To the editor:
The small town of Nahant, Massachusetts — population just over 3,000 — continues to battle Northeastern University to preserve its last stretch of unspoiled green space, East Point. It’s a true David vs. Goliath story: Nahant’s entire municipal budget is around $16 million per year, while Northeastern’s annual operating budget exceeds $1.5 billion. This article aims to explain, in plain terms, why Nahant must continue this fight — and why other towns across Massachusetts and beyond should care deeply about the outcome.
In a troubling decision, Judge Peter Karp ruled against Nahant’s effort to protect East Point by taking limited conservation easements through eminent domain. His decision misinterprets both the nature of conservation and the democratic will of the town’s residents.
At the heart of Judge Karp’s ruling is the assertion that Nahant’s stated purpose — to conserve open space — was merely a pretext to block Northeastern’s expansion plans. The judge wrote that “the dominant reason for the Town’s taking is not to preserve the East Point Easement Areas for open space and conservation purposes, as the Town claims; but, rather to stop Northeastern’s development project because it would purportedly detract from the town’s scenic and residential nature.”
But this reasoning overlooks the obvious: preserving open space inherently requires preventing development. Conservation and opposition to new construction are not mutually exclusive — they are often inseparable. Judge Karp’s logic, if taken seriously, would make almost any town effort to protect natural land legally vulnerable.
Even more concerning, Judge Karp minimizes the overwhelming democratic vote that authorized the taking. At the 2021 Annual Town Meeting, Nahant residents voted 647 to 271 — a 70% majority — to move forward with the easement acquisition. Courts traditionally defer to the results of such votes. As the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized in Pheasant Ridge Associates v. Burlington, “[w]e should not easily attribute improper motives to a town, and to its citizens voting at town meeting, if there were valid reasons that would have supported the town’s action.”
Rather than respecting that principle, the opinion selectively focuses on stray comments by town officials and even notes that “audience members openly booed” when Northeastern’s plans were presented — as if ordinary public disapproval invalidates a legally authorized conservation effort. The decision also brushes aside the grassroots Keep Nahant Wild movement, which gathered hundreds of signatures. That groundswell of community support speaks volumes about the town’s genuine commitment to open space — yet Judge Karp barely acknowledges it.
Finally, the most glaring procedural problem: Judge Karp resolved the case on summary judgment, despite admitting there were “numerous instances” of disputed facts, including conflicting interpretations of key public statements. Issues like motive, community purpose, and environmental impact are exactly the kinds of matters that deserve a full trial, not a rush to judgment.
At stake is not just one town’s natural treasure. If this decision stands, it sends a chilling message: that when small towns try to preserve land for future generations, they risk being crushed by powerful institutions with deep pockets and legal armies.
Nahant’s fight is not just about East Point. It’s about whether local democracy, environmental stewardship, and common sense will still have a place in our legal system. Other towns should be watching — and rooting — for Nahant.
Harlan Harvey
Nahant
