How a community regulates itself says a lot about the community

Does Charlestown do it right?

By Will Collette

Since the CCA took control of the Charlestown Town Council and Planning Commission in 2008, town residents have frequently struggled over how much the town should regulate its citizens. 

Ruth Platner’s (CCA Party) ascendance to Supreme Leader of the Planning Commission has made her the most powerful person in Charlestown, and her radical views about the role of government in people’s lives affect every resident and business in town.

Under Commissar Platner’s leadership, Charlestown has become better known for what it is against than what it is for. Platner has turned regulation-loving Democrats like me into neo-Libertarians, chafing at her efforts to put virtually all activity in Charlestown under her control.

Rather than simply rail about her regulatory philosophy, however, I suggest that Charlestown needs to come to grips with the effects of regulation on the town’s business, environment, culture and even on neighbor-to-neighbor relationships.

As a progressive Democrat, I really do believe in the importance of government regulation. I would like to believe that all reasonable people accept the idea that government regulation to protect public health and safety is not only a good idea, but essential to a civil society.

When it comes to other kinds of regulation – the kind where lives are not on the line – we should have a clear set of principles to guide whether or not to enact new ordinances, or whether or not existing ordinances are worth keeping.

First, I believe there should be a basic threshold question: does the ordinance address a genuine public need? That need should be defined and explained. It should be able to stand up to challenge and public debate.

If an ordinance passes that first essential requirement, we should then subject it to additional tests. My list of criteria goes like this:

Is it reasonable?

Ordinance #359 will address that most serious of Charlestown issues:
the depth and color of mulch on business properties

If an ordinance is an over-reach, such as proposed Ordinances 359 and 360 on shrubbery and parking, respectively, where the requirements prescribed go far beyond what is needed, then that’s a bad ordinance. 

These two ordinances were reviewed by the Town Council at its October 7 meeting, found wanting and were sent back to the Planning Commission. They are due to return to the Council with revisions at the Council’s December meeting.

The town’s ordinance on lighting went through a similar process. 

Commissar Platner took a pretty substantial town consensus that Charlestown property owners ought to be encouraged to use lighting that protects our wonderful nighttime views and ruined it through over-reach. She proposed a minutely detailed ordinance that would have required compliance with every detail each time a homeowner or business changed a light bulb.

Ordinance #360 will deal with the rampant problem of parking
at Charlestown businesses

Town Zoning official Joe Warner objected to the vague enforcement provision that would have him going around private dwellings at night to see if homeowners had lights turned in the wrong direction.

The original version of Platner’s lighting ordinance sparked a rebellion, especially by Charlestown’s surviving businesses, and months of delays and re-writes. 

In the end, the Council ended up passing an impractical, unenforceable and pretty much meaningless ordinance that applies only to businesses and only under special circumstances. Joe Warner says there have only been two commercial lighting permits issued under the ordinance.

Charlestown would have been better off with a resolution encouraging all property owners to make the switch to dark sky friendly lighting accompanied by some practical public education and perhaps lining up discounts for town residents from a non-profit group, such as the non-profit Energy Federation where I bought light shields for our outdoor lights. Instead, we have a crappy law on the books, allowing Platner to say “Mission Accomplished” and she’s on to her next big thing.

Is it effective?

Residential wind energy - effectively
banned in Charlestown

Under Commissar Platner, Charlestown has enacted an array of ordinances that simply don’t work. Either they are so harshly worded that no one can comply or they are unenforceable. Recent examples: dark sky lighting, residential wind energy, accessory dwelling units, and tree protection.

We have an ordinance that regulates what a homeowner must do before putting up a small (less than 5 kilowatt) wind energy generator for personal use. The requirements are so onerous that they are almost impossible to meet. 

According to town Zoning Official Joe Warner, no one has applied for a permit since the town ordinance was enacted almost two years ago, despite widespread interest in green energy.

We have a tree ordinance that goes into incredible detail on what can and can’t be done by property owners, residential or commercial, with trees and shrubs on public right-of-ways, such as road setbacks. The ordinance is supposed to be enforced by a town Tree Warden backed up by a volunteer Tree Committee.

When are we going to get a Tree Warden?

The Tree Warden must be a licensed arborist willing to do the job for free. For obvious reasons, we do not have a Tree Warden. 

Five individuals volunteered to serve as the Tree Committee but their applications were turned down because they lack formal credentials as tree people. Thus, we have an elaborate tree ordinance that is not enforced, and probably never will be.

When the accessory dwelling unit ordinance was presented to the Town Council by Commissar Platner, she herself admitted that it was unlikely that anyone would apply. These are units a homeowner would add to their homes to either house a relative or be rented as an affordable unit. 

According to Joe Warner, there has only been one application and that one is still “a work in process” awaiting DEM septic system approval.

Is it fair?

Great use of town staff time - refereeing fights between neighbors

Many of Charlestown’s ordinances are “complaint-driven.” That means that the town doesn't actively enforce the ordinance and, instead, responds to citizen complaints.

There are two problems I see with this approach. The first is that ordinances are inconsistently applied. Enforcement is based on your neighbor ratting you out.

And that’s the second problem: our complaint-driven ordinances are used in neighbor-versus-neighbor feuds. Instead of having ordinances that promote a civil society, our ordinances are used as weapons in internecine warfare. 

These battles drag town staff or even members of our Town Council, especially Council Boss Tom Gentz, into the middle of fights that are nominally about signage, noise, lights, dogs, trees, parking or whatever but often have nothing to do with the relevant ordinance and are simply the outcome of generations-old beefs between alleged grown-ups.

