PFAS Exposure From High Seafood Diets May Be Underestimated

Study stresses the need to set safety standards for “forever chemicals” in seafood.

Morgan Kelly 

A Dartmouth-led study suggests that people who frequently consume seafood may face an increased risk of exposure to PFAS, the family of ubiquitous and resilient human-made toxins known as “forever chemicals.”

The findings stress the need for more stringent public health guidelines that establish the amount of seafood people can safely consume to limit their exposure to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the researchers report in the journal Exposure and Health. 

This need is especially urgent for coastal regions such as New England where a legacy of industry and PFAS pollution bumps up against a cultural predilection for fish, the authors write.

“Our recommendation isn’t to not eat seafood—seafood is a great source of lean protein and omega fatty acids. But it also is a potentially underestimated source of PFAS exposure in humans,” says Megan Romano, the study’s corresponding author and an associate professor of epidemiology at the Geisel School of Medicine.

“Understanding this risk-benefit trade-off for seafood consumption is important for people making decisions about diet, especially for vulnerable populations such as pregnant people and children,” Romano says.

A dollar by dollar look at how our taxes enrich military contractors — at the expense of things that actually make us secure.

You're paying for it

By Lindsay Koshgarian 

Illustration by Sarah Gertler / Institute for Policy Studies.

Ever wonder where your taxes go? Each year, the Institute for Policy Studies releases a tax receipt so you can find out.

One item always stands out: the Pentagon — and the contractors who profit off it.

In 2023, the average taxpayer spent $2,974 on the Pentagon. Of that, just $705 went to salaries for the troops, who often have to rely on programs like food stamps. A much larger sum — $1,748 — went to corporate Pentagon contractors. That’s more than the average American’s monthly rent, $1,372.

From Lockheed Martin (the top federal contractor and longtime weapons maker) to SpaceX (which Elon Musk runs when he’s not spewing racist and anti-semitic tropes), these corporations don’t need your support. And they aren’t operating with your well-being in mind.

Enriching them comes at the cost of better health care, education, clean air and water, disaster management, and more. Here are just five examples from the average tax bill.

Do not feed the trolls.

It only encourages them

By Will Collette

Several years ago, Tom Ferrio and I decided to turn off the comments section of Progressive Charlestown after we were being swamped daily with spam and troll messages. This was even before today's sophisticated bot technology that Russia used so well to promote Donald Trump's 2016 election.

There is no reasoning with bots and, unfortunately, you also can't carry on a rational conversation with fanatics, especially Trump's legion of MAGAnuts. They may be human but they're really not all there. Plus, engagement could be dangerous since at least a few of them are prone to violence.

Recently, Charlestown's Jim Mageau has been flexing his rhetorical muscles with rants in the Westerly Sun, often to attack Democrats, excoriate Joe Biden and promote his spiritual master Donald Trump. These letters have gotten Jim the attention he so desperately needs by drawing in well-meaning people who felt the need to debate him.

Big mistake.

I have to admit I was tempted, but then after thinking about it, I wrote this Letter to the Sun instead: 

Letters to the editor columns and social media get filled these days with many provocative messages often filled with lies and personal attacks. It’s hard not to get angry and want to lash out with a counterattack.

Most of the time, it’s a waste of time to do get into the argument. It adds little to rational public debate since most of these provocations are so over the top that few pay them any attention.

You won’t change the messengers' minds since they range from Russian bots designed to disrupt American civil society to pathetic old cranks looking for attention.

Don’t give them what they want – it only encourages them.

If you actually like trolls, come to Ninigret Park this summer and enjoy.

Day at the beach

Jimmy Craig 

Fact vs. fiction

Does the time of day you move your body make a difference to your health?

Physical activity in the evening linked to greater health benefits for people with obesity

University of Sydney

Undertaking the majority of daily physical activity in the evening is linked to the greatest health benefits for people living with obesity, according to researchers from the University of Sydney, Australia who followed the trajectory of 30,000 people over almost 8 years.

