New budget goes to Charlestown voters on June 2

CCA chimes in on Charlestown proposed budget

By Will Collette

Charlestown voters will have the final say on the town’s proposed $30 million+ budget. This new budget increases town expenditures by around 1.5%, compared to a 2.39% inflation rate for the past 12 months.

Under this budget, Charlestown’s tax rate is projected to increase from the current $5.78 per $1000 in assessed property value to $5.93. That’s an increase of 2.6%. Hopefully, this will be offset for permanent residents by a planned Homestead tax break if – fingers crossed – we get General Assembly approval and can swiftly pass a town ordinance. That might be overly optimistic, though.

Even at $5.93, Charlestown’s tax rate since the Charlestown Residents United won control of the Council continues to be lower than it was during any time in the past 50 years. Your actual tax is the tax rate times the assessed value of your property. Those assessments are also at an all-time high.

The all-day financial referendum will be held from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Monday, June 2, at Town Hall. Mail Ballot Applications are available on request at (401) 364-1200 or by e-mailing Town Clerk Amy Weinreich at arweinreich@charlestownri.gov.

I have been watching the reaction from the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), Charlestown’s past rulers who were kicked to the curb by Charlestown Residents United in the last two elections. Their reaction was pretty muted compared to the kinds of rants we’ve seen from the CCA over the past 15 years.

They kvetched a little about plans to create a new home for the Parks and Recreation Department in Ninigret Park. What a concept! At its April 14 meeting, the Town Council set aside $75,000 as a contingency to pay for any needed design or engineering work. One plan is to convert the existing gatehouse into office space. If that is impractical (i.e. if repair work is too expensive), Plan B is to build a new building.

That plus improvements to existing facilities in the Park bother the CCA. Frankly, anything in the Park bothers the CCA who have fought against any and all projects, except of course, “Faith’s Folly,” their over-budget asphalt abomination of a bike path. If anyone other than CCA founding member Faith Labossiere had proposed laying down that much asphalt anywhere in town, CCA Leader and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner would light her hair on fire.

The CCA groused a little at the Town Council’s refusal to continue small grants to the Charlestown Land Trust and Community 2000. Both organizations are currently well-funded and well-endowed.

According to the Charlestown Land Trust’s most recent federal IRS-990 filing, they hold more than $2.76 million in assets, although I believe the true value is far higher, given that their acreage includes lots of prime property. The Land Trust has long and deep ties to the CCA.

More relevant to whether the town should contribute to them is another fact included in their IRS filing. The CLT only spends about 65% of what it raises. They reported an income of ~$80,000 but only spent ~$52,000.

Community 2000, a scholarship fund, reports similar data in its IRS filing. It has an endowment of $2.3 million. They only spend 60% of what they raise. In their most recent tax filing, they raised ~$228,000 but spent only ~$137,000.

While I have no quarrel with the mission of either of these two organizations, I think their own tax data show they don’t need Charlestown taxpayer money.

But here’s the kicker: The CCA makes the claim that “The Council also eliminated funds designated for the Charlestown Land Trust ($1,500) and for Community 2000 ($1,000).”

In fact, there was NO MONEY designated to be removed. Like so many of the CCA’s fiscal complaints, this is imaginary. While this is small potatoes compared to the CCA’s many other fiscal gaffs, it shows that the CCA just doesn’t seem to learn that you can’t make this shit up and get away with it.

The CCA’s sharpest critique was aimed at the Town Council’s decision to fund this year’s budget increase from the town’s bloated unrestricted fund balance.

During the CCA’s reign, increasing the size of the town’s fund balance became an obsession to the point where it seemed as if no amount of “rainy day” reserves was enough. The old Budget Commission Chair and controversial former town administrator Richard Sartor continually pushed to put more cash into reserves. Among other things, Sartor pushed for Charlestown to pay cash for capital projects, as if using bonds to fund capital projects was a mortal sin. Maybe Sartor never had a mortgage.

