#1 2010-10-14 07:12:10
Here is my question for the Super TA:
After babbling on for over five minutes about how amazing you think you are, did you not think that the good people of this community deserved to know that the state had declined to hold the conservation restriction on the Swifts Beach property that the TAXPAYERS have invested over a couple million dollars into? Of course you wouldn't worry about that because you ARE NOT A TAXPAYER. Maybe you will discuss this on your little tv show? Mr. Andrews, there is a lot of work to be done here, no one has time for these petty games. You owe the residents an explanation, I won't hold my breath.
Offline
#2 2010-10-14 09:32:11
what does this mean that the state declined to hold the conservation restriction? can someone explain the consequences of this?
Offline
#3 2010-10-14 09:34:27
watchtower wrote:
what does this mean that the state declined to hold the conservation restriction? can someone explain the consequences of this?
The town gets the joy of knowing Sweet Brucey has a nice view of the beach.
Offline
#4 2010-10-14 11:08:34
From what I understand any one of a number of entities can hold a CR. What is barred is an entity holding one on itself. (So for instance the town can't hold one on any town owned property).
What I don't know is the reason why the state turned this down but very often it is because of the requirement to expend manpower and money ensuring that the agreement is being upheld.
A private group could conceivably hold this CR. It doesn't have to be the state.
Offline
#5 2010-10-14 11:44:57
If the State takes a Conservation Restriction on the property (any property), it will come with a laundry list of rules, rights & responsibilities. Is it possible that the State declined because it could not get the CT structured the way it wanted?
In the 1980's & early 90"s, the MDC (now the MWRA) bought many properties in central Mass for watershed protection near the Quabbin & Wachusett reservoirs. Then, funding dried up, and they turned to using conservation restrictions on targeted land. Much cheaper.
I had the pleasure (?) of reviewing dozens of these CR deeds, perhaps hundreds. In all of them, there were detailed descriptions of what the property owners could and could not do with their land. Same involved agricultural uses, forestry, and most certainly, future development. It would not surprise me that the State specified precisely what it wanted in the way of a CR, and the Town/CPC did not agree.
there may also have been legal issues, as it is a waterfront parcel and accidents do happen, And, what about responsibility for repairing post-hurricane or winter storm damage? Who does it, who pays?
Lotsa questions. Be nice to have some answers.....
Offline
#6 2010-10-14 12:21:38
thanks for the info. probably the cpc will try to find another agency to hold the restriction tho it seems like it has been a long time coming. this is a huge mess that belongs to the brucie/brenda/jane legacy.
Offline
#7 2010-10-15 19:05:49
There is an article on the website of him-who-shall-not-be-named (trying to slime past the BillW censor team) that addresses the conservation restriction on the Swifts Beach parcel. It raised a question that no one seems to be addressing at this point.
Why was the State department which reviewed the CR application the Fish & Wildlife gang? Would not the Department of Conservation and Recreation be the more likely candidate?
In a prior post here, I noted that my past life experience included many hours of review of CR deeds for watershed protection. It also included the review of many deeds for the Fish & Wildlife crowd. They seem to focus on acquiring parcels that are suitable for what? fishing & hunting! Duh! Lots of wetlands, out of the way parcels.
They just do not seem like a good match for a waterfront parcel with major recreational potential.
What's missing here?
Offline
#8 2010-10-15 19:47:48
notalawyer - missing is truth and honesty. Not missing is collusion.
Offline
#9 2010-10-15 21:14:34
notalawyer wrote:
Tt also included the review of many deeds for the Fish & Wildlife crowd. They seem to focus on acquiring parcels that are suitable for what? fishing & hunting! Duh! Lots of wetlands, out of the way parcels.
They just do not seem like a good match for a waterfront parcel with major recreational potential.
What's missing here?
If that's not a rhetorical question, observe this publicly financed, private beach. Bonus points for spotting Château [redacted].
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#10 2010-10-24 21:43:54
Simply put: The land does not qualify - environmentally or legally. No Environmental group is going to take responsibility for all the problems that they would be assuming.
Last edited by mama bear (2010-10-25 05:43:39)
Offline
