Abutters should collaborate with town on ‘reasonable guidelines’ for Estabrook
In its current restricted use, it is hard to see the inconvenience to the abutters, set back as they are on the large properties they do own.
I write in response to the most recently published Estabrook Road letter. As a decades-long user of Estabrook Woods, I have followed the proceedings closely, concerned with losing access to the hundreds of acres of beautiful woodlands, ponds, and streams that lie beyond the disputed trail.
I take issue with the author’s claim that the Revolutionary War was focused on property rights and would point out that New England heritage includes a strong tradition of the “commons” — shared resources accessible to the entire community.
To my understanding the abutters never purchased the disputed land, or at least sole access thereto. Their claim is that what was previously a public way became their exclusive property when the town stopped maintaining it. I might ask, why did it become their property and not mine? I think the answer is clearly that it is all of ours and thus a shared resource, even if not maintained. Such has been the ruling of two layers of courts. I think our patriot ancestors would agree that the system worked as it should and that the law aligns with the values of open civic use that many in Acton hold dear.
I don’t defend the town’s specific actions and do empathize with the chaos the abutters endured when the trail was promoted, uncontrolled, and heavily trafficked. However, in its current restricted use, it is hard to see the inconvenience to the abutters, set back as they are on the large properties they do own. I would encourage them to drop the lawsuit and engage with the town on a set of reasonable guidelines for the trail’s use (times, leash restrictions, etc.), preserving access to these beautiful woods for future generations of Concordians.
Tony Confrey
Lowell Road
