board is discussing a zoning amendment to allow the construction of a domed field. Contract zoning and a change of use in RR1 will likely not be considered but an overlay district is a possibility. The Planning Board will next meet on November 2. ACTION: Sande will draft a letter of support for the overlay option for Kate’s signature.

FREEPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Wendy Caisse, Vice Pres.

PLANNING BOARD
Wendy Caisse, Chair

Another musical interlude

Suggested by a reader

Buy it on iTunes

What Atrios said.

here.

The problem isn't that people listen to political hacks, the problem is that they assume they're right. You know, "the politics of mortgage relief is bad" trumped "the politics of people being thrown out of their homes and the economy being horrible is bad" based on this kind of advice.

Protect your pet

Seriously.

January 28, 2012
SATURDAY, JANUARY 28, 2012, 9:00 AM – NOON
DOGS AND CATS ARE INVITED. $15.00 PER VACCINE. WE WILL BE REGISTERING DOGS DURING THE CLINIC.

A musical interlude

Laura Nyro is finally in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Long past time.

What the hell. Can't anybody just say this is heinous?

Freeport, Maine, home to outlet stores for many nationally known enterprises. Freeport, Maine, a pretty town of 7600, with woods and trails and good people, and home to one embittered person, whose poorly constructed and repulsive compendium of slander and disturbing images clipped from some of the darkest episodes of the American experience, is distributed weekly in the foyer of the Town Hall.

Strange fruit is being hung on Freeport’s Christmas tree in 2011 by some anonymous individual. He or she has been distributing the home-made publication “A Crow’s Nest” at various retail locations throughout town, as well as in the Town Hall foyer. Locations where the children and grandchildren of the people he or she slanders with false tales of unspeakable vileness may see their relatives unfairly and horribly pilloried. No one has acknowledged their authorship of what they call a “parody look at the news”. 

I've had it. I've refrained from posting the shit until now, but In their last effort, they actually had the brass to include a page that makes it look as if the owners of local businesses are supporting his “journalism” through advertising. A sample of their idea of humor is at the right.  Does anyone fucking care??

The Maine Attorney General’s office and the Freeport Police Department have been informed about this publication, and have advised that no actionable criminal offenses have been committed by the author in its production. Still, I doubt any decent citizen could view the images and language it contains speaks well of anyone associated with it. 

“A Crow’s Nest”,  is a heinous blot on the landscape of this town. Please do not let the good name of your business be tarnished by a false and improper association with the ravings of a seriously disturbed individual. Please speak out in any way you can. Silence is complicity.

Condemn portrayals of lynch mobs.

...we'll have to ask our attorney.

The Wayback Machine, or is it Groundhog Day?

Back in 1996, the voters of Freeport were asked for their opinions on Pay Per Bag trash disposal, whether to hire a single hauler for trash for the town, and this:

ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING AND DEVELOPING LAND TO PROVIDE FOR AN OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY. THE TOWN OF FREEPORT HEREBY ORDAINS: That a sum not to exceed $450,000.00 is hereby appropriated for the purpose of purchasing and developing land to provide for an outdoor recreational facility. To meet said appropriation, the Chairperson of the Town Council and the Town Treasurer are authorized to issue general obligation securities of the Town of Freeport in a total principal amount not to exceed $450,000.00, and the discretion to fix the dates, maturities, denominations, interest rates, places of payment, forms, and other details of said securities, including execution and delivery on behalf of the Town of Freeport,· and to provide for the sale thereof, is delegated to the Chairperson of the Town Council and the Town Treasurer.

 We voted no on the first two, though like a bad penny pay per bag was back on the Council's agenda this year. We passed the bond authorization.

Back in the day, we had a Recreation Committee appointed by the Town Council whose responsibility it was to develop plans for municipal recreation facilities suitable for both the school system and town residents. Ball fields, tracks, trails, that sort of thing. At the time of the referendum, land on Upper Mast Landing Road was proposed as a potential site that "appear[ed] to satisfy many of the needs identified in the comprehensive plans, including hiking trails, picnic areas, conservation areas, open space for playing fields and could provide an all-season site accessible to a majority of Freeport residents." [emphasis added] In the event that parcel proved unsuitable, the Committee was directed to discover other parcels that might fit the bill.

The site proved unsuitable. The Committee identified another parcel located on the Pownal Road that would fit the bill in 1998. In a series of meetings throughout 1998 here, and here, the Committee explored possible options for this parcel, reporting their work and findings to the Town Council at the August 11, 1998 meeting. On February 11, 1999, the Committee recommended to the Town Council the property be purchased, and at their April 6, 1999 meeting, the Town Council unanimously voted to purchase what was then described as "an outstanding site [that] can be developed to meet the vision placed in front of the voters in '96".

This is the parcel now somewhat contentiously proposed to be delivered to a private enterprise for the construction of soccer fields and an indoor stadium the size of a supermarket.

The 12 years since the initial acquisition of the land saw the dissolution of the Recreation Committee as a committee of the Council. Further discussion of development of the land beyond the fields that were actually built there was carried on not by public committees with formal procedures and public input, but by interested individuals who saw potential in offering private interests a leading role in any future development. What started as clearly a municipal project for the benefit of Freeport residents and schoolchildren evolved into a project whose goal was attracting paying customers and visitors to town. In this evolution, precious little consensus building was done along the way with neighboring residents as to the changed vision for the property, which is located in a rural residential zone not suited to commercial activity. The vision placed in front of the voters in 1996 is unmet in the use of public land for private benefit.

Rosa Parks did good.

She kept her seat 56 years ago today.

Before Parks was arrested in 1955, she had a small episode on a bus in 1943. Parks was ordered to enter at the back of the bus. As she was heading to the back of the bus, the bus driver drove off without her. On that day, Parks promised herself that she would never again ride a bus driven by James F. Blake, the offending driver. On Thursday, December 1, 1955, Parks was sitting in the front-most row for black people. When a Caucasian man boarded the bus, the bus driver told everyone in her row to move back to create a new row for the whites. At that moment, Parks suddenly realized in horror that she was again on a bus driven by Blake. While all of the other black people in her row complied, Parks refused, and was arrested for failing to obey the driver's seat assignments, as city ordinances did not explicitly mandate segregation but did give the bus driver authority to assign seats. Found guilty on December 5,[7] Parks was fined $10 plus a court cost of $4[8], but she appealed. NAACP leader E.D. Nixon had been planning to start a boycott of this nature and used her arrest to trigger the Montgomery Bus Boycott. As a result, Rosa Parks is considered one of the pioneers of the civil rights movement.