The CCA’s Toxic Twins need to be retired from Charlestown politics
By Will Collette
 |
| Like I said, conjoined twins |
These conjoined
toxic twins have been almost inseparable for the past ten years, though Platner
is the dominant partner while Van Slyke’s served as Platner’s puppet.
Both are up for re-election on November 3 and hopefully both
will lose their seats.
The CCA’s decade-long rule over Charlestown, ended in 2022
when they were trounced by the slate of candidates under the Charlestown
Residents United (CRU), was marked by corrupt land deals, financial
mismanagement, seemingly endless fake threats to the town’s existence, town
government secrecy and cover-ups, and constant rancor.
Platner and her dog’s body Van Slyke were at the heart of
just about all of Charlestown’s CCA-inflicted wounds.
This duo has been the driving force behind the CCA policies
that voters finally repudiated in 2022. The list will be familiar to regular
Progressive Charlestown readers and are listed below near the end with key
articles that cover each issue in depth.
I'm voting YES on Charlestown Question 7
But today, as many of you ponder early voting or mail-in
ballot decisions or as you pore over contradictory mailers, here’s another
reason to reject the CCA and its leaders Platner and Van Slyke.
That’s the CCA’s urgent plea to voters to reject Charlestown Question 7 which would change the staggered term of office for members of the Planning Commission from 6 years to 4. You might ask, “Who cares?”
Here’s why. Ever since Ruth Platner was named to the
Planning Commission in 1997, she has campaigned to block virtually all home
building in Charlestown. When she elbowed the respected late Bob Rohm out of
the Planning Commission chair, she turned the Planning Commission into the
place where projects go to die.
She did it by using the clock to kill projects. Now she desperately
wants to maintain the six-year terms, explaining that “Long, staggered
terms let the same commissioners review a large development through from start
to finish” urging voters to vote NO to Charlestown Question 7. Naturally, I'm voting YES.
Platner expects commissioners to ponder development projects
for as long as six years. No wonder so many projects go nowhere when the
funding or investment disappears as Platner talks projects to death.
As one Planning Commission observer once told me, it’s
remarkable that Platner and her sidekick Frances Topping can talk for three
hours straight at Commission meetings and say nothing.
Under Platner, any project applicant could look forward to
years of hell and an ultimate denial, unless they acceded to Platner’s demands
on matters as trivial as the color
of roof shingles or switch plates on electrical outlets. It helped if the
applicant made a substantial donation to one of Platner’s favored charities,
such as the Charlestown Land Trust.
By 2000, Platner’s policies succeeded in causing Charlestown
population to stagnate and, as she admits in the town Comprehensive
Plan, even to decline, a pattern that continues today. She
covered that up by cooking Census data to make the claim that growth in
Charlestown actually exceeded the rest of Rhode Island, making it unfair for
the state to insist the town build more affordable housing.
She cooked the data by choosing 1970 as the start date,
which allowed her to use the period of 1970 to 1999 where population grew
rapidly to offset the stagnant growth period of 2000 to the present brought about by
her policies.
By 2023, alarm bells were sounding about Platner’s obstinate
refusal to allow housing for families: In
Charlestown, limited progress and lots of discord on affordable housing - TPR:
The Public's Radio.
We have no affordable housing for town employees, the
children of existing residents or the people who come into town to work to
clean our homes, mow the lawns, take out the trash, or change diapers. Those
folks are expected to be out of town by sundown. Charlestown has become in the
classic sense, a “Sundown Town.”
So, the Planning Commission needs six years to process an
application. By sharp contrast, when Platner and Van Slyke want a project,
whether its laying down tons of asphalt to build Faith LaBossiers’ ridiculous
bike path in Ninigret Park or buying a piece of overpriced land from a CCA
political donor or ally, they can operate at warp speed.
At last
January 12’s Town Council meeting, we saw the CCA playbook for how
to kill good projects.
Along comes the WARM Center, one of our area’s most
venerable charities with a plan that would have warmed the heart of WARM’s
founder, the late Rev. Jean Barry of Charlestown. (Jean and my wife Cathy served
together for years on Charlestown’s Affordable Housing Commission.)
WARM wants to convert the derelict motel into affordable
housing units by refurbishing the existing building, using the same footprint
and making no additional demands on groundwater. They would continue helping
residents with support services after they move in. By every measure, the
perfect Smart Growth plan for affordable housing that even Ruth Platner should
get behind.
Jean Barry’s successor Russ Partridge talked to Cathy and me
about this project a few years ago and we loved it, becoming one of the first
private major donors to the work.
