By Linda Felaco
If you’ve visited the website of the Charlestown Citizens
Alliance[1]
lately, or the letters pages of the Westerly
Sun, you’ve no doubt noticed that the CCA spin machine has gone into
hyperdrive over the questions that will be appearing on the ballot at the
upcoming town budget vote on June 1. Though as usual, one doesn’t have to
scratch far below the surface to see how self-serving (or simply untrue) the
CCA’s arguments are.
Cliff Vanover, a member of both the CCA Steering Committee
and the town Zoning Board of Review, took to the pages of the Westerly Sun to inform us that “numbers
show open space can pay for itself.” I found this an interesting argument
to try to make in light of the current debate going on in the General Assembly
regarding the land that was freed up when the entrance to I-195 was moved, the general
consensus being let’s do something
with that land, because leaving it vacant is of no help to our economy
whatsoever. But Vanover, ever the one-trick pony, has been trotting out his
discredited arguments about the supposed fiscal benefits that accrue from doing
nothing for years now and clearly isn’t about to stop.
Simple arithmetic would indicate that taking property off
the tax rolls decreases total tax
revenue, which is why our tax rates
have gone up steadily from year to year under CCA rule, to compensate for the
reduction in the number of tax-paying properties.[2]
But Cliff pulled some numbers out of his hat and determined that building
houses causes a net tax loss, whereas acquiring land as open space spares us
from all those tax losses we’d incur from having, you know, actual taxable
properties on it. Excuse me while I go get some aspirin.
Now, Cliff had the good sense not to spell out his real objection
to residential properties for the readers of the Westerly Sun, but in the CCA campaign literature and on their
website they’re brutally honest about what they consider to be an unbearable
drain on the town’s coffers, namely families
with school-age children.[3]
They even went to the lengths of creating a “cost of
development” calculator that purports to demonstrate the tax losses from
allowing new homes to be built. And they encouraged people to look around their
own neighborhoods, tot up the number of children, and calculate for themselves
how much those little parasites were sucking out of us.
 |
| Mathematical proof that children are parasites. Courtesy of the CCA. |
Again, common sense tells you it cannot possibly be true
that residential properties create a net tax loss, or every city and town
across the country where population is increasing would be sinking inexorably
further and further into debt. Even a cursory look at municipal bankruptcies
would tell you that generally they’re not caused by hordes of parasitic
families moving in and demanding schools for their children but by tax-paying
businesses moving out. But the CCA
has never been known to let a pesky little thing like logic stand in the way of
their self-serving rhetoric.
Meanwhile, the CCA Steering Committee informs us that “Question
1 Will Protect Agriculture and Our Rural Character.” Because of course in
the CCA’s apocalyptic worldview, our “rural character” is ever under constant
threat.[4]
We’re told that while “the November 2014 election ballot included a state
question that provided $3M to protect Rhode Island’s working farms, … without
local matching funds, none of this money will be spent in Charlestown.”
Which is true as far as it goes. But is writing the CCA a $2
million check the only way to provide those local matching funds? And is the
CCA pledging to use the bond funds for that purpose, and only that purpose?
They seem to be oddly noncommittal, saying only that “With the passage of
Question 1 on the June 1st ballot, we could have available funds in the coming years.” [emphasis mine]
Call me crazy, or maybe just a democrat, small d, but we
could, actually, ya know, hold a referendum on each individual property as the
situation arises instead of handing the CCA our credit card and telling them to
decide what to buy and when, which they then give
control of to their friends.
The CCA Steering Committee makes a similar argument in a
subsequent piece about protecting
the undeveloped land along the Pawcatuck. “All of this remaining land along
the river may eventually be developed”![5]
Sound the alarm!
“But we believe there is still time to save some of it”!
Whew, what a relief. “DEM and the Nature Conservancy have made preservation of
land along the Pawcatuck a priority, but their investment usually requires
matching funds, funds that might be available if voters approve Question 1 at
the June 1st referendum.” Funds, of course, that could also be
available by other means than by writing the CCA a $2 million check and letting
them decide what to buy and when, which they then give control of to their
friends.
