Van Slyke ignores more than a decade of CCA’s corrupt and unethical political appointments

Slyke of Hand returns with another fact-challenged gripe from Bonnie Van Slyke

By Will Collette

The CCA's 2024 campaign slogan

Sometimes I feel sorry for the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA). For the first time since 2008 when the CCA won every Charlestown Town Council seat, they have NO CCA-endorsed candidates on the Council. Last November, Charlestown voters elected all five candidates endorsed by Charlestown Residents United (CRU) and rejected all five CCA candidates.

Even though I admit to being biased for CRU and against the CCA, I think the record shows that the Council under Deb Carney’s and Rippy Serra’s leadership has been doing a good job. A major example: the most recent report from the Rhode Island Auditor General shows huge improvements in Charlestown’s finances and fiscal management under the CRU’s leadership.

So I feel sorry the CCA has to twist facts and history like pretzels to come up with some issue that will help them recover their lost political mojo.

The latest is CCA mouthpiece Bonnie Van Slyke’s effort to turn a routine appointment to fill a vacancy on the Planning Commission into a crime against humanity. I've covered a number of previous Van Slyke tomes in the on-going "Slyke of Hand" series.

According to Van Slyke, the Council violated all that is sacred by appointing Laura Rom to fill Lisa St. Godard’s seat after St. Godard resigned just days after winning re-election.  Van Slyke said the appointment was the “reverse the will of the voters.”

Here is the CRU’s crime as presented by Van Slyke:

“For at least 30 years, and likely for the entire existence of the Planning Commission since 1982, resignations have been filled by moving up the elected members and then creating an empty spot at the bottom, in the position of the 2nd alternate. The 2nd-Alternate position is where all previous unelected appointments have been made.”

That's Ruth Platner on the left and her BFF
Bonnita Van Slyke on the right

Except this isn't true. We need to look back no further than 2018, when Van Slyke’s boss and soulmate Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner finished dead last in her re-election bid and by some miracle, she jumped the line from 2^nd alternate to retaining her position as Commission chair.

Van slyke says appointing Laura Rom to fill the vacancy violated the “will of the voters” especially because she finished last. So, Bonnie, please explain in non-weasel terms, Platner’s rise in 2018 from her last place finish at the polls to being given the top leadership spot.

Also false is Van Slyke’s claim that the CRU “Town Council ignored over 30 years of precedent in how to fill such a vacancy, ignored other language in the Charter that makes clear the intent for such appointments, and chose to reverse the will of the voters…”

In fact, there is no such provision in the Charter. When the Charlestown Charter Review Commission was working on proposals for changes to the Charter, they ASKED the Planning Commission and other town commissions what Charter changes they wanted on the 2024 ballot. Here was the opportunity for Platner and the Planning Commission to codify this sacred order of succession in the Charter. Instead, Platner and her minions responded with crickets.

Why did Platner take a pass? Simple: if this principle was in the Charter in 2018, Platner’s last-place finish at the polls would have cost her the Chair because she would be legally prohibited from jumping the line.

In fairness to Bonnie, just about all of the crazy stuff she claims originated in Ruth Platner’s letter to the Town Council (which was appended to Van Slyke’s article). As usual, Van Slyke did no fact-checking of her own and just went with Boss Platner’s polemic. 

Do as we say, not as we do: a history of CCA political patronage

Patronage has been a hallmark of the CCA since its inception. They enthusiastically apply the spoils system of awarding positions based on political loyalty instead of merit while purging and punishing anyone – even their own people – for insufficient fealty to the CCA’s core principle of doing whatever Ruth Platner tells them.

2008-2010

At the top of this article, I noted that the newborn CCA swept the 2008 Council election and installed the first all-CCA Council.

By 2010, the CCA decided they needed to purge their own Council and ran a true-blue CCA slate to take them out. They succeeded in knocking out three of their own 2008 nominees and gave us the dynastic and spectacularly incompetent leadership of Boss Tom Gentz and his Deputy Dan Slattery.

Here's Deputy Dan Slattery out hustling the
secret anti-wind deal

Why did the CCA purge its own 2008 Council? Because the 2008 all-CCA Council failed to keep up with the CCA’s 180-degree flip-flop on the issue of wind energy. They thought the CCA was pro-wind, based on a November 2009 Council presentation by none other than Tom Gentz showing popular support for wind energy.

Gentz was also an enthusiastic supporter of a test facility called the “Met Tower that operated in Ninigret Park to explore the efficacy of land-based wind energy in Charlestown.

Little did the CCA Council know that CCA leaders Gentz and Deputy Dan had been secretly schmoozing the Sachem Passage Association to line up their financial and political support in return for the CCA declaring its unabashed opposition to the proposed Whalerock industrial wind project. The 2008 Council didn’t know about the secret deal-making and paid the price.

2013-2014

The next big purge also involved the Whalerock wind project and was done as a political favor to the Sachem Passage Association. The CCA targets were Zoning Board of Review members who were insufficiently willing to ignore zoning law to block Whalerock. So in 2014, in an incredible display of nastiness, the CCA dumped ZBR members Dick Frank and William Myers.

They were replaced with CCA stalwarts Cliff Vanover (Ruth Platner’s husband) and Mikey Chambers in a process that violated the Town Charter as well as the CCA’s own policy on appointments. Shortly after that, the CCA made another patronage appointment, naming the Sachem Passage Treasurer Joe Quadrato to the ZBR.

Having the Treasurers of both the CCA and Sachem Passage serving together on the Zoning board looks a lot like an aligning of political and financial interests.