All WARM asked for from Charlestown was a letter of support
that they could use in their efforts to secure necessary state funding to make
this important project happen.
Of course, Council President Deb Carney crafted such a
letter and asked her colleagues to approve sending it. Given that this project
really is a no-brainer on the facts and the merits, that letter should have
immediately received unanimous approval.
But that’s not what happened. Council member Bonnie Van
Slyke, clearly at the behest of her master Ruth Platner, raised issues with the
letter of support. Van Slyke made a little speech where TWICE she voiced her support
for the generic concept of affordable housing but questioned whether this
project could get proper CRMC approval, implicitly challenging the competence
of the WARM Center.
This is not WARM’s first rodeo – they’ve successfully
carried out several major construction projects – and they know the steps that
need to be done. Besides, the motion on the floor was a simple letter of
support that highlighted Charlestown’s dire need for affordable housing not the details of the project.
But Van Slyke’s tactic of fogging the issue was enough to
get Councilor Steve Stokes to decide to abstain even though he said he
generally liked the project.
Van Slyke, despite her phony praise for affordable housing,
voted NO. Deb and Craig Marr voted yes. Peter Slom recused himself and Stokes
abstained. The motion to send the letter failed.
Van Slyke tried to pile on by insisting Ruth Platner be given the podium to speak to the issue, no doubt to raise even more phony issues about the
project. Council President Carney slapped her down, noting that the motion had
already been voted on.
Under Robert’s Rules of Order, that meant that Platner
needed to go back to her seat and STFU without being allowed to pile on or take
a victory lap.
If you think I’m making this up, watch for yourself: here’s
the LINK
to the video of the meeting and the discussion starts about 90 minutes in.
But wait, there's more!
The letter of support story does have a happy end. Deb brought the letter back to the Council on January 26 where it was approved on a 3-1 vote. Van Slyke, implicitly on Platner's instructions, again voted NO to sending the letter of support for what is arguably a model for affordable housing.
Van Slyke's claim of support for affordable housing is shown to be a lie. The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) remains unalterably opposed to affordable housing. Platner and the CCA paint this election as being about local control, but this incident shows what "local control" looks like under the CCA. More like Mississippi than Charlestown.
More reasons to oppose Platner, Van Slyke and the CCA slate
As promised, here’s that list of key reasons why you should
not support the CCA and its candidates in this year’s General Election.
We’re still digging out from the CCA’s financial
mess. Also click HERE
to see how the new CRU Town Council started cleaning up this mess and HERE
for a summary of the CCA’s financial messes.
The CCA claims they cut Charlestown's property tax rate.
They lie. They controlled the Town Council from 2010 to 2022.
See what happened in 2023 to the present after Charlestown
Residents United (CRU) kicked them out of office.
SOURCE: Charlestown Tax Assessor.
Dirty Land Deals. Read about some of the worst – Tucker
Estates, SPA-Gate,
and Sawmill
Pond.
They ran up the highest municipal government costs in the
state: Progressive
Charlestown: Charlestown has very high municipal costs, according to new report. The CRU fixed that.
They used secrecy
in government to hide their incompetence
They regularly created fake emergencies to “prove”
how good they were at protecting the town. For a list of those emeergencies, read THIS
ARTICLE.
They favored rich, non-residents over full-time residents.
Prime example: Blocking
tax breaks for permanent residents
They banned residential
wind power
The put out a deeply flawed and very late Comprehensive
Plan: Platner submitted the plan to the state eight years late. It was full
of weird ideas (e.g. Seniors should use Uber to overcome Charlestown’s lack of
public transportation): Progressive
Charlestown: Slyke of hand, Part 3: The Plan from Hell
The CCA consistently raised Charlestown’s tax rate, not
lowered it as they claim: https://www.progressive-charlestown.com/2025/11/the-charlestown-town-council-december-2.html
CCA’s thoroughly compromised Town Administrator carried out the CCA's policies: Progressive
Charlestown: CCA favorite, former Charlestown Town Administrator Mark
Stankiewicz leaves the second job he’s held since leaving Charlestown in 2023.
Stanky made Van Slyke, Platner and the CCA look like idiots. They rose up to attack the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) newly elected Council majority for driving out such a talented guy.
But, in fact, Stanky had
already lined up the new job months before the election and didn't tell the
CCA. He stuck around and milked the town for every last day of salary. Even
after the details of Stanky's exit came out, Van Slyke still stuck to her story
that he had been driven out.
In case you’re wondering where Stankiewicz is, he’s back in his hometown of Stoughton where he’s doing weird YouTube appearances like this:
