The West Brook Subdivision threatens to cause significant harm to Biddeford’s ecosystems by fragmenting key natural habitats. This development would cut through the wildlife corridor that connects Clifford Park and Blandings Park Wildlife Sanctuary, disrupting the natural flow of wildlife and reducing biodiversity. Habitat fragmentation can weaken ecosystems by isolating species, limiting their ability to migrate, reproduce, and find food, leading to a decline in overall health and resilience. The area’s wetlands, which help control flooding and maintain water quality, would also be permanently damaged, resulting in long-term environmental degradation. Once these natural spaces are destroyed, the balance of the ecosystem is disrupted in ways that are difficult—if not impossible—to reverse.

As we continue our fight, our appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court will focus on several critical issues that are central to ensuring responsible development and upholding the law:

1. Standing to raise eminent domain: One of the core issues we’re challenging is the city’s use of eminent domain to benefit a private development. We will argue that we have the legal standing to contest the city’s decision to take public land from Clifford Park and hand it over to developer Mike Eon. This misuse of eminent domain sets a dangerous precedent, as it contradicts the very principle that eminent domain should only be used for public benefit, not private gain.
2. No waiver of merits arguments: Another key argument in our appeal is that we did not waive any substantive merits arguments. The court ruled that we failed to bring these arguments before the Planning Board prior to the project’s approval, which is patently false. We raised numerous environmental concerns and procedural issues during the process, and we believe these concerns were fully valid and timely presented. The Superior Court’s decision to waive our arguments will be challenged, as it undermines the legal process and disregards the community’s voice in opposing this development.
3. Project expiration and untimeliness of the stay request:  Lastly, we will argue that the developer’s stay request—an 18-month extension of the approval—was untimely, and the project approval has already expired. The subdivision was initially approved in September 2022, with a two-year expiration date. However, the stay request was not submitted until June 2024. We'll contest the project should have expired in September 2024 and must now go through a new approval process. The untimeliness of this request is a critical point in our appeal, as it directly challenges the legality of the project’s continuation.