Dear Ms Healey,
It is quite clear that you have ignored all of the fine details of our complaints proving that what the Town of Wareham and the Buzzard's Bay Coalition did was illegal. You appear to be concentrating on a bath house when the main complaint concerns the leasing of a portion of land dedicated to the public via the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
By allowing the Buzzard's Bay Coalition to lease any part of our dedicated land you are allowing the eventual takeover of our parks, bluffs and seashore. You are setting a precedent which will allow the private use of all of the dedicated land in the state. The law clearly states that this cannot be done. Dedicated land cannot be given way in bits and pieces. We do not pretend to be lawyers but the law regarding dedicated land is clearly spelled out in Dunphy vs the Commonwealth et al, which you are ignoring.
In 2017 David Warr, the man claiming to be the heir to the dedicated land in Onset, revitalized the name of a corporation called the Onset Bay Grove Association in order to find a means of allowing the town to fraudulently lease part of the land to the Buzzard's Bay Coalition, of which he is a member. In 1920 his grandfather William Warr bought 91 shares of the OBGA. Five years after the land was taken from that corporation and given to the public, via the court, and three years after the town accepted the dedication.
David Warr's family never owned one inch of the land in question and even if that had been the case, the land is dedicated to the public and cannot be "sold, leased, transferred or conveyed." If you had read Attorney General vs the Onset Bay Grove Association you would have known that. We have explained everything to your assistant Jillian Riley via numerous Emails and documents which your office has obviously chosen to set aside in preference to those of the politicians, the town and the BBC.
Had the legislature studied the documents presented to it by Rep. Gifford and Sen. Pacheco as it should have , Bill S.1152 would never have passed, as the legislature has no authority over dedicated land. According to the law we read it would have been considered an invalid bill. Correct me if I'm wrong.
By your refusal to become involved you are making it clear that, in your eyes, the cases of Attorney General vs the Onset Bay Grove Association as well as Dunphy vs the Commonwealth are no longer of any value, although they are constantly used in cases where dedicated land is involved. That what is being allowed in Onset can now be allowed throughout the State of Massachusetts. That anyone claiming to be an heir to dedicated land can allow it to be leased to whomever he or she may choose. That our forty plus acres of seashore, parks and bluffs no longer belong to the public, but to a man who has absolutely no right to them. That the land in Rockland, Mass, mentioned in Dunphy can now be used as a skating rink instead of a park for which it was dedicated.
By your refusal to act on the public's behalf you are setting a precedent which will have far reaching implications and will open all of the State's dedicated land to developers. Your suggestion that we hire an attorney is your way of wiping your hands of us instead of upholding the law, as is your duty.
We're a group of average citizens who are trying to prevent our beaches, bluffs and parks from being taken over by a private organization. They have been dedicated to the public for over one hundred years, and now because of your decision not to intervene, they will be lost to us.
What is happening here in Onset is a disgrace and a violation of every law designed to protect the public from land grabs such as this. If you have not been made aware of our complaints than I must apologize for my remarks. But if you have been made aware and have chosen to side with big money and politics then you no longer represent those who voted for you.
Marilyn Knowlton
Comments
Post a Comment