I understand that sometimes people are reluctant to engage their neighbors in a civil discussion about annoying conduct or that past attempts, for whatever reason, haven’t worked out. Maybe it’s easier to make an anonymous call to the Fire Department to say there’s a fire when it’s just a smoky Weber barbeque grill.

Many town departments – zoning, animal control, police – don’t have the personnel to fairly and uniformly enforce all of Charlestown’s many regulations to convert them from being “complaint-driven” to being fairly applied. There has to be a better way.

Consider Charlestown’s enforcement of the cesspool replacement law. Old-fashioned cesspools must be replaced with approved new systems appropriate to where the property is located.

Everyone is required to get their septic system inspected. If your system fails, you must either have it serviced or replaced – the rules spell out the conditions.

Town Wastewater Manager Matt Dowling sends out notices and, if a property owner doesn’t comply, he uses the progressive enforcement tools available to him that can and do sometimes result in a property owner facing charges in Charlestown Municipal Court.

As of October 8, Matt reports there are 86 remaining cesspools on 79 different properties. Around 20 of them are in the Municipal Court process. For me, one interesting take-away from the data Matt compiled is that around a third of the properties with old cesspools have absentee owners.

Whether or not you like the town’s wastewater treatment policies, it seems to me that they are fairly applied and properly enforced on every single property in town. Can we say the same about any of the ordinances that have come out of Ruth Platner’s shop in the past five years?

New ordinances should contain fair and practical methods for their enforcement. Otherwise, what’s the point? Expecting that ordinances will be enforced through citizen complaints leads to my final suggested criteria, which is….

Does the ordinance create more problems than it solves?

Clerkbase screen shot of Faith
LaBossiere presenting her
vision of Charlestown

A remarkable – boring, irritating, but nonetheless remarkable – block of testimony was given by CCA Party founder and Steering Committee member Faith LaBossiere at the Council’s October 7 hearing on the Shrubs and Parking Ordinances . Click here to see the Clerkbase recording. She begins talking at time mark 1:03 and continues until 1:54 (fifty-one minutes). 

Channeling Ted Cruz, she held the podium, yielding for answers to the many, many, many detailed points she raised. At no point during this marathon stint at the podium did Town Council Boss Tom Gentz (CCA Party) enforce his own time limit rule on Ms. LaBossiere. Early on, you can faintly hear his timer go off, but he quickly turned it off.

One of the best comments of the night came from Charlie Beck, who immediately followed LaBossiere and thanked her for her unofficial filibuster, saying “I’ve been having trouble sleeping.”

Outlaw bush-whacking?

During her filibuster, LaBossiere called for stricter, more detailed rules relating to shrubbery and businesses. 

A sample of the many things she wants: trees and shrubs installed by businesses and developers produce berry, be non-invasive and native. There must be strict monitoring of what happens after plants and shrubs are installed. Also strict monitoring of mulch installation.

She looked at Lillian Arnold, chair of the Conservation Commission, to volunteer to be the Town’s Shrub and Mulch Police Chief. 

Ms. Arnold did not accept the nomination. 

LaBossiere also called for the requirement of a maintenance plan by businesses and developers that would then be enforced by somebody in the town government.

Good ideas when taken to absurd extremes become a bigger problem than the problems they seek to address. E.g. the lighting ordinance. LaBossiere proposes micro-regulation that will be yet another one of those “complaint-driven” issues that neighbors can use in their feuds with each other instead of a more practical town policy that encourages better landscaping practices, backed up with town technical assistance.

LaBossiere’s demands for even more microscopic regulation were limited largely to Ordinance #359 on shrubbery. When it came to the parking Ordinance, #360, she asked for leniency on such matters as parking boats, noting that many of her neighbors down by the beach don’t have much room to park their boats. 

She also wanted leniency for new residences to allow for more than two parking spaces per unit, saying that some families may have one car each for the adults and another for teenagers living at home.

It seems so classically CCA – pile the regulations onto small businesses and people you don’t know, but ease the regulations for the people you do know. Call it government by cronyism if you will, but this is not government in the public interest.

Indeed, Charlie Beck also expressed concern about the way Charlestown is piling onto small businesses and said flat-out that if he was starting a business, it wouldn't be in Charlestown since he believes it is impossible to comply with all that Charlestown requires.

Charlestown has 9% unemployment, a declining workforce and a shrinking commercial base. For example, the town’s signage regulations drove out a group of woman-owned businesses that used to be on Crossland Street.

When is Deputy Dan going to weigh in?

But worse than that is the corrosive effect of bad regulation. If you listened to all of Faith LaBossiere’s filibuster, even she asked about how the town goes about enforcing rules – not to mention the many more she wants to add.

Laws that exist but are not enforced, or are not enforced fairly, lead people to disdain the rule of law. 

The town’s choice to substitute a “complaint-driven,” vigilante-style enforcement rather than hire adequate staff to enforce its laws just encourages more conflict between neighbors.

Leaders of the CCA Party like Ruth Platner and Faith LaBossiere want to add more and more controls over the townspeople, but they don’t want to pay for it. They don't seem to care if the laws they pass actually get enforced. Or maybe they only want those laws to be enforced on the right people while their friends get a pass.

Every new line of unneeded, unfair or unenforced town ordinance they add to the Charlestown Code of Ordinances acts like dripping gasoline onto a fire.