Judge dismisses stalking petition by owner of Gale Avenue rental property

LACONIA — A stalking petition filed by the owner of 65 Gale Ave., a home operated as a short-term rental that has received complaints from several neighbors, was dismissed Thursday by District Court Judge James M. Carroll. Jon Steenbergen, whose real estate company owns the home, filed the petition against Bradford Parker, an across-the-street neighbor.

The issue of stalking, Carroll said in a decision at the hearing, requires a course of conduct with two or more events where a reasonable person could fear for their safety. He dismissed the petition, stating that the evidence was “insufficient to find a course of conduct” meeting that standard. 

Steenbergen, representing himself, cited three instances that led him to fear for the safety of himself and his family.

According to the couple’s testimony, Steenbergen’s wife Sharon told her husband that she had seen a man looking into her bedroom window on 65 Gale from inside 66 Gale, Parker’s residence, at night when she was about to change clothes. 

A few days later, the Steenbergens said they drove to Parker’s home across the street to introduce themselves as new neighbors.

Steenbergen said Parker was “initially conversive,” but that the interaction quickly grew confrontational.  

Jon said Parker was “extremely hostile and belligerent,” and Sharon said Parker used profanity and name-calling while demanding they leave his property. Parker continued to make comments to the couple, according to their testimony, as they moved toward their car.

When an article appeared in the Feb. 2 edition of The Laconia Daily Sun, Steenbergen said he “put two and two together” and concluded that Parker had been the source of the story. He did not testify having any knowledge of the city council meeting cited in the article.

When asked by Parker’s counsel, attorney Robert Hunt, why he had waited to file his petition after the confrontation, Steenbergen said, “because I wasn’t there [at the home] every single day. ... I was giving Mr. Parker the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn’t do anything further.”

The article, Steenbergen said, prompted him to file his petition because it included details he felt only could have come from his neighbor.  

Hunt, asking the judge to dismiss the case, said that two of the three allegations made by the couple were unfounded, and the only contact they had was on Parker’s property.

The couple presented no proof Parker had stared through his window at Sharon, Hunt asserted, and there was no evidence that Parker had contacted any reporter, as the petition alleged. In fact, Hunt noted, an article in Thursday’s edition of The Laconia Daily Sun about the case stated that Parker had not had any contact with the paper.

Hunt said the stalking petition represented “an abuse of process” and asked the judge to award Parker coverage of his legal fees.

The judge sided with Parker and dismissed the petition, but said he would take the matter of fees under consideration.

In a statement after the hearing, Hunt said he and his client were “relieved the court agreed that the case had no merit.”

“Mr. Parker has lived in his home for 14 years. Mr. Steenbergen has been in the neighborhood for about 6 months,” Hunt said in a written follow-up statement. “People moving into quiet residential neighborhoods to operate AirB&B’s [sic] should be sanctioned when they make up embarrassing and humiliating stories about their new neighbors.” Steenbergen declined to comment on the outcome.

While the hearing did not focus on the city’s short-term rental ordinance, the neighborhood tension over the issue was present. During the hearing, Sharon referenced repeated complaints made by Parker to the city’s zoning department. Their repetition, she felt, demonstrated a pattern of invasive behavior.

“How often we are there is between us and the city,” she said. Hunt probed her about whether she felt Hunt should not have filed complaints about the 65 Gale. In comments Wednesday, Hunt characterized the petition as an effort by the couple to “quiet” their neighbors.

Throughout the hearing, Steenbergen repeatedly stated that he filed the petition because he “just wanted to be left alone.” 

“This isn’t a punitive thing, I’m not trying to ruin anybody,” Steenbergen said. “I’m not trying to offend anyone. ... I just want my peace and to be left alone.”