Using wearable device data to categorize participant's physical activity by morning, afternoon or evening, the researchers uncovered that those who did the majority of their aerobic moderate to vigorous physical activity- the kind that raises our heartrate and gets us out of breath- between 6pm and midnight had the lowest risk of premature death and death from cardiovascular disease.

The frequency with which people undertook moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in the evening, measured in short bouts up to or exceeding three minutes, also appeared to be more important than their total amount of physical activity daily.

Tiny plastic particles are found everywhere

Worse than we thought

University of Basel

It's not the first study on microplastics in Antarctica that researchers from the University of Basel and the Alfred-Wegener Institute (AWI) have conducted. 

But analysis of the data from an expedition in spring 2021 shows that environmental pollution from these tiny plastic particles is a bigger problem in the remote Weddell Sea than was previously known.

The total of 17 seawater samples all indicated higher concentrations of microplastics than in previous studies. "The reason for this is the type of sampling we conducted," says Clara Leistenschneider, doctoral candidate in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Basel and lead author of the study.

The current study focused on particles measuring between 11 and 500 micrometers in size. The researchers collected them by pumping water into tanks, filtering it, and then analyzing it using infrared spectroscopy. 

Previous studies in the region had mostly collected microplastic particles out of the ocean using fine nets with a mesh size of around 300 micrometers. Smaller particles would simply pass through these plankton nets.

The results of the new study indicate that 98.3 percent of the plastic particles present in the water were smaller than 300 micrometers, meaning that they were not collected in previous samples. "Pollution in the Antarctic Ocean goes far beyond what was reported in past studies," Leistenschneider notes. The study appears in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

What role do ocean currents play?

The individual samples were polluted to different extents. The offshore samples, which were collected north of the continental slope and the Antarctic Slope Current, contained the highest concentrations of microplastics. The reasons for this are not conclusively known. 

It may be that the ice that tends to form near the coast retains the tiny plastic particles, and they are only released back into the water when the ice melts. It could also be the case that ocean currents play a role. 

"They might work like a barrier, reducing water exchange between the north and south," suggests Gunnar Gerdts from the AWI in Heligoland, Germany.

What is certainly true is that ocean currents are an important factor and the subject of many open questions in the field. So far the researchers have only examined water samples from the ocean surface, but not from lower depths. This is primarily due to limited time on the ship expeditions for taking samples and to equipment with insufficient pumping capacity. 

"It would nonetheless be revealing to analyze such data, since the deep currents differ greatly from the surface currents and thermohaline circulation leads to exchange with water masses from northern regions," Leistenschneider says.

It is also still unclear how the microplastics make their way to the Weddell Sea in the first place and whether they ever leave the region. The strong Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which flows all the way around the Antarctic Ocean at a latitude of about 60° south, might prevent their departure. 

The researchers are also not yet able to say conclusively where the microplastics originate. Possible sources include regional ship traffic from the tourism, fishing and research industries, as well as research stations on land. However, the microplastics might also make their way to Antarctica from other regions via ocean currents or atmospheric transport.

Research leads to awareness

Clara Leistenschneider plans to focus next on analyzing the sediment samples she collected during the same expedition. This should provide information about how microplastics are accumulating on the sea floor, which is home to unique and sensitive organisms and is a breeding ground for Antarctic icefish (Bovichtidae).

With the increase in tourism in the Antarctic Ocean, pollution may increase even more in the future, further impacting the environment and the food chain.

Nonetheless, Leistenschneider remains cautiously optimistic: "Research on the topic has dramatically increased awareness in recent years of the problems that microplastics cause for the environment and all living organisms." 

Although there is no all-encompassing solution, she notes that a variety of stakeholders all over the world are working intensively to better understand the problem and develop innovative ideas to reduce plastic pollution. And, of course, "every individual who engages in environmentally-conscious behavior can bring about positive change."

Rhode Island’s ‘uncommitted’ vote secures a DNC delegate

Protest vote nets one delegate

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

One twist in the otherwise unsurprising Rhode Island presidential preference primary: The protest “uncommitted” movement secured enough votes to have one delegate representative at the Democratic National Convention this summer.

