So, what is the purpose of this post? The Town of Westwood filed court action was to protect the rights of the Town that the Town felt were being violated by the Land Trust.
Sunny, with a high of 55 and low of 25 degrees. Sunny in the morning, clear in the afternoon and evening,
I believe the Town is the complainant here, not the defendant.
Yes, Ms. Viti, you are emphasizing one of Mr. Moore's articulated points. As many may not be aware, often the plaintiff is forced to make the complaint in order to defend their property rights. A quick search on the nuances of plaintiff vs.
Seems to me that in reading the Complaint, Answer and Counterclaim in this matter, Town of Westwood v. the Westwood Land Trust, Norfolk Superior Court No.
Here is how you can contact our state reps.
Andy, thank you for this article. It is informative and helpful in understanding the situation with the law suit regarding Bean Farm and the Westwood Land Trust.
I thought we just had a special election, which cost money, to stop the town from spending anymore money on this lawsuit. What happened to that? Is the town going to court without an attorney?
I don’t think an update on the status of the lawsuit has been given, but presumably it’s proceeding and more legal fees will be spent on it.
Thank you!
Beautifully said - thank you so much!
For many years I worked for the U.S. Coast Guard. A core value there, as well as at many other U.S. military branches, was respect. I think respect is missing here.
The McFarlands have donated large parcels of land to Westwood to maintain open space. This was their intent with the land in question.
I agree wholeheartedly!
Spot on Mr. Murray. To say the least. By persuing the law suit the Select Board has opened Pandora's box when it comes to overriding the wishes and the intent, of donations made to the town. Not to mention the resignation a respected Board member and the division it has created in the town.
Hi, Matthew, thanks for promptly posting this news! Just a heads up (thanks to some alert readers for pointing this out) that the individual’s name is “Robert,” not “John.” If you would like to make the edit, that would be appreciated to help avoid further reader confusion.
Hi Darlene, thanks for letting me know. Yes that was an embarrassing mistake. I had some trouble finding the "Edit" function but just discovered it and I made the correction. My apologies to Rob.
I couldn't agree more! Thank you for this thoughtful commentary.
Sorry, David, I'm no buying it. Your latest screed is yet one more attempt to confuse the issue, under the guise of a spurious legal opinion.
Agriculture is conservation. That’s why it’s in the Conservation Restriction.
Regarding Mr. Moore’s post:
Replies
The Rhode Island case referred to in the above March 26 opinion piece —Jesse Metcalf et al. v.
There's no need to be dismissive. Many of us appreciate Andy's thoughtful, informative, and reasoned articles. He obviously felt the pressure campaign and/or misinformation needed to be addressed.
This is not a total repeat of what was in previous posts and I appreciate the thoroughness of Andy Moore's post.