In 2023, Savanna Weber caught wind that a 22-unit affordable housing development was to be built on the Middle River lot next door.

She did what she thought any concerned homeowner would, spreading the word through social media, an online petition and a flurry of phone calls and emails.

It wasn’t without consequences. The developer, Baltimore County nonprofit Sisterhood Agenda Inc., sued Weber for defamation, arguing her “malicious screed” poisoned its business relationships across the region, interfered with its work and caused financial harm.

After more than a year of fighting, Baltimore County Circuit Court Associate Judge Paul J. Hanley dismissed the case last week. Maryland has a statute called the Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or Anti-SLAPP, law, that protects Weber’s right to oppose the development, he said — even when it’s “annoying, offensive or embarrassing.”

The law, the judge wrote, is designed to safeguard residents of “limited financial resources” from the wrath of the rich and powerful. In a 12-page opinion, Hanley also said Sisterhood Agenda failed to prove Weber’s public opposition to the project caused calculable financial harm or reputational damage.

The case underscores how heated debates over housing have become as many Marylanders face the prospect of growth and density coming to their neighborhoods.

One key allegation centered on Weber’s use of the phrase “Section 8 housing,” a rent subsidy program by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sisterhood Agenda argued Weber weaponized the term to deride the project.

Baltimore County needs as many as 19,000 more housing units, according to an analysis by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Guidehouse consulting firm. County residents have repeatedly told pollsters they support affordable housing and want the government to encourage more of it.

But, when it comes to their own neighborhoods, residents’ appetites are more nuanced. That has made development harder in much of Baltimore County, where council members have the final say over what gets built in their districts.

In a statement, Angela D. Coleman, founder and president of Sisterhood Agenda, said Weber’s description of the group’s project as “Section 8 housing for homeless people” functioned as a “dog whistle” or “discriminatory moniker to incite racial tensions and fear of low-income or unhoused residents.”

Weber declined to comment.

Section 8 vouchers provide low-income households with rent money they can use in the private market, and the vouchers are valued based on individuals’ income. Coleman said she hoped such households would benefit from new, lower-cost housing on Baltimore County’s east side.

The nonprofit’s attorney, Hudson L. Miller, said in court that the right to free speech has limits.

Sisterhood Agenda argued that Weber accusing the organization of telling lies was a knowingly false statement meant to suppress community support.

Weber had a different take.

“Simply saying she knew it was false isn’t a fact,” Weber’s attorney, Marc D. Schifanelli, shot back in court. “It’s an allegation.”

Sisterhood Agenda pitched the development as a nature-rich oasis specially crafted for women and families who have experienced trauma. It was to use environmentally friendly building practices and green energy systems. On a flyer advertising the project, Coleman indicated the units would be accessible to people with disabilities and eligible for subsidies, including Section 8 vouchers and similar programs.

As part of a HUD funding program for local governments, Coleman received a grant for up to $1 million from Baltimore County to support preliminary development.

Coleman told The Banner last year that the project quickly ran into barriers.

After discussing the project with Weber and other concerned community members, Baltimore County Councilman David Marks, a Republican, moved to change the zoning of the county-owned land that Sisterhood Agenda hoped to acquire.

Coleman questioned the zoning change on the Middle River land and pointed to Marks’ support for as many as 3,300 market-rate homes in Greenleigh, a planned community.

The nonprofit filed a complaint with HUD, accusing the County Council of discrimination based on race and gender. Coleman said that investigation remains open.

Sisterhood Agenda now owns a little less than an acre of land at the site. Coleman had hoped to acquire about 10 acres for the 22-unit project.

Coleman said in her statement that Sisterhood Agenda looks forward to “expanding our effective programs and services in the community,” including with housing development.

She may have to proceed in Middle River without county assistance. In November, Baltimore County filed a complaint against Sisterhood Agenda for breaching its contract, saying the organization did not provide the required documentation about the use of its grant funds.

Specifically, County Attorney James R. Benjamin wrote in court filings, Sisterhood Agenda declined to provide details concerning the organization’s “legal fees and miscellaneous expenses” at the same time its case against Weber advanced in court.

Sisterhood Agenda declined to provide that information, citing it as privileged.

The county terminated its grant with Sisterhood Agenda in September, according to documents reviewed by The Banner. The county is seeking to recover more than $262,000 from the organization.

Coleman declined to comment on the dismissal of the lawsuit against Weber or on the grant termination. She has not filed a response to the county’s complaint.

The judge, meanwhile, awarded Weber $21,000 in attorney’s fees. Schifanelli, Weber’s attorney, said the state’s anti-SLAPP law is working as it should.

“It’s a very valid purpose, to protect those who don’t have money to fight a court case and protect freedom of speech,” Schifanelli said. “The intent was to get Ms. Weber to be silent.”

Sisterhood Agenda has 30 days to appeal the ruling.