The CCA concedes that even after taking out this year’s budget increases, the unrestricted fund balance still meets the minimum levels (23-33%) they themselves forced on the town. Their complaint: if the town continues to tap the fund balance in the future, this might reduce the fund balance below their comfort level.

They also think the current Town Council doesn’t have adequate plans for future capital projects.

Deputy Dan Slattery

Again with the irony. Since at least 2012, the town Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been a CCA obsession, especially when their former President Deputy Dan Slattery served on the Town Council. I wrote about that obsession in detail HERE.

If you don’t want to read it, here are the Cliff Notes: State law and the Town Charter both mandate municipalities to have five-year capital improvement plans. For some reason in 2012, Deputy Dan wasn’t satisfied with the result and tried to make this a big deal even though CCA leader and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner denied the Planning Commission had no role to play. Her Planning posse only dealt with birds and bushes, not buildings and bridges.

After Deputy Dan left, the CCA seemed to lose all interest in the capital improvement plan. If anything, they seemed to see it as an impediment to spending money on shady land deals or any of a number of other crackpot schemes they came up with, often on the spur of the moment.

Prime among them is the 2019 CCA-controlled Council decision to spend a $3 million surplus on a a “community center” in Ninigret Park. This scheme came out of the blue with no plan, design or actual budget for a new building that no one either asked for or wanted. It wasn’t in the approved Ninigret Park Master Plan nor the existing town Capital Improvement Plan. For good reason, taxpayers voted it down.

The CCA makes no mention of the September 2024 Rhode Island Auditor General’s report that shows in hard numbers that the new CRU controlled Town Council has cleaned up the fiscal mess left behind by the CCA.

The contradictions and hypocritical comments from the CCA are par for the course, but I still wonder why they chose to make them. They had to know they would be fact-checked.

One thing did surprise me in the CCA’s remarks on the budget. This year’s town budget reflects a 2% drop in Charlestown’s share of the cost to run the Chariho School District. That’s a savings of ~$287,000.

The saving is entirely due to a drop in the number of students going to Chariho from Charlestown. Why doesn’t the CCA take credit for this? After all, the drop in students is due to the relentless 15-year campaign by the CCA and its founder and leader Ruth Platner to drive families with kids out of Charlestown while ensuring that new families don’t come in.

From Charlestown Residents United...

Fellow Charlestown Residents, The Charlestown Town Council will have their first regular meeting of the month on Monday, May 12 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. The agenda packet can be read here. There is also a link for watching the live stream of the meeting. Discussion and potential action about adoption of the 2025-2026 budget for submission to the voters at the financial town referendum on June 2, 2025. Further discussion and potential action regarding next steps for the Parks & Recreation Commission for planning to move the Charlestown Parks and Recreation Department from the Town Hall to Ninigret Park (memo on page 328 of the agenda packet) I hope to see you there! There are some future meetings and events that may be of interest: Charlestown Land Trust walk at the beautiful and historic Amos Greene Farm, Saturday, May 10, 10 a.m., registration required. Town Council special meeting about a resolution regarding second amendment rights, Monday, May 19, 7:00 p.m. at Charlestown Elementary School. A public panel discussion about Shoreline Access Rights hosted by ecoRI.org, May 22, 5:45 p.m. at the Westerly Armory, Railroad Avenue, Westerly. Town Council Second Monthly Meeting, Tuesday, May 27, 7:00 p.m. at Charlestown Town Hall, Council Chambers Town Council Regular Meeting Monday, June 9, 7:00 p.m. at Charlestown Town Hall, Council Chambers With Thanks, Tim Quillen, Chair Charlestown Residents United Paid for by Charlestown Residents United P.O. Box 412 Charlestown, RI 02813 Visit our Website

Our local beach closures are testament

Poop pathogens threaten US beachgoers nationwide, study finds

SHANNON KELLEHER

The YMCA's Camp Watchaug beach in Charlestown, one of several
local beaches recently closed for unhealthy levels of E. Coli bacteria.
It's also the location for the Charlestown Land Trust's August 5
"Pondside Picnic" ($60 ticket). Suggest you stay out of the water.