There is in fact a clear and present danger to the Pawcatuck,
however, namely the Copar/Armetta quarry off Route 91 right in Charlestown—a
danger Charlestown has failed to mitigate. Except in this case, the danger will
not be mitigated simply by buying property along the river, with or without a
DEM easement, as the hazards of dust, noise, and pollution emanating from the
quarry know no property boundaries and respect no easements.
Regarding easements, ballot question #2 seeks to give away a
conservation easement on the Charlestown Moraine Preserve to a party or parties
unnamed, possibly a wealthy private organization with close ties to the CCA. In
the Westerly Sun, Planning Commissar Ruth
Platner argues for the easement by recounting
a litany of alleged misdeeds by previous town councils relating to various
open space properties and even invokes the specter of the dreaded casino. Because of course
there’s no surer way to rile up the CCA base. Never mind that we’re just across
the state line from the largest casino in the Western Hemisphere, Foxwoods, which
has been on the verge of bankruptcy as gambling revenue has been on
the decline, as well as the second-largest casino in the Western Hemisphere,
namely Mohegan Sun. Or that Twin Rivers is currently seeking to build a new
facility in Tiverton, which is planned as a countermove to the likely
resort casino that is expected to be built in New Bedford, creating yet more competition
for this mythical Charlestown casino in an already-saturated market.
Because
really what it comes down to is a matter of trust—and the CCA trusts no one but
themselves. Essentially, what the CCA is saying is, “We don't trust you,
the taxpayers who are footing the bill for this property, to manage it
properly, and so we need to act in loco parentis.”
Also on the subject of question #2, CCA resident pundit
Michael Chambers, recipient of a patronage appointment to the Zoning Board of
Review for his loyal service to the party, helpfully informs us that while
large recreational facilities like parks (hint, hint) can actually detract from
neighboring property values because of the “nuisance factor,” large
forest tracts increase property values within a 2.5-mile radius. And just
who do you suppose lives within 2.5 miles of the Charlestown Moraine Preserve?
But I don’t want to accuse Chambers of being completely
self-serving, because his reference to recreational parks being “perceived as
unsafe[6],
unnecessary,[7]
under used or overused, and a source of noise pollution, thereby detracting
from property values” is of course also a subtle dig at the Ninigret bond
question, not to mention devoid of one single shred of evidence or
documentation. The Arnoldans, another key CCA constituency, have historically
opposed any activity in the park that might involve, you know, people actually
going to the park. So while Chambers wants us to vote yes on the easement, he’s
also telegraphing his opposition to the Ninigret bond. Though I understand he’s
pretty active with the Rhythm and Roots festival and so might actually secretly
favor the Ninigret bond and the dogwhistle might be for the benefit of his CCA
overlords. Oh what a bind poor Mike must be in.
Which brings me to CCA Councilor George Tremblay. Tremblay
has been known to occasionally wander off the reservation and say things that
aren’t in the CCA script, such as his shocking admission during a council
meeting a couple of years ago that the CCA was giving
control of Ninigret Park to the Arnoldans and that it made him mad.
Tremblay has now been herded firmly back into the fold and informs us via the Westerly Sun that the Ninigret bond
question is the product of a “dissident
minority.” He invokes the specter of California-esque government
dysfunction were we to empower said dissident minority to take matters into
their own hands and force the Town Council to do that which it has been
dragging its feet on for lo these past 7 years, namely, putting the Ninigret
Park Master Plan into action.
I think Tremblay’s “dissident minority” is in fact the tip
of the iceberg of a silent majority—that same silent majority that came out to the
polls in 2011 and won us our lovely new beach pavilions. On June 1, let’s send
a message to the CCA that we’re tired of the cronyism and obstructionism. Vote
no on the two CCA-sponsored questions (#1 and #2) and yes on the Ninigret bond.
[1]
Which I find works better than Ipecac.
[2]
Though we did actually catch a break with the Y camp deal, since it ended up
being sold to a private party and so is now back on the tax rolls after decades
of tax-free ownership by nonprofits.
[3]
More on this in a future post.
[4]
Much like the radical right’s paranoia that Obama is going to take away their
guns, or invade Texas.
[5]
Though this imminent development might be news to whoever owns that 2+ acres of
waterfront property where Biscuit City Road dead ends at the river, which has
been for sale since before I bought my house in 2009.
[6]
Huh? Says who?
[7]
Again, can we get some references for this, Mike?
