WESTFIELD – On Monday, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Cross Street playground is Article 97 protected, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court and Appellate Court, and ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Virginia Smith et al.
The decision summary, recorded by C.J. Gants, read as follows: Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, approved by the Legislature and ratified by the voters in 1972, provides that “[l]ands and easements taken or acquired” for conservation purposes “shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of” without the approval of a two-thirds roll call vote of each branch of the Legislature. The issue on appeal is whether a proposed change in use of municipal parkland may be governed by art. 97 where the land was not taken by eminent domain and where there is no restriction recorded in the registry of deeds that limits its use to conservation or recreational purposes.
We conclude that there are circumstances where municipal parkland may be protected by art. 97 without any such recorded restriction, provided the land has been dedicated as a public park. A city or town dedicates land as a public park where there is a clear and unequivocal intent to dedicate the land permanently as a public park and where the public accepts such use by actually using the land as a public park. Because the municipal land at issue in this case has been dedicated as a public park, we conclude it is protected by art. 97.
“The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s ruling amounts to a correction of the Superior Court and Appellate Court’s improper decisions. We appreciate all of the support from friends, family and strangers we’ve received over the past six years. We’ll have more to say in the coming days,” said Thomas Smith, speaking for the plaintiffs.
Mayor Brian P. Sullivan and Westfield Public Schools Superintendent Stefan Czaporowski said they would not be deterred in their focus on building a new elementary school.
“It’s not going to change the vision I’ve had since the day I entered (this office), taking care of the students, and getting a building built for students in the downtown area,” Sullivan said.
Both he and Czaporowski said they were already in the process of looking to build a smaller 400-student elementary school, as opposed to the original plan for a 600-student elementary school. They also said they are still looking at the Ashley Street school site as a location for the new school.
“The superintendent and the School Committee made tough decisions that opened up new options,” Sullivan said, speaking about the decision to move the fifth grades into the middle schools.
“400 students is fairly smaller than a 600-student school,” Czaporowski added.
Sullivan said that the Ashley Street school site “is still by far the correct location. It’s the neighborhood that needs it the most. The majority of students could walk to school,” he said, adding that he would still like to give that neighborhood a school for 2020.
When asked about other potential locations for a new elementary school, Sullivan said any other location would bring in completely other factors that people don’t think about. “We’re analyzing a smaller building that wouldn’t need to (encroach) on the Article 97 land,” he said. The original 600-student model school required use of 1.37 acres of the Cross St. playground, which spurred the lawsuit.
Sullivan also said the ruling had ramifications beyond the new school that involves state interference in local decisions. He said it “created a huge part of government dictating what we do. The Article 97 decision has just created a governmental oversight. There’s a fine line in this decision that could be very restrictive based on what the legislature does,” Sullivan said.
“We’re going to continue to move forward on what we’ve been working on. Ultimately, at the end of the day, our focus is about the elementary students,” Sullivan added.