Beachgoers may be on the lookout for sharks and jellyfish, but one danger lurking beneath the waves this summer originated onshore — pathogens from human and farm animal waste. 

Over half of US beaches tested in 2022 harbored potentially unsafe levels of contamination, according to an analysis released today by the organizations Environment America Research & Policy Center and Frontier Group.

The study found that 1,761 out of 3,192 coastal and Great Lakes beaches tested across the country last year showed fecal contamination levels above an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benchmark on at least one day that year.

363 of the beaches showed potentially unsafe levels on at least a quarter of the days they were tested. Much of the contamination comes from stormwater runoff in developed areas, outdated and deteriorating sewage systems, and factory farming, the authors write.

Swimming in water contaminated with fecal bacteria can cause gastrointestinal and respiratory illness, as well as infections, according to the EPA’s website.

Source: RI Dept. of Health. Note that the closure of Camp Watchaug has not, as of July 9, been lifted.

Interesting end to another CCA land deal

Another large parcel changes hands

By Will Collette

Starting some months back, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance and its de facto leader Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, made another big push using taxpayer money to buy another large parcel of land as open space. 

When first introduced, the plan called for the town to write a proposal to DEM for state funding but without disclosing the location of the land, the owner’s name or the asking price.  

The then CCA Council majority saw nothing wrong with this and on a 3-2 vote directed Platner’s minion, Town Planner Jane Weidman, to write the proposal. 

When DEM ok’d the proposal for $400,000, we finally learned the parcel is 100 acres adjacent to Narragansett Tribal lands and owned by the Richard family for a price to be determined. 

We also learned that the land is already designated open space and that the Richard family had been getting a handsome property tax break under the Farm, Forest, and Open Space program. 

The Richards family had been getting that tax break for over a decade and did not seem to have any plans for the land other than leaving it untouched.  

Nonetheless, Platner and the CCA Councilors insisted the land was a necessary acquisition because unless the town locked up all remaining undeveloped land, anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 units of housing might be built, according to now ex-Councilor Bonnita Van Slyke. 

Side note: I’ve written before that Van Slyke has been trying to sell off her pondside estate in Arnolda. Her starting price was $2,995,000 and then dropped to $2,750,000 and almost sold at $2,395,000 last July. She finally managed to unload the property at $2,050,000, two-thirds of her original asking price. Previous sales promotions for the house suggested the buyer might want to tear down the house to develop the land. 

But to move the deal forward, the town first had to pay for an appraisal. Non-CCA Councilors Deb Carney and Grace Klinger objected to the appraisal on the grounds the town already had tons of open space that it could not afford to manage. 

Because of a surprise recusal by ex-CCA Councilor Cody Clarkin, the vote to pay for an appraisal failed on a 2 to 2 vote. 

Ruth Platner almost had a stroke but recovered and turned this vote into “proof” that Carney and Klinger and the rest of Charlestown Residents United (CRU) were anti-open space, indeed anti-conservation. This was a recurring theme throughout the CCA’s unsuccessful effort to maintain its control over the Council. 

One of the last acts of the lame duck Council was to approve a novel resolution to the Richard property issue. The Charlestown Land Trust had worked a private deal with DEM to set up a transfer of the DEM grant from the Town to the Land Trust. The Land Trust would use private money to match DEM’s to complete the purchase.  

With the stipulation that the Land Trust would be solely responsible for the maintenance and security of the property, The Council signed over the DEM grant to the Land Trust. You can read the relevant documents HERE and HERE and HERE. 

Add another 100 acres to the brown bits. Map source: Charlestown
GIS specialist Steve McCandless

Acquiring this land will still involve up to $400,000 in taxpayer money from the state and will remove the property from Charlestown’s tax rolls. The tax loss to the town will only be between $2500 and $4000 because the land was already designated open space. 

