What has happened in Benedict Farm Park is a travesty. The Montgomery Town Board has not protected its own parkland, parkland the public trusts them to protect.

In 2018, the board signed an agreement to “sell the standing hay” of the fields of the park. Nothing wrong with that. Been done before. Helps keep the fields in good grassland condition. In the past, the mowing was done with protections for fledgling grassland birds born in the fields. It produced a little revenue for the town to cover other park costs, like mowing the walking trails. In 2017, the contract brought in $2,800.00. But the 2018, a 5 year, no bid (!), agreement was signed with the current farmer and brought in nothing for the Town for the first two years, and, then, only $500.00 per year for the next three years. From here, the problems ballooned.

The Agreement states no disturbance of the sod is permitted. This provision is meant to protect the grasses on a large scale and to protect archeological “hot spots” clearly marked on the Park’s Master Plan map. The farmer plowed under the grass, planted winter rye, harvested the rye, tilled again, planted GMO soybeans and is on the verge of spraying the entire cultivated area of the park in Glyphosate, numerous times, if need be. None of this is, nor was, permitted by the Agreement he signed with the Town.

Benedict Farm Park was purchased, in part, with money from New York State grants. When a municipality uses state money to purchase parkland, that parkland must be used for park purposes. Any change in usage, say from bird nesting hayfields to a commercial cropland rental lease, would be considered by the State as “alienation” of parkland and would require an act of the state legislature. According to the State’s “Handbook on the Alienation and Conversion of Municipal Parkland”, “In order to convey parkland away, or to use parkland for another purpose, a municipality must receive prior authorization from the State in the form of legislation enacted by the New York State Legislature and approved by the Governor.” This is part of the reason the “agreement” with the farmer was not a lease, but rather, “a sale” of standing hay. The problem is, and the Town’s liability arises from, the fact that until June 18th, of this year, when the Town’s new attorney sent a letter to the farmer halting his actions for the time being, nothing was done by this, or the former Board, to protect the park. The attorney’s letter reads, in part, “Without the written permission of the Town Board, you have cultivated the sod at the Park and planted soy beans. Accordingly, you have violated the Agreement.” And continues, “Under no circumstances are you to apply herbicides, pesticides, organic or inorganic material to the areas that you cultivated unless you receive written authorization to do so.” (I have to admit I find it refreshing when an attorney actually agrees with me.)

The Town Board meets on July 2nd. They will be discussing this fiasco. The Supervisor adds they are not likely to take any action at that time. I would like to remind them, “In addition to enforcement and monitoring action by the State, citizens may bring lawsuits against municipalities to enforce parkland alienation principles. Parkland alienation lawsuits are usually brought in the New York State Supreme Court in the form of a “declaratory judgment” proceeding. While declaratory judgment proceedings are often restricted by a statute of limitations that requires that an action be commenced within a certain period of time after the injury or its discovery, there is no statute of limitations for claims seeking injunctive relief.” I am asking, is there the statute of limitations in this case, and if so, when did the counting begin?

In order to protect the Park, the Town Board needs to clearly state 1) the agreement with the farmer is void. 2) The farmer must put up a performance bond to guarantee the fields are returned to high quality grasslands. 3) The Board must state unequivocally that they DO NOT grant permission to apply those substances restricted temporarily by the attorney’s June 18th letter, now, or in the future. 4) After growth, and before going to seed, the farmer must agree to brush hog the soybeans as a green fertilizer and then reseed the fields in high quality grassland seed using a no-till method. Many studies are available to aid in the selection of the seed types.

Furthermore, after the fields are returned to quality multi-grass (no mono-crops), any future “agreements” on the sale of standing hay must include, but are not limited to, the following conditions: 1) No harvesting of standing hay before June 24th of the given year to ensure the fledgling birds of the first hatch are in the air and can protect themselves, 2) Open bidding (no more sweetheart deals like this one), 3) No disturbance of sod, 4) No application of pesticides, etc., etc. 5) A performance bond and money upfront from the winning bidder.

As far as I can see, the new supervisor of the town has done his best to understand the troubling aspects of this issue. Now it is time for him to lead the Board in the right direction and resolve this issue in the interest of the Park, the People and the stressed wildlife. He is here to protect the town, not the farmer.