Hedlin ballfield sale challenged as illegal

Was the Town of La Conner’s sale of the Maple Avenue ballfield property to developer Landed Gentry illegal? A letter from Bricklin & Newman, a Seattle law firm, to Brian Gentry dated Sept. 1 and delivered Sept. 7, advises that “your purchase of the property from the Town of La Conner was likely illegal, in violation of Article 8, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution.” The Town bought the property from the Hedlin family and then sold it the same day in April.

La Conner area resident Linda Clark asked the Bricklin firm to review “the applicable documents concerning the sales transaction of Hedlin Field” in August, based on her posting on the Nextdoor app Sept. 8. Bricklin attorneys apparently told Clark, she writes, “the citizens of La Conner possess a legitimate and viable legal claim against the parties involved in the sales transaction; and have the right to sue to undo the sale.”

Clark posted that Landed Gentry, as Maple Field, LLC, was to respond within seven days to a “compromise in order to avoid protracted litigation” offered in the Bricklin letter. That deadline has passed.

The group “Reclaim Hedlin Field” is represented by Bricklin, the letter says and they would forgo a lawsuit if Landed Gentry agrees “not to disturb or develop the Hedlin Field property for one year, giving them time to raise money to purchase the property for public use.” Seven-hundred-thousand-dollars is stated as the repurchase price.

Brian Gentry, in a phone call with the Weekly News Friday, declined to discuss the letter but said “We are trying to get started here hopefully before the end of September and hope to be done the end of October or the first of November” with initial site work. He said delays from August were due to “working through construction plan details between our engineer and the town engineer” and with his contractor’s schedule.

Town Administrator and Attorney Scott Thomas said he received a copy of the letter from Gentry’s attorney only later, but that the Town was not asked to take any role. He also confirmed delays in finalizing plans for connecting the project’s sewer lines.

Thomas suspects that Clark sent the “results of a huge public records request” she made to the Town to the Bricklin firm for them to build their case. He noted they “have a solid record on those kinds of cases” and called them “a well-established plaintiff’s land use/environmental law firm.”

In a lengthy response to the Weekly News, Thomas critiqued the Bricklin letter, finding it employed “poor legal reasoning,” and that the 1970s Supreme Court of Lassila v. City of Wenatchee has dramatically different facts from the Town’s transactions in buying and selling the Hedlin property. Thomas’ analysis:

“Instead of the Town utilizing its own funds to buy the property, as was the case in Lassila, it was the Gentry firm’s money that funded the purchase; in other words, it was the Gentry firm that loaned its credit to the Town, and not the other way around. Sadly, Ms. Clark’s attorneys have that backwards.”

Thomas was critical of Clark engaging a law firm, suggesting “the Town will likely be financially harmed if the transaction is in fact disrupted.”

Clark is fundraising, at least on Nextdoor, writing “donations will be needed both for legal services and, hopefully, the re-purchase price” in her Sept. 8 post.