The Cape Elizabeth Town Council is considering whether or not to ask residents if affordable housing construction should be allowed on the town-owned land at Gull Crest.
Last month, a public hearing was held on the matter, during which two members of the public shared their thoughts and the issue was discussed by council members. No official decisions were made at that time, however.
As noted by Chair Timothy Reiniger, more information will likely be available at some point this month regarding the feasibility of constructing affordable housing at this site, so the subject will be revisited in the near future pending further clarification.
In April, the Council voted 5-2 in favor of holding this hearing in order to allow public discussion regarding whether or not a non-binding referendum question concerning this matter ought to be placed on the ballot in November.
When requesting on behalf of Cynthia Dill that consideration of a public hearing being place on the April meeting’s agenda, Councilor Susan Gillis wrote that 90 percent of Cape Elizabeth’s population “traditionally” votes in presidential elections, making the upcoming ballot an appropriate venue to gauge residents’ interest in a potential Gull Crest development.
“What better way to see what direction the town wants to go with affordable housing on town owned land,” she said.
During the April meeting, Dill spoke in support of the proposed referendum question, concluding her remarks by saying: “If it’s voted down, you will never hear from me again, but I don’t think that is going to be the case.”
Voting against the proposal to hold a public hearing were Councilors Caitlin Jordan Harriman and Penelope A. Jordan.
Councilor Jordan Harriman stated at the meeting that she opposed holding a public hearing on a ballot question because the “wording on the referendum is too vague and doesn’t give the public a true sense of what we are even asking them.”
Instead, the councilor suggested holding a workshop wherein the council could develop a broader strategy for addressing affordable housing in the town.
Councilor Jordan explained that while she was not against assessing Gull Crest’s potential for affordable housing, she opposed placing a non-binding referendum on the November ballot because it could potentially create a poor reflection of those who vote against the item due to a lack of adequate information.
She also proffered that pursuing affordable housing at the site “starts to encumber what we can do at a future date around that complex.”
Both of the residents who spoke during the public hearing held in May were opposed to placing this question before voters as a referendum this November.
One commenter suggested that by presenting voters with this question, it would lead them to believe that using Gull Crest for affordable housing is a viable path forward when, in his view, this is not necessarily the case.
The other resident who spoke was skeptical of the “rightness of the question” since there is more testing that still needs to be done at the location, suggesting that significant challenges remain at the site.
As it is currently written, the question with which voters could potentially be faced this November reads:
“Do you support the Town of Cape Elizabeth making available 22 acres of Gull Crest between the transfer station and the Spurwink River for the purpose of creating an affordable housing development that will comply with state and local zoning laws?”
If the Council ultimately decides to move forward with placing a non-binding referendum on the November ballot, the wording of the question must be finalized and submitted by August.
Cape people not wanting welfare housing is understandable except for the fact they’re mostly left wing loons who insist the state needs more poverty but just not in their town.