“Make
sure information is factual”
 |
| Former Town Council President Deb Carney |
By
Deb Carney
EDITOR’S
NOTE: The Westerly Sun ran a version of this letter which challenges
misstatements in an earlier letter they published by CCA Party pundit Mike Chambers.
Chambers’ letter dealt with his view of what the town should do with the land
it bought to block the proposed Whalerock wind farm. As one of the Whalerock
abutters, Chambers is also a direct beneficiary of the $2.1 million Charlestown
cash outlay. Deb Carney was Charlestown Town Council President during the
period when the open space/recreation bond funds referred to by Chambers was
approved by the voters. - wc
This
is in response to Michael Chambers’ February
25, 2014 Letter to the Editor. Mr.
Chambers’ letter was filled with so much misinformation, it’s disingenuous, and
ridiculous.
Chambers’ is
wrong on purpose of the 2004 bond money
First,
no one proposed holding the Moraine Preserve hostage. I’m not sure where Mike Chambers generated
that conclusion from. In fact, quite the
contrary is true. It is we, the
taxpayers that paid $2.1 million for that property that should not be held
hostage.
The Moraine Preserve was purchased with $2
million in bond money that was approved in 2004. The language for the bond stated, “Shall the
Town Treasurer and the President of the Town Council be authorized…to issue and
refund from time to time, bonds, notes…in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 in
order to finance the acquisition, preservation or protection of open space…for
preservation, ground water protection OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES…”
“Hostages to
developers’ bulldozers” – not true
The
language in the draft Management Plan presented at the February Town Council
meeting specifically prohibited the “construction or placing of any building,
tennis, or other recreational court.”
That, in conjunction with granting easements to outside entities, were
the words I objected to. Not because I
want to hold the land “hostage to a developers’ bulldozers” or “dig up Route 1”
as Mr. Chambers speculates, but because I don’t believe that we, the taxpayers
should be held hostage over what we are able to do on the property that we the
taxpayers spent $2.1 million to purchase.
As I stated at the meeting, we should not be tying our hands.
At
the February Town Council meeting, it was stated that the land was for passive
recreation. As evidenced above, the
wording in the bond that was approved by the voters in 2004, specifically
allows for the development of recreational facilities.
Mr.
Chambers stated in his letter that, “Recreation is recreation. To separate recreation into passive and
active pursuits is disingenuous, at best.”
I agree. That is precisely why I
took exception to the statement that the land was for passive recreation.
Chambers is
wrong about potential uses for the land
The
statement that the land was not viable for building tennis courts was also not
true. That is why I mentioned that the Moraine
Preserve (aka Ninigret Hamlet, aka Whalerock) was determined to be the location
for the school when Charlestown was considering withdrawing from Chariho. There are many documents available at Town
Hall that show that this location is suitable for building.
Chambers is
wrong to claim to know what people were thinking
Mike
Chambers states that I “neglected to point out that the high school plan was
rejected out of hand primarily due to insurmountable costs.” The discussion was about the suitability of
the land for building, so I’m not sure why he thinks a lengthy discussion about
the pros and cons of withdrawal would be appropriate at that time. That’s his issue, not mine. I do find it curious though that he has
concluded that’s why the withdrawal did not pass. I recall hearing many arguments. It is disingenuous for Mr. Chambers to
purport to know what everyone that voted against withdrawal was thinking.
 |
| Charlestown voters went to the polls in 2004 |
Chambers is
wrong about how the 2004 bond was established
Mr.
Chambers’ stated the 2004, “bond referendum included the word “recreation” so
that the Town Council would put the item on the ballot.” Also not true. The bond referendum was the result of a
petition from the electors, and the exact language was determined by bond
counsel.
Chambers is
wrong about what the voters approved
Mr.
Chambers concludes his misinformation filled letter with the following
sentence, “Ms. Carney would elevate her desires above the majority to eliminate
easements and hold the land in reserve, not preserve, for some future
developer.” Again, another untrue
statement.
 |
| And, contrary to Chambers' claims, this is what voters approved |
Since
2000, there have been three bonds approved by Charlestown voters for open space
and recreation, $5 million in total. Of
the $2 million approved in 2004, 100% went towards open space. Zero went
towards recreation. Of the other $3
million approved, a minimal amount went towards recreation.
Mr.
Chambers states it would be “economically more feasible to disturb the land at
Ninigret Park.” I agree. But unfortunately, zero dollars of the2004 $2
million bond went towards any sort of improvements at Ninigret Park and there
are zero dollars left available for recreation at Ninigret Park.
$2.1
million taxpayer dollars were spent on the Moraine Preserve. We the taxpayers did not have a direct vote
as to whether or not we wanted to spend the entire amount of open space/
recreation bond money on that one piece of property. Now that we the taxpayers own that property,
we should not be giving away any of our rights to that property. $2.1 million is an awful lot to give away.
EDITOR'S AFTERNOTE: Anyone who reads Mike Chambers' frequent "Chamberpots" on the official CCA Party website is familiar with his fact-challenged rhetoric. It's one thing that the CCA Party features his unsubstantiated and often false remarks on their official Party website, but quite another when the CCA Party majority appointed Chambers to fill a vacancy on the town's Zoning Board of Review, a quasi-judicial body where the ability to understand and act on the facts really matters. - wc