Gentz’s Legacy?

Why does Council Boss Tom Gentz feel the need to give away Charlestown property rights?

By Will Collette

One issue to watch in 2014 is the maneuvering over the 78 acres of wooded land bought by Charlestown for $2.14 million to prevent the land from being used for a pair of large wind turbines. Given the amount of rancor within the town over the project and its dubious financial viability, buying the land was, in my opinion, the best solution.

We solved a major problem by buying that site, even though we took the long way around to do it. But instead of letting the healing begin over this rancorous matter, Town Council Boss Tom Gentz (CCA Party) has made clear his intentions to take yet another controversial step. As the deal was being done, he announced that he wanted to also put some non-municipal agencies in charge of the land by granting one or more conservation easements on the property.

Initially, Gentz had a plan to simply set up an ad hoc Super-Committee that would be dominated by non-municipal groups with an interest in getting conservation easements on the land. This committee would of course tell the Council that, yes by golly, the town ought to give them conservation easements. Then the CCA Party-dominated Town Council would naturally grant them their wish.

If all this sounds eerily familiar, it ought to because it’s similar to the scenario that Gentz and his colleagues approved to pursue a plan to spend just under $1 million in public money for the dilapidated, abandoned campground owned by the Westerly YMCA on Watchaug Pond. That mishigas, which came to be known as “Y-Gate,” was blocked by Jack Donoghue’s lawsuit over violations of the state open meetings act and general public outcry against a very bad idea.

In the Y-Gate scandal, the initial plan was for Charlestown and the state to give the Charlestown Land Trust the million bucks they needed to buy the junked out campground (later determined to be only worth half that amount) from the Westerly YMCA. In return, the Land Trust would give Charlestown a conservation easement of the type the Land Trust deemed to be worth literally less than nothing.

In the case of the ex-Whalerock property, Charlestown has already paid $2.14 million for the land but now Gentz wants to give controlling rights over the use of that land to one or more groups, a list that includes the Charlestown Land Trust, one of Y-Gate’s central players.

In a rare move, Solicitor Ruggiero tells 
Boss Gentz NO

While Boss Gentz appears to have absolutely no learning curve, apparently our Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero does. Ruggiero was consulted after Councilor Paula Andersen (D) objected to Gentz’s attempt to railroad his Y-Gate style plan through without getting a Solicitor’s opinion. Paula’s proposal was too reasonable for Boss Gentz to simply blow off in his usual manner.

Even though Town Solicitor Ruggiero defended the town’s ad hoc special interest Y-Gate committee in court (and lost), this time, Ruggiero told Gentz that any committee formed to deal with the ex-Whalerock property must conform to the Town Charter. Specifically, that it has to be composed of full time Charlestown residents which the Y-Gate committee did not.

During the whole Y-Gate scandal, Boss Gentz insisted there was no need for the issue to be put before the voters. He also argued the same position in the closing debate over the $2.14 million purchase of the ex-Whalerock land. Aside from the issue of principle, namely that Gentz and the CCA Party had, in the past, argued for voter approval of major expenditures and land deals, they apparently only meant those deals that are initiated by others.

Once again, however, Town Solicitor Ruggiero contradicted Boss Gentz saying that the town may not give away conservation easements on the former Whalerock land without the matter being expressly approved by the voters. Ruggiero didn't make this up - it's in the Town Charter.

Slattery's motion elbowed Gentz's aside

A somewhat chastened Boss Gentz reported these Solicitor opinions at the Council’s November meeting, though he tried to preserve some elements of his original plan to bypass town commissions.

But Gentz couldn't even keep his own CCA Party troops in line. Gentz was effectively pushed aside by his deputy Dan Slattery. Slattery moved, and the Council adopted, a resolution putting the Conservation Commission in charge of coming up with a plan for the management of this new parcel of town land.

Boss Gentz noted some but not all of the non-municipal agencies who might be angling for a free conservation easement on the ex-Whalerock property, which is now officially called the Charlestown Moraine Preserve. 