Since the property was already open space, this deal doesn’t change the overall amount of land – almost 60% - in Charlestown devoted to open space. It does however shift the land from taxed to untaxed. 

The Town is relieved of all maintenance costs and liability but the question of how Charlestown will manage the land it already owns is unanswered. And Ruth Platner’s insatiable appetite for expanding open space means more such deals in the future.  

Except, at least for the next two years, the CCA no longer controls the Town Council meaning no more open line of credit for Ruthie.

Is it a Trojan Horse or a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

They won’t stop until they can control every aspect of your property.

By Margaret L. (Maggie) Hogan, Esq.

UPDATE: The first hearing on the CCA's proposed new development ordinance (actually, non-development since the ordinance is designed to create conditions making new developments virtually impossible) was held on July 11. Even with their 3-2 majority, the CCA was unable to bull their plan through. Thus, on Thursday, July 14, the Council will hold Part 2 of the hearing. 

The Town is giving the absolute minimum required notice since the CCA obviously wants to get this done with the least amount of public hassle. The original writing critiquing the CCA proposal appears after this notice:

Here is that notice:

PUBLIC NOTICE

TOWN OF CHARLESTOWN 

Notice is hereby given that the Town Council of the Town of Charlestown has continued a public hearing, opened on Monday, July 11, 2022, open to the public, to Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. 

**This meeting will be held in person at the Charlestown Town Hall, Council Chambers, 4540 South County Trail, Charlestown RI 02813. Comments from the Public will be accepted in person only.** 

At the continued public hearing noted above, the following proposed amendment to the Code of Ordinances will be considered. Opportunity shall be given to all persons interested to be heard upon the matter of the proposed ordinance. The following proposed amendments are under consideration and may be adopted and/or altered or amended prior to the close of the public hearing without further advertising, as a result of further study or because of the views expressed at the public hearing. Any person interested in viewing the proposed amendment may view same at the Town Clerk’s office of the Town of Charlestown or at charlestownri.gov prior to said hearing.  

The proposed ordinance may be accessed through the following link: 

https://charlestownri.gov/vertical/sites/%7BDF68A5B8-A4F3-47A1-AE87-B411E21C6E1C%7D/uploads/397_-_Chapter_218-52_Residential_Conservation_Development.pdf

The CCA used to HATE conservation developments but now say they love them.
This is the plan for a conservation development proposed in 2011. The Planning
Commission stomped it to death, leading to the "Y-Gate" scandal discussed
below. - W. Collette

This article ran as a Letter to the Editor of the Westerly Sun and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

There’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing creeping into Charlestown under the cloak of the seemingly benign and friendly title of a “Conservation Design” amendment to the zoning ordinance.” 

There will be a Public Hearing on this scheme on Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:00 PM at the Charlestown Council Chambers. 

Proposed by the Planning Commission, the long-standing cluster subdivision regulations (which also had problems) would be repealed and replaced.

The following changes would be enacted:

(1) From 50% to 70% (depending upon the zoning district) of a property owner’s developable property would be required to be set aside for “open space” owned by the Town, or a third party such as a non-profit. This is an increase from 40%, with no stated rationale.  

This land grab would be in addition to restrictions against development on “constrained lands” such as wetlands or slopes.  So, if you have a property with 10% undevelopable land, you will be left with only 20% land that you can develop.

(2)  Of the land that will be required to be “open space” only 10% of the land could be used for active recreation. This is a reduction from thirty-five percent under the current regulation, with no stated rationale for the change. 

And, only 5% of the land in open space will be permitted to be impervious (think basketball courts or tennis courts) which is a decrease from 25% under current regulations.  And, the type of recreation allowed will be determined by the Commission and may be disallowed if it finds the recreational uses “negatively impact the conservation values.” Again, no rationale for this change.

(3) Land which the Planning Commission deems to be “environmentally disturbed or damaged” will not be accepted for a conservation development until the land has been “restored to a condition satisfactory to the Planning Commission. 

The term “environmentally disturbed or damaged” is not defined in the ordinance and could easily be interpreted by this Commission to mean land that has had some or all trees previously removed.  Far too much “discretion” vested in the Commission will undoubtedly result in denial of rights.

(4)  Maximum lot coverage for 20,000 square foot lots will be 15%, whereas the same size lot in other areas of the town permit up to a 20% lot coverage.  No reason provided for treating the same size lot differently.

(5)  The Planning Commission proposes that it retain the right to limit private ownership of the open space and reject a homeowners’ association “where necessary to contribute to a connecting greenway system or to provide public access to open space.” This is clearly a taking of private property for a public purpose, without compensation!

(6) Only single family homes permitted, no duplexes. 

These enumerated items are simply the “highlights” of this overt land grab.  If you own land in Charlestown that you hoped to develop someday, you need to read this ordinance and take appropriate steps to protect your property rights.

The CCA's peculiar land use practices

Sidebar by Will Collette

In 2011, Ted Veasey proposed a 10-unit conservation development at the site of a derelict summer camp owned but abandoned by the Westerly YMCA. The site plan is shown above.

Not only did the CCA-controlled Planning Commission kill this proposal but their leader, Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, then embarked on a bold initiative to buy that same land for almost a million dollars in town and state funds which would be given to the Charlestown Land Trust.

This was the first major CCA scandal after the CCA consolidated its power after the 2010 election, power they have held ever since. 

The scandal was marked by bogus assessments, secret back door deals, conflicts of interest galor, political kick-backs - grifting on a grand scale. These practices have set the pattern the CCA has followed ever since: buying land the town doesn't need for incredibly inflated prices (CLICK HERE for a recent example) to benefit CCA-favored cronies (CLICK HERE for a recent example).

The Y-Gate scandal that emerged from Ted Veazey's conservation development proposal was Progressive Charlestown's first major series on a town scandal. The scheme was blocked by a lawsuit brought by the much-missed late Dr. Jack Donahue, represented by Maggie Hogan,  the author of this article.

That the CCA would today embrace the "conservation development" concept, though with the CCA's special twist of imposing such Draconian conditions that it's doubtful anyone would apply, is ironic considering what they did to Ted Veazey's conservation development proposal ten years ago.

Charlestown gets another 43 acres of open space

DEM land purchase expands Burlingame

The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) announces the permanent protection of 43 acres of forested land in Charlestown for public recreational access. The property consists of a mix of pine and deciduous upland forest with some small wetland areas including two small streams.

The parcel abuts DEM's Burlingame Management Area, which, together with the adjoining Burlingame State Park, encompasses more than 4,000 contiguous acres of protected land that is managed for public recreational use including fishing, hunting, and camping.

"I'm delighted that we've been able to secure this valuable parcel of land in the southern region of the state. We encourage folks to get outdoors and explore it because it's a magnificent property," said DEM Director Janet Coit.

"This acquisition adds land to the Burlingame Management Area and will enhance recreational opportunities for the public. Rhode Islanders truly enjoy these natural assets and special places and the positive benefits they provide to our quality of life."

Located within the Tomaquag Brook-Pawcatuck River watershed, the property contains forested wetlands and some vernal pools.

Along with tall white pines, the forest overstory is dominated by three species of oak: northern red oak, white oak, and scarlet oak; as well as American beech with some ash, red maple, black birch, tupelo, and big-toothed aspen.

CCA scam loses big at the polls

Charlestown taxpayers foil grand larceny attempt

By Will Collette

An unusually large number of voters (1004 which is 15% of those registered) turned out for the special Town Financial Referendum on Monday. 

They voted by a resounding margin against the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) budget plan that contained a $3 million line item for a “community center” the town doesn’t need. 

They had no plans, no designs, no budget for the “center” but they did have a likely location for it (see below).

The final vote tally was 739 NO to only 265 yes. The CCA apparently couldn’t even motivate its own base to support this project.

