Once upon a time in Charlestown
Tom Gentz, Charlestown’s Town Council Boss, wrote a remarkable
letter that was published in the August 5 Sunday Westerly Sun and dutifully reposted in CCA’s “Blog and Mailbox.”
In this letter, Gentz not only accepts ownership for Charlestown’s tawdry
Y-Gate Scandal but also violates most of the sacred principles that are at the
core of his re-election campaign.
Oh, yes, just in case anyone might have forgotten, Gentz
ends his letter by reminding Charlestown voters that he is
running for re-election, presumably using the Y-Gate fiasco as a
centerpiece in his campaign.
For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, or have
really short attention spans, the “Y-Gate Scandal”
has roiled Charlestown for more than a year. If not for resistance from the
community, Charlestown taxpayers would have been stuck with a $475,000 tab for
a rural junkyard. State taxpayers would have been whacked for $367,000 (and
might still get whacked for $206,000).
Gentz’s August 5 letter tells his own twisted version of
events and laments his failed bid to screw Charlestown taxpayers.
The quick and fast history of the Y-GATE Scandal
“Y-Gate” revolves around a 27.5-acre abandoned campground on
Watchaug Pond that is owned by the Westerly YMCA.
Click here
to read all of Progressive Charlestown’s start-to-finish coverage of Y-Gate.
 |
| Y needs to money to pay for its partially-built new building on High St. in Westerly |
That plan was killed by out-of-state neighbors in the Sonquipaug neighborhood to the south of the camp who didn’t want anything built on the site since they
were using it as a free extension of their tenth-of-an-acre vacation properties.
Sonquipaug was aided by CCA Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, who publicly
supported Veazey’s plan while privately plotting to kill it.
After the Veazey plan died, the Y then latched on to the
Charlestown Land Trust as its partner. At first, the Land Trust was going to go
after a state grant and then raise private funds to match the state money. They
would then buy the camp from the Y and turn it into open space. Technically,
the Y camp is already zoned Open Space/Recreation, but it’s covered with 20
derelict buildings, old septic systems and lots of junk.
The old switcheroo
In his
letter, Gentz described this sleazy process: “I am proud of the process and thankful for the
volunteers who sought to save the land as open space. When the Town Council
denied a request to change the zoning from open space to residential over a
year ago, it intended to explore options that had not yet been investigated in
depth. This exploration involved due diligence and a number of players.”
These Y-Gate “players” brought the deal to the Town Council in
February 2012, where a majority led by Gentz voted to pay $475,000 from the
town’s Open Space/Recreation bond to buy an “easement” from the Charlestown
Land Trust. The Land Trust would then take the town money and the state money
and pay the Westerly YMCA $730,000.
We later learned that the $730,000 sale price was based on a completely fictitious land appraisal commissioned by the Land Trust.
Gentz describes this discovery as “local Charlestown Democrats called foul and lamented the Town
Council’s refusal to rezone the property to R-2A.”
This statement misrepresents both who did the “lamenting” and what
was being lamented. This remark is a repetition of the CCA’s intentional misstatement
– they persist in calling Progressive Charlestown a creature of the Charlestown
Democratic Town Committee, which it is not.
The CDTC never took a formal position on Y-Gate, though most of
the members, along with most Republicans and independents who weren’t among the
Y-Gate players, also opposed the deal.
Veazey withdrew his offer and no one else has come forward seeking
a zoning variance on the property, so what’s to “lament” about the Town
Council’s refusal to rezone the property?
Gentz then notes that the lawsuit by Dr. Jack Donoghue halted the
transaction. Dr. Donoghue sued the town for violating the state Open Meetings Act
when it failed to give proper notice about its February 13 vote to approve the
$475,000.
The judge in that case has just recently ruled that, yes in fact, Charlestown did violate the Open Meetings Act at its February 13 meeting where they voted to spend $475,000. The judge is also allowing the case to go on to
determine if the secret ad hoc group of “stakeholders” that came up with the
Y-Gate scheme that was approved on February 13 was also in violation of the
Open Meetings Act. According to court records, they never advertised their meetings or even bothered to take
minutes.
The town’s only defense is that
this secret group was not a “public body” under the law, even though it was
created by the Town Council and functioned in every way as any other ad hoc committee created by the town.
Gentz rebuffs the charges in the lawsuit and the public criticisms
of this disgraceful process by asserting that as “a CCA-endorsed candidate, I remain committed to doing what’s best for
Charlestown in an open, accountable, ethical, and fiscally responsible manner.
Any accusations of deception are simply without merit.”
If Gentz wants to be judged by his conduct during the Y-Gate Scandal, so be it.
Gentz also claims that “neither
the members of the CCA steering committee nor their endorsed candidates have
benefited from or participated in backroom deals. CCA-endorsed Town Councilor
Dan Slattery recused himself from voting as an abutter.”
Actually, that’s not true,
either. Progressive Charlestown first broke the story that on May 14, the Town Council – including Gentz and
Slattery – had a secret meeting in their Executive Session with Sonquipaug
“Mayor” Joanne D’Alcomo, Westerly Y chair Mal Makin and Charlestown Land Trust
Treasurer Russ Ricci. They worked out the backroom deal that then was presented at the public portion of the Council meeting.
This “backroom deal”
with Gentz and Slattery at the table was verified by Council member Gregg Avedisian’s sworn deposition (click here to read).
In the next installment, I will examine how Gentz’s claims in his
Westerly Sun letter violated the basic principles he claims he holds sacred.
