At 5 PM, the Town Council will meet and then go into Executive Session to receive its first report from the Ad Hoc Search Committee to find a replacement for former Town Administrator Bill DiLibero who was purged last year by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance.
If you read the Progressive Charlestown forecasts for 2013, we predicted that ultimately the Town Council will select the new, updated Furby doll by Hasbro Toys, one that is programmed to say "whatever you want, Tom," as the new Town Administrator.
According to the Westerly Sun, the Search Committee is headed by former Town Administrator Richard Sartor. Sartor's role is more than ironic: he is the central figure in Council member Lisa DiBello's $1.5 million lawsuit against Charlestown.
According to DiBello, it was Sartor who recruited Bill DiLibero as Charlestown Town Administrator. DiBello alleges that Sartor offered DiLibero the better-paying job if DiLibero promised to oust DiBello from her job as town Parks and Recreation Director. DiBello claims that when DiLibero did indeed fire her in May 2010, it was part of the quid pro quo he had with Sartor to fulfill Sartor's alleged vendetta against DiBello. Click here for more details. Click here to read DiBello's lawsuit.
And here we go again.
At 7 PM, the Planning Commission will meet to continue torturing two of the three non-profit affordable housing proposals currently awaiting financing and town approval. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission took three and half hours of NIMBY testimony against the ChurchWoods elderly housing plan, and that round of attacks will presumably continue tonight since the Commission never got around to taking a vote on the project.
Time permitting, the Commission will begin the Death of a Thousand Cuts for the Shannock Village affordable housing proposal.
The Charlestown Citizens Alliance claimed they liked ChurchWoods and Shannock Village before the election since they were being done by non-profit organizations, not mean and nasty commercial developers. I predicted that after the election, the CCA would trash these projects since they have made their disdain of affordable housing a central part of the CCA Creed.
What do you do about the NIMBY problem? Our entire zoning system is set up so the neighbors get a say in what happens on a property. Do you propose simply ignoring the neighbors in cases of Affordable Housing?
ReplyDeleteBeth Richardson
The Shannock Village project should not happen. That piece of land is not big enough and the road could not handle the increase in traffic. There is quite a curve right along there and I can foresee many accidents taking place. However, I think that project will be approved because of the location. There are not many CCA members that really care about what happens in that section of town.
ReplyDeleteIt's a myth that CCA supporters only live south of Route 1 - that's something those who are seeking to divide the town over class and income lines would have you believe. CCA endorsed candidates and other supporters live north of Rt. 1 and as evidenced by the commitment of the Planning Commission and Town Council, there is a great deal of interest in historic and land conservation in Shannock and elsewhere, as seen by all the work put into Shannock Falls and other walking parks in that region
DeleteI don't think it's been claimed that CCA supporters are only south of Route 1 - that's only something CCA claims people say. Election results by precinct clearly shows precinct 503 to be different than the rest. Mention in footnote here, results details here.
DeleteBeth - I have a healthy respect for the process that gives people the right to oppose projects they don't like.
ReplyDeleteI'd be a hypocrite to say I am opposed to NIMBYism since I spent 20 of the best years of my life working with NIMBY groups all over the country. I wrote about it in some detail in one of my early Prog Charlestown articles: http://www.progressive-charlestown.com/2011/03/confessions-of-nimby-enabler.html
As I wrote in that article, I used to advise groups to embrace the NIMBY label with pride. However, that only works if you are actually proud of what you are really doing.
In my view, there is a significant qualitative different between opposing a 500-acre multi-state landfill across from the Spencerville (OH) High School and opposing the ChurchWoods senior citizens housing proposal on Rt 1A. However, the NIMBY methodology would be essentially the same.
I wasn't living in Charlestown during the epic fight against the proposed nuclear power plant in Ninigret Park, but if I had been, I would have been a proud NIMBY warrior against that project.
As I wrote in that March 2011 article, I would have no problem with our local NIMBY group Ill Wind RI if they had stuck to principled opposition to the Whalerock industrial wind farm. That was, and still is, a bad project in a bad location. But Ill Wind lost me when they became rabid anti-wind energy fanatics and pushed a ridiculous blanket anti-wind ordinance on the entire town.
There is also a place for principled NIMBY opposition to affordable housing but I found nearly all the testimony against ChurchWoods to be specious and I don't buy the arguments - including Casey's, above - against Shannock Village.
Planning and Zoning are where land use disputes get hashed out, and that's the right process. My concerns about Planning's anti-everything bias, which I've often expressed, make me doubt their objectivity.
From what I understand, the NIMBY objections to the AH projects were the usual objections to noise, traffic disturbances, esthetic issues, etc. The things neighbors usually bring up to oppose a project next door. You call this specious. Are you saying that, for the good of the community, to achieve this worthy AH goal, these neighbors should just suck it up any cope with it? That is, ordinary objections become specious when the cause is worthy?
ReplyDeleteBeth Richardson
On the other hand, don't property owner's have the right to develop land they own.
DeleteThere are many other uses for this property that would be allowed by right and would have a much greater impact on the neighbors - crop farming, ambulance services, auction barn, bank, banquet hall, convenience store, general store/country store/deli, hotel, TVD Tavern, Private stable - just to name a few.
From what I observed at the presentation for the Churchwoods project, many efforts are being made to minimize the impact on neighbors including buffer zones.
Unfortunately, it seems to me, these neighbors are used to the wooded area and don't want it to change. The reality is that it probably will change at some point in time - and that change could be much worse than this proposed project.
Beth - sorry for the delayed response. My answer to your questions is Yes. Except I know they won't.
DeleteIn many communities, not just Charlestown, it's virtually guaranteed that ANYTHING that ANYBODY proposes will stir up some opposition.
Try proposing a sanctuary for little lost kittens, puppies and baby bunnies and guaranteed, there will be strong opposition
What I expect to come out of the public process is some sense of the greater good and some reflection of values. Not all projects are equal, either in terms of benefit or risk.
As a former professional NIMBY enabler, it makes me angry to see people use try-and-true tactics to block perfectly good things that provide tremendous good for the community on totally selfish grounds.
Building one bedroom units for affordable housing, as is called for in the Shannock Village project is not an answer. It will show that there will be less cars parkes in this area and driving in this area. In reality. Families will move into these units and will be living in a cramped space and providing more traffic. Also, I don't think a septic system for these unit will be sustainable for the amount of people that will live there. And there is apublic water system on this property that wouold then be compromised. I am quite familiar with the planning and zoning commissions. This is the project that will be pushed through and will prove to be a huge problem in the future.
ReplyDeleteCasey - the one-bedroom thing was Planning Commissar Ruth Platner's idea precisely to PREVENT families from living in Shannock Village. She wants to prevent families with school age kids from living in Charlestown.
DeleteI just don't buy your objections to 11 small rental units that will accommodate single people or couples and not your typical family unit. As for traffic, puleeze! If all 11 renters hit the road at once, you may find yourself losing a minute or so on Shannock Road.
If you're concerned about Charlestown traffic, start a movement to close off the town to summer visitors.