09/20/2018

Town Council rejects proposed settlement for Surf Side Avenue paper street

The Town Council on Sept. 19, 2018 voted 6-1 to reject a proposal for the town to begin vacating rights in a portion of Surf Side Avenue, an oceanfront "paper" street in Shore Acres.

The proposal would have settled a complaint from five Surf Side Avenue abutters who sued the town after the council's 2016 decision to extend the town's right to accept the street - along with 32 other paper streets -- as a public way.

The proposal, arrived through court-ordered mediation, would have the town vacate its right in an 800-foot portion of Surf Side Avenue abutting the plaintiff's properties. The plaintiffs would agree to allow subdivision residents to continue using their current rights of access, and to pay the town $500,000 for acquisition of other open spaces in town.

For the councilors who voted to reject the settlement, it was a matter of principle.

"As a representative of the citizens of this town, it is important to me to insure access to the ocean for everybody," said Councilor Penny Jordan, who along with Caitlin Jordan, Valerie Randall, Jamie Garvin, Chris Straw and Chair Jessica Sullivan voted to reject the settlement.

Randall and Caitlin Jordan both said they initially supported the settlement because of its certainty, but on reflection changed their minds. "If you want to accept a settlement, this is a pretty good settlement," said Randall, adding that $500,000 would go a long way to purchase other open space. However, after weighing public sentiment, Randall said she believed what citizens value is the principle, and the access. "If that's what you value, then the settlement is not a good deal," she said.

Sullivan, the council chair, also drew on what Cape citizens value. "For years, (in) survey after survey after survey ... our citizens have affirmed over and over again that the No. 1 reason they live in Cape Elizabeth, and they want to live in Cape Elizabeth, and they love Cape Elizabeth, is open space and access to it."

Principle, Sullivan said, was the greatest reason she opposed the settlement. "I thought, would taxpayers want us to spend $100,000 or more if that's what it took ... to permanently protect what myself and many others consider a priceless asset? And hundreds of residents are telling us that yes, they do. They do."

Councilor Sara Lennon, who opposed the motion to reject the settlement, cited the certainty of the agreement and its potential to avoid further litigation that could cost more than $1 million. "I don't feel comfortable gambling with money that isn't mine," she said, and while she too supports open space, she said she believed Shore Acres residents are already well served. The town has other priorities, she said, including aging town and school buildings, educating children, and keeping the tax burden in check.

During the deliberation several councilors said they also hoped for a timely resolution and to bring healing to a divided neighborhood and community. Lennon said she saw the settlement as a way to do that, but, Sullivan said, "I think the best way to the heal community is for the town to lead, and for the town to stand up for its principles and to lead on principle."

The contested portion of Surf Side Avenue appears on the 1911 subdivision plan for Shore Acres but was never built or accepted by the town. The town has the right to accept it in the future, but the complaint says that the town forfeited that right because it failed to exercise it, and because it allowed abutters to use the area as part of their back yards for more than 20 years.