Portland Bayside

Well, the Press Herald has the full story up, and I guess I was wrong:
Moreover, Century Tire’s location in the up-and-coming Bayside neighborhood makes the land the shop occupies more valuable than the business itself....

He and his wife, Adele Aronson, a semi-retired real estate broker, are selling the property to a developer who has invested in other properties in Bayside. Aronson would not identify the developer or reveal the selling price. The building and land – just over an acre with frontage on Marginal Way – are assessed by the city at $1.4 million.

The prime location means the developer will build something, rather than keep the business going, said Jimmy Galvin, the shop’s manager, who has been working for Century Tire for 41 years.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone know if they actually have a legitimate case in court? People are drawing similarities between the court decision of the sale of Congress Square to Midtown, but to me the two cases are completely different.

I would be surprised if the court ruled against Midtown. But this is Portland, so who knows...

Hopefully the power to delay isn't the power to kill.
 
BrickTop12 said:
Does anyone know if they actually have a legitimate case in court? People are drawing similarities between the court decision of the sale of Congress Square to Midtown, but to me the two cases are completely different.

I would be surprised if the court ruled against Midtown. But this is Portland, so who knows...

Hopefully the power to delay isn't the power to kill.
Click to expand...

It's not the Congress Square case they're drawing similarities to, it's the Superior Court ruling that overturned the City Council’s decision to rezone the Williston-West Church in the West End to allow for office uses, because the Superior Court felt that zoning change did not conform to the city’s comprehensive plan. The City is appealing that decision.

I'm an insurance underwriter by trade, so my legal expertise is limited to insurance contract interpretation. However, I don't see many similarities between the two. The Williston-West Church decision re-zoned a residential neighborhood (both historically and today) to allow for offices. There was no zoning change for midtown, just a height allowance change. The current zoning for Bayside allows for a mixed-use development like midtown. The city simply allowed for taller buildings, which, if you read through the Bayside Vision document, was a contingency the city expected when they drafted that plan.

To that end:

http://www.portlandmaine.gov/planning/baysidebook1.pdf
http://www.portlandmaine.gov/planning/baysidebook2.pdf

Specifically, pages 14 and 17-19 of the second document focus on housing capacity and creating urban density, as well as outline the city’s active role in working with developers to make that happen.

Note how Keep Portland Livable is now pointing to the city’s comprehensive plan rather than the above Bayside Vision plan, which they had been previously cherry-picking from to serve their argument. However, on page 11 of the first document that it states: “In the narratives that follow, a description of Bayside’s land use future is presented. This description is not written in technical or planning jargon, but instead suggests a story of what the experience of Bayside might be like for visitors, workers, or residents.” And, if you read the Bayside Vision in it’s entirely, with the understanding that it is a living and breathing guideline and not a set of rules or restrictions, then you see that it in fact does anticipate and allow for a development exactly as Federated has proposed.

I’m not as familiar with the city’s comprehensive plan, but my guess is this will probably get tossed out of court if the city and Federated can successfully point to the Bayside Vision as the driving paradigm for midtown. However, I don’t think Keep Portland Livable’s ultimate goal here is to win the judgment. Peter Monro of KPL has been quoted several times in local newspapers stating “the power to delay is the power to destroy,” which I'm assuming you're alluding to above. They are simply trying to delay this project long enough that it doesn’t happen, whether due to the economy souring, banks getting cold feet or some other outside factor. This tactic was used successfully by the Portland NIMBYs to destroy the Lincoln Square office tower proposal in the late 1980’s and the Waterview condo tower proposal in the mid 2000’s.
 
BrickTop12 said:
Does anyone know if they actually have a legitimate case in court? People are drawing similarities between the court decision of the sale of Congress Square to Midtown, but to me the two cases are completely different.

I would be surprised if the court ruled against Midtown. But this is Portland, so who knows...

Hopefully the power to delay isn't the power to kill.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping not. It would be nice for once to see a judge that would tell the nimbys to get out of my courtroom.but I saw in the forecaster that Trader Joe's, Walgreen's and Planet Fitness are also plaintiffs in the case.I sent a email to Trader Joe's, Walgreen's that I will no longer do business with them
 
tazzman said:
I saw in the forecaster that Trader Joe's, Walgreen's and Planet Fitness are also plaintiffs in the case.
Click to expand...

I missed that. There's another dot to connect from my post above.

