 |
| The horror! (image courtesy of the Sierra Club) |
In fact, in the opinion of town leaders, Charlestown's citizens must even be protected from the truth.
After winning a 3-2 vote to put the proposed wind energy ban to a public hearing, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) sent an e-mail to its voluminous mailing list on August 12 proclaiming that "Three of the Town Council members, Tom Gentz, Dan Slattery and Lisa DiBello voted to give the Planning Commission the go ahead to write an ordinance to permit homeowner scale wind energy devices." This despite the fact that Council members Marge Frank and Greg Avedisian had both spoken eloquently in favor of homeowner wind energy systems at the council meeting and had voted against the ban in order not to stand in the way of homeowners seeking to utilize wind energy.
Indeed, despite their claims of being responsive to the will of the citizenry, the CCA doesn't appear to be entirely sure whether or not Charlestown residents favor or oppose wind energy for their own personal use. In the same e-mail quoted above, Platner was quoted as saying both that there was "very little opposition to wind turbines at this [i.e., homeowner] scale," and that it's "hard to get the public to consider small turbines."
Yet strangely enough, the neighboring towns of South Kingstown and Narragansett, and indeed the state of Rhode Island, in reckless disregard of the safety and welfare of their citizens, have allowed and are allowing wind turbines to be constructed at beach pavilions at state beaches in both towns. South Kingstown even permits a homeowner to endanger his neighbors with a wind turbine on his roof. But in Charlestown, citizens can sleep easily knowing that they're in absolutely no danger of a wind turbine falling on their house in the night.
It remains an open question what will happen if the state decides to build a similar pavilion at the Charlestown Breachway that includes a wind turbine. And of course once the ban is passed, the MET tower at Ninigret Park, which has been measuring the amount of wind energy that could be produced by an eventual wind facility located in the park, will become illegal.
The Planning Commission appears to be pandering to a small, vocal group of NIMBYs in order to further its goal of banning wind-to-energy generators without appearing to be antienvironment. In announcing the failure of her commission to produce an ordinance covering small generators for home use after spending 9 months on the task, Platner stated that the reason the planning commission was unable to get the job done is because "the public wanted more regulation than we had proposed"—completely ignoring the larger segment of the public that wants the town to be using renewable energy.
 | |
| Joyce Kilmer tree in Central Park. (image by Alansohn (talk) |
Charlestown's efforts to regulate the lives of its citizens are multifaceted and multitudinous. For instance, in 2008, the town passed a tree ordinance mandating that a tree warden be appointed to take an inventory of all the trees on town property and requiring permits to plant, spray, prune, remove or otherwise disturb any tree within the public rights-of-way. Unfortunately, no one ever volunteered for the job of tree warden, the survey was never conducted, and ever since the ordinance's enactment, the town Department of Public Works (DPW) has as a matter of course been routinely violating the ordinance anytime it's necessary to remove a tree from the roadways.
Then again, under the Platner principle that anything that isn't permitted is prohibited, DPW probably never had the authority to cut trees to begin with. Or plow the roads. Or do much of anything, most likely.
In fact, trees are so well protected that the town's residents are even prohibited from playing any sort of backyard game that involves throwing anything at a tree (Chapter 162, Peace and good order, section 162-1, Actions unlawful: "No person acting alone or in concert with others shall: ... H. Throw any stone, snowball or other missile object upon or at any person, vehicle, building, tree, sign or other public or private property.")
The "dark sky" ordinance is another example of nanny town micromanagement. The Planning Commission spent 4 years writing an ordinance governing outdoor lighting so as to protect the town's dark skies, apparently without ever having read the existing ordinances that already mandate downward-directed lighting and low-intensity lighting. Then again, under the Platner principle, outdoor lighting was never permitted in the first place, rendering the dark sky ordinance triply superfluous.
Charlestown even has a law against spitting in public; see subsection J of the ordinance quoted above. ("No person acting alone or in concert with others shall: ... J. Expectorate, urinate or defecate on any public street, alley, sidewalk or floor of any public place or public building or any place or building where the public shall have the right to gather or to which it shall have access.) Such minor infractions are ripe to become substantial sources of revenue for the town now that its municipal court has been approved by the state.
 |
| Robert Frost's "Mending Wall," in Derry, New Hampshire. |
So what will be banned next in nanny town? Will the town ban vaccines at the insistence of those who are convinced they cause autism, thus allowing Charlestown's children to once again experience the joys of contracting measles like their great-grandparents did? Will high-voltage powerlines be banned in deference to those who believe electromagnetic fields cause cancer?
Then again, the regulatory burden that the town's leaders place upon its citizens is already showing signs of fostering a casual disrespect for the law. Complaints have been raised at town council meetings about trespassing, destruction of private property, unauthorized use of vacant land, driving to endanger, and improper disposal of household trash at the town beaches, to name just a few examples. In the immortal words of Robert Frost, "Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Author: Linda Felaco