The town of Milbridge faces two lawsuits and a possible federal complaint over its handling of an application to build low-income workforce housing.

In July 2009, Mano en Mano, a nonprofit that wishes to build the workforce housing, filed suit against the town, alleging officials there illegally discriminated against the group by blocking and delaying the project for over a year. Although Town Meeting voted in November to clear the way for the housing application to move forward, the nonprofit group has no immediate plans to drop the lawsuit.

And in December 2009, two Milbridge residents sued the town, accusing officials of illegally engineering the November vote that allowed the housing application to continue. In addition, a federal complaint against the town filed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is waiting in the wings, pending the outcome of the Mano en Mano suit.

The lawsuits revolve around a plan Mano en Mano submitted more than a year ago to build six affordable housing units in Milbridge for U.S. citizens or legal residents who earn $5,000 or more a year from farm and/or aquaculture-related work. Mano en Mano, which works to integrate a recent influx of Latino families into the community, contends that affordable, adequate housing is scarce.

Initially, Milbridge officials seemed on board with the project, said Anais Tomezsko, the group’s executive director. But the tone of the process changed, she said, when the town received a petition from some Milbridge residents asking to block the workforce housing. The petition struck a protectionist tone, asking the town to intervene against the project because the petitioners feared it would encourage an influx of immigrants to move to Milbridge.

“We wish to protect any jobs [lobster fishermen] may need in the future, not to be given [sic] out to minorities who may move into these units,” the petition stated.

Shortly after the petition was received, a town meeting was called, but Mano en Mano was not invited to participate. Milbridge selectmen voted to hold a referendum calling for a 180-day moratorium on all residential development, citing a need to install new land use ordinances before considering any housing applications. In June 2009, Milbridge residents voted for the moratorium, which retroactively blocked the Mano en Mano project. Mano en Mano filed suit in July, and a federal judge ordered the town to proceed with the application, pending a verdict.

Supporters of the housing project not affiliated with Mano en Mano filed their own petition to repeal the moratorium, but the repeal was voted down by Milbridge residents in September. In October, town selectmen voted to extend the moratorium until the land use ordinances were finished.

Then, in November, town officials completed work on the new land use ordinances. Milbridge residents voted to enact the ordinances, which would allow the Mano en Mano project to move forward, with or without a court order, on November 16.

Even though the town no longer is blocking the project, Mano en Mano is still proceeding with the lawsuit. April Bentley, one of the lawyers for Mano en Mano, said the nonprofit group initially tried to negotiate with the town for a way around the impasse. When this failed, they had no choice after the moratorium was enacted but to sue.

“We didn’t want to go the federal litigation route until the organization was literally backed into the corner and had no other option,” says Bentley.

Bentley says town officials violated provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act and the 14th amendment that calls for equal protection under the law.

She said Mano en Mano has ample evidence to prove the workforce housing project has been forced to overcome more obstacles than any other multifamily development in the town’s history, and the obstacles were put there because town officials perceived the project would benefit Latinos. She also said town officials illegally discussed a stereotype that Latinos had more children when considering the plan.

The lawsuit asks that the town be ordered to pay for damages and additional costs that have come from the project’s delay. Bentley declined to state how much money the group is seeking from the town, citing active negotiations with Milbridge to reach a settlement. However, she did say the project has racked up more than $50,000 in legal fees, as of January. If no agreement is reached between the town and Mano en Mano by February, a court date will be set.

As the Mano en Mano lawsuit has moved forward, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a brief in this case. Also, HUD filed an administrative complaint against the town; that complaint is on hold, pending the outcome of the Mano en Mano lawsuit, Bentley said. The HUD action freezes any community block development grants until a resolution is solved. If the HUD case goes against Milbridge, the town could be fined an additional $10,000.

Fred Costlow, a litigation lawyer representing the town in the suit, confirmed that the two parties were engaged in “amicable settlement discussions.” But he argued the main reason for the lawsuit no longer exists.

“At this stage, the lawsuit was started as an injunction at the moratorium,” he said. “In that respect, there is no present application [for the lawsuit].”

But Bentley defended their decision to go forward with the lawsuit even after the town cleared the main obstacle to the building project.

“They can’t violate the Fair Housing Act…and pretend nothing has happened,” she said.

Tomezsko admitted the lawsuit does little to mend fences after the divisiveness surrounding the workforce project, but she felt it was important for the group to defend its rights.

“The damage is done, you can’t un-ring the bell,” said Tomezsko. “What happened to us should never have to happen to another group.”

The town also faces another lawsuit for the November vote that enacted the new land use ordinances and allowed the workforce housing project to proceed. On December 4, Milbridge residents Nick Giusti and Barbara Waits filed suit in Maine Superior Court to block the ordinances.

The suit alleges the town failed to publicize adequately the vote to adopt the new ordinances. It also alleges the town violated its own moratorium by allowing the Mano en Mano project to be discussed while the moratorium was in place. The complaint further argues that the new land use ordinances are too subjective and violate the town’s comprehensive plan.

If the suit is successful, it would block any pending applications, including the Mano en Mano project, until a new vote on the land use ordinance is called.

Tom Russell, Milbridge’s town attorney, said the town has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, partly because the lawsuit improperly asks the judge to invoke powers to provide injunctive relief that the judge in this case does not have.

“As to the merits [of the case], we don’t think they have any,” Russell said.

The town followed the letter of the law in publicizing the vote, he argued. The improper notification in the newspaper the lawsuit mentions refers to a community calendar insertion done independently by the newspaper. He said the lawsuit also confuses matters by arguing the land use ordinances violate the comprehensive plan and then asking that the town vote again for the same ordinances.

Giusti, who is chairman of a group called Concerned Citizens of Milbridge, which is applying for nonprofit status, says more than 30 people raised money to help with legal fees for the lawsuit.

“Actually, they bought candy and the proceeds went towards the lawyers fees,” he said.

Giusti says his lawsuit and the Mano en Mano lawsuit both deal with similar issues of procedure and rights. Although he has expressed concern over the Mano en Mano project in public meetings, he said the lawsuit is not an attempt to target the workforce housing.

“We’re both on the same page with two different reasons,” he said. In an earlier interview, he said, “This is not aimed at Mano en Mano, this is aimed at the process.”

But during the course of the first interview, Giusti expressed an erroneous belief that the workforce housing was built only for Latinos. He also criticized the housing for being open only to low-income individuals, which he feels is an unjust form of discrimination. Later, he criticized Mano en Mano for working too slowly to help its clients find adequate housing.

Still, he emphasized that no one would be welcome in Concerned Citizens of Milbridge who had a personal vendetta. Instead, the group will focus on making sure local democracy remains accessible.

“It’s a retaking of America is what it is,” he said.

Craig Idlebrook is a freelance writer who lives in Ellsworth.