Edited to add: Those businesses themselves are not plantiffs. It's the owner of those properties, Peter Quesada and Fore River Co. This still completes more connections between dots from my post above. Peter Quesada is clearly involved with Keep Portland Livable on some level.
 
Dr. StrangeHat said:
I missed that. There's another dot to connect from my post above.

Edited to add: Those businesses themselves are not plantiffs. It's the owner of those properties, Peter Quesada and Fore River Co. This still completes more connections between dots from my post above. Peter Quesada is clearly involved with Keep Portland Livable on some level.
Click to expand...

thanks for the correction :)
 
BrickTop12 said:
Does anyone know if they actually have a legitimate case in court? People are drawing similarities between the court decision of the sale of Congress Square to Midtown, but to me the two cases are completely different.

I would be surprised if the court ruled against Midtown. But this is Portland, so who knows...

Hopefully the power to delay isn't the power to kill.
Click to expand...

None of the following is legal advice to anyone. With that disclaimer, in my humble opinion and without seeing the complaint I would say no, they don't stand a chance in court. That's because thus far they have complained about inconsistency with the City Comprehensive plan, which just doesn't make sense. They say the plan has to be consistent with the Bayside Vision, which is not true. If you look to the site plan standards, all of which have to be satisfied (if they are legal otherwise) in order for this project to be legally approved, one of them is that the project be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. It is important to note that this does not mean consistency with the Bayside plan. It is the entire plan. And when one considers that "consistent" has been defined to mean "in basic harmony with" it almost becomes a standard which is impossible not to satisfy. Being in harmony with something doesn't require absolute adherence, and if this is so then being in "basic" harmony with something requires even less. Portland's overall plan calls for housing, growth, etc. Midtown is just that. Therefore, it doesn't mean much that it doesn't fit Peter Monro's personal vision for Bayside or that it may conflict with one section or another of the Bayside Plan. But in addition to that fact, there are plenty of sections of the Bayside Plan itself (A New Vision for Bayside) which are directly satisfied by midtown, including those which call for this area to be an extension of the downtown business district with hundreds of new residences in mid-rise apartment blocks and structured parking. That's language right out of the Bayside Plan. But more importantly, as I said above, the consistency standard (like all of the other standards) only needs to be complied with if it is legal, and it probably is not. That's because in order to be legally defensible a land use standard must be definite enough that a developer knows what they are supposed to satisfy in order to reach approval. So if you say your building can't be more than 50 feet wide, then you know a 60 foot building won't be possible (without a variance or other conditional approval). Or if you say buildings must be brick, then you know you can't build a metal building. These are just basic examples. But if you say a building has to be "good" then you have no idea what is required. And this is legally improper because it allows a planning board to make arbitrary decisions, supporting some projects while denying others and never having to offer any excuse other than one was "good" and the other was not. That's not fair and violates fundamental property rights embodied in the U.S. Constitution. A requirement that something be consistent with a comprehensive plan, therefore, almost has one of two choices: either it is always consistent or the standard is too vague to be enforced. The comprehensive plan itself is a document full of internal contradictions, so to be consistent with it a project would have to have structured parking and be transit oriented. The two are mutually exclusive.

Lastly, the Court will review questions of law closely but not questions of fact. Therefore if the Planning Board had a solid record of information before it and made a reasonable decision (even if it's not the decision the court itself would have reached) it is unlikely to be second guessed by a judge.
 
Latest story: the Keep Portland Minuscule folks are now claiming that the Planning Board destroyed recordings of meetings. A spokesman said that for a certain time in early 2013, the audio recorder was recording over or erasing the prior recordings, and they didn't realize it; the meetings in question appear to center around the height increase discussions, going by the agendas on the City website.

Also, that link includes a scanned version of the complaint in the case. The listed complainants are: Munro, various LLC's that own 87, 127, 145 and 161 Marginal Way (Trader Joe's, West Marine/Walgreen's, Planet Fitness, and the current DHHS respectively, per Google Maps), and 5 people who live in the Chestnut Street Lofts.
 
markhb said:
Latest story: the Keep Portland Minuscule folks are now claiming that the Planning Board destroyed recordings of meetings. A spokesman said that for a certain time in early 2013, the audio recorder was recording over or erasing the prior recordings, and they didn't realize it; the meetings in question appear to center around the height increase discussions, going by the agendas on the City website.
Click to expand...

As if Keep Portland Livable needed more ammo for their delusions. Stupid mistake on the part of the planning board.

