BRUNSWICK — The Maine supreme court ordered dismissal of a lawsuit that claimed the Town Council violated its charter by not holding a public hearing on use of land at Mere Point.

The court said the question is moot because the town has already sold the land.

A Superior Court ruling last August affirmed the Brunswick Town Council had a right to reject a petition by Brunswick Citizens for Collaborative Government calling for a referendum on whether to make tax-acquired waterfront land at 946 Mere Point Road into a park.

The town sold the property in June 2017 for $550,000 to Daniel and Kathryn Frost of Irvine, California, after voting 5-4 in September 2016 to sell it instead of using it to add public shoreline access.

The 2017 ruling also stated the town should have held a public hearing on the petition, but that the issue was made moot by the sale of the property.

The citizens group appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, arguing the Superior Court finding was incorrect. The high court rejected their case on July 12.


During oral arguments March 7, David Lourie, an attorney for the citizens’ group, contended the Superior Court erred when it said Brunswick’s charter does not authorize a voter initiative to overrule a Town Council decision to sell town-owned property.

Lourie argued that though Mere Point was a “done deal,” his clients were seeking instructions from the court “telling the Brunswick Town Council they can’t do this in the future.”

He also said the Superior Court decision could have a chilling effect on other residents from going forward with such an initiative.”

“The fact is that petitioning for an initiative is not for the weak or the lazy,” he said. “You can’t reasonably expect people to go out there and collect signatures if they know that a hostile council is not going to move the ordinance from point A to point B.”

Stephen Langsdorf, town attorney for Brunswick, told the high court that after the September 2016 vote to sell the property, petitioners “contacted the clerk’s office to ask for referendum proceedings to overrule the order.”

He said he then told the petitioners “as a matter of courtesy” that though they had a constitutional right to come forward with a petition, his opinion was that it was not proper procedure.


“The town has every right to set its form of government any way it chooses to, and it has chosen to establish a strong council and limited right of initiative and referendum,” Langsdorf argued.

The decision written by SJC Chief Justice Leigh Saufley states that because the Superior Court decision came after the land was sold, no declaration by the court could have provided any “meaningful relief” to the citizens’ group.

It also states the interpretation of Brunswick’s charter may have “little bearing” on other town charters, and the group provided no evidence that the specific question regarding the charter will recur and require guidance from the court.

Elizabeth Clemente can be contacted at 781-3661 ext. 100 or at:

[email protected]

Twitter: epclemente

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: