Monday, May 18, 2015

Some context for the informed voter

A brief, recent history of open space and recreation issues in Charlestown
By Linda Felaco
We all love open space

EDITOR’S NOTE: On Monday, June 1, a small percentage of Charlestown’s voters will go to Town Hall to cast their ballots for the town budget and three important ballot questions on land use. These issues have a history that goes back a very long time, back to Charlestown's founders taking land from the Narragansett Tribe. We’ve been covering that history since we launched Progressive Charlestown five years ago. My colleague Linda Felaco has gone through our articles to look at the biggest land use fights to create a bibliography to help you educate yourself before you vote.   - wc

Land use issues are highly contentious in Charlestown. In fact you could say that pretty much every issue of any magnitude somehow involves land use. Here’s a brief rundown of some of the major open space issues that have come up in the past few years. In each of these battles, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), the town’s ruling political party, has repeatedly demonstrated the lengths it will go to to prevent town residents from having any say over how town-owned properties are used.



THE BEACH PAVILIONS

The CCA Party preferred no toilets than building this. And they refused to
allow Open Space/Recreation bond money to be used.

This was 2011’s big land use battle. Given the age and condition of the restroom facilities at the town beaches at the time, you wouldn’t think building new ones would have been controversial. You also wouldn’t have thought of the beach pavilions as an open space issue, except that the Charlestown Citizens Alliance opposed building them at all but especially opposed paying for them with the existing Open Space/Recreation bond. They ultimately forced the issue to go to referendum, which sort of backfired on them when people voted overwhelmingly in favor of the pavilions, although it did mean they got to keep the full $2 million of bond funding available for future use (see “Whalerock,” below).

During the course of the heated debate over whether to build the pavilions and how to pay for them, the CCA made no bones about the fact that unlike most town residents, they view open space and recreation as being in opposition—and while they can’t ever get enough open space, they’re implacably opposed to recreational facilities. CCA supporters openly declared that they had no need of public restroom facilities at the town beaches since they can just walk to their beachhouses when nature calls.

Selected background:

Voices of Greed: Beach Toilets Anonymous commenters at the CCA website weigh in on the proposed beach pavilions
CCA breaks its silence with more “Voices of Greed” Anonymous commenters continue to use the CCA website to air their grievances about the beach pavilion referendum
What do open space advocates have against recreation? The sparring over the beach pavilions exposed a fault line between those who think open space should be enjoyed recreationally and those who think open space is pristine wilderness that should remain untouched.

THE BATTLE FOR NINIGRET PARK

Charlestown has a town-approved Master Plan for Ninigret Park.
The CCA Party won't fund it or carry it out, preferring to trash it.

This battle started in 2011 and spilled into 2012, running side-by-side with the YMCA camp fight (see below) for almost a year. It cost Town Administrator Bill DiLibero his job and put Parks & Recreation Director Jay Primiano on the CCA Party’s list of people who eventually had to go. It started innocently enough with Primiano’s effort to get some state funding for “dark-sky friendly” lighting at expanded sports fields called for in the Ninigret Park Master Plan.

Since the CCA Party had zero tolerance for any new lighting, even dark-sky compliant, or for expanded youth recreation at the Park, then-Councilor Dan Slattery and local federal Fish & Wildlife chief Charlie Vandemoer concocted a totally false premise that the federal government had to approve of any new human activity in town-owned Ninigret Park, or else the feds had the right to take the land back.

The proposed remedies were to give the federal Fish & Wildlife Service as well as an ad hoc group of neighbors and CCA Party supporters veto rights over activity at the Park. Plus, the parties responsible for committing this assault on the natural peace and serenity of Ninigret Park (formerly a World War II naval airfield and one-time site of a proposed nuclear power plant) had to go.

In the end, Bill DiLibero was forced to resign in 2012; Jay Primiano hung on until 2015. The effort to roll back human activity in Ninigret has now begun in earnest, as evidenced by the battle over the ballot questions facing voters on June 1.


Selected background:

Kill Bill, Part 6: the final installment Taking a hard look at the CCA's convoluted comments [includes links to all 5 earlier installments]
Who owns Ninigret Park? Testimony presented by Deborah Carney before the Charlestown Town Council, April 9, 2012
Who owns Ninigret Park, Part 2 Hint: it’s not the US Department of the Interior
The Fateful Fifty-six Days Kill Bill, Part Seven: when not even hindsight is 20/20
An alternative “Kill Bill” narrative One that I think is better supported by the facts
The Ninigret Park Giveaway Why would anyone give away their rights to use property they own?
Slattery lives in a different world Slattery recreates facts concerning Ninigret Park motions
Cummings challenges Slattery’s Ninigret attacks “We have always been open and honest”
Deputy Dan Slattery gets SPANKED by the Westerly Sun Sun Editorial condemns Slattery’s conduct on Ninigret Park
What do the Ninigret Park deeds REALLY say? Next Monday night may be the last skirmish in the Battle for Ninigret Park
Who REALLY owns Ninigret Park? Confused Consensus, continued
Help us polish up this diamond in the rough Charlestown’s Crown Jewel
Memorial Day Feature - Searching for a home for the “Ninigret Bomb” Charlestown and World War II, Part 3: No Room at the Ninigret Wildlife Refuge Headquarters
No good deed goes unpunished Planning Commission tears into children’s play shelter at Ninigret Park

YMCA Camp

Image result for open space & Charlestown
Y-Gate was one of the CCA Party's boldest scams

This red-hot issue started in 2011 and continued into 2012. When the Westerly YMCA put its old abandoned campground on Watchaug Pond up for sale, one of the neighbors came forward with a plan to purchase the property and build a conservation development with a cluster of homes on the most heavily used part of the property, leaving most of the rest of the land untouched. Such cluster developments are highly favored by the CCA-controlled Planning Commission. Yet somehow this plan was unacceptable to Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and was subjected to the usual death by a thousand cuts until the purchaser withdrew his bid. 

The CCA then put together an “ad hoc” committee of cronies in favor of the deal and tried to ram through a plan for the town to buy the property at an inflated price and then give it away to the Charlestown Land Trust. One small problem: Several members of the ad hoc committee were not actually town residents as required by the Town Charter. This attempted insider deal was ultimately blocked by the courts, and the property was eventually sold to a private individual at a price much closer to its actual assessed value. Ironically, this ultimately worked out to the CCA’s benefit, since it meant the bond authorization was still available to spend on the Moraine Preserve (see below).


Selected background:

Somehow we’ve always got enough money for open space Strangely, the same people who were so violently opposed to the homestead tax proposal—which would have been revenue-neutral to the town—at Monday night’s town council meeting had absolutely nothing to say about the town spending half a million dollars or more to acquire the YMCA camp. Even though they themselves suggested that rather than offer a new tax credit, the town should cut back on expenses.
Our mixed-up open space priorities Why one and not the other?
Ten reasons why the Y Camp Deal is a BAD deal for Charlestown taxpayers Let the Charlestown Land Trust buy the land themselves
NEW: Now there are ELEVEN reasons why the YMCA Camp is a bad deal for Charlestown Taxpayers Conservation Commission gives the YMCA Camp an “F” for flunking as open space
Getting by with a little help from my friends Reason #12 why the Y Camp deal is a bad deal for Charlestown taxpayers … as if we really needed more reasons.
Y-Gate Scandal reaches critical point Will Charlestown voters get to decide on $475,000 payout to Charlestown Land Trust?
The YMCA camp deal: Ripoff, foregone conclusion, or both? The only real news to come out of the Planning Commission’s discussion last night of its advisory to the Town Council on the proposed purchase of the YMCA camp was that Commissar Ruth Platner and Commissioner George Tremblay read Progressive Charlestown.

WHALEROCK

Even though most people agreed that Whalerock wasn't right (too big
and not enough wind), the CCA Party turned it into a
jihad against all wind-generated energy

When the Route 1 property now known as the Charlestown Moraine Preserve was owned by developer Larry LeBlanc, it was a constant source of angst for the town. Over the years his proposals for developing the property included a large affordable housing complex, selling it to the Narragansetts so they could build a casino, and most famously, the Whalerock wind turbine project.
This last proposal ultimately drove the denizens of the Sachem Passage Association (SPA), whose neighborhood abuts the property, into the arms of the CCA. They hitched their wagon to the CCA star and began busily fundraising for their election campaigns. And wouldn’t you know it, the CCA-controlled town council then decided, after having previously turned down offers from LeBlanc, to buy the property. Funny how that worked out. Though there’s also an alternative narrative in which the CCA actively recruited the SPA to file suit against the Whalerock project and promised them free legal representation at town expense.

Another odd coincidence: After originally asking for $3 million for the property, LeBlanc offered to sell it for the exact amount of available open space/recreation bond funding. Meaning he only needed three out of the five votes on the town council to close the sale rather than a townwide referendum. Which is why the CCA is now asking for a new line of credit to feed their open space habit.


Selected background:

A purchase of this magnitude should not be decided by five people I support the purchase – and town ownership – of the Whalerock property
Breaking News: Town Council approves Whalerock land purchase Land deal will be completed without a public referendum
Post-Whalerock document dump Town unloads lots of records about the Whalerock deal AFTER the deal was done. These documents raise questions that should have been addressed
“Absolutely flabbergasted” Boss Gentz can’t understand why not everyone thinks he’s a hero for the Whalerock deal
Gentz’s Legacy? Why does Council Boss Tom Gentz feel the need to give away Charlestown property rights?
Moraine plan – an issue of trust Who you are determines who you trust