Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Misconceptions about discontinuing roads
Wondering if Templeton would actually be acknowledging owner ship of the road (s) by the act of voting for discontinuance, I looked for any case law concerning this issue; what I found was that the act of discontinuing a road does not conclusively establish that it was a public (Town) road. In Witteveld v. City of Haverhill, 12 Mass. App. 877 (1981) states: "The discontinuance may have signified no more than an abundance of caution against the possibility that a public way did exist."


I also wondered why the state would want Templeton to take over this road right now and I can only think of the homes for whomever, as in what type of people does the state have housed on the grounds of the TDC right know, also with the renting of the barn (s) and the dairy operation, I can see why the state would want to turn the responsibility over to the Town, especially with recent state budget cuts. If the Town of Templeton is not receiving any tax dollars for any of these operations and no permits from the Town have been requested or required for any of the activities up there so far, then why should Templeton take over anything up there? Up until recently, there was a campus type police force up there, so if that is or has been a Town Road all this time, why all of a sudden does the state now want to push it onto Templeton? Just who is housed up there and what kind of risk is associated with them?


By discontinuing a road or roads, the Town is no longer responsible for the maintenance of the road (s) and the Town is relieved of liability for harm to people using the road (s) and since the state has some new buildings up there with residents, the state can have the responsibility to maintain the road (s) and all that goes with it to include policing it. Hopefully, the wording of an article for Town Meeting Warrant is proper and correct with approval of Town Counsel and this action is approved at Town Meeting which will make the state a little more forth coming in its dealings with Templeton concerning the TDC.


Jeff Bennett

No comments:

Post a Comment