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.

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.

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

Condemn portrayals of lynch mobs.

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

Tell us how you really feel.

Maybe this is why people feel a wee bit put off by our town government. This at a Town Council meeting October 12, 2010.Taped and broadcast that night by the Town. The reaction? Make the microphone's default position off. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Watch it...

If Marie Gunning is a plant, she is a rose among the thorniest bunch of characters this side of Mr. MacGregor's briar patch. It's not easy giving your opinion when you know an ad hominem sidebar at the dais awaits if it's one contrary to some town official's.