But McCavitt does have a legitimate point that ought to be fully investigated by the city. The city's Geographic Information System maps — which are based on assessor and zoning data — seem to show quite clearly that the building is mostly on land owned by the city, while Roland owns an adjoining piece of land. Meanwhile, the city's attorney has stated that neither the city nor Roland "can establish ownership of" the lots in question.
But here's the real question: Is ANYBODY in city government--elected or appointed--looking into this?
3 comments:
Tom, there's another question about this project relating to permitted uses in the special state Restricted Wetland zone. I understand that the Conservation Commission may be looking into it.
Ownership isn't necessarily the point. While I am not versed in Massachusetts land law, many states recognize forms of "prescriptive easement," by which a non-owner acquires rights to use land in a certain way by, essentially, using the land in a visible fashion without an objection from the record owner. Such a property is still owned by the record holder, but the user may continue his or her use.
Thanks Paul, problem is many, many of the property owners--ie taxpayers--do object.
I'd be one of them, at least until I hear an explanation.
Post a Comment