The Rhode Island Democratic Party in a statement Thursday announced the 12 elected delegate winners from the April 2 primary, all of whom are pledged to President Joe Biden. 

Biden secured a decisive victory with 80.7% of ballots cast in the Democratic primary, according to final results certified by the Rhode Island Board of Elections Thursday. However, 14.5% of Democratic voters statewide opted for the “uncommitted” option as a signal of support for Palestine in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. 

In the 2nd Congressional District, the protest movement was even stronger, garnering 15.2% of votes cast — just over the 15% threshold required by state party rules in its proportional allocation of delegates.

Which means one delegate representing the 2nd District uncommitted voters will head to the DNC in Chicago in August, joining the 12 other elected delegates, along with seats reserved for state officials and national party leaders who live in Rhode Island. Rhode Island will send 30 Democratic delegates to the DNC in total.

The uncommitted delegate has not been chosen, since all of the candidates who ran for delegate in the primary were Biden supporters. 

Any non-binary or male Democrat can compete for the uncommitted delegate spot during the state party convention on June 9, based on the party requirement for equal representation of men and women district-level delegates. Four of the five delegates already elected to represent the 2nd Congressional District are women.

Display of crass conduct from GOP election opponent of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

Rep. Patricia Morgan disrupted the committee hearing of her bill

STEVE AHLQUIST

Rhode Island State Representatives Patricia Morgan (Republican, District 26, West Warwick) and Charlene Lima (Democrat, District 14, Cranston) approached the clerks during the April 9 hearing of the House Health and Human Services Committee and held distracting conversations as members of the public attempted to deliver testimony on a bill that seeks to make the provision of gender-affirming healthcare for children a crime.

“The bill presented to you and the testimony that you've heard in support is based on incorrect information and a complete lack of understanding about the needs and experiences of transgender non-binary and gender diverse people” said Ryan Fontaine, testifying on behalf of Thundermist Health Center.

“Ryan, can you hold on just a second please?” asked Representative Brandon Potter (Democrat, District 16, Cranston), the second vice-chair of the committee. “Can I just remind the audience please that if we're going to have conversations, please take them outside?”

“Representative Lima!” said Representative Megan Cotter (Democrat, District 39, Richmond, Exeter, Hopkinton). “That's you.”

Representative Lima stepped away as Fontaine continued her testimony, but the conversation between Representative Morgan and the clerk didn't stop. If anything, it intensified. It was so distracting that she lost track of her testimony.

“I'm sorry,” said Ryan Fontaine.

"Representative Morgan, you're disrupting the testimony," said Representative Cotter.

“I'm chatting to the clerk,” said Representative Morgan, unperturbed.

Wash, rinse, repeat

Definitely not a cult, uh-huh

 

Commercial Fisheries Apprenticeship Program seeks applicants for 2024

Program run by Commercial Fisheries Center of R.I., with URI assistance

Dave Lavallee

The Commercial Fisheries Apprenticeship Program run by the Commercial Fisheries Center of Rhode Island, with assistance from the University of Rhode Island, is seeking applicants for the 2024 year.

Now in its seventh year, the apprenticeship program is fully funded by Real Jobs Rhode Island through the Department of Labor and Training. 

The program will accept 16 individuals to partake in the program beginning May 28 and ending in late June 2024. After the initial training, apprentices will be given opportunities to work as crew members on Rhode Island vessels to begin on-the-job learning. 

Infections after surgery are more likely due to bacteria already on your skin than from microbes in the hospital

BYOB (Bring your own bacteria)

Dustin Long, University of Washington and Chloe Bryson-Cahn, University of Washington

Genetic analysis of the bacteria causing surgical site infections
revealed that many were already present on the patient’s skin.
 Ruben Bonilla Gonzalo/Moment via Getty Images

Health care providers and patients have traditionally thought that infections patients get while in the hospital are caused by superbugs they’re exposed to while they’re in a medical facility. 

Genetic data from the bacteria causing these infections – think CSI for E. coli – tells another story: Most health care-associated infections are caused by previously harmless bacteria that patients already had on their bodies before they even entered the hospital.

Research comparing bacteria in the microbiome – those colonizing our noses, skin and other areas of the body – with the bacteria that cause pneumonia, diarrhea, bloodstream infections and surgical site infections shows that the bacteria living innocuously on our own bodies when we’re healthy are most often responsible for these bad infections when we’re sick.

Our newly published research in Science Translational Medicine adds to the growing number of studies supporting this idea. We show that many surgical site infections after spinal surgery are caused by microbes that are already on the patient’s skin.

Libraries say they lose state aid under McKee’s proposed 2025 budget

Book burning by other means

By Alexander Castro, Rhode Island Current

McKee does a photo op reading a book to Westerly
school kids, but cuts library funding

Stop motion animation, a Portuguese cooking demo, free paper shredding, how to make vegan potato salad, and DIY embroidery to craft sew-on patches: These are just a few of the events upcoming at East Providence Public Library.

“People know that libraries have books,” said Meredith Bonds-Harmon, director of the East Providence Public Library. “But what we’re always looking to do is get new people in the door, so we offer a lot of free programming for the public to invite people into our spaces.”

But vegan cuisine and fiber crafts aren’t free for libraries. Some libraries say Gov. Dan McKee’s proposed budget for fiscal 2025 could hurt their ability to offer services beyond books and engage their communities. 

State law sets the state’s contribution to municipal library services at an amount equal to 25% of library expenditures from two years ago plus 25% of any money spent from private endowments. But the spending plan McKee submitted to the General Assembly for fiscal 2025 would effectively fund only 24.18% of what libraries spent in fiscal 2023.   

The lack of full 25% funding is not a problem specific to McKee’s administration. Data from the Office of Library and Information Services shows the 25% threshold has only been hit twice since 2009, in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. 

The Rhode Island Library Association proudly announced the House’s passage of a bill in June 2022 to add $1.4 million in funding for libraries in fiscal 2023, and again in January 2023 when McKee added $484,000 in his proposed budget.

Priorities are different this year, said Derek Gomes, a Department of Administration spokesperson.

Council President Carney debunks Ninigret Park misstatements.

Presents a run-down of the issues before Council meeting

By Deb Carney

The purpose of tonight’s [April 15] meeting is for the Town Council to discuss and take any potential action on the Ninigret Park Master Plan as drafted by VHB.

After the Council has had the opportunity to discuss the plan and ask questions of the VHB representatives, I will open the floor up to public comment. 

The Council will not take a vote on the plan until after those that wish to speak on the plan have had the opportunity to do so.

I am taking a few moments to remind everyone of proper decorum for Council meetings.  There will be no name calling, no yelling out, no booing, no jeering, no applauding. Tonight’s meeting will not be a free-for-all.  Everyone will be given the opportunity to speak without fear of being heckled or booed. 

Please be respectful of those sitting around you.  If you wish to carry on a conversation, please take it out to the hallway. 

To have a productive discussion this evening, everyone needs to be on the same page as to what the Master Plan Update is, and what it is not. 

Over the past several months, there has been much misinformation about the Ninigret Park Master Plan update posted on social media.  This misinformation campaign has created division in our town, which is unfortunate.  The Park is being used as a political tool to create confusion, concern, hostility, and discontent.

The park is supposed to be a place for all to enjoy. A place to come together as a community. Not a weapon used to divide us.

To get everyone on the same page, I need to correct some statements made online.

Contrary to what was written on social media, this is the Council’s first discussion regarding the draft plan.  The Council has not approved this plan, nor has the Council discussed implementing any of the recommendations, let alone spending over $30 million or $40 million of tax-payers money, as we have been accused of doing.

Contrary to what has been repeatedly posted online, the Council has not proposed constructing a concert/ event stadium.  We are not constructing one for 12,000 people. We are not constructing one for 14,000 people.  We are not proposing constructing any concert/ event stadium.

