Facts against DOT’s taking of Sail Inn

In the recent Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision regarding whether to allow further court examination of alleged wrongful taking of the Sail Inn Restaurant by the Maine Department of Transportation, Justicee Donald Alexander concluded that my brothers provided “their own bald assertions” instead of evidence in accusing the DOT of wrongful taking.

I can only assume that Justice Alexander did not intend to be flippant in the “bald assertion” statement and therefore he meant that my brother’s attorney made blunt, unelaborated declarations or forthright statements regarding the taking of their property. Anyone who knows my brothers would understand that they can be blunt and that they would certainly stand up for their rights and the rights of others. But Justice Alexander means that they did not provide any facts to counter the DOT’s arguments for the taking of the Sail Inn for construction of the Penobscot Narrows Bridge. Let’s look at the facts that were and are easily known, most of which were provided to the court.

First, the DOT recently claims it took the property since “the location presented a traffic hazard because it was immediately south of the curve in the highway where it enters the bridge.” That location “fact” has existed for more than 55 years and traffic studies (which DOT certainly has access to) would confirm that not one serious accident has occurred in that location because of traffic entering or exiting the Sail Inn in all of those years. If one is to make an assertion of safety, one has an obligation to make that statement based upon fact. Additionally, this “safety” concern has only appeared in argumentation recently. It was never discussed at the time of the taking of the property or in any subsequent legal discussions – until now.

Second, the DOT claims it needed the entire property as a staging area and a dumping ground for blasting materials. In fact, it had access to the entire property for the entire four years and used the restaurant building for one or two meetings and as a landing for equipment one week before the ribbon-cutting ceremony. It is clear that the “staging” area of choice was the former campground on Verona Island.

The need to provide a place for blasting materials is also erroneous. My family offered our property south of the Sail Inn all the way to the scenic turnout as a repository for blasting material. We welcomed the material as it allowed for further enhancement of our property to the south. At first, this option was acceptable and blasting material was placed immediately behind the Dyer homestead, but unexplainably, this dumping stopped and immediately resumed behind the restaurant and to hauling locations well beyond the blasting site (which I am sure cost more money).

Third, the DOT asserts that it were in a “design build” situation, which meant it did not know how much land it needed to build the bridge therefore the “exigency” for the taking existed. My brothers, through legal counsel, did not immediately challenge the exigency because we knew a new bridge was necessary and, at that time, it appeared that the only way to accomplish that was through our property.

Almost immediately after the taking other facts became clear and my brothers decided to exercise their constitutional right to challenge the exigency. First, the plans for the new bridge were developed and being presented in public forums for more than one year before the taking. Indeed, it was an option from the beginning to take some of our property, but DOT stated numerous times to public inquiries that it had no intention to take the Sail Inn at all.

Furthermore, and most important to this argument, was the fact (outlined in an affidavit provided by lawyer and former legislator Barbara Merrill and referred to by Chief Justice Leigh Saufley during the supreme court hearing) the DOT commissioner told legislators, particularly Rep. Merrill and several members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, that my brothers were offered a partial taking of their property, which they turned down. Commissioner David Cole’s statements can only be seen as the truth since the commissioner was offering them to representatives of our government leadership. By his statements one can only conclude that the DOT did not need the entire property, but only took it to accommodate my brothers. Since my brothers were never made such an offer, the question remains, did DOT truly need to take the entire property or was it simply a matter of convenience?

I could go on with these “bald assertions,” but the case is closed on the wrongful taking in the court of law in the state of Maine. But the case is not closed in the court of public opinion, in which it is my family’s sincere hope that people stand up and be heard and correct this assault on the rights to private property as guaranteed by our Constitution. But maybe this, too, is truly a bald assertion.

Dick Dyer’s brothers, Robert and Paul, owned the Sail Inn in Prospect.