The Land Trust is Still Desperately Seeking a Dismissal

It is readily apparent that the WLT and their supporters are desperately trying to end the pending lawsuit before the Judge has a chance to issue a decision.

Why do they think it is so important to have the lawsuit dropped? It doesn’t seem to make sense. If they believe their position is correct, the judge will rule in their favor, so they should let her do her job.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the WLT to negotiate with the Town and reach a compromise solution? To date, they have not offered to compromise in any way.

WLT Vice President Abigail Homiller posted a well written argument summarizing the WLT’s position. In it she explains why she believes the Select Board should drop the lawsuit regarding the Town’s property rights on 665 Clapboardtree Street.

I believe there are a number of flaws in the argument that she has presented, summarized as follows:

- It is a fact that the majority of voters at the Special Town Meeting (STM) voted to request that the Select Board drop the lawsuit. I believe that the Special Town meeting showed that the WLT supporters were far better organized, financed, and took the time to attend the meeting. However, as we all know from the two FS-1 Special Town meetings, the votes taken at STMs are not necessarily reflective of the overall Town voters’ opinions. In both of those cases, the STM’s vote showed strong support for the FS-1 plan. Then, in the Town wide votes that followed, the plan was soundly defeated.

- The petitioners and voters at the STM regarding the lawsuit were well aware that the vote was non-binding. This may also account for why the supporters of the Town’s lawsuit did not take the time to attend the meeting; it should be noted that far more people have signed petitions supporting farming in Westwood than signed the Special Town meeting petition.

- If people really believe that the fate of the lawsuit should be decided by the voters, it needs to be put to a Town wide vote to accurately assess the will of the people. Personally, I believe we need to abide by the Select Board’s decisions, even when we disagree with them.

- Regarding future expenses of the lawsuit, there are a number of Town residents (and I am sure non-residents who cannot believe the WLT’s intransigence) that have offered to raise the funds to support the lawsuit.

- Although Ms. Homiller states that the language in the CR is clear, it is obvious that it is not, and that is precisely why it is being litigated.

- The CR language explicitly allows farming with the WLT’s permission. It seems the issue in dispute is whether the WLT is being reasonable in their denial of the Town’s (as property owner’s) right to allow farming at 665 Clapboardtree Street.

I believe there is ample evidence that the WLT has not been reasonable:

1) Town Counsel Pat Ahearn tried extensively to come to an agreement with WLT Attorney Berman. Attorney Berman made it clear that there was no compromise that would allow farming of any nature that they would consider.

2) While the WLT claims they have a report showing that farming would destroy the meadow, they refuse to make that report available for the Town to review.

3) Despite the term “meadow” never appearing in the CR, the WLT seems to assert that the primary purpose of the CR is to preserve the “meadow”.

4) It was WLT Attorney Berman that first suggested the WLT may litigate the matter.

Some believe that the Town should sell 665 Clapboardtree to Duncan McFarland for the $475,000 that he has apparently offered. Here is why I do not agree:

1) Duncan McFarland signed a legally binding Conservation Restriction on 665 Clapboardtree Street; he needs to abide by the terms spelled out in that agreement.

2) There is a dispute between the owner of the land (the Town of Westwood) and the WLT who is responsible for the enforcement of that CR. That dispute is being litigated, and a judge will rule on whose interpretation is correct. It should be noted that based on the President of the WLT’s conflict of interest, it is reasonable to question whether she is simply attempting to enforce the terms of the CR, or acting to fulfill the wishes of her client (the McFarlands’ Charitable Family Trust).

3) The Town needs the Judge’s ruling on what rights they have on this property -- and other property -- that the Town owns on which the WLT holds the CR.

4) Duncan McFarland is able to pay $475,000 for 665 Clapboardtree Street, and thereby circumvent the pending lawsuit. This would not allow the judge to rule on the meaning of the language in the CR. I don’t think that is right; not everything is for sale.

5) I don’t think you can put a price on the value of Westwood continuing its history as a farming community. If you were to try, I would argue it far exceeds $475,000.

I believe that the WLT knows that they have not acted reasonably and has concluded that the Judge is going to rule against them. This would explain why they are desperately seeking the dismissal of the lawsuit before the Judge has a chance to issue a ruling, and using their followers to pressure the Select Board in support their cause