Short Takes

A question from Beth Richardson, an answer from Amy Rose Weinreich
By Will Collette

Ordinance 218-3 and Ruth Platner's motto

Beth Richardson asked the crack research squad at Progressive Charlestown to try to figure out what provision in the law Ruth Platner is talking about when she claims that, under Charlestown's zoning, the only uses of your property are those that are expressly permitted and "if it's not permitted, it's prohibited."


This shocking proposition led me to speculate about the dozens of things Charlestown residents might have (or want to have) on their property that are not expressly permitted (see list here).


Beth, I have asked the Town to provide the legal basis for Ms. Platner's statement which she made at the last two Town Council meetings. I also looked through the Code of Ordinances for myself. It was sort of a Charlestown snipe hunt - a search for something that I really don't think exists.


But I found one section that MIGHT be it, if you look at it from a certain angle and the lighting is just right:


§ 218-3. Conformity required.

No land shall be used and no building, structure or sign shall be erected, demolished, modified, enlarged or used unless it conforms to applicable sections of the Ordinance. Every building, structure or sign hereafter erected and every use hereafter initiated shall be located on a lot as defined by this Ordinance, and in no event shall there be more than one principal use, together with its accessory buildings, on one lot except as otherwise permitted by this Ordinance.

While we're waiting to hear from our Town Solicitor, I invite other interested Charlestown residents to see if they can find a basis for Ms. Platner's claim to total control over your lives in our Code of Ordinances. Please e-mail us with your leads at progressivecharlestown@gmail.com.

Birth Rate correction

After I published some interesting extracts from Town Clerk Amy Rose Weinreich's report to the Town Council, I had a question about one of the statistics. Amy's report left the number of reported births in Charlestown blank, which I interpreted as zero, since that's the way civil unions are reported.


But after getting questioned about that number, I asked Amy for confirmation and she replied:
"Hi Will, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. As of 8/31/11 there were 40 births that either occurred in Charlestown or the Mother’s home address is listed as Charlestown. 0 Civil Unions is correct. Thanks again, Amy"


Like so many things, depending on your point of view, that's either good news or bad news. The number of deaths reported for the same period is 38, meaning that at least for the year to date, we have two more births than deaths in Charlestown. Since our Family Planning Commissar Ruth Platner does not want to see any population growth, and certainly not a growth in the number of children, we have a problem. Expect to see Platner to come before the Council to ask that they seek volunteers to do what it takes to ensure that Charlestown's birth rate does not exceed its death rate.