Michael Chambers’s ongoing quest to dig up the “dirt” on Charlestown’s Democrats (with a little help from “Peyton Storm”)
By Linda Felaco
If you’ve ever wandered over to the CCA “blog” and read any of the “guest posts” by Michael Chambers (be sure to take some Dramamine before you go), you’ve no doubt noticed that he’s rather a one-trick pony. Pretty much every post revolves around some alleged failing by town Democrats,[1] of which, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m one.
Though I’ll confess that Chambers’s exhaustive series of posts a couple of months ago claiming that the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee had no platform simply because he was unable to locate it on the CDTC website was mildly entertaining. See here, here, here, and here, plus this one that he wrote under the pseudonym “Peyton Storm,” apparently fearing that too many posts would dilute the Michael Chambers “brand” kinda like how Stephen King’s publisher made him publish a bunch of books as “Richard Bachman.”[2]
Eventually, Chambers stumbled across the CDTC platform (obscurely labeled “Platform” in the drop-down menu on the CDTC home page) and declared “victory” by claiming that it was posted in response to his persistent demands when in fact it’d been there since 2010 (though 2 days later he proceeded to find fault with the fact that the planks were not explained to his satisfaction). Woodward and Bernstein, you ain’t, Mike. Here’s some free advice: If you were thinking of taking up a second career as an investigative reporter in your retirement, fuggedaboutit.
Yes, the CDTC does have a platform, and one of the planks is environmental protection. So when I saw Chambers’s recent post titled “Do We Really Protect the Environment?” I was curious to see what he had to say on the subject given that I personally have always felt that we all need to do more to protect the environment, and as far as I’ve seen, other than their reverence for open space, the CCA only pays lip service to environmental issues.
 |
| Welcome to North Charlestown! |
Though as is typical with Mike, his claims about the Democrats are unrecognizable. He writes, “We had proposed rebuilding the infrastructure of the city a few months ago and several local Democrats decried the suggestion.” Not sure who that “we” is and which city he was proposing rebuilding, much less which local Democrats supposedly “decried” the suggestion.
Local Democrat Will Collette has in fact suggested that we buy bankrupt Central Falls and rename it North Charlestown in order to fill our affordable housing quota. Unfortunately, unlike us here at Progressive Charlestown, on the CCA blog they never link to original sources that might give you a clue WTF they’re talking about, so it’s hard to know just what Mike the Inscrutable is suggesting.
In this and several other recent posts, Chambers has harped on the supposed “irreversibility” of land-use changes. This might be surprising news to the residents of Detroit, which is in the process of being recolonized by wild animals in areas that have been depopulated by the housing crash and job losses in the auto industry. Indeed, Rhode Island was 90% deforested prior to the Industrial Revolution, but when farms were abandoned, the forests that we have today quickly came back. And of course Ninigret Park and the Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge do not look much like the heavily industrialized Navy air base they were up until less than 40 years ago.
 |
| Apparently, the feds didn't get the memo about the "irreversibility" of land-use changes when they established the Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge on the old naval air base. |
Chambers tries to make the case that we should preserve undeveloped land by increasing urban density. And I agree with him. It’s called “Smart Growth.”
There’s just one small problem: In a free country, you can’t force people to live in the city against their will. It’s all fine and good to say that people should live where the infrastructure already exists to support them, but people moved out of the cities and into the suburbs and exurbs by choice—like many current Charlestown residents and indeed Chambers himself.
If Chambers truly believes his own rhetoric, he should return to the city for the sake of Charlestown’s environment. As Robert Yarnall replied to Chambers’s posting on Oppressive Charlestown, “So when do you plan to tear down your house, … plant a few native species tree seedlings and grasses, and move back to the big city?”
Like so many people who retire here, now that Chambers is here he wants to close the door to newcomers. But is it “environmentalism” to preserve your own immediate environment at the expense of the environment of others by outsourcing power generation, waste disposal, fossil fuel and mineral extraction, and other environmentally unsound activities to other locales?
As a CCA e-mailer pointed out back in April, only to receive an insulting, condescending, and completely off-base lecture from the CCA Steering Committee, we cannot save Charlestown while the rest of the planet goes to hell.
And when you consider the recent mass shooting in a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, I’m not sure cramming more people into densely populated areas is such a good idea. As I wrote last year, living in the city makes you crazy—literally. Why should the vast majority of people be confined to densely populated areas while us blessed Charlestowners get to enjoy our precious open space without sharing it with others?
Chambers then goes on to cite figures about the lengthening of the average commute time in recent decades in order to argue that people should live closer to where they work, both to conserve fossil fuels and keep land undeveloped. And again, I agree in principle.
 |
| Workforce housing for Kenyon Mill? |
Though I have to wonder if Michael has ever studied the commuting times of the employees of Kenyon Mill, the largest polluter in the state of Rhode Island, or toured the mill to see the working conditions there. Many employees of the mill I’m sure would prefer to shorten their commutes by living in housing they could afford nearby.
To paraphrase one CCA Planning Commission candidate who currently serves on the Affordable Housing Commission, I guess they need to do a better job of saving their money until they can afford to live here.
Then again, even if Chambers could somehow wave a magic wand and bring about his first wish—move everyone else to urban areas—commuting times would in fact increase along with increasing traffic density and actually worsen air pollution since cars pollute more while idling than while operating at highway speeds. I worked in the same place and lived the same distance from the office the entire 16 years that I lived in the D.C. metro area, and my commuting time had nearly doubled by the time I left—and I only lived 7 miles from work. I had co-workers who commuted all the way from Baltimore and Manassas, which I personally would have found unbearable.
Then again, with modern telecommunications equipment, far more people could telecommute than actually do, thereby allowing people to live in less densely populated areas and relieving traffic congestion and fossil fuel use. But ssh, don’t tell anyone; god forbid anyone move here from the city. Vacationers (and their money) are always welcome; new residents, not so much.
_______________
[1] Except for one real headscratcher about a $4000 pair of Super Bowl tickets. I’m still trying to figure out what that one has to do with us.
[2] It’s particularly entertaining when Chambers talks to himself by commenting on “Peyton’s” posts. UPDATE, 8:30 p.m.: The mutual admiration society between Michael Chambers and “Peyton Storm” continues. Now Mike’s sockpuppet is commenting favorably on his posts as well.
