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:
Mr Fenn I believe it’s Section 9, not Section 8. But well said.
In the purpose statement of the CR it states:
Mr. Moore,
I beg to differ as to some of the asserted facts within your latest post:
Correction: The Westwood Select Board members in 2000, when the Town formally accepted and acknowledged the Conservation Restriction on 665 Clapboardtree Street including the meadow, were Anthony Antonellis, Michael Walsh and Patrick Ahearn.
Thank you for correcting the use of Mr Moore's term "unanimous", however, his point stands.
Thank you for this very helpful explanation. I think it’s also important to keep in mind that the Bean Farm has stated that their intention would be to use the land “for generations”, so they have no actual intention of returning the land to a meadow state.
Thank you for this explanation. It is very surprising and disappointing that the Select Board did not do their own due diligence into the ecological consequences of farming as they were contemplating this lawsuit and asserting that it is in the "public interest"!
Who are the people associated with these initials? I’m not sure why an anonymous post would be published here. It’s important to know who is expressing these opinions.
Why do you want to know? Why is it important? Do you have something to say against their ideas?
Thank you, Mr. Christensen, for your helpful response to Ms. Galkowski. For additional clarity, we felt uncomfortable putting our full names after witnessing some baseless, negative accusations and remarks made from the WLT supporters toward the Bean Farm supporters.
I am curious about a few claims that you state here. Does denying the use of this particular land by the Bean Farm necessarily mean that the farm will cease to exist? If the farm closes or moves, does that necessarily mean that the Beans’ land will be fully developed?
Ms.Sullivan, I think your criticism of Peter Fenn's post is a little unfair.
Mr. Moore, I think it’s very inappropriate that you are projecting “criticism” and me being “upset” onto my comment, as someone who has felt more than welcome to voice your own opinions on this and other posts.
71° and Light rain
Replies
Thank you!
Beautifully said - thank you so much!