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?

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.

Dynamic Sideways Growth

From the Portland Press Herald, September 7, 2011:

Freeport retail is moving and shaking
Olympia Sports will relocate to a plaza that has been mostly vacant, and other openings are in the works...
Olympia's existing Freeport store -- in the Shaw's Shopping Plaza at 200 Lower Main St., near Exit 20 of Interstate 295 -- will close before the new store opens, said Olympia President Richard Coffey of Windham....

"Olympia is going to bring a lot of energy to the area north of L.L. Bean," [Freeport Economic Development Corporation executive director Sande] Updegraph said. "It will be a strong anchor for that complex."
emphasis added.

And another vacant space and energy suck for Shaw's Plaza. Woo hoo!

οἰκονομία oikonomia economics

The taxpayer funded unelected and self-appointed private Freeport Economic Development Corporation held a meeting (called a "hearing" by its president in her closing remarks) last night inviting the public to inform its betters as to what should be included in its "Vision 2025" strategic plan. Freeport's Very Smart People and Captains of Industry, whose "about us" page  references the residential part of the economy in only one of twenty one bullet points, thanked us for our input and assured us that they would be passing no ordinances. Great to know that an unelected body is not so empowered. We were all relieved to hear it. Still, Our Very Smart People put up hundred dollar signs all over town in pursuit of the 350 votes needed to attain the elected offices with the power to continue to siphon off tax money to pay for their business plans and pass actual ordinances.

A resident asked for my take on FEDC's Vision 2025 and contract zoning, an issue that has its own bullet point on the aforementioned page. Here's my response.

I believe that for far too long planning decisions that involve the spending of public resources of every kind have been proposed and fine tuned well before the public has had an opportunity to review and provide insight regarding their consequences. Part of the mechanism for that is the presence of FEDC, founded in 1980 by Mike Healy (now Seacoast United's spokesman and past president) and Ed Bonney to:
"advance and promote economic development in Freeport , Maine."

Some background:
The Articles of Incorporation are here
Their latest IRS filing that is available (2009) is here

I've shared them using Google Docs.

Here is the category Guidestar has them listed as:

Basic Org Information

NTEE Category:

S Community Improvement, Capacity Building 

S41 (Promotion of Business (Chambers of Commerce)) 

Year Founded:

2000 

Ruling Year:

2000 

As a private corporation, they are not covered under the Freedom of Access laws. Whether that status would hold up under a court challenge is a matter of some question. I am not a lawyer.

In any event, what they do is serve as a point of first contact for developers seeking to do business in Freeport. Sheltered from FOA, they can serve developers as a convenient and confidential liaison between the business and Town government, identifying properties, coaching on possible financing options as well as on logistical considerations a business might need to successfully move a project to approval by various Town boards. In itself, this function is not an unreasonable one in my opinion. It is troubling, though, that this function, while wholly publicly funded, is wholly privately controlled by a self appointed board whose members concurrently serve in important roles on publicly appointed or elected bodies which ultimately determine the fate of the projects they promote and shepherd through the permitting and approval process in town. It seems to me an invitation to disaster to lodge in a private corporation the power to shape the economic development of a town when properly public participation in any project can and will help to sharpen public understanding, consensus, and perhaps acceptance of major undertakings that require the use of public funds and/or resources.

With regard to the issue and meeting at hand, "Vision 2025", rather than challenging FEDC's legitimacy outright, I think focusing like a laser on what the project is and who it is for is the right approach. I think it is proper to ask the organization to clarify these issues for the public before the public provides input. After all, it doesn't make much sense for residents to provide an organization devoted to expanding business into primarily residential areas a road map for doing so. My questions would be these, in this order:

Who is FEDC?

How does FEDC understand the phrase "economic development"?

By what authority does FEDC convene this conference?

Who will produce the work product?

Who will approve the final product?

Who will be the consumers of the work product?

Who will pay for the work product?

Is it FEDC's intent that all or part the work document produced through this process become adopted as the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Freeport?

Who will lobby for the implementation of its recommendations by the Town Council or other relevant town bodies?

I think it is important to get really solid answers to these questions before contributing to the project: especially the fundamental question as to whose project it is. If it is to be a project directed and edited by the board of FEDC,
I want to know if their vision encompasses something more than a vision of a town devoted to growth for growth's sake, or something more sustainable. I want to know if issues like public transportation  figure into their calculus as resourses for people as well as businesses. I want to know whether the protection of quiet open space undisturbed by commercial enterprise is a part of their vision of Freeport's economy. And I want to be assured that if the taxpayers are paying for this project, they have full and complete access to developing it at every step in its evolution.

As to contract zoning, here is a great summary provided by Orlando Delogu, a U Maine Law professor emeritus at a conference earlier this year.  Contract zoning is a tool that can be effective in fine tuning land use. Like any tool, it can be misapplied in the wrong hands, without proper public oversight. I am very much afraid that given the unwillingness of the public in Freeport to be protective of its rights until the last minute, the tool will be used unwisely by partisans of one shiny toy project or another until zoning becomes meaningless. There's lots of speculation about expanding commercial uses in the residential zones. There are no active projects I know of, but if somebody comes up with a shiny new toy that promises "growth"and "jobs", it is a tool that could be used to facilitate such a project, if its planning is done in the same fashion as other projects have been recently. That much advance planning and coaching of projects takes place with the cooperation of FEDC without public scrutiny or control, depending on the private corporation to make the right choice in recommending a contract zone for a particular project seems worrisome. Currently, contact zoning in Freeport is not permitted outside the commercial zones. I don't think it should be until we have a development process that is open and transparent to public view and participation. I don't think we have that now, but we should work hard to see that we do in the future. That's a worthy goal for Freeport 2025.