Contrary to what was written on social media, the Council did not remove proposed cost estimates from the plan. VHB was working on updating the cost estimates which they did, and then emailed to the town last week. 

Contrary to what was written online, the Council did not remove the letters from the end of the report, as we were accused of doing. The Council had nothing to do with the letters.  I know that not all communications were included. For example, the Chariho Cowboys Football and Cheerleading Organization submitted an online petition in support of improvements to Ninigret Park with over 59 signatures. Their petition was not included at the end of the report. The Town Council had no role in determining what was included, and what was not included.

To further clarify non-factual information posted online, I offer the following answers to questions I have been asked based on social media posts:

1.  Why is the Town Council updating the Master Plan?

The Town is required to update the Ninigret Park Master Plan every ten years, The last plan was adopted in 2008. That was sixteen years ago.  The Town is past due.

Page 77 of the draft Master Plan, which is packet page 79 this evening, includes meeting notes from July 13, 1994, with Mr. John T. Kelly, who at the time administrated the Federal Lands to Parks Program for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.  Mr. Kelly attended a meeting with town officials.

This document from this meeting states, “The application to acquire surplus government land included a ten-year plan of Utilization.  This plan must be updated by the end of each ten-year period.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: also see minutes of a follow-up meeting on October 17, 2002 HERE. To read the original deed that conveyed Ninigret Park to Charlestown from the federal government, CLICK HERE.

I stress this, because I have been asked by multiple people, why is the Council updating the plan.  The answer is because the Town is required to do so.

2.  What happened to the 2014 Master Plan? 

A Master Plan update was drafted in 2014 but it was never approved by the Town Council.  I was not on the Town Council in 2014. I don’t know why it wasn’t approved.  But as of today, the town is not current with our obligation to update the plan.

3.  Why is the Council only looking at the 2008 and 2014 Master Plans? 

We aren’t.  We are looking at numerous factors. This accusation is false.

On January 23, 2023, the Town Council first discussed updating the Master Plan, as the Town is required to do.

The Town Council unanimously approved the following motion: “Motion to direct the Parks and Recreation Commission with the assistance of the Parks and Recreation Department to compile a draft Master Plan detailing the steps necessary to implement improvements to Ninigret Park utilizing the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan and the 2014 Ninigret Park Master Plan Update draft, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the 2021 Townwide Survey documents.

The information should include, but not be limited to, the following objectives, with no preference given to the order listed:

a.  Using as a guide, the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan and the 2014 Ninigret Park Master Plan Update draft, specifically the Master Plan Project Areas Map found on page 46 of that plan, compile the report so as to have separate project areas and the details of each individually identified so they may or may not be implemented as stand-alone projects, in groups, or as a whole.

b.  Within the Project Areas, make updates and recommendations taking into account existing infrastructure and any physical changes that have occurred from 2014 to current.

c.  Identify and recommend the order of priority in which each project area may be implemented if done individually.

d.  Analyze, update where needed, and combine the information from the 2008 and 2014 plans, respectively and include such in the draft Master Plan.

e.  Seek input and include participation from the National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Frosty Drew Observatory and Science Center, the Charlestown Senior Center, Police, Fire and Rescue agencies, the sports groups that utilize the current fields, the Chariho Cowboys, the Public, and additional interested parties.

f.  Compile a list of all steps needed to take project areas from current to completion for each project. The Parks and Recreation Commission Chair and the Director of Parks and Recreation, or their designees, shall appear at the April 2023 Town Council meeting with a preliminary update. Any additional resources needed for the Commission to accomplish its report can be addressed at that time. The Commission shall have one-hundred and twenty (120) days to complete this report or request additional time from the Town Council.”

