The CityPlace Burlington developers have countersued a group of opponents of the long-stalled downtown project.
BTC Mall Associates and Devonwood Investors argue in a December 30 court filing that the opponents — Barbara McGrew, Lynn Martin, Michael Long and Steve Goodkind, along with their attorney, John Franco — violated a prior settlement in an ongoing lawsuit involving the project.
As a result, the developers say, they incurred “substantial costs” and are asking a judge to award them attorney fees. They also want the court to nullify a provision in the settlement that the developers donate $500,000 to a charitable fund.
Franco said he’s disappointed in the turn of events, particularly since he had cheered CityPlace progress in recent months. Developers presented a scaled-down version of the downtown project in October 2019, at which time Franco said he was optimistic that the lawsuit could be resolved. Any goodwill he felt has now evaporated.
“Lynn, Steve, Barb and Michael are all retirees on Social Security — that’s who Brookfield, a multibillion-dollar company, has sued,” Franco said, referring to Brookfield Asset Management, BTC’s majority owner. “You have a bit of an idea of what that does to the atmosphere of this case.”
The counterclaim stems from a June 2017 settlement that required the developer to include more parking spaces in the project design, to not lease housing to college students and to contribute $500,000 to a charitable fund, among other agreements.
The developers argue that Franco and his clients violated that settlement by continuing to pursue a separate public records claim. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled in the developer’s favor on that claim in September 2018.
The counterclaim says the opponents’ litigation “constitutes a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” and “interfered with BTC’s ability to perform its obligations under the Settlement Agreement.”
As such, the developers argue, they should not have to make the charitable donation. A message seeking comment left for Jonathan Rose, a Burlington attorney representing the developers, was not immediately returned.
Franco called the counterclaim “frivolous” and plans to file a response by month’s end.
Brookfield is scheduled to appear before the city’s development review board in February to discuss its latest proposal. But Jeff Glassberg, who is working as a liaison between the developers and the city, wants more from the developer. He says Brookfield has reneged on an earlier promise to schedule community meetings about the project.
“Despite weekly requests for an update on that, we’ve seen no progress,” he told the Burlington City Council on Monday.
The recent developments leave a sour taste in Franco’s mouth.
“[I was] really supportive of the scaled-down project,” he said. “This is a serious kick in the shins.”
Read the filing below:
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
College students should live on campus where they belong and not take up apartment spaces that low income and homeless people need!
I’ve said it before, if a lie will work better than the truth and they think they can sell it, we are going to get the lie. It’s all about the optics. The leopard cannot change its spots.
Seems like a distraction of ill will.
The attorney for the alleged ragtag group, John Franco, is a legal and political force not to be underestimated.
For example, three days after Franco posted a Dec. 13 comment in this forum on what Franco called the “outrageous” social-media behavior of the-then police chief, the chief resigned.
The rare Franco posting brought due notice.
Franco is a hometown boy who knows keenly how to navigate the intersection of law and politics.
Funny thing is, the separate suit over the refusal of the City to release the economic feasibility study under freedom of information was done by the Coalition for a Livable City (CLC)…and the project ended up a hole on the ground! Seems that suit was right on the mark! Looks like a reasonable suit to me…a voting member of the CLC. The Mayor Clavelle brokered agreement now being challenged by Brookfield sounds like a distraction. What Brookfield should do is work with everyone to get about 75 units of 30% income max rent assistance. Otherwise, Brookfield faces rejection…BTV no longer interested in $3,000 monthly rental apartment charade of recent years developer.s.
” to not lease housing to college students”…
Huh? How is that even remotely legal? And what does Steve G have against adult students?
Attorney Franco’s attitude is a little difficult to understand. He seems to be suggesting that it’s fair and reasonable for him and his clients to keep hitting Brookfield, but it’s unfair for Brookfield to assert its legal rights in court?
If a settlement was reached that both parties signed off on and then one party violated the settlement — then the other party has a right to seek defined compensation per the agreement. Right?
Doesn’t matter if one of the parties are retirees on Social Security, they signed off on the settlement. Right?
It doesn’t matter if some people don’t like the developer. This is a legal document outlining the terms of the settlement. If it was violated, there you go. Right?
Live by the court, perhaps you die by the court…
Seriously, screw these New York-based Brookfield developers. Regardless of your view of the new mall, this is a low blow and just a squirrelly attempt to get out of paying what they already promised. Assholes.