Open space dirt for sale*

By spiking Ted Veazey's proposed conservation development,
Planning Commissar Ruth Platner spared us the expense of
educating potentially an entire classroom full of children.

Who gains and who loses from Charlestown’s land acquisitions? Who pays, and who gets to decide what we’re paying for? Deconstructing Charlestown civilization and its discontents.

By Linda Felaco

This land is your land,
Part 5: A series on the Charlestown Planning Commission

Part 1: The Platner Principle
Part 2: Reforming the Planning Commission
Part 3: Torturing the beach facilities project to death
Part 4: The most powerful force in the Universe
Part 5: Open space dirt for sale 
Part 6: What do open space advocates have against recreation?

Last winter, a Charlestown homeowner came before the Town Council with a proposal to turn the abandoned YMCA camp on Watchaug Pond, a blighted, tax-exempt property, into a 10-home conservation development that would have generated tax revenues without costing the town a dime. All the town had to do was alter the Comprehensive Plan to change the camp’s zoning from Open Space Recreation to residential. In most towns, you’d think this would be a no-brainer. But not here. Ted Veazey’s proposal was greeted with the same level of enthusiasm as if he’d suggested reopening the United Nuclear plant.

The Comprehensive Plan, the unerring word of god as expressed by his emissary on Earth, Planning Commission Chair Ruth Platner, could not be altered under any circumstances, not even if it meant reducing the number of buildings on the Open Space Recreation–zoned site from 15 to 10.

Though strangely enough, this so-called Comprehensive Plan turned out not to be entirely comprehensive on the subject of campgrounds: Not all of them are zoned Open Space Recreation. Platner, invoking the doctrine of papal infallibility, explained away this apparent flaw with a wave of her hand, calling it a deliberate policy move. The Planning Commission, in its infinite wisdom, had been selective about classifying properties as Open Space Recreation to discourage an easy transition to residential but hadn’t felt the need to trouble themselves to do that for all similar properties.

One of these camps is not (zoned) like the others:
YMCA Camp Entrance—Open Space Recreation …

Besides, Platner informed us, what this town really needs is more active recreational camps for the kids who already live here, not more houses that will bring more children here that will soak us for extra school fees.

Meanwhile, never one to miss a trick when it comes to snapping up more open space for the town, Platner set about writing an open space grant application to the RI Department of Environmental Management to acquire the property—as passive recreation.

Boy Scout Camp Entrance—Residential …

And wouldn’t ya know it, she got her grant—despite the fact that the property, with roads and 15 buildings and a basketball court on it, is not in fact open space in any meaningful sense. And now the Charlestown Land Trust, which ultimately filed the grant proposal that Ruth wrote, wants the buildings torn down—at town taxpayer expense.

Camp Davis Entrance—Residential

Oh, and of course the “free” grant money that is allowing us this unprecedented opportunity to acquire the property for “50 cents on the dollar“ (as Russ Ricci of the Land Trust is fond of saying) is in fact our own state tax money in the first place (at least for those of us who are employed here in RI and pay RI state income tax).

But now that the grant has been awarded, suddenly we’re hell-bent on buying the YMCA camp and pronto, thus removing it from tax base forever, in order to give it to the Charlestown Land Trust—meaning we’ll be paying for something we won’t even own. Even though under the terms of the grant, the Charlestown Land Trust has 14 months to raise the rest of the funds for the purchase—private funds that would reduce the total amount town taxpayers would be on the hook for. Meaning the longer we wait, the less we’ll have to pay. Though given that donations to the Land Trust are tax-deductible, that’s ultimately another cost to taxpayers as well, in forgone tax receipts.

In addition to asking the town for money, the Land Trust has embarked on a “Campaign for Watchaug Pond Preserve.” As part of the campaign, those who contribute at least $250 receive a commemorative book on the centennial of Fenway Park. So by my calculations, they only need to sell 1900 books and the town is off the hook!

Fortunately for Joanne D'Alcomo, it appears
there's no ordinance that prevents anyone
from sticking leaflets under the wipers of
parked vehicles. Clearly an oversight on
Ruth's part. That should be next on her list.

