|
Size: 5485
Comment:
|
Size: 6498
Comment: post Kressel amicus brief
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| '''[[http://savelongwharfpark.org|Save Long Wharf Park (home page)]]''' |
|
| Line 9: | Line 11: |
| 1. [[attachment:plaintiffs-sjc-brief|Plaintiffs' brief|&do=get]]: Plaintiffs' brief arguing that land taken for urban renewal, including Long Wharf, is protected by Article 97. | 1. [[attachment:kressel-amicus.pdf|Amicus brief of Shirley Kressel|&do=get]], filed October 19, 2012. 1. [[http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/?brief=SJC-11134_07_Amicus_Conservation_Brief.pdf|Joint amicus brief|&do=get]] of the [[http://www.clf.org/|Conservation Law Foundation]], the [[http://maccweb.org/|Massachusetts Assocation of Conservation Commissions]], [[http://www.thetrustees.org/|The Trustees of Reservations]], and the [[http://www.nature.org/|Nature Conservancy]]. 1. [[attachment:dep-sjc-reply-brief.pdf|DEP's reply brief|&do=get]]: DEP's reply brief. 1. [[attachment:bra-sjc-reply-brief.pdf|BRA's reply brief|&do=get]]: BRA's reply brief. 1. [[attachment:Sierra_Club_Amicus_Brief.pdf|Sierra Club's amicus brief|&do=get]]: Brief of the [[http://www.sierraclub.org/|Sierra Club]], the nation's largest nonprofit, grassroots environmental organization, in support of plaintiffs Sanjoy Mahajan, et al. 1. [[attachment:plaintiffs-sjc-brief.pdf|Plaintiffs brief|&do=get]]: Plaintiffs' brief arguing that parkland, even if taken for urban renewal (as Long Wharf was), is protected by Article 97. |
Save Long Wharf Park (home page)
Documents from the legal and administrative proceedings
The following sections contain documents from the several administrative and legal stages. The sections are ordered from most to least recent, so that the most current items are near the top of the page, but the documents within a section are roughly in chronological order (so that it is easier to follow the individual stories).
Supreme Judicial Court
After the Superior Court decision, the Boston Redevelopment Authority appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court (the Massachusetts Supreme Court).
Amicus brief of Shirley Kressel, filed October 19, 2012.
Joint amicus brief of the Conservation Law Foundation, the Massachusetts Assocation of Conservation Commissions, The Trustees of Reservations, and the Nature Conservancy.
DEP's reply brief: DEP's reply brief.
BRA's reply brief: BRA's reply brief.
Sierra Club's amicus brief: Brief of the Sierra Club, the nation's largest nonprofit, grassroots environmental organization, in support of plaintiffs Sanjoy Mahajan, et al.
Plaintiffs brief: Plaintiffs' brief arguing that parkland, even if taken for urban renewal (as Long Wharf was), is protected by Article 97.
BRA brief: Brief of the Boston Redevelopment Authority arguing that land taken for urban renewal, including Long Wharf, is not subject to Article 97---thus, that it may be changed to a new, non-park use without legislative authorization.
DEP brief, DEP brief appendices: Brief of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) arguing (in the main) that the license does not create an Article 97 land disposition, and thus that it was legal for DEP to issue the license to the BRA to convert part of Long Wharf to a restaurant.
Superior Court
After losing in the OADR (Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution), the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court. This phase lasted from February 2010 until June 2011.
Complaint stating the issues and starting the Superior Court appeal.
BRA's additional response to plaintiffs' main brief/arguments
Plaintiffs' brief arguing that Long Wharf was taken for article 97 purposes
Plaintiffs' brief arguing that land taken for urban renewal can also be protected by Article 97
Plaintiffs' additional exhibits and references relevant to Article 97 protection of the site
Judgment by Judge Fahey, June 2011, voiding the waterways license because (1) Long Wharf is protected by Article 97, and (2) the license counted as an Article 97 disposition.
Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution (OADR)
The procedure for challenging a waterways (Chapter 91) license is to file an appeal with the DEP's Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution (OADR). This appeal lasted from October 2008 until January 2010.
Plaintiffs' initial challenge to the waterways (Chapter 91) license, starting the OADR process.
OADR presiding officer's recommended final decision affirming the Chapter 91 license (allowing the BRA to lease the end of Long Wharf to a late-night restaurant and bar).
Chapter 91 (waterways) license
The applicant, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, applied to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for a Chapter 91 (waterways) license to enlarge and enclose the shade pavillion at the end of Long Wharf in Boston, in order to build a late-night restaurant and bar. The written determination was given in September 2008.