‘However, China took an enormous step on March 14 (2004). Vowing to “put people first,” the NPC (National People’s Congress) passed a constitutional amendment which states: “private property obtained legally shall not be violated.” If this step is done properly, it will, indeed, be of enormous value to the people of China. Property is, as noted, people’s savings, and now, for the first time, these savings will be liquid. It represents capital that people can use to improve their lives.’ Exerpt from China’s New Property Rights, by Peter Schaefer
Do the City of Westfield’s efforts to take Alice Wielgus’s farm by eminent domain for more baseball fields, over 4 acres of asphalt of parking and driveway loops in a flood plain, and a disk golf course in the woods next to the Westfield River, truly reflect such dire need to of the city? How many people know what ‘disk golf’ is? How many people in Westfield have been petitioning the City to build a disk golf course?
Remember, in 2012, the Law Department convinced the Conservation Commission to deem the athletic fields on the Cross St. playground as ‘surplus’ to the needs of Westfield. The Park and Recreation Department also voted to deem the Cross St playground’s athletic fields as ‘surplus’ to the needs of Westfield. Why did they do that? Even the Westfield Little League approved the loss of ball fields on Cross St! Based on these approvals made in 2011 and 2012, the city supposedly had a surplus of recreational open space. Was there such a lack of foresight that NOW someone’s private property is needed because Westfield refuses to develop land it already owns for ball fields, and a school, that it has to take a private citizen’s active farm? In the flood plain?
In March 2012, the Cross St neighborhood group presented the facts that the city was not following the state’s environmental laws protecting the Cross St. playground. We also highlighted the fragile agreement the city made with the Catholic Church to use a church parking lot for the proposed school’s faculty.
In May of 2012, under legal pressure to conform to the laws, the Mayor and Law Department pretended to convince the state and National Park Service that the city was conforming to the NPS’ laws, the Article 97 law, and the Energy and Environmental Affairs’ Article 97 Land Disposition Policy in order to avoid legal consequences for not following these laws BEFORE planning to build a school on protected land. Yet, in May and again in June, after the state warned Westfield that the city had to follow state and Federal laws in order to take the Cross St. playground land for the proposed school, the Mayor said “We’re going to just keep going until a judge tells us to stop, WEN 8/8/2012.” How does this expressed attitude convince anyone that the leader of the City of Westfield is willing to properly respect the state and Federal open space laws, Environmental Justice, and Alice Wielgus’ rights without being forced to do so?
Two years ago the Law Department acted on behalf of Mayor to persuade the Conservation Commissioners to declare the city Cross St. playground, as surplus recreational open space. Now, the Mayor AND the Law Department, who initiated the request to take Alice’s land by eminent domain, claim the city is deficient in recreational open space!
The Mayor claimed to the National Park Service and to the Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs that it is Westfield’s policy to only build schools in the urban neighborhoods. A Freedom of Information Act request for that policy yielded this response from the Law Department: ‘There is no such written policy.”
The citizens of Westfield would see a new school realized more quickly if the citizens demanded that a new school be built on the city’s School Department land that is NOT PROTECTED, and is so much larger than the tiny Cross and Ashley St. site. If a private citizen’s active farmland is taken in order to cover up the city’s numerous procedural mistakes, how long will it be until the next family farm, or protected open space, finds itself in the cross hairs? Does Westfield need to eminent domain farmland to spend more money on pitcher’s mounds and home plates, or are there more important needs the money could be spent on?
Sincerely,
Thomas Smith
