Yes!

It’s over.

Martin v. Garrett Park, the lawsuit about a porch, has been settled.

Mayor Chris Keller announced at tonight’s town council meeting that Garrett Park will issue a building permit to John and Elaine Martin. The town has also agreed not to appeal the judge’s order from mid January that struck down its minimum combined setback ordinance and ordered the town to issue a permit for the porch originally applied for by the Martins.

The Martins have agreed to dismiss the remaining three counts of their suit, and they will join with the town in seeking to correct a few ambiguous words in the judge’s order that might have raised questions about the town’s authority to regulate lot coverage.

“This has been a long and very painful process,” Keller said. “All of us have lost a lot of sleep, missed a lot of dinners.” The decision to settle, he continued, included not only consideration of Garrett Park’s finances, but also the “psychic wear and tear on the town.”

The settlement, Keller said, is “complete and binding,” although one issue remains to be resolved by attorneys before it can be presented to the court. He did not elaborate on that issue. Keller said the detailed terms of how the settlement is to be implemented will be made public at a later date.

This is, quite obviously, good news—certainly for those who are paying a little extra attention to the town’s coffers these days.

There’s also been a rather voiciferous bunch of attendees at recent council meetings, who have made their feelings on this suit quite clear, pro and con. Yet, I am not one who thinks Garrett Park is dangerously divided. We argue, and then we get over it.

But, during council meetings of late, there’s been way too much name-calling. The Martins have been referred to as “dissidents.” It’s been suggested that they are in the pocket of developers or that they’re puppets of political partisans.

This type of talk needs to stop. Now.

Last week, as settlement negotiations were ongoing, I had the chance to sit down and talk with John and Elaine Martin. John termed the notion that anyone else's money was involved in the lawsuit “a misconception.” He told me neither he nor Elaine had received any financial support from builders, developers, or family members, and that their lawsuit was based on nothing but the desire to build a porch. Personally, I take him at his word.

But you know what? I think there’s a bigger point here. I have never agreed with the Martin’s suit. I think there were options short of going to court. Yet, there is no doubt that they had a right to sue the town. It was expensive. It was complicated. It left the town and town council with few options but to defend the case—and, in the end, with no good option other than to settle. But none of that makes John and Elaine Martin villains. They are citizens of our town who chose to exercise their legal rights. How dare any of us suggest that makes them bad people?