This all began when the town realized it had more than $3 million in surplus funds this year, so the question was what to do with it.

Of the many choices available, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance supermajority on the Town Council decided to encumber the funds by creating the “community center” line item, to use for the center or some future, unexplained use.

A community center is certainly not what we need, since we already have a very nice one that is, in fact, under-used.

Bonnie Van Slyke, the CCA Town Council member representing the Arnolda neighborhood gave the game away on the eve of the election.

She admitted what had only been speculation – that the half-baked “community center” idea was not just to hang on to the $3 million, but to tie up a patch of land in Ninigret Park designated as the site of an entertainment venue in the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan which is still the only plan the town has.

Arnolda folks HATE the use of Ninigret Park for any activities louder than a whisper. This scheme served the two-fold purpose of tying up the money and monkey-wrenching the Park’s Master Plan.

This latest scheme is just the latest of a long string of CCA scams. The CCA is a special interest group funded by wealthy non-resident property owners. For those of you who are new in town or have short memories, I've listed below several other schemes where the CCA tried to use town money and resources to benefit their campaign supporters.  

Before we do a history review, the most immediate concern after this referendum is what should go into a revised budget. Personally, I think the most logical way to deal with the $3 million is to give it back to the taxpayers.

I favor two approaches. First, Charlestown should try out the homestead tax credit, an idea CCA and its non-resident supporters trashed in 2011. Simply put, people who make Charlestown their home should get a credit on their property tax bills. 

To keep it simple, let’s peg the credit at $1,000.

Census data puts the number of owner-occupied homes in Charlestown at 2,904 so that fits nicely into the $3 million plus we have available with enough to spare for another good way to use the money.

That would be to create a new property tax credit for volunteer firefighters. Such a tax break would make it easier to recruit new volunteers and also serve as an appreciation to those good people who rush to our aid at their peril.

CCA to push another controversial land deal at Monday Town Council meeting

Consequences of one-party rule in Charlestown become more apparent

By Will Collette

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party), an offspring of the now defunct right-wing RI Statewide Coalition, controls every elected position in Charlestown, including the Town Council and Planning Commission.

That makes controversial spending and giveaway deals a whole lot easier to ramrod through, regardless of the merits or the opposition. 

Such was the case last month when the Council approved a raid on the voter-approved Recreation Bond authorization to put a bicycle track no one needs and a playground that no one asked for into Ninigret Park.

Next Monday, May 14, the CCA-controlled Council will hold a hearing on a plan to spend $600,000 in taxpayer money for a nice, but not all that special piece of land which will be added to Charlestown’s already bloated stock of open space.

The Charlestown Land Trust (CLT), a private non-profit organization in no way part of town government, secured a matching grant from the state Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for $258,750. The CCA claims the CLT is “donating” this money to the town of Charlestown, so the town should spend another $341 thousand or so to acquire this property.

The DEM would hold a conservation easement on the property and so would the CLT. This is similar to the wheeling and dealing done by the CCA Party and the Land Trust in 2012 when they tried, unsuccessfully, to scam taxpayers into buying the derelict YMCA camp on Watchaug Pond for an inflated price and dubious purpose.

This land deal doesn’t rise to the level of the 2012 Y-Gate scandal, even though there are many similarities.

The property is owned by the Sprague family through their Back Road Holdings LLC. For sale is 27 acres from two lots in Carolina with some frontage on the Pawcatuck. The family plans to retain a section of the land that fronts onto Carolina Back Road.

The two lots are currently assessed at $497,100 and that includes the portion that is not for sale, so let’s figure its tax value is roughly $450,000. According to the appraisal done for the Charlestown Land Trust, the property in the sales offer is worth $517,500 – see for yourself, HERE, at page 10.

But the price we are told we must pay – take it or leave and do it NOW – is $600,000. That’s $150,000 less than the town assessed value and $82,500 less than the Land Trust’s own appraisal. 

