Opinion: Debate Discussion About Dedham Rail Trail Inaccurate

In a letter to the editor, Michael Cocchi, a Dedham Town Meeting Representative for Precinct 6, attempted to clarify statements made about the proposed Dedham Heritage Rail Trail at the town election debate on April 4. According to Cocchi, some of the statements made were inaccurate.

The recent election season saw some vigorous discussion on various topics affecting the town, one of which included the proposed Dedham Heritage Rail Trail. Although nothing specific to this project was up for decision, the Rail Trail nevertheless became a focus for some candidates. Unfortunately for voters, many of these discussions included incorrect assertions or assumptions portrayed as fact in certain remarks. On behalf of the Friends of the Dedham Heritage Rail Trail, I would like to provide some fact checking of statements that were made in these forums (Dedham TV Board of Selectmen candidate program, Debate at Riverdale). Below are the paraphrased statements, followed by a clarification.

Statement: “The Rail Trail was voted down at Town Meeting, so it’s a done deal”

Fact: Last Spring, Town Meeting voted on Article 19, which aimed to do two things: 1) Fund a traffic (circulation) study for the Avery, Middle, and High School campus and surrounding neighborhood and 2) Hire an outside collaborator to establish a process for dialogue and community discussion about the possibility of a Rail Trail in the future. This was not a vote on whether we should or should not have a Rail Trail in Dedham. Since the article did not pass at Town Meeting, the result was that a traffic study was not funded (an identical traffic study was subsequently voted on in November 2018 and funded by Town Meeting from Dedham taxpayer dollars), no collaborator was hired, and the Town forfeited the $50,000 state grant. No decision was made about whether or not to pursue a Rail Trail in Dedham.

Statement: “Nobody knew who had jurisdiction [over the corridor]” and “The title was not clear [on ownership]”

Fact: Town Counsel performed a title search, which included an exhaustive review of the deeds and records pertinent to the question of ownership of the rail corridor. The result? Town Counsel determined that the parcel is indeed owned by the Town of Dedham. Also, it is worth clarifying that ‘ownership’ is different’ than ‘jurisdiction.’ As Town Counsel determined, the Town owns the rail corridor; the School Committee has jurisdiction over the segment from the start of the school campus on Mt Vernon to the Walnut Street bridge; the remaining sections are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen.

Statement: “Neighbors [to the rail corridor] were not involved and did not support the project”

Fact: It is inaccurate to state that neighbors do not support a Rail Trail in this location. Over the years that this project has been discussed, input from neighbors of the rail corridor has been sought; some oppose while other support the project. Last year, the Dedham Times published several letters from direct and indirect abutters of the corridor who support the project. The purpose of establishing a collaboration process (via Article 19 last year, see above) was to create a forum and structure for obtaining input from all stakeholders to determine if the project should even move forward.

Statement: “Was the use of the language of eminent domain with regard to the Rail Trail appropriate?”

Fact: It was made clear in multiple forums that the language of eminent domain in Article 19 was standard legal language that the Town includes for these types of land use articles. Of more importance, there was no mention of eminent domain in the motion (based upon Article 19) that was presented on and voted by Town Meeting, further evidence that there was never any intent of invoking this legal maneuver to secure land for the trail. This language has appeared in other warrant articles in the past and was not questioned at that time (for example: Spring 2017 Warrant Article 23 regarding Birch St; Fall 2017 Warrant Article 19 regarding Quarry Rd; Fall 2018 Warrant Article 5 regarding 10 Bryant St).

Finally, one candidate did remark during the Dedham TV Board of Selectmen program that (paraphrased) “We should redirect energy from Rail Trail supporters to other projects like Wigwam Pond rather than rehashing this issue [the Rail trail].” While this is one approach, many members of the community continue to support the possibility of the Dedham Heritage Rail Trail; in fact, over 800 residents have signed petitions in support of this project, and there is no indication that support has wavered. It is important to support multiple opportunities for green space and passive recreation in town, but these are not mutually exclusive with the Rail Trail project.

While I appreciate the efforts made by the candidates and the forum moderators to explore the Rail Trail topic during this past election season, it is unfortunate that inaccurate information was part of those discussions. The residents and voters of Dedham deserve better.