Should Charlestown regulate trees and lights?

Before I piss everyone off, I wish to declare my love for Charlestown’s trees and our amazing night-time sky. Add the water, and let’s not to forget to add the people of Charlestown, and that’s my list of reasons why I love living in this town.

And, also by way of disclaimer, I appreciate the efforts of people in town who have put a lot of work into protecting those resources.

BUT (and I’m sure you knew a “but” was coming), at what point does the town government go overboard in its efforts to protect these treasures?

After reading a June 4 Westerly Sun article ["Town Considering Outdoor Lighting Ordinance," no link – behind the Sun’s “pay wall”] about Planning Commission deliberations over a new anti-lighting ordinance, I have to ask how far we are prepared to go to protect those resources..

Light pollution is sure to come up at the June 15 Town Council meeting where representatives from the Frosty Drew Observatory will make a presentation on dark skies. (Let the record show we pay our annual membership dues to support Frosty Drew diligently).



Charlestown is a small oasis of dark sky

The Planning Commission has been working on the ordinance against outside lighting for over a year. It would place severe restrictions on the type and strength of lighting used on ANY property – commercial or residential. On passage, the restrictions would apply to any new fixtures installed in town. Your existing lighting would be “grand-fathered” (exempted) for seven years, after which it would have to be removed or replaced with compliant lighting.

So you can keep your anti-aircraft spot light until 2018, presuming the ordinance gets finalized and passed this year.

In the meantime, there’s a pretty good pamphlet describing types of lighting that protect the dark sky. General rule: make sure lights focus only where you need the light and only for as long as you need it.

I think it’s great to protect our nighttime sky, but have to wonder if the Planning Commission has once again gone off the deep end in its environmental zeal.

For one thing, how in the hell would this ordinance get enforced? Would we have to hire a Light Marshall and a passel of deputies? Would we grant the Marshall and the deputies the right to shoot out any offending light?

Which brings me to trees. There is an entire chapter (#163) already on the books in our town ordinances devoted to the protection of public trees.

“Trees” are defined as any living woody plant that has a two inch diameter at a distance of four and a half feet off the ground. Any of us who have road frontage may find that trees and shrubs in the right-of-way are under the protection of the town’s Tree Warden and Tree Committee.

Under Chapter 163, the town is supposed to count and inventory every such tree and woe befall any person who not only cuts one down but even threatens it. The list of things you must not do to a public tree is incredibly detailed (see section 163-10).

[RESEARCH NOTE: Charlestown ordinances are all accessible on the internet. Given how complicated our town laws are, this database is about as user-friendly as it can be. Hint – use the “key word” search. It’s easier than going through all 218 Chapters and the many hundreds of sub-sections]

If you get busted by the Tree Warden, you will be compelled to replace the tree or trees you destroyed or molested.

Except there is no Tree Warden. There isn’t even a Tree Committee. There is no tree inventory. This ordinance is silly in its elaborate detail and near complete lack of enforceability.

Now comes the lighting scheme. I predict we will get another ordinance – the product of months of work – that will be long on detail about what you can’t do and almost completely out to lunch on practicality. Like enforcement.

As the Sun article noted “the ordinance still needs an enforcement section“ Right.



I propose the town combine the position of Tree Warden and Light Marshall into one position. Give the position a cool, enigmatic name. Like “The Enforcer.” And a gun and the right to use it. And deputies. And a car with lights and a siren.

The Enforcer - ready to shoot to kill 
to defend trees and darkness

I think if Chapter 163 had provided for the Tree Warden to be armed with a license to kill, somebody would have volunteered by now and our trees would be safe from mayhem.

When the Planning Commission pushes new laws that are unenforceable, they not only fail to do what they set out to do - i.e. protect the resource - but they also erode people’s confidence in government. When they consume months, sometimes years, of going over these issues only to produce nonsense legislation, whose interests are served? What is the value of having laws on the books that cannot be enforced and make no sense?

But there is a consistent pattern to the conduct of the Planning Commission under the leadership of its chair, Ruth Platner.

When we launched Progressive Charlestown, one of the earliest pieces I wrote detailed the sham approach Planning Commissioner Ruth Platner took toward affordable housing. Loyal readers will remember the story about AFDUs and I-RADUs.

She brought a new ordinance before the Town Council that was the result of months of deliberations and planning on accessory dwelling units as one way to ease the lack of affordable housing in town. Yet during her presentation before the Town Council, Platner volunteered that the proposed ordinance would probably never be used, that no new affordable housing units would be created and that the ordinance was pretty much unenforceable. But she asked the Council to pass it anyway, and they did.

In November 2012, Platner and her close ally Linda Fabre will have to go before the voters if they want to stay on the Planning Commission. Let’s remember moments like this. And don’t worry – we’ll remind you.

Author: Will Collette