Documents from the legal proceedings

Supreme Judicial Court

The Boston Redevelopment Authority appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court (the Mass. Supreme Court).

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  1. Plaintiffs brief arguing that Long Wharf was taken for article 97 purposes

  2. Plaintiffs brief arguing that land taken for urban renewal can also be protected by Article 97

  3. 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.