A federal magistrate has ruled that a man who sold his summer home but kept a nonbuildable lot in Aquinnah is not entitled to a parking permit to use Philbin Beach.
The decision sided with the town of Aquinnah in a case brought almost two years ago by John M. Callagy, who was denied a permit to the town beach off Moshup Trail after he sold his Aquinnah home in 2007. The beach was given to the town by J. Holladay Philbin in 1968 with a deed restriction that said the property was to be used “by all permanent and seasonal residents.”
Both Mr. Callagy and the town had sought summary judgment, which results in a case being decided short of a trial. A hearing on the motions was held in January and the 30-page decision was issued July 27.
Mr. Callagy, a New York lawyer who lives in Darien, Conn., in the off-season, owned a home on Oxcart Road in Aquinnah in 1986. In April 2007, he sold the house and 2.2 acres of land, but retained a 13,600-square foot piece of land which cannot be built on under Aquinnah’s zoning bylaw. Mr. Callagy now owns a house in Chilmark.
In granting summary judgment for the town, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler said there was no evidence that the town had treated Mr. Callagy differently than other people in similar situations. Mr. Callagy had claimed among other things that the town had violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by granting beach stickers to short-term renters and allowing anyone to walk onto the beach.
The judge noted that Mr. Callagy has obtained parking permits to use two Chilmark town beaches since he bought a house there in 2005. And the court said he provided no evidence that the town of Aquinnah had denied beach parking permits to other non-resident taxpayers.
Even though the town lets people who arrive on bikes or on foot use the beach without a permit because the beach is difficult to get to, “it still serves the purpose of preventing people from other towns from gaining access to use Philbin Beach,” the court ruled.
This article appears in August 10, 2012.
I don’t understand how beach access by a short term weekly or fortnight renter can be allowed use of the beach under any stretch of the definition use “by all permanent and seasonal residents.”
Further examination would reveal a short term rental including exclusive beach access to be an economic endeavor subject to state sales tax and possibly excluded from the beach.
It is clear that closed beaches only cause more social and economic problems for the island, islanders and visitors alike. It is time to take back what is arguably the public’s right. Forty-eight other states agree. We only have to look toward the pristine uncrowded beaches of the Cape Cod National Seashore to see what lies ahead if we open the beaches to all. Crowds are able to disburse and everyone can enjoy the beach.
It should be noted that the Vineyard was not included in the CCNS because of back room (rich folks) deals that resulted in the formation of the Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank instead. Remember the last time you brought your family to that expansive and easily accessible south shore Land Bank beach? Me neither.
Agree with Alex, well said!
Apartheid indeed!