This case relates to NELF’s longstanding support of property ownership and development rights. It involves the downzoning of a parcel slated for development as a retail shopping center.  In 2001 the NELF Legal Review Committee agreed to NELF’s involvement in JSS Realty v. Town of Kittery, a similar case arising out of the same challenged Kittery zoning amendment. JSS Realty ultimately dropped that case as too expensive to pursue in the adverse retail climate of 2002. This parallel case involves plaintiff Kittery Retail Ventures, LLC, (“KRV”).  In 1999, KRV started work on developing a retail shopping mall as permitted by the Kittery zoning law then in effect.  That zoning ordinance permitted up to 30% of a parcel to be developed for retail purposes.  Because many town citizens opposed additional retail development, the Town passed a referendum on June 13, 2000 amending the zoning bylaw to restrict development to 15% of a parcel.  However, Kittery Marketplace and the JSS development were already sufficiently advanced that they were entitled to grandfathering, protecting their development rights under the earlier ordinance.  When anti-development forces determined that Kittery Marketplace and the JSS project would continue despite the zoning change, the citizens passed a referendum making the June 13, 2000 amendment retroactive to September, 1999.  Campaign literature indicated that the intent of the retroactivity referendum was to prohibit development of Kittery Marketplace and the JSS project.  After the retroactivity referendum passed, the Town rejected KRV’s application to develop the property.  KRV then appealed to Superior Court, which granted summary judgment for the Town.  KRV then appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.  In an amicus brief filed September 12, 2003, in support of KRV, NELF argued that retroactive zoning that is specifically intended to prohibit a particular development violates the Maine and United States Constitutions’ due process and equal protection provisions.  Moreover, Maine recognizes the doctrine of equitable vested rights, which may accrue in a number of situations, including this case in which the municipality has exhibited bad faith by amending a zoning provision during a real estate developer’s application process but before legal vested rights could accrue through under a valid building permit. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision below, ignoring NELF's argument that the inhabitants of the town violated KRV's due process rights by referendum, and justifying the town's conduct based on the good faith of the town selectmen and boards 856 A.2d 1183 (2004). KRV petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. NELF filed a supportive amicus brief concentrating on due process arguments. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. 125 S.Ct. 1603 (2005).