17° and Light freezing rain
Your Post Misleading and contains a baseless accusation
I try to read the information and arguments being submitted by the Westwood Land Trust supporters, consider them, and occasionally respond in a reasonable manner. I can understand and respect the opinions of those who believe that because the McFarlands want the land to remain as a meadow, we should follow their wishes. However, your post is misleading in that it completely misstates the lawsuit (clearly you haven’t taken the time to read the lawsuit). And it is beyond insulting to the character of the Select Board members; I believe you owe them an apology.
First, the lawsuit is not about intent, it is about whether the Westwood Land Trust is behaving in a reasonable manner. See below for the actual verbiage of the lawsuit:
“The Town also seeks equitable, injunctive relief, both preliminary and permanent, against the WLT precluding the WLT's exercise of claimed rights) in excess of those to which it may be entitled. Specifically, the Town owns land located at 665 Clapboardtree Street, Westwood, Massachusetts comprising approximately 28 acres which was historically known as Prout Farm (the "Prout Farm"). The Prout Farm is subject to a Conservation Restriction ("CR") held by the WLT. The CR allows agricultural uses of the Farm subject to the WLT's approval, however such approval "shall not be unreasonably withheld." On or about March S, 2024, the Town, through its Conservation Commission, sought the WLT's approval for certain agricultural uses at the Prout Farm. After an extended exchange of communications, the WLT, through its counsel, informed the Town on November 11, 2024, that the WLT will never allow any agricultural use of the Prout Farm. The WLT's categorical disapproval is patently unreasonable. Accordingly, an actual controversy has arisen between the Town and the WLT in that the Town is entitled to certain agricultural uses on the Prout Farm but the WLT has categorically prohibited all agricultural uses. This dispute affects the Town's rights as to its own real property because the WLT's assertions and claims, allegedly made pursuant to the CR, violate the Town's rights in and to the Town's own real property.”
Obviously, the lawsuit says nothing about the “intent” of the Conservation Restriction or the donor.
Second, you are the only one that I have heard suggest that the Select Board is acting based on some sort of “quid pro quo” basis. If that were true, it would be public corruption and should be referred to the Attorney General for prosecution. I will assume that you have no basis for this outlandish claim that you make in an anonymous third party manner. If you do, please put it forward for us all to see.
Third, you need to read your own writing. At one point you say “everyone agrees that farming and conservation can co-exist”. Later you say “in 2001 our voters approved Article 33 which authorized the land to be ‘used for conservation and passive recreation’. Commercial usage, for farming or anything else was not approved.” This seems to be the latest argument that the WLT supporters are putting forward. As you first said, farming and conservation can co-exist; so why is farming not allowed under Article 33? I am not a lawyer, but based on the WLT supporters’ new claim, I would like to know if a Town needs to name all possible uses in an Article presented to accept the Title to a piece of land -- or be forever forbidden from using the land in an unnamed manner?
Finally, since you identified yourself as a “past member of the Clapboardtree Preservation Society and a founding member of the WLT”, perhaps you can answer these questions for all of us:
If the true purpose of the Conservation Restriction was to preserve a meadow and not just an expansive rural view, and farming will destroy the meadow, why didn’t the Conservation Restriction simply state that farming is not allowed?
Why would the Conservation Agreement allow farming even with the Westwood Land Trust’s permission?
I think the reason these questions have not been answered is simple: everyone knows it does not make sense. Maybe you can explain how it makes sense -- no one else has.
