SJC decisions affirm municipal authority in land use matters

Two recent decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have addressed significant questions involving municipal authority over land, public purposes and local decision-making.

In both cases, the MMA filed amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs, in support of the municipal position.

The cases involve very different circumstances, but both decisions have important implications for cities and towns seeking to exercise their legal authority to advance legitimate public purposes.

Nahant v. Northeastern
In Town of Nahant v. Northeastern University, the SJC on Sept. 3 reversed a Superior Court decision that had blocked Nahant from using eminent domain to acquire conservation and public-access easements over property owned by Northeastern University.

The Nahant case arose from Northeastern University’s plans to expand its Marine Science Center at East Point, a peninsula that includes both town-owned property and property owned by Northeastern. The proposal generated significant local opposition, particularly due to concerns about development of one of the town’s remaining areas of open space as well as continued public access to the area.

In 2021, Nahant voters authorized the Select Board to pursue the acquisition of property interests for open space, recreation, conservation and historic-preservation purposes, ultimately issuing an order of intention to take conservation and access easements covering approximately 12 acres of Northeastern’s property. Northeastern challenged the taking, arguing primarily that the town was acting in bad faith and that its stated conservation purposes were merely a pretext for stopping Northeastern’s development plans.

A Superior Court judge agreed with Northeastern, but the SJC reversed that decision in a unanimous ruling, emphasizing that conservation and preservation of open space are longstanding and constitutionally recognized public purposes. Importantly, the court rejected the notion that the taking became invalid merely because it would also prevent Northeastern’s proposed development.

The MMA, with the Massachusetts Municipal Lawyers Association and KP Law, filed an amicus brief in the case supporting Nahant and the broader authority of municipalities to exercise eminent domain for legitimate public purposes.

Emerald Necklace Conservancy v. Boston
Just weeks earlier, in Emerald Necklace Conservancy Inc. v. City of Boston, the SJC issued another important decision involving municipal control of public property.

The case involved Boston’s plans to renovate and reconstruct White Stadium in Franklin Park through a public-private partnership involving Boston Public Schools, the city of Boston and Boston Unity Soccer Partners.

The Emerald Necklace Conservancy challenged the project, arguing, among other things, that the stadium parcel was protected by Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which generally requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before protected parkland can be disposed of or converted to another use.

The SJC affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment in favor of Boston, finding that while the land had originally been acquired by Boston for use as public parkland, subsequent legislative actions in 1947 and 1950 had changed the legal status of the property. As a result, when Article 97 was ratified in 1972, the stadium parcel was no longer subject to Article 97’s protections. The court therefore affirmed the Superior Court judgment, clearing the way for the White Stadium project to continue.

The MMA filed an amicus brief in the White Stadium case in support of the city of Boston, as the case presented questions of broad importance to municipalities concerning the legal status and use of public property, the interpretation of Article 97, and the ability of cities and towns to make decisions concerning municipal facilities and public land.