4.  Why did the Town hire an outside company to draft the plan?

The Parks & Recreation Department requested assistance with the task of updating the plan. In part, the memo from the Parks and Recreation Director [Vicki Hilton] reads:

"As the director of the Parks and Recreation Department, I do not feel that the volunteer Parks and Recreation Commission members have the time nor expertise for this task. I feel an impartial and professional assessing of the information would be the best path for this major endeavor. We would like to seek proposals from a consulting firm in Park and Recreation Master Planning and community engagement. The Commission Chairman and I feel an outside qualified professional agency would create the most effective master plan that will reflect the unique environmental and community interests of Ninigret Park for years to come. We do not feel that we are able to meet the necessary design standards, editorial skills, environmental expertise nor are we equipped for the graphic capabilities that a full-time firm would provide.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is not the first Ninigret rodeo for VHB, Charlestown's contractor. For example, they were heavily involved in the town's planning for the Park in 2002. CLICK HERE.

5. Where is the money coming from to pay for this plan? 

The funding is coming from the American Rescue Plan Act funds that the federal government awarded to Charlestown in 2021. On February 13, 2023, after receiving the memo from the Parks & Recreation Director, the Town Council discussed this matter during the Town Council meeting and approved the following motion: 

“Motion to authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to seek proposals from a consulting firm in Park and Recreation Master Planning and community engagement for the creation of a 2023 Master Plan for Ninigret Park and the potential appropriation of $35,000 in budgetary funding for this purpose, to be taken from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds, Budget Line Item 43.000.5100 (ARPA FUND Expenses), and to authorize the Acting Town Administrator and Town Treasurer, each, to take any and all such actions, and to execute and deliver such certificates, receipts or other documents as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing.”

On July 10, 2023 the Town Council unanimously approved the following motion: 

"Motion to award the Ninigret Park Master Plan Update 2023 Bid to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) in the Amount of $31,300.00 as Budgeted in Line Item 43.000.51400 (ARPA Fund Expenses) and Authorization of the Acting Town Administrator and Town Treasurer, Each, to Take Any and All Such Actions, and Execute and Deliver Such Certificates, Receipts or Other Documents as May be Necessary to Carry into Effect the Foregoing."

6.  What is the Master Plan?

As written in the report, “The Master plan is a wholistic long-term strategy or blueprint that outlines potential opportunities for development, growth, or revitalization.”

The Master Plan is not a construction plan. 

In 1994, the Town Council approved the Ninigret Park Ten Year Utilization Plan.  That plan from 30 years ago included, among other items, a bandshell and a football field.  Even though both were in the plan, they were not built.  I point this out, because based on comments posted online, some people think that everything in this plan is somehow going to be built in the next few years. 

It’s not.

The approved 2008 plan also included a list of items that were never implemented.  For example, removing invasive species of plants, reducing the amount of paved areas and replacing them with grassed fields, clearing an area of the park for the festivals so as not to impact other areas of the park.  This is a short list.  

My point is none of these things were done over the past sixteen years, even though they were in the plan.

During the November 30th  meeting of the Master Plan Update Subcommittee, the consultants from VHB showed a new community center in their plan.  Contrary to what was printed online, this is not something the Town Council asked them to include.  

If a new community center were to be built, the cost would likely be over ten million dollars.  The new community center that South Kingstown built a few years ago cost over seven million dollars, and they have public water and public sewer.  Charlestown does not.  

That alone would increase our costs.  Also, Ninigret Park is in the hurricane zone, which has stricter, and more expensive building requirements.  This Town Council never expressed an interest in constructing a community center.  

The consultants included it so that if in the future the town decided this is something the town wants to build, then the location in the plan would be a logical place to put it, but not required.  

Also, if in the future the residents of Charlestown decide this is something we want to construct, then there would need to be a construction plan, along with associated costs, which would ultimately be voted on by the voters of Charlestown.

To put things in perspective, in 2019, the majority members on the Town Council proposed taking $3 million of the town’s surplus money and transferring it within the budget for a new “community/recreation /senior center”.  There was no plan for this “center”.  I was on the Town Council in 2019 and was the only Councilor that opposed this “plan”. 

For the record, none of my fellow Councilors this evening were on the Council in 2019, and none of them were involved with that $3 million proposed transfer of money.

