Cape Poge residents are pushing back on the assertion that they illegally installed a gate blocking The Trustees of Reservations (TTOR) from accessing critical habitat at Cape Poge Wildlife Reserve in Edgartown.
In a statement shared with The Times, the defendants in the lawsuit dispute that the recently installed gate is completely blocking the Trustees’ access to an area the nonprofit uses to monitor endangered species.
“We were surprised to learn of this lawsuit through a press release, particularly given our generations of good-faith collaboration and historical cooperation with TTOR as neighbors,” the residents said in a Wednesday afternoon statement.
The gate, a single chain with a padlock connected to two wooden posts, is blocking vehicle access to a trail called Road to the Gut, which the Trustees say is the only reliable route that allows them to monitor and protect endangered species on the properties. The Trustees filed a suit in Massachusetts Land Court on Tuesday, requesting the gate be removed or unlocked.
Edward B. Self Jr., Judith Self Murphy, Jay K. Osler II, Erin O. Michaud, and Mark S. Osler are listed as defendants.
In their statement, the defendants state that the gate has been locked since February — not March, as the Trustees said — “following incidents of trespass and property damage across multiple Cape [Poge] properties.”
The property owners say the Trustees have been able to access the Cape Poge properties by other routes.
“They have access today,” the statement reads. “While we understand the inland road offers convenience, this gate is not preventing their access.”
They also say the Trustees do not have an agreement or easement for the lot where the gate is located. The property owners said they “would have welcomed a conversation about permissive access before the legal action was taken,” and believe the Land Court will “uphold the principles of private property rights in this matter.
“For generations, vehicle travel along this inner road through private property has been permitted to both the public and TTOR in a spirit of cooperation,” the statement reads. “In that same spirit, we remain open to constructive dialogue with TTOR to reach a balanced solution that respects both its desire for convenient access and the established rights of private landowners.”
Michaud, who sent The Times the letter, said, “We feel our statement suffices,” and declined to comment further.
The Trustees called the neighbors’ welcoming of conversation and surprise over the lawsuit “disingenuous” in a statement last week. The nonprofit’s officials said they tried multiple times to reach the property owners, but were “stonewalled.” A note of an impending lawsuit if inaction continued had also been sent early this month, they stated.
Additionally, Trustees officials said they do not object to the gate being used to discourage trespassers, and had requested the combination or a key to the lock from the property owners. The nonprofit’s officials also stated that their use of the road is protected by an 1891 court-ordered partition.
“The Trustees regret having been forced to take the step, but we were left with no choice,” the statement reads. “Like these private residents, the Trustees remain open to constructive dialogue, but it must be one that recognizes that all owners of the divisions from the 1891 partition share equal rights to use the 1891 right of way.”
The Trustees also underscored that the “only alternative route” to their properties west of Cape Poge Lighthouse was unreliable, being accessible only at low tide and “subject to interruption by storm events, particularly nor’easters.”
Peter Sliwkowski, president of the local advocacy organization Martha’s Vineyard Beachgoers Access Group, highlighted that “severe erosion” has rendered Road to the Gut the only viable path for the Trustees’ vehicular travel.
“This isn’t about convenience,” Sliwkowski said. “It’s about compliance with environmental law and the public interest in protecting sensitive coastal ecosystems. Locked gates don’t change that.”
A preliminary injunction hearing for the case is scheduled to be held by Land Court Judge Sarah A. Turano-Flores on May 22.
It’s a shame that for so many years TTOR and the Cape Pogue homeowners were able to work together for the benefit of all. Not sure where that fell apart, but maybe it is time for the courts to require a mediated solution instead of picking winners and losers.
Only TTOR charges people to walk & drive to the beaches. It’s private property that is why people pay them.
TTOR aren’t beach managers or bird cops and the chain is not an old ROW. TTOR seeks a 2nd route beyond the Lighthouse because the 1st is not accessible at high tide and during storms. Duh? Spring tides and storms close Chappy Ferry, SSA, Dock St, 5 Corners too. As for “… compliance with environmental law and the public interest in protecting sensitive coastal ecosystems.” Don’t fall for that. Since 2000, TTOR sold 44,686 stickers putting 1,528,261 one-way O$V transits over Dike Bridge causing extraordinary wear & tear, remediation is the key to sustainability. The land is shrinking, biodiversity is sadly diminished and yet TTOR wants to put 300 O$Vs, 24x7x365 down a 8’ wide middle of the dunes to the town Jetty then move all O$Vs through the woods past the lighthouse toward the Gut. No one drives on the beaches. It means ave 25,000 round trips per year over our private property. Hello, Land Court!
Folks from Nantucket to the Berkshires hope exploitation is not the theme of Ms Theoharides’ leadership or her brand of stewardship.
Dear Veruca Salt,
Thank you for providing a nonsensical explanation of your outrageous behavior. When the rest of us experience acts of trespass, we install Ring cameras. You have chosen to construct a locked gate on a public way. But to each their own! Your peerless act of skullduggery is one for the ages, and it surely will not be forgotten. We are pleased to hear that you believe “your statement suffices”. We would not want you to tax yourself by actually examining your moral compass. To be fair, lack of use has likely rendered that instrument ineffective. Best of luck with your upcoming rendition of “I Want It All” in Mass Land Court. Please feel free to weigh your petulance on the scale provided.
Your obedient and loyal servants,
Every Island Resident Who Doesn’t Own Property On Cape Pogue
The trail to which you refer is not, in fact, a “public way.” That phrase has a definition. That definition is wholly inconsistent with the legal status of all trails north and south of the Dike Bridge. If this were true, why on Earth would anyone PAY TTOR to access a way that the public is entitled to access, since the expense to maintain said way is so obviously shouldered by the tax-payers?
It’s fine to disagree with the conduct of others, but it might be more productive to disagree while living in the same objective reality as your opposition.
Let us finally put this silly fantasy to bed. Either accept this fact, or disprove it. Try to drive out to the lighthouse as soon as the weather permits. If you are told to leave by a CP resident or TTOR employee, call the police and report that someone is impeding your ability to travel on a public way. This will surely make for a fantastic MV Times article. If you are right, you have my word that I will promptly comment on said article to profess my stupidity on the matter.
You have surely spent many years driving on these beaches. I get it. That fact, however, has no bearing on whether these are public ways. Even TTOR doesn’t claim this is a public way. They don’t want it to be. They can’t sell access to places the public at large is entitled to go.
In a recent Letter to the Editor, Cape Pogue landowners claimed The Trustees “have access today” via alternate routes, suggesting the locked gate “is not preventing their access.”
That’s misleading.
The outer beach route they cite crosses land owned by Victor Colantonio—who has taken the opposite position in court. In Colantonio v. Trustees, he explicitly alleged that the Trustees have no legal right of access across his property and formally challenged their authority to use the beach route that traverses it. A Land Court injunction further described the route as “highly tide-dependent, subject to erosion, and may not be available or safe for use by vehicles.”
So, what one landowner calls a “viable alternative route” is, for another, the basis of an active lawsuit.
The letter also referenced a February trespass incident. But Edgartown Police records show no property damage occurred on Cape Pogue. The same individual later trespassed on Norton Point, causing $800 in damage—unrelated to the Trustees—and received a no-trespass order.
The rationale for blocking access doesn’t align with court filings, legal challenges, or police reports—and raises more questions than it answers.
Comments are closed.