Dear Readers,
In 2012, our lawyer, Thomas A. Kenefick III, shared his belief that because this case involves the Massachusetts Constitution, either the City of Westfield, or us, would eventually request a final decision from the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. Though everyone wishes to win a case at every level, we have always been prepared, and have always expected, a request for this case to be heard by the SJC to be made.
Amongst its several statements, The Appellate Court ruled that the Cross St. Playground was not originally acquired by the City of Westfield for public recreational purposes, and therefore, is not protected by Article 97 of the state Constitution. This train of thought places in danger of development, Boston Common as well as Westfield’s Park Square. Neither parcels were acquired for recreational purposes by their respective towns. Subsequent to their acquisition though, the towns transformed the parcels into public parks. Westfield acquired the James Noble land on Cross St. in exchange for approximately $100 in taxes owed by his heirs. Westfield then developed the Cross Street Playground on that site. Boston Common and Park Square were developed on their respective sites, too.
As Appellate Court judge, J. Milkey wrote in his opinion, “…nearly all of Boston Common was originally acquired by the town of Boston in 1633 for general purposes, but over time, ‘it is plain that the town has dedicated the Common and Public Garden to the use of a the public as a public park.”
Though Judge Milkey wrote that the Court’s ruling was constrained by the SJC’s interpretation of two other Article 97 related cases, he added,”I write separately…in the hope that the Supreme Judicial Court someday will revisit such precedent.” Our side couldn’t agree more.
Former Mayor Knapik’s 2010 Open Space and Recreational Plan clearly describes the CSP as being under “full” protection on page 37, and being a “Permanently Protected Open Space” on page 73. The Appellate Court wrote that that the Mayor’s Open Space Plan describes the Cross St. Playground simply as “open space”, as if the CSP were some ‘general purpose’ land without meaningful municipal designation. We wonder who informed the Appellate Court judges that the CSP was simply “open space”? Prior to its want for ‘free’ space to build a school upon, it is clear that the City of Westfield coveted the Cross St. Playground as a permanently protected public recreational facility. Westfield pulled the same trick in the 1980’s when it built the Paper Mill School upon ‘free’ (HUD granted land) on Paper Mill Road. The City claimed then that it had no idea THAT land was protected by the National Park Service.
Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the Cross St. Playground remains protected under the National Park Service. As far as we’ve been informed by the State, Westfield has yet to fulfill the NPS’ statutory requirements in order to use the playground for a school project.
This case has implications reaching far and deep into every Massachusetts city and town that possess “Cross St. Playgrounds” and the like. This is what the case means to us – the protection and defense all innocent neighborhoods being taken advantage of by their local governments.
All of us defending the legal use of protected recreational open space look forward to having an opportunity, if granted, to address the State Supreme Court on this issue.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Smith
Daniel J. Smith
