Setting the Record Straight

A recent article by Randy Seaver about the withdrawal of our lawsuit against the City of Biddeford and developer Mike Eon contains grossly misleading statements and critical omissions. While we made the difficult decision to withdraw due to cost, the issues with this project remain unresolved. The City is still allowing a development to move forward that violates multiple local and state environmental regulations, threatens an important wildlife corridor in Biddeford, and was only made possible by giving away public land.

This Was Never About Affordable Housing

Mike Eon claims this lawsuit made it harder to build affordable housing, but the facts tell a different story. He recently sold a home in an adjacent subdivision on Parkside Drive for over $600,000, setting the benchmark for all future home sales in the West Brook Subdivision. This project was never about affordability—it was about maximizing profit.

Eon’s land “gift” wasn’t just a move to secure approval for his subdivision. It provided him with the key acreage needed for high-end development while the City took on largely undevelopable land, a deal that ultimately worked in his favor.

This fits a larger pattern. His Barra Road apartment complex, also marketed as affordable housing, now lists one-bedroom units starting at $2,200 per month—far beyond reach for the very “teachers, nurses, firefighters, cops, and retirees” Mayor Grohman said it was supposedly built for. Meanwhile, the developers will receive 35% of tax revenue from the project for 15 years under an agreement approved by the City, a massive taxpayer-funded giveaway that also extends to future residential developments planned for the site. To make matters worse, the Barra Road site is within the Thatcher Brook watershed, a high-risk area for urban impairment already burdened by pollution and runoff. Large-scale development here only increases environmental strain.

The pattern is clear: the City is approving projects that inflate housing costs, weaken environmental protections, and grant substantial financial benefits to developers at the community’s expense.

Prioritizing Development Over Residents

Mayor Grohman claims the City is gaining “a tremendous resource of additional public lands,” but that statement ignores reality. The City gave away public land to enable the West Brook Subdivision, disregarded environmental protections, and fought in court to shield a developer’s interests rather than ensuring the project followed local laws. The City is choosing developers over its own ordinances, over the environment, and over the people of Biddeford.

Regrowth of wetland vegetation in the wildlife corridor.

The Land Swap Was Never a “Win-Win”

The article presents the land swap as a win-win for the City, but that ignores key facts. The land Mike Eon transferred to the City was largely undevelopable—steep, wet, and subject to environmental restrictions. In contrast, the four acres he received were prime land within Clifford Park, directly enabling the West Brook Subdivision’s approval. This wasn’t just a lopsided deal—it was only possible because the City improperly seized land through eminent domain, justifying the taking under constitutional “public use” arguments in litigation, only to transfer the land to a private developer. Notably, Mayor Grohman voted against the land taking in a narrow and contentious 5-4 City Council vote but now publicly promotes the deal he once rejected.

The City Ignored Environmental Protections

From the beginning, the West Brook Subdivision has been fundamentally incompatible with Biddeford’s environmental regulations. The site contains wetlands, steep slopes, and forest that serve as a critical wildlife corridor between Clifford Park and Blandings Park—two of Biddeford’s most ecologically valuable natural areas.

The project violates multiple local and state environmental protections, including:

• Wetlands and habitat protections were not fully addressed, despite requirements for proper wetland delineation and safeguards for significant wildlife habitat. The site contains hydrologically sensitive areas, and the development threatens habitat connectivity for multiple species.
• Shoreland zoning restrictions prohibit development within 100 feet of streams and 250 feet of freshwater wetlands, yet the subdivision encroaches on these protected areas without adequate safeguards.
• Steep slopes and erosion control requirements were ignored, despite rules meant to prevent hazardous runoff and flooding by prohibiting construction on slopes exceeding 25% within buildable lots. The Planning Board approved development in areas well beyond these limits, increasing risks of erosion and stormwater runoff into sensitive ecosystems.
• The City failed to enforce cluster subdivision standards, which are intended to protect open space and natural resources.

These protections exist for a reason: to prevent exactly this kind of reckless development. The City ignored them, putting both the environment and future homeowners at risk.

Procedural Failures

Beyond the environmental violations, the City’s mismanagement of the approval process created confusion among residents, city leaders, and even the developer himself.

• The City failed to clearly communicate critical project details, leaving the public and decision-makers without a full understanding of the environmental impacts.
• The Planning Board altered approval conditions outside of the public process, creating uncertainty about the project’s status and depriving residents of a fair opportunity to challenge it.
• The City Attorney falsely claimed during litigation that environmental concerns were never raised before the Planning Board—despite extensive public opposition from the start.
• The court granted an extension for the project’s approval simply because the City Attorney said it was permissible—despite no provision in Biddeford’s ordinances allowing such an extension. This effectively let the City rewrite the rules in favor of the developer, even when it had no legal basis to do so.

The City’s repeated failure to follow its own rules shows a blatant disregard for transparency, environmental protection, and responsible governance.

What Happens Next

We withdrew this lawsuit because we could not continue funding it alone. But we are not done fighting for responsible development. The City must enforce its own ordinances before allowing any construction on the West Brook Subdivision.

What’s at Risk

Clifford Park’s wildlife corridor is a vital link between protected lands, supporting diverse plant and animal life. The West Brook Subdivision would permanently fragment this habitat, destroying wetlands, disrupting migration routes, and increasing flood risks.

Despite expert warnings and strong community opposition, the City has ignored its own environmental protections to push this development forward. But thanks to our campaign, construction has been stalled for two years.

Now, we must ensure the City enforces its own laws and stops prioritizing developers like Mike Eon over Biddeford’s environment. This fight isn’t over.