By Will Collette
Today’s Westerly Sun carries a Page 1 story about the Charlestown Land Trust’s desire that the town of Charlestown will supply $430,000 they need to purchase the controversial 27.5 acre YMCA camp on Watchaug Pond. NOTE: there’s no link to the story; it’s behind the Sun’s dreaded pay-wall.
This derelict camp was the site of a proposed conservation development by Ted Veazey, a proposal that was supported by neighbors to the north of the camp (mostly full-time residents) but bitterly opposed by neighbors to the south of the camp (mostly out-of-state seasonal residents).
Like so many Westerly Sun articles about Charlestown
Plus, I have two suggestions about next steps.
 |
| One of 15 derelict buildings on the Y grounds |
We came to this point because Ted Veazey and the YMCA made a deal to create a very tasteful and eco-friendly conservation development in place of trashed-out cabins and buildings and long-deteriorated cesspools on the camp grounds. A small number of single-family homes would be built, but most of the property would remain open space, and there would be public access to the Pond. See site plan, below.
The northern neighbors, represented by the Watchaug Heights Neighborhood Association, liked the plan. They liked it so much that they had Council Vice-President Deputy Dan Slattery step down from the podium on April 7, 2011 to speak on behalf of the Association in support of Veazey’s proposal.
 |
| This is the last version of the conservation development Ted Veazey proposed before the project was killed |
I should note that the Watchaug neighborhood is comprised mostly of permanent, year-round residents. This issue was so important that Deputy Dan violated his own principle that persons should not speak before the Council on behalf of political groups. But Deputy Dan offset his full-throated support of Veazey’s proposal by also recusing himself from all votes relating to the matter – a decision that ultimately screwed the project, because his vote might have swung the decision in favor of Veazey.
 |
| Sonquipaug's summer cottages - BTW, many of these are part of the 900 houses that would be counted as "affordable" under the Platner-Gentz Affordable Housing Deconstruction Act even though they are not year-round and are owned by non-residents |
The southern neighborhood, represented by the Sonquipaug Association, was totally opposed to the Veazey conservation development. This neighborhood is comprised largely of small seasonal houses on 1/10th acre lots that are owned by out-of-staters. Their leader, Joanne D’Alcomo, is a Boston
D’Alcomo and her Association ran a relentless campaign against Ted Veazey to prevent development of the Y Camp which they pretty took over as an extension of their own property. Even though the site was fenced off (and dangerous), Association members testified before the Town Council that they actually let their children play on that land.
They ultimately won the combat against Veazey and the YMCA’s conservation development plan when our Planning Commission – predictably – weighed in against the project.
Despite the merits of the conservation development, there were two irresistible reasons why Ruth Platner and her merry band of Planning Commissioners had to be against it:
- Platner and the Planning Commission do not want any new construction in
- Platner and her husband
Platner yanked the Charlestown Land Trust into the fight – though the Land Trust did not seem all that eager to get into it.
The Veazey plan was scrapped and the Land Trust now charged with figuring out how to acquire the land from the YMCA and having it designated as open space.
They set out to do fund-raising and quite recently scored big, getting the full amount they requested - $367,000 – from the RI Department of Environmental Management open space matching grant fund.
 |
| Joanne D'Alcomo |
Now they need to “match” the grant and then some. The Sun article today pegs that amount at $483,000. Councilor Gregg Avedisian who headed the Y camp working group notes the town has $100,000 on hand from the voter-approved Open Space and Recreation bond measure. There’s more money that was authorized, but the town would have to issue bonds – i.e. borrow – to get the cash.
But here’s my first suggestion: no money from the town of Charlestown
After all, if not for their objections, that land would be a nice conservation development that the neighboring full-time residents liked. It would have homes for people committed to living in Charlestown. That property would contribute Charlestown
Instead, the Sonquipaug people pushed to get themselves free, expanded back yards. The big winners in the Y camp fight are the non-resident property owners in the Sonquipaug Association.
 |
| Deputy Dan will survey the land |
So let THEM pay for it.
Second suggestion: before Charlestown buys 27.5 more acres of open space, let’s make sure we (a) can manage what we already have and (b) consider how much open space the town really needs, as opposed to how much Ruth Platner and Cliff Vanover think we need.
After all, Deputy Dan Slattery just convened a special joint meeting of the Conservation Commission and the Town Council to address the “crisis” of all of Charlestown’s unmonitored property. While we absorb the momentous findings of Deputy Dan and his posse, should we really be taking on more?
So, Joanne D'Alcomo and your Sonquipaug compadres - SHOW US THE MONEY. And Deputy Dan, why add more open space when your questions about whether we're properly managing what we have are unanswered?
Read all of Progressive Charlestown’s coverage of the YMCA camp controversy, more than a dozen articles which include links to key documents and references by clicking here.