CCA attacks affordable housing - again



George Wallace, 1963
Charlestown role model?



In the guise of attacking some state legislation that probably has no chance of passage, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance once again displayed its contempt for working families, the elderly and children.



After a silly – and hypocritical – discussion of pending legislation, the Planning Commission (all of whom ran under the CCA banner) condemned Senate bill 533 and House bill 5554 as a state attempt to compromise Charlestown’s rural character.

In an e-bleat to its “vast” network, the CCA blasted these bills as promoting big developments with tiny lots, encroachment on wetlands which would be built up and down Charlestown’s glacial moraine.

Then the CCA printed a letter to the editor signed by Town Council President (and CCA Secretary) Tom Gentz. Text of the letter below the fold. Please e-mail me at progressivecharlestown@gmail.com with your guess as to the actual author of the letter.

What the CCA doesn’t tell you is these bills are not likely to pass. Click here for the bill status database. On June 18^th, the House Municipal Government Commission recommended the House bill be “held for further study” which is legislative code for toss it in the dumper. The Senate Committee held a hearing on May 10^th, did not vote it out of committee and has taken no further action. With the General Assembly down to its final days, where’s the big emergency?

Second, click on the links and read the bills for yourself. The changes to existing law are highlighted in blue so you can easily pick them out. Then compare what you read with the hyperbolic rhetoric in Gentz’s letter. Then judge for yourself if Gentz's claims are credible.

Third, what this is really all about is yet another attack on affordable housing by the CCA and its wholly owned subsidiary, the Charlestown Planning Commission. Led by CCA founding member Ruth Platner. the Planning Commission has a long history of making up reasons to oppose affordable housing in Charlestown, forcing the children of long-time Charlestown residents have to look for housing elsewhere.

Platner knows that sooner or later, a developer will come forward with a project that will, of course, be rejected by the Planning Commission. But instead of simply accepting the rejection, the developer will appeal the town decision to SHAB (State Housing Appeals Board) and will win because our town has absolutely refused to honor its obligations under state law. Then maybe we’ll have one of those 300-unit rental plats stretching along Route One.

When it comes to affordable housing, we act like Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door in 1963, that to permit "affordable housing" to be built in Charlestown will mean the end to our idyllic antebellum lifestyle. Charlestown is not a plantation (though the Narragansetts might disagree) and we can’t resist forever. Rather than have change forced on us, would it not be better for Charlestown to proceed in an honest and serious fashion to create affordable homes for our people?

Here is the text of Gentz’s letter:

I am writing in opposition to H5554 and S533 proposed zoning laws in the Rhode Island General Assembly.

Charlestown is a rural community that does not have any public water or public sewers and has coastal ponds that are under constant attack by increased density and over-development through comprehensive permits in the guise of Affordable Housing.

These proposed laws are yet another assault on our precious water resources, and the rural, pristine character of Charlestown because of the potential of increased density of homes over and above what our current zoning ordinance allows.

These proposed laws wouild increase density based upon the following reasons:

· The yield plan for a lot is being changed to include the percentage of acreage occupied by wetlands, floodplains, slopes and other areas with constraints. Since this land is not being excluded from the yield plans, the density increases. This means that if a subdivision has 20 percent of the property defined as wetlands that can no longer be excluded from the buildable lot calculation. This increases density.

· If the amount of buildable land "shall not exceed 40,000 square feet," the density increases. Therefore, if a lot is zoned for two or three acres but has only 40,000 square feet in buildable land, it can be built upon. This increases density because prior to this proposed law, the buildable area was mandated to be the size of the zoned acreage.

· For a subdivision that may have yielded 12 homes on 30 acres with 2-acre zoning and 6 acres of wetlands, now 15 homes may be built because wetlands are not excluded from the yield plan. This increases density unduly and threatens our environment.

· The steep-slope definition is being increased from 15 percent slope, or 9 degrees, to 45 degrees, therefore increasing density because formerly hilly land was excluded from building. I am concerned specifically about building on the Charlestown moraine and ledge.

First, the moraine filters water and is key to our town's beauty and historical character. If the new law allows ledge to be built upon, there is no permeable ground for absorbing and filtering water. The water just becomes runoff that may potentially go into our ponds.

· Charlestown is not within the Urban Services Boundary, as defined by Statewide Planning, therefore any increased density will hurt our water quality, increasing nitrogen loading, and the town does not offer town water or sewers. If the town had to offer these services, our tax rate would increase substantially.

· The new law purports to protect natural resources and promote efficient use of land through innovative development design that discourages rural, suburban and urban sprawl and preserves contiguous open space. [Section 45-24 (iii)]. I contend just the opposite will occur.

I do understand that the Rhode Island Builders Association members need methods to keep builders busy, but you must allow the town the opportunity to maintain our rural character and identity without unduly forcing increased density, and all the negative consequences upon our town with these proposed laws. Let Charlestown manage our zoning appropriately for the town.

Charlestown has been in the forefront of conservation development (editor: tell that to Ted Veazey), mandatory cluster subdivisions for over ten years and the Town has encouraged cluster design since 1988. These bills will take our town's ability to properly and effectively manage our own zoning.

Tom Gentz, Charlestown

Author of this posting: Will Collette (not a ghost writer)