Fact Check: Whitaker Woods Proposed Phase 2 Rec Path

Claim: The paved path through Whitaker Woods was first approved in 2014 by the BOS and Conservation Commission.

Fact: False. In 2014–2015, plans focused on the Bancroft parcel and Mountain Division rail corridor. Whitaker Woods was explicitly off-limits due to deed restrictions. Neither board approved paving in Whitaker Woods.

Claim: The 2015 Town Meeting authorized the Selectmen to apply for grants to construct the path in Whitaker Woods.

Fact: False. Article 21 only authorized applying for grants for the Bancroft alignment. Public assurances were made at the time that Whitaker Woods was not part of the plan.

Claim: MWVTA obtained funding in 2022 with BOS support, realigning the path to Whitaker Woods.

Fact: Misleading. The 2022 EDA grant ($2.1M) marked the first time Whitaker Woods was included. This was a major scope change, not just a realignment, and was never brought to a town vote.

Claim: The final location of the path was set on a site walk with staff, the CCC, and members of the public.

Fact: False. No BOS-sanctioned site walk ever chose Whitaker Woods. The alignment only appeared in 2023–2024 hearings, after 60% design was complete.

Claim: The deed allows paving because Whitaker Woods trails were already modified for skiing and snowshoeing.

Fact: Misleading. The 1971 deed requires the land remain in a “wild and natural state.” Ski grooming is seasonal and reversible. A paved corridor is a permanent alteration.

Claim: Paving continues Chubby Whitaker’s legacy of inclusive access.

Fact: False. Chubby Whitaker’s documented 1971 intent was to preserve the woods forever wild and natural for recreation like walking, skiing, and snowshoeing — not paving. The words inclusive are not included anywhere in the deed document.

Claim: “MWVTA and donors have paid the Town over $350,000 for design. If approvals are overturned, the money is lost, along with $700,000 CDW and $2.2M EDA funds.”

Fact: Classic Sunk-cost argument. The money already spent does not justify proceeding with an alignment that may be legally invalid or unviable.

Risk of grant loss is exaggerated. Grants often allow re-scoping or reallocation if alignments or details change. This happened during Phase 1 construction.

The real issue is whether Conway is committing to an alignment that violates deed restrictions and exposes the Town to legal and financial risk.