Mike Chambers: Dazed and confused?

Let me help

By Deb Carney

EDITOR’S NOTE: A version of this letter was recently published in the Westerly Sun. Former Town Council President Deb Carney opens up a second can of whoop-ass for the Charlestown Citizens Alliance’s leading pundit, Mike Chambers. 

Chambers wrote an attack letter in the Westerly Sun against Deb’s suggestion that Charlestown not tie its own hands with respect to the uses for the land the town purchased for $2.1 million to block the Whalerock wind farm proposal. Deb fired back, pointing out the many misstatements in Chambers’ letter. Rather than learn from that, Chambers fired back with another letter with more misstatements.

Deb’s response here is the final installment since the Westerly Sun is now sick of this and is closing the issue as a Letter to the Editor topic.

This letter is in response to Mike Chambers latest Letter to the Editor dated, March 6, 2014.  I'm not really sure why he's confused.  I'll try to make it clearer for him.

First, as I stated in my letter, my concern with the recreational restrictions placed on the property in the draft Management Plan was in conjunction with granting easements to outside entities.  As I stated, I don't think we should be tying our hands. 

If an easement is granted with restrictions in place, our hands are tied as to what we can do with our property. That would make we the taxpayers the hostage to an outside entity.  We would need the permission of the easement holder to do anything outside of the Management Plan on our property that we paid $2.1 million to purchase.  

Contrary to what Mr. Chambers thinks, we the taxpayers would not be holding the land hostage, we would be the hostages, to an outside entity.  It's our land. We bought it.  We’re paying for it.  That's not confusing.  That's pretty clear to most people.

Second, with regards to his comments about the 2004 open space/ recreation bond, Mr. Chambers doesn't seem to know that bond counsel is not the same as the Town Council.  They are not the same entity.  The Town Council did not determine the language for the ballot, bond counsel did.  Two different entities. 

Again, for Mike Chambers' education, there is a record of what voters
approved. 

Additionally, the ballot question was the result of a petition of the electors.  Can't be any clearer than that. I'm not sure how this makes Mr. Chambers point as he stated in his letter, in fact it disproves his point.

As an FYI to Mr. Chambers, when the Conservation Commission (in 2004) drafted the informational language regarding the bond for the Pipeline in 2004, they included examples of how previous bond money had been used for recreation.  This shows that the recreational component had been included in the previous open space/ recreation bonds before my time on the Council. 

...And this is what they approved.

For clarification for Mr. Chambers, that would be my time on the Town Council, not Bond Counsel. So no Mr. Chambers, this doesn't prove your point.  It disproves it.

Third, with regards to Mr. Chambers’ theory on the withdrawal, I thought I was pretty clear that I mentioned the withdrawal because the discussion was about the viability of building on that piece of land. 

I stand by my position that a lengthy discussion on the pros and cons of withdrawal would not have been appropriate at that time.  Mr. Chambers raised his theory regarding withdrawal in his letter.  That made it his issue to discuss, not mine.  Can't be any clearer.

Fourth, contrary to what Mr. Chambers stated in his letter, I never said he wanted to dig up Route 1.  I quoted Mr. Chambers' own statement that, "it was economically more feasible to disturb the land at Ninigret Park."  I agreed with him.

Fifth, I don't belong to any town committee and haven't for quite some time, so again, more misinformation from Mr. Chambers.

Finally, when I refer to "We the taxpayers", I refer to all the taxpayers, not just those that were in attendance at the meeting when the majority of the Town Council (not bond counsel) voted to spend $2.1 million on the property. 

Every taxpayer in Charlestown will pay for that property for years to come.  That includes those that were in attendance at that meeting, and those that were not. 

As I said in my previous letter, we the taxpayers (that includes all of us) did not have the opportunity to vote as to whether or not we the taxpayers (all of us) wanted to spend the entire amount of the open space/ recreation bond money on that one piece of property.  That is factual and clear.  Mr. Chambers can try and spin it, but he can't change the facts.

I stand by my statement that Mr. Chambers' letter was filled with misinformation and it was ridiculous. He can try to spin it any way he wants, but it doesn't change the facts.  I hope this clarifies things for Mr. Chambers and he is no longer confused.  Hopefully we can put an end to this once and for all.