Justices hear dispute over Nahant's use of eminent domain to block Northeastern development
Loading...
Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments over whether the town of Nahant lawfully used eminent domain to create conservation easements on land owned by Northeastern University, with Nahant saying the taking protected recreation and wildlife and Northeastern arguing the vote was a pretext to stop the project.
BOSTON — The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in the dispute between the town of Nahant and Northeastern University over whether Nahant lawfully used eminent domain in 2021 to place conservation easements on land Northeastern owns.
Tony Martin, counsel for Nahant, told the justices that residents "have treasured the rare open space and oceanfront beauty afforded them by East Point for decades," and that a supermajority at town meeting voted in 2021 to use eminent domain to secure recreation, open-space conservation and historic-preservation easements. Martin said the town's order of intention limits any easement uses to the purposes debated at town meeting and cited committee deliberations and prior open-space plans as evidence of long-standing public interest in protecting the parcel.
The town's case, Martin said, rests on decades of local planning and sworn testimony: he pointed to witness statements by hunters and residents who, he said, used the Northeastern parcel for recreational activities until 2018. "They're also to ensure access of the hunters to the parcel for recreational purposes," Martin said, arguing that the record supports a conclusion that voters acted in good faith.
Attorney McLaughlin, representing Northeastern, disputed that account and urged the court to defer to the lower court's careful review of a voluminous record. McLaughlin said the record shows a sustained campaign to "stop the project" and cited Board of Selectmen minutes from April 1, 2021 — weeks before the town vote — as evidence the town was still formulating a conservation rationale. "This whole conservation is a pretext," McLaughlin argued, and later told the court: "This is just a town abusing the power of eminent domain." He also highlighted a Mercer/RKG fiscal analysis cited in the record that, according to selectmen's statements, estimated long-term fiscal costs to the town between $14 million and $27 million.
The justices pressed both sides on when and how a court may look behind a facially valid town-meeting vote. Counsel debated the import of this court's Pheasant Ridge decision, which addressed when courts may infer improper motive despite ordinary deference to legislative bodies such as town meeting. Martin urged that Pheasant Ridge applies only in extreme records where there is no evidence of legitimate purpose and that here the committees and plans provide that evidence. McLaughlin warned against extending Pheasant Ridge into a rule that would permit towns to "dream up a reason" to block lawful development.
The argument also turned on factual questions in the summary-judgment record: whether the parcel was identified in the town's open-space plans or covered by natural-resource zoning, whether the town or residents had lawfully used the parcel for recreation, and whether selectmen's pre-vote statements are binding or merely argumentative. Each side pointed the court to specific portions of the record; Martin cited multiple volumes of the summary-judgment record and testimony, while McLaughlin highlighted the statement of undisputed facts and selectmen minutes that he said show the taking followed a decision to stop the project.
After extended questioning, the bench said it would review the parties' submissions and the record. The justices did not announce a ruling at the hearing.
The case presents the court with a test of how Pheasant Ridge and other precedent apply when a town's stated conservation purpose coincides with an effort that has the practical effect of blocking privately proposed development.