Also, that link includes a scanned version of the complaint in the case. The listed complainants are: Munro, various LLC's that own 87, 127, 145 and 161 Marginal Way (Trader Joe's, West Marine/Walgreen's, Planet Fitness, and the current DHHS respectively, per Google Maps), and 5 people who live in the Chestnut Street Lofts.
Click to expand...

So, you have: (1) a person in Peter Monro that appears to have originally undertaken this whole “cause” as retribution for another deal in Bayside that he was somehow involved with falling through; (2) property owners around this project that are going to have to pay higher property taxes when the value of their land increases, because they developed or purchased properties that have little-to-no redevelopment possibilities beyond their current states (without tearing things down and starting over); and (3) five idiots who just moved into the upper part of the neighborhood 5 or less years ago that think they own the rights to the view of a silt-filled, milfoil-choked cove.

Can someone please explain to me how they’re fighting for our best interests?

I really hope the judge laughs them out of court and forces them to pay the City’s legal fees for even bringing this stupidity up.
 
After further research, it does in fact appear that all of the LLC's in question trace back to Peter Quesada, who seems to own most of the south side of Marginal Way. Additionally, the first commenter on the follow-up article, whose comment now appears to have been deleted, found this Superior Court decision in a case Mr. Quesada (or some of his companies) filed against the city, claiming that he had been undercompensated by the city for the taking of his land for the Chestnut St. extension; the judge found in his favor, but for less than he initially wanted.
 
The Munjoy Hill News posted an article yesterday here, concerning the KeepPortlandLivable organization. Apparently a guy named Dennis Bailey, who was involved in creating the somewhat controversial and slightly illegal "The Cutler Files" website during the 2010 gubernatorial election, is a paid consultant for the anti-Midtown project. I see they are accepting donations on their website, I wonder how many actual concerned citizens have contributed? I got a bit of enjoyment out of looking at their twitter followers and seeing that it just consists of journalists.
 
Dennis Bailey also ran Casinos No! a few years ago, a campaign that I actually donated to. Despite that and many other donations, he never really accomplished or even did anything with that campaign.

And then there is this little tidbit: http://www.pressherald.com/archive/former-casino-opponent-now-a-consultant-for-one_2010-01-15.html

On top of this, Dennis Bailey is tied to the company looking to re-launch the Portland-Nova Scotia ferry, which has come under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks.

Wherever this guy goes, questionable stuff follows.

The more you peel back this onion, the worse it stinks.
 
I wish Bailey would put "The Cutler Files" back up; the fact that he hasn't stains his contention that his activity on the site was driven by his passion to defeat Cutler, rather than having anything to do with his working for a different independent candidate (Moody). To my knowledge, there were no credible allegations that the material he had posted was libelous, and Cutler's running again, so....

So far as his work with Keep Portland Lilliputian goes, I think that's just his "have mouth, will travel" mode as a pro PR flak and campaign organizer, but the fact that they've brought him on board makes me think that they're planning on trying this case in the press moreso than the courtroom.

This should go in the Portland Waterfront thread if it belongs anywhere, but I'm willing to give the ferry group the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that I think that if they're guilty of anything, it's being in over their heads. I don't think they're trying to recreate The Music Man.
 
Dennis Bailey is scum. He will do ANYTHING for a buck. Wish that he would go away......for good.
 
All, I have written numerous letters to the editor regarding the midtown project. I know there are plenty of others who support midtown. Would anyone be interested in writing a joint letter to the editor with me? I could do most of the writing (unless of course others want to chip in), and those who support it could sign their names as joint authors. This could be a Maine Voices column, which are significantly longer than typical letters to the editor. If you are interested, please indicate so here and send me your email addresses at land.planning.law@gmail.com.
 
Patrick said:
All, I have written numerous letters to the editor regarding the midtown project. I know there are plenty of others who support midtown. Would anyone be interested in writing a joint letter to the editor with me? I could do most of the writing (unless of course others want to chip in), and those who support it could sign their names as joint authors. This could be a Maine Voices column, which are significantly longer than typical letters to the editor. If you are interested, please indicate so here and send me your email addresses at land.planning.law@gmail.com.
Click to expand...

My name doesn't have much sway, but I'd be happy to have some involvement with a joint letter to the editor regarding Midtown. You are a very competent writer so anything I can add will probably be pretty minor. I think it's important that some noise is generated to help counteract the negativity from the anti-Midtown crowd. Local developer Greg Shinberg, who is representing Federated Companies, had a "Maine Voices" piece in the PPH earlier this month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top