Portland Bayside

Dr. StrangeHat said:
Count me in
Click to expand...

Corey et. al., your voices all have way more sway than you may think. You are a member of the public like anyone else. I was referred to as sneaky and quite dishonest the other day in the Press Herald for saying midtown is shorter than the tallest building in Brunswick (which is factually true), so I don't want this to become a me versus KPL thing -- I know there are plenty of others out there who share my views, and it is important to let others know that too. Otherwise Bayside will be a brownfield site like every other stalled project. Time to counter the opponents with an equally strong showing of support for this project. There are enough individuals in favor of this project to make an advocacy effort more than a hobby interest.
 
So what are the chances that Keep Portland Livable wins this lawsuit and does stop midtown from becoming a reality? Id like to believe they dont have a chance in hell, but ya never know in todays world
 
Yesterday's Press Herald had another editorial supporting the project and criticizing KPL. However, all the comments on that article -- some of which were alleging straight-out that KPL is a front for a rival development group that wants to put an Avesta-style project on the property -- have interestingly been wiped.
 
We finally have a link between the Bayside Trail and Trader Joe's. Maybe the guy who put the fence up will not notice this gap.

(Cellphone shot)
DDrsAwb.jpg
 
Is anyone here in a position / have the know-how to get publicly-available court documents from the lawsuit and make them available here electronically (assuming it doesn't cost a non-trivial amount)? It's been 2 months; I would think that the City would have filed at least its initial reply by now. Does Superior Court put such things online?
 
I know KPL is begging or whatever they call it for 75K to cover fees. Fuck them. Think of all the money and workers not working due to them. They'd be working right now. Assholes.
 
markhb said:
Is anyone here in a position / have the know-how to get publicly-available court documents from the lawsuit and make them available here electronically (assuming it doesn't cost a non-trivial amount)? It's been 2 months; I would think that the City would have filed at least its initial reply by now. Does Superior Court put such things online?
Click to expand...

The court system could make this available to you at a cost as well as the City. I would start with the City first, however, because it is likely to be cheaper than the courts. Under Maine's Freedom of Access Act the documents would be considered a public document and therefore something that would have to be released upon request. Usually people don't file FOAA requests unless they run into resistance from the public officials possessing the documents. Under Maine's FOAA, if it is required, I believe the first hour of research to produce the documents is free. It shouldn't take more than 3 minutes to locate any of these documents on a hard drive and therefore there should be no fee associated with this. However if the request becomes burdensome, like "I want all documents related to a particular person between 2010 and 2011," then the City has the right to object and otherwise to charge up to I believe $15 per hour. Again, however, this shouldn't become an issue, so I would start by emailing Daniel West-Chutha, City Attorney. You can call the City and obtain her email address and simply file a polite request for any response(s) in electronic version at her convenience. I am sure she will release whatever has been filed in a timely manner.
 
I just read on Munjoyhillnews.net that Peter Monro was dropped from the Bayside lawsuit by Judge Thomas D. Warren. The City of Portland also released a statement regarding the decision.

Here's the post:
By: Carol McCracken

Peter Monro, one of several plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the City of Portland earlier this year, was dropped from the case by Judge Thomas D. Warren early last month. The lawsuit was filed over plaintiffs objections to the proposed Midtown Development in the Bayside neighborhood.

The City of Portland issued the following statement in this high profile case:

“The Court dismissed Mr. Monro from the case for lack of standing a couple of weeks ago. In doing so, the Court indicated that Mr. Monro could move to amend the Complaint in order to allege facts that would demonstrate sufficient standing. Specifically, it said he would need to allege facts tending to show he suffered “particularized harm” from the approval of the project. To our knowledge, there has been no effort yet to amend or to have Mr. Monro reinstated as a plaintiff in the case.”

According to Judge Thomas D. Warren’s opinion dated June 5, 2014, Mr Munro’s place of business is in the Bayside neighborhood (not his residence) and that alone is not enough to make him a plaintiff in the case. The plaintiff’s attorney Sandra Guay has thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to return Mr. Monro to the lawsuit. It is not known at this time whether or not it has been done.

A property abutter of the property Peter Quesada is one of the remaining plaintiffs in the case.

Mr. Monro, is a co-founder of the non-profit KeepPortlandLivable dedicated to promoting negative information about Midtown. Monro together with Dennis Bailey, his public relations representative, co-authored a despicable news release comparing the City’s Planning Office’s recordkeeping systems to Rosemary Woods, largely believed to have erased portions of the famous Nixon tapes during Watergate. Bailey is the author of the infamous on-line Cutler Files for which he appeared before the State’s Ethics Commission for possible campaign violations. Bailey is curently the public relations rep for Nova Star, the new cruise ship between Portland and Nova Scotia that is apparently struggling financially.

A telephone call to Mr. Monro’s attorney, Sandra Guay, has not been returned.

I tried a few internet searches, but couldn't find any other news on this recent development. I'm not sure how Carol got this so quick because it appears the newspapers haven't picked up on it either (or they don't care).

I also like how she took it upon herself to slam Peter and his public relations guru in her last paragraph (a nice touch).

If it's true, it appears the judge is cutting through the BS. Hopefully more good news is to come!
 
Crap just realized someone posted it in the main Portland thread.

Ahhhhhhhhhh. Never thought to look there.
 
Why would anyone hire Dennis Bailey after his string of losses and failures? The guy needs to find a new gig......he's total hack.
 
The main thing I wonder about Dennis Bailey is, if it's true that The Cutler Files were driven purely by a personal need to show that Eliot Cutler should never be governor, and that they had nothing to do with his working for Shawn Moody at the time (although I'll accept that Moody had nothing to do with them, regardless), then why hasn't he republished them?

Beyond that, I see no need to drag the Nova Star into the conversation (after all, if one needs to drum up more business, hiring a publicist is generally a good idea), but in general Bailey is awful. I don't know if he was with the original Casinos No! campaign that fought against the Sanford proposal, but I saw one "in depth" piece of literature from them that was one of the most egregious pieces of FUD I have ever seen. Literally, it was demagoging over the possibility that the casino might give away free drinks (OH THE HORROR).
 
Scaled back, from 15 floors to 6? What a disappointment. When the parking garage ends up being the tallest structure (97 feet) we will now have a two block long uninteresting curtain wall with nothing visually to inspire from any vantage point. One of the selling points to the previous proposal was the amazing views for potential residents from the upper levels of the towers which is now negated.

If I were the developer and felt pressured to down size the project, I would have varied the heights of the four towers to include a 14 story, a 10, an 8 and a 6 which would have balanced out site and left the development with at least two respectable buildings. Now it's going to look like an overbuilt and extended version of Bayside Village. That being said, it is still a major improvement to the vacant lots that are currently there.

And Patrick, you called it correctly last week on the phone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top