In 2019 the voters came out in force to oppose this transfer of funds and voted down the entire budget that year. 

If a community center is ever seriously proposed, then an actual plan with associated costs would need to be developed.  Any proposal of that magnitude should be voted on as a separate warrant item question as was done in 2015 when the voters overwhelmingly approved the citizen petition for $1 million for improvements to Ninigret park as outlined in the 2008 Master Plan.

7.  If something is not in the plan, can it still be built? 

Yes. Just because something is not in the plan, that does not mean it can't be built.  For example, two years ago the town put in an outdoor exercise area.  That was not in the plan, but it was added.  

This is the so-called multi-use path - actually a bike path -
that the CCA pushed through based on the claim that it would
cost less than $7000. It actually cost $266,927, a 4000% overrun.
It was not in any master plan or list of priorities except
CCA founding member Faith Labossiere's. Photo by Will Collette

About seven years ago, the town installed a "multiuse" path, around the playground.  This also was not in the plan, but it was added to the park. [see photo, left]

To have a productive discussion this evening, it is crucial for everyone to understand what a Master Plan is. To that end, I will read from page 45 of the draft plan.

“The 2024 Master Plan is not promoting any specific type of development, but highly recommends any future development or park improvements need to be carefully limited to specific locations as depicted in this Master Plan and deemed appropriate through a typical town permitting process. It’s imperative for the Community, and anyone reading this report, to clearly understand the following:

• A master plan is a wholistic long-term strategy or blueprint that outlines potential opportunities for development, growth, or revitalization.

• It will serve as a guide for decision-making and future development.

• All decisions will have to go through standard permitting and approval processes, as determined by local, state, and federal governments.

• The result of the 2024 Master Plan is a culmination of master plan alternatives including the 2008 Approved Master Plan, the 2014 Draft Master Plan, as well as research and community input

• A thoughtful process incorporating “Placemaking Principles”.

• “Placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maximize shared value.” – www.pps.org

There is no way any plan is going to make everyone completely happy.  There will be some things some residents want, that others don’t.  This draft plan has a little bit of something for most people.  

I ask that as we discuss the plan this evening, we all keep an open mind.  While something in the plan might not be what you personally would use, it could be something others would use and enjoy.

Finally, nothing in this plan, or any plan, can be implemented without money.  It will ultimately be the 5000 plus registered voters of Charlestown that will vote on what improvements to fund, or not fund, in Ninigret Park.  

EDITOR'S POST SCRIPT. This is not the first, or probably the last, time citizens have almost come to blows over the use of Ninigret Park. 

In 2013-14, in a conflict Progressive Charlestown called "The Battle for Ninigret Park," Charlestown Citizen Alliance (CCA) Council members claimed that a proposal to install lighting so kids could conduct football practice after daylight standard kicked in would constitute a breach of our deed with the National Park Service. 

Photo by Will Collette

They claimed there was a nefarious conspiracy being carried out by then Town Administrator William DiLibero and Parks and Recreation Director Jay Primiano. 

They said they had heard from ex-US Fish and Wildlife Rhode Island director Charlie Vandemoer (left) that the Interior Department was just a hair away from taking back the Park. CCA Council members Tom Gentz and Dan Slattery even suggested Charlestown preemptively give the park back to the feds. [Charlie told me later, face-to-face, he never said that].

All of the CCA's claims turned out to be false and when pressed by the RI Attorney General, Councilor Dan Slattery was unable to produce the so-called definitive proof he claimed to possess. Regional National Parks  Director Elyse DeForest came to Charlestown to answer questions and debunk the CCA's false claims. 

Dan Slattery. Photo by Will Collette

In the end, a chastened Charlie Vandemoer got a piece of paper saying he and Charlestown would talk when needed, something already guaranteed. We got to keep Ninigret Park. Gentz, Slattery and the CCA went on to concoct other phony scandals to create panic among Charlestown's residents to win elections.

Both Bill DiLibero and Jay Primiano lost their jobs. 

Deb is too polite to bring up this sordid past. 

I'm not.

- Will Collette