And on January 15, Roomful of Blues will be playing a benefit concert to aid the cause. Though at only $25 per ticket, they’d need to fill Fenway to raise the required amount.

Still, why not wait and see if there are 1900 hard-core Red Sox fans who can afford to pay $250 for a book? The Town Council voted against the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee’s proposal to give residents a $1000 homestead tax exemption, so nonresident property owners have no need to carry out their threat to withhold charitable contributions and should still be willing to contribute. Or is the open space bond in actuality a slush fund for the Land Trust?

Oh, and did I mention? The meeting where it was decided to go full steam ahead on buying the YMCA camp was the very same one where irate nonresident property owners stormed the Bastille to oppose the homestead tax break with threats of retaliatory action. Yet not a peep was heard out of those same irate nonresident property owners about the prospect of their taxes being increased to purchase the YMCA camp. Go figure.

Though when it comes to prioritizing how to spend our Open Space Recreation bond money, at least one planning commissioner expressed concerns in the December 28 Planning Commission meeting that purchasing the YMCA camp would deplete the funds available to buy Larry LeBlanc’s 81-acre property, proposed site of various horrors including an army of 400-foot wind turbines, wall-to-wall affordable housing, or an Indian casino.

Further muddying the waters is a fundraising flyer that Boston attorney Joanne D’Alcomo, who owns a vacation property in the Sonquipaug neighborhood and desperately wants the Land Trust to buy the YMCA camp to forestall the possibility that she’ll ever have to deal with more neighbors than she already has, spent her New Year’s Eve sticking under the windshield wipers of vehicles parked at the bonfire in Ninigret Park. The flyer states that the purchase will “create a nature sanctuary there for the benefit of all.”

Nature sanctuary and passive recreation are not mutually exclusive. However, since this is the first time the idea of using the land in this way has come up, D’Alcomo—who according to newspaper ads is chairing the fundraising effort for the Land Trust to acquire the YMCA camp—and the Land Trust surely owe the public an explanation. Are they saying there will be no public access, very limited access (which would be in keeping with most of the rest of the Land Trust’s properties, which can be visited only by appointment), or something else? Why is the Land Trust raising money without letting donors know exactly what the land will be used for?

The closest point from which to provide handicapped access
is the Sonquipaug Neighborhood (yellow line). Yet the only
areas being considered for parking are Bayberry Lane, which
is ~5 times more distant, and Prosser Trail (not shown),
which is ~10 times the distance.

And surely “the benefit of all” includes the handicapped, though as we saw at the December 28 Planning Commission meeting, the only consideration that has been given to handicapped access is to note that there currently is none and that there is substantial opposition to any reasonable efforts to provide it. Indeed, given the convoluted discussion during the meeting, it seems that the Planning Commission isn’t sure what the land will be used as either.

Interestingly enough, after I wrote about the ever-changing plans for the use of the camp, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance responded by e-mailing an edited version of the flyer for the benefit concert in which the phrase “to create a nature sanctuary there for the benefit of all” had been changed to read “to create a nature sanctuary with walking trails for all to enjoy” [emphasis mine]. Though unless they’ve magically solved the handicapped-access issues since December 28, it would appear that the “all” really means “all who can walk”—and walk long distances to boot.

At the December 28 Planning Commission meeting, Ruth Platner’s response to all the various and sundry serious and possibly intractable problems connected with this purchase—the expensive and dangerous demolition work required, the gathering storm of NIMBY opposition to parking, the lack of handicapped access—was blithe handwaving. Apparently, all she cares about is removing land from development; what happens to it after that is of no interest to her. Though to his credit, George Tremblay stated more than once that for $475,000, the town certainly should have some say over these issues.

So the question remains, Why are we committing nearly $1 million in taxpayer funds to buy a camp that we’re not even sure what we’re going to do with? What, if anything, will the taxpayers get in return for their money?

To be continued.

* See comments by sisyphus-opine here and here.