Enough
of lost opportunities for recreation
By
Maggie Hogan
 |
| Photo from Support Charlestown's Ninigret Park |
Fourteen
years ago, while pregnant with my second and youngest child, I completed a term
on the entertainment subcommittee of the Charlestown Parks and Recreation
Commission. The major item of discussion before the subcommittee was the
feasibility of a fixed entertainment venue, such as a concert “shell,” and the
viability of a new concert event called Rhythm & Roots.
While
Rhythm & Roots has thrived, there is no concert shell. Indeed, the park has
changed very little since those days, despite the creation of a Master
Plan, as supported by the surveyed members of the Charlestown community as
a whole.
In
those same 14 years, we have authorized a total of $5 million for acquisition
of “Open Space.” The Charlestown Town Councils have readily spent those funds
and now seek authorization to spend an additional $2 million on more “Open
Space.” While I do not know anyone who dislikes open space vistas and forests,
there is a real cost to all of us each and every year. This cost has been
ignored and glossed over by many of the open space advocates on these pages.
Indeed,
some have gone so far as to say that voting for the open space bond won’t cost
us a dime. Such statements are a bold and phony advertising come-on and fail to
reveal the “fine print” of what it will cost when the bonds are actually
issued. We can get an idea of what it will cost if we vote to approve more
bonds this year, by looking at the costs of existing bond issues.
(1) $2 Million Open Space Bond —
authority given in 2004, bond issued 2014. The principal on this bond is
$180,000 and the interest this year is $41,065. This bond is payable through
2025.
(2) $3 Million Open Space Bond —
authority given in 2000 for $2 million and in 2002 for an additional $1
million; bond issued in 2004. The principal on this bond is $160,000 and the
interest this year is $32,400. This bond is payable through 2024.
(3) Affordable Housing Bond — authority
given in 2006, bond issued in 2014 and payable through 2034. The principal on
this bond is $38,813 and the interest is $32,763.
(4) $1.19 million Beach Pavilion Bond —
authority given in 2011. The principal on this bond is $46,187 and the interest
is $38,987.
Thus,
of the total debt expenditure (or mortgage payment) for this year of $570,215,
72.5 percent ($413,465) is for the Open Space acquisitions we have already
made. The bulk of the properties purchased with these funds have primarily, if
not exclusively, passive use — walking trails and scenic vistas. According to
the published budget, we can expect to pay approximately this amount each year
through 2025. (One bond is finished in 2024.)
If
voters approve this year’s request for an additional $2 million in bond
authorization, and the council spends it, we can expect another $225,000
(approximately) to be added to next year’s budget and for well past the
foreseeable budget years as well. I would urge all residents to vote no to the
additional $2 million requested this year. We can always revisit this issue in future years and authorize
more bonding, after we have paid down some of the existing $5 million of
indebtedness.
In
addition to us paying $400,000 toward our open space mortgages this year, the
Town Council also seeks authorization to simply give away an unnecessary
conservation easement to a local land trust for the land that we purchased just
last year with open space funds. Proponents of this question call this
“partnering.”
I fail to understand how giving away this asset, for which we
will continue to pay $221,065 for the next 10 years, makes any fiscal sense
whatsoever.
Why
are we not seeking to recoup our funds by engaging in a true “partnership” with
one of the usual entities such as The Nature Conservancy or the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management? The
answer is that neither entity is interested in purchasing a conservation
easement from us because we bought the land with open space bonds and
therefore, the lands are already protected. There is no need to give this
land, already designated as open space, to a private land trust to “protect”
it.
Please
vote no to this fiscally unsound question.
Finally,
of the debt expenditure to be made in this year’s budget, a mere 14.9 percent
will be for active recreation at our fabulous beach pavilions now enjoyed by
thousands of our residents and visitors. If we are to authorize more bond
monies this year, let’s do so for active recreation facilities at Ninigret
Park, where the improvements can be enjoyed by thousands of residents — young
and old, able-bodied and non-able-bodied alike.
There is a citizens’ petition
for bonding authorization to make the Ninigret
Park Master Plan a reality. The Ninigret Park envisioned by so many of us
for so many years will not be a reality during either of my children’s youth;
my youngest will be entering high school this fall.
Nevertheless, I support
this petition for the good of all of us and our town. Let’s not let yet another
generation of Charlestown children and families miss out on the benefits of the
approved Master
Plan.
Please vote yes, for Petition number 1.
