This post expresses the views and opinions of the author(s) and not necessarily that of Westwood Minute management or staff.
I attended Westwood’s Special Town Meeting on Monday, and saw many other Westwood residents who planned to speak, but ultimately didn’t have a chance to be heard during the meeting.
I’m sharing what I planned to say in the Special Town Meeting below in the hope that it might encourage all of you – no matter which side you’re on – to share your opinion. Your thoughts about this issue matter, and you deserve a chance to be heard.
---
I grew up in this town, and I am very disappointed by how personal the discussion about the meadow has become. We’re neighbors, and this situation did not have to be so divisive. The Town could have looked for a different way to support the Bean Farm that didn't require a tax-funded lawsuit against the Westwood Land Trust, a nonprofit organization.
I do not want this lawsuit to go ahead, and I struggle to see how the Select Board chose to sue the Westwood Land Trust with the intent of making a decision that was in the best interest of all of the taxpayers of Westwood. I also believe in the importance of conserving the Clapboardtree Meadow. Farming is incredibly important, but supporting farming did not require the cost of a lawsuit and the division in our town. There is other land in this town that the proponents of this lawsuit could’ve farmed, but they chose not to, seeking instead to try and farm the meadow.
Please remember that no matter what your position on this matter is, you weren’t asked if you wanted your taxpayer funds to be used on a lawsuit to turn conservation land into farmland before the Select Board initiated their lawsuit – your voice wasn’t part of the equation. Voting against indefinite postponement and supporting the warrant articles will enable your opinion to be heard, regardless of which side you stand on.
When Duncan and Ellen McFarland donated the land, they wanted to conserve it, not have it turned into farmland. The Westwood Land Trust independently agreed that leaving the land as a meadow is what's best for the ecological wellbeing of the town – for the bees, butterflies and animals that benefit from the meadow. Ellen and Duncan believe in conservation so deeply that they recently offered $465,000 to repurchase the land, for a second time, to stop the town’s lawsuit, and to maintain the meadow exactly as is.
If you were working for Westwood and representing taxpayers’ – all of your – best interests, would you choose to turn down an offer of $465,000 from the original donors to keep the land exactly as it is now, a meadow? $465,000 could help with the cost of the fire station, with the cost of school upgrades – would you turn that down on behalf of the whole town, and instead choose to use tax funds on a lawsuit against a nonprofit?
Why were all of you – the residents of Westwood, who are funding the lawsuit – not asked if you would prefer that the Town put the offered funds towards the cost of a fire station instead of ignoring the McFarland’s offer and proceeding with a lawsuit? Does this lawsuit benefit you as much as lower taxes would benefit you?
With a $465,000 offer for the land, and the only stipulation that the land remain as a meadow - in exactly the same state it is in today - I fail to see how ignoring the offer and funding a lawsuit against the Westwood Land Trust was in the best financial interest of the residents of Westwood. There are other ways the Town could support farming that would not require taking a piece of land that's protected by a conservation restriction.
Please vote to override indefinite postponement and support the warrant articles so your voice can be properly heard.
31° and Sunny
