St. Albans board halts debate on eminent domain

loading...
ST. ALBANS – Just as in every selectmen’s meeting for the past several years, the issue of eminent domain was raised by Dennis Smith and Gary Jordan at Monday night’s board meeting. This time, however, Chairman Curt Lombard put a stop to it.
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

ST. ALBANS – Just as in every selectmen’s meeting for the past several years, the issue of eminent domain was raised by Dennis Smith and Gary Jordan at Monday night’s board meeting.

This time, however, Chairman Curt Lombard put a stop to it.

Jordan has sued the town several times over the taking of his land seven years ago at a town meeting, and most recently was denied an appeal by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

The court ruling was based on a title defect, which is untrue, Jordan said. Smith asked the selectmen to inform the law court that they had made their decision based on false information.

“So you want us, the selectmen, to tell the court they made a mistake by ruling in our favor?” asked Lombard.

Peter Duncombe, who is also being sued by Jordan, asked the board not to address Smith and Jordan’s statements.

“If Mr. Jordan wants further information, his lawyer can depose [Town Manager Larry] Post,” Duncombe said. “It is inappropriate and a waste of our time to discuss this process. I think it’s interference if the board responds.”

Lombard then told Smith, “We will not discuss eminent domain. It is a dead issue.”

Lombard said, “It is time to move on.”

Jordan replied, “Do you realize there is a court higher than the Maine Judicial Court?”

“Are you even considering that?” Lombard asked, incredulous.

“It’s already being done,” Jordan answered, although he later would not confirm he had filed an appeal.

In other business, the board was updated regarding TABOR, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and its effects on St. Albans. TABOR would limit expenditures for school boards and municipalities and require a referendum for any tax increases.

Post said he had several problems with TABOR, which will be voted on in a statewide referendum Nov. 7.

He said the wording of the proposal is misleading, stating that the proposal will provide for voter approval for all tax and fee increases. “We already have that, at town meeting,” he said.

He also said the proposal does not take into account special purchases made by municipalities that exceed the 3 percent rate of inflation, such as pavement.

“One part for a firetruck could be 10 percent higher, just because it is a specialty item,” Post said.

“Those that are going to be hurt the most are those that are the most fiscally responsible,” he said. “This is a one-size-fits-all proposal rather than local control. Every town has its own unique features.”

Norridgewock Selectman Matt Schaefer addressed the board and said “Taxpayers want a voice. In Norridgewock, our taxes just went up 9 percent. Our school budget is huge. And a lot of people in my town are rather poor.”

Lombard said, “I recommend that everyone do their homework and read up on it and vote the way you feel best.”

Correction: In a Sept. 12 article and again in a Sept. 19 story, both reporting on the results of a St. Albans eminent domain court case, the Bangor Daily News reported that the landowner’s appeal to the Maine Supreme Court “had been denied.” Coincidentally, on Sept. 19, we published a letter to the editor, authored by retired Maine Supreme Court Justice Paul Rudman of Veazie. In his letter, Justice Rudman took the BDN to task for mischaracterizing the court’s action as the “denial” of an appeal.
The BDN regrets any inaccuracy in referring to the action of affirming a lower court’s decision as the “denial of an appeal.” However, it is commonly understood that the Maine Supreme Court can “vacate” the lower court, and thereby grant the appeal (rule in favor of the appealing party), or “affirm” the lower court decision, and thereby deny an appeal. In fact, at the end of its decisions that uphold a lower court decision, the court sometimes characterizes its action as, “appeal denied.”
In reporting on this and similar cases, newspapers conduct a balancing act between being technically accurate and using language that can be easily understood by their nonattorney readers.

Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personalization and ads. Learn more.