Based on the town assessment, we are being asked to pay 33% more than the land is worth; if you use the higher CLT appraisal, the asking price is 16% more than it’s worth.

But wait, sez the CCA Party! It’s a bargain too good to pass up!

And why is it a bargain? Well, first, the Land Trust is “donating” all that money. The CCA is referring to the $258,750 in state taxpayers’ money from DEM – that’s OUR own money – so they can tap the town for another $341,000. 

It’s NOT a donation. It’s a matching grant. And all of it is OUR money, taxpayer money, not the Land Trust’s or the CCA's.

According to the CCA, buying the land means 19 houses won’t be built on the land. Because Back Road Holdings LLC had plans drawn up for a subdivision with 19 houses, they panicked, assuming that in this mushy real estate market, 19 houses would actually get built. The CCA Party makes a lot of assumptions like that. 

I’m more inclined to see the resemblance to the Whalerock property deal where the town spent beaucoup money ($2.1 million) to block a wind turbine project that probably wasn’t going to be built anyway.

CCA thinks children are parasites

As the CCA Party sees it, you can assume that any property NOT locked up as open space automatically becomes high-density housing developments. 

Those high-density housing developments automatically attract young families with lots of Chariho school-aged children. 

Those Chariho kids will automatically spend the rest of their lives going to school at taxpayers’ expense because apparently children in Charlestown never complete schools to begin lives as productive, tax-paying adults.

Those are the assumptions behind the CCA Party’s bizarre, anti-family theory which is part of their sales pitch for this land deal. If you think I’m making this up or exaggerating, read it HERE on the CCA Party website.

The CCA Party’s novel economic theory, hatched by Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and her hubby Cliff Vanover, is that the more land you set aside as open space, the lower the tax rate due to their auto-rug-rat theory about development, families, children and schools.

Ruth and Cliffie have had eight years to test this theory in Charlestown. Let's review how it's worked out.

Consider how much of the land is locked up under federal, state and town ownership, exempt due to ownership by non-profits or religious organizations or tax-favored under conservation easements or the FFOS program that conserves farm, forest and open space.

The Interior Department's map shows that way over 50% of
Charlestown is already locked up for conservation. The yellow
lines indicate the area the feds are considering for the new
wildlife refuge.

And that ain’t all. The US Interior Department is looking to create a new Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge to protect the habitat of the eastern cottontail bunny. Their plan calls for acquiring up to 3,200 acres of land, mostly centered on Charlestown for the new refuge.

If you look at the Fish & Wildlife’s map, included with the plan, note the brown and green areas on that map to see the amount of land in Charlestown currently set aside for conservation. The town now has more than 50% (probably more like +60%) of its land locked up.

Now imagine another few thousand acres taken off the tax base and ask yourself, “where will the town’s revenue come from?”

SCREEN SHOT from the Charlestown Tax
Assessor's webpage on the town website.

Even though Charlestown has taken more and more land off the tax base to exclude families with children from moving to town, our property tax rate has increased each and every single year since 2008 when the CCA Party seized control of town government.

We went from $7.16 in 2008 to $10.11 per $1000 of assessed value this year. That’s an increase of 41%!

If the evidence of your own tax bill isn’t enough to debunk the Platner-Vanover “Kids Are Parasites” Theory, there’s a Bryant University study that carefully studied –and shredded - their theory’s core premise (click here to read it).

The actual land in question is hardly someplace unique and special. See for yourself. The CCA Party and the Land Trust produced a little 3-minute video that presumably casts the property in the best possible light. However, to me, it looked like typical moraine property.

But the Conservation Commission thinks the land would be OK for passive recreation. The Parks & Recreation Commission also signed off. 

I think Charlestown taxpayers need to weigh in on the cost, which instead of being $600,000, should be somewhere around $500,000.

And someone has to say it: how much more of this town’s land can be set aside as open space before the bottom falls out of our tax base?

The official Town Council meeting agenda follows with my snarky comments in Bold Red.