He mentioned the Charlestown Land Trust, the Audubon Society and, for some reason, the Frosty Drew Observatory. He also listed the US Fish and Wildlife Service, calling them a “conservation group” even though they are, in fact, an agency of the federal government.

In an e-mail he sent to Town Clerk Amy Weinreich, Boss Gentz named the Arnolda Improvement Association and the Nature Conservancy. According to Boss Gentz, Arnolda Improvement, the Land Trust and Frosty Drew expressly asked for easements. Audubon and Fish & Wildlife were listed as potential recipients, and the Nature Conservancy was listed because they volunteered to help with “trail design.”

Even though the groups on Boss Gentz’s list have a long and for the most part positive history in Charlestown, nearly all of them are run by people who don’t make Charlestown their home. Such is the case with Audubon and the Nature Conservancy. But also the Charlestown Land Trust, who’s Treasurer Russ Ricci was their front man on the Y-Gate deal even though he is a Providence resident.

Why doesn't Gentz trust the people of Charlestown to protect their
own interests?

Fish & Wildlife chief Charlie Vandemoer is a South Kingstown resident. The two top officers listed with the Secretary of State for the Frosty Drew Observatory are President Clarkson Collins, a Kingston resident, and Kathy Applegate, a resident of St. Augustine, Florida.

Even the venerable Arnolda Improvement Association lists out-of-state residents as its top two officers – President Anita Baxter of New Hartford, CT and Arthur Haskins of Suffield, CT.

As you take in the fact that these groups are led by people that are not Charlestown residents, you can understand why Boss Gentz’s plan to set up a committee dominated by them failed to comply with the Town Charter, according to Town Solicitor Ruggiero.

I’m sure these are all very good people and organizations. But Charlestown taxpayers just plunked down $2.14 million of Charlestown’s money for this property. Wouldn't it be appropriate for Charlestown to want to make sure that the people who control our land actually live here?

Several times during the course of Council debate on this matter, CCA Councilors said the only way to protect the land in perpetuity was to give away irrevocable conservation easements. Implicit in their remarks is the fear that some future Council, perhaps one controlled by deranged Democrats, will decide to do something terrible with the property. Or if not terrible, then something that bothers Ron Areglado and Mike Chambers.

What awful vision of a future land use appears in Boss Gentz’s fevered dreams? Nuclear power plant? Nah, that was tried in the 1970s just across the road and was beaten. Garbage dump? Nope, Copar will probably have that covered. Casino? Ashram? Crematorium? Nerve gas factory?

Bear in mind that Charlestown owns this property and any future private use of that property would have to be approved by the voters.

It was clear that Boss Gentz and the CCA Party Council majority do not trust the town, its voters or any future Council to manage the land responsibly. Maybe that’s the reason why he wants to give control over the property to people who do not live in Charlestown.

Or perhaps Boss Gentz’s thinks he can redeem his failure to sell the Y-Gate Scam by pulling off a similar hustle. 

Or maybe this is Boss Gentz’s legacy. Perhaps part of the deal is that the property will be re-named in his honor.

Or perhaps this is simply another example of Gentz’s “pay to play” concept of governance, a straight-up patronage deal, where Gentz gifts town property to groups whose leaders have been major supporters and donors to the CCA Party.

Personally, I’d like to see what the Conservation Commission comes up with. It’s a nice piece of relatively unspoiled land with a lot of interesting natural features, flora and fauna on it. Why couldn’t it be used as a town natural history park, similar to Westerly’s moraine park and trails? I like the idea of that land staying in its natural state but with the opportunity for people to enjoy and learn from it.

As we learned during the Y-Gate debate, granting property rights to private groups, e.g. the Charlestown Land Trust, could mean restricted access to our own property. 

I’m sure their intentions are good, but this is our land and I would like to see the town manage for the good of all the people.