These zoning board maneuvers followed the blatantly political patronage appointment in 2013 of Mikey’s wife Donna Chambers to represent the Chariho School Committee, a position she still holds.

2017-2019

Life-long Charlestown public servant
Frank Glista

Frank Glista wrote a letter to the Westerly Sun in July 2017, describing in detail how the CCA Town Council passed over eminently qualified candidates to bring in a group of CCA loyalists without proper qualifications.

They also blatantly ignored proper procedure. As Frank described it, Council member Steve Williams set the stage:

“He stated, and I quote, "Somebody's going to yell out, real quick, a name to be nominated and that will be the nomination.... I'd like to do a ballot."  Of course, at the council meeting, a name was yelled out, seconded and nominated.... done.  Douglas Randall IV was the new Parks and Recreation Commission appointee without any discussion or debate, no ballot and not one breath of consideration toward any of the other applicants.”

Frank continued, describing the unethical conduct of none other than Bonnie Van Slyke:

“We also learned that Town Council Member Bonnie Van Slyke had a conversation with Mr. Randall, a privilege that was provided only to him.  Again, in fairness all applicants should have been "interviewed" for a position, especially if you are not going to debate their application in public.”

He offered another example the CCA spoils system:

“Th[e] council had a past two term Town Council President apply for a position on the Parks and Recreation Commission and waited 5 months only to have that position filled by a CCA founding member who had applied one week before the appointment was made.”

Finally, Frank described how he himself had been blacklisted by the CCA.

In January 2018, Councilor Steve Williams, noted above, resigned from the Town Council. The all-CCA Town Council did not follow the sacred principle of succession. Instead of appointing the next highest 2016 vote getter, the late Robert Malin (D), to fill the vacancy, they installed CCA personality George Tremblay even though Tremblay didn’t even run in 2016.

2021

Freud knew what was going on

In 2021, the CCA gave us a reprise of their patronage abuse of the Zoning Board of Review, putting CCA loyalist Jim Abbott on the ZBR to fill a vacancy instead of moving up alternate Steve Stokes (now a Town Council member) who was next in line. Abbott was not on the ZBR. 

Bonnie Van Slyke also sought to purge Stokes by replacing him with Joe Pangborn even though Pangborn was not a ZBR member while Steve was. On a 3-2 vote, the Council kept Stokes in place.

I could go on and on to discuss how non-CCA commission members were purged on Parks & Recreation, Economic Improvement, Budget, Affordable Housing, and Conservation and replaced with often unqualified CCA loyalists.

Suffice to say that as usual, Van Slyke, Ruth Platner and the CCA are trying to win political capital by accusing others of offenses they themselves blatantly commit. Sigmund Freud called this “projection.”

Why raise issues that only spotlight your own malfeasance?

I don’t understand why Van Slyke brings up issues that call for a review of the CCA’s own conduct (including her's), other than she was told to by Platner. I understand the CCA needs something to kvetch about, but please quit making stuff up, especially when the facts are so overwhelming.

There’s a reason why Charlestown voters rejected Van Slyke’s 2024 bid to return to the Town Council, giving her a last-place finish – tenth in a field of ten. Platner scarcely did better, failing in her attempt to transition from Planning to the Town Council, finishing in ninth place. Take the hint, ladies.

Let’s put a halt to torture in Charlestown

Statistics have suffered enough

By Will Collette

Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) founder and de facto leader Ruth Platner has issued another in her long series of attacks on affordable housing. This time, she’s gone to one of her favorite tactics: the torture of data to make her point.

This time, Platner claims that the state’s initiative to provide more desperately needed affordable housing is an attempt to compel Charlestown to grow faster. This is unfair, she says, because “Charlestown has grown 11 times faster than the state.”

She cites US Census data that shows Charlestown’s population in 1970 was 2,863 but grew to 7,997 in 2020 while the state’s population wobbled around the 1 million mark for that same period.

So there, says Ruthie. We’re all good.

There’s a saying, attributed to many, that “Statistics are like a captured spy – torture them enough and they’ll tell you anything.” Ruth’s census data interpretation is a case in point.

While Ruth correctly cites the 1970 and 2020 census numbers for Charlestown, it’s cheating not to look at the years in between. Those numbers give you a very different story than the one Ruth is selling. In fact, it’s a different story than the one Ruth herself told in Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan.

As the table 👉shows, Charlestown experienced a period of rapid growth that was reflected in the 1970 Census, as well as the next two census reports. The growth started in the 1960s, when Charlestown’s 1960 population was only 1,966 and continued into the 1990s when it grew to 7,859 in 2000.

Then around 2000, Charlestown's growth came to a dead halt and has stayed that way for the past 24 years. 

In that growth period between 1960 and 2000, new families moved into Charlestown to live in developments whose names are now those of well-established and desirable neighborhoods. Cathy and I came in on the backend of the wave, buying our house and land in 2000 for $395,000.

Compounding Platner’s dishonesty is her own writing in Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan where she admits they knew about the 1960-1999 surge and the 2000-present stagnation:

"The Town of Charlestown experienced rapid population growth in the last decade of the 20th century, moving from 6,478 residents in 1990 to 7,859 in 2000, a change of 1,381 residents or 21.3%. 

Since 2000, however, population growth has declined or been flat, as is shown in the above table (See Plan, page 10-2, Table HC-1) showing an estimated town population of 7,772 in 2015 (a decline of 87 residents or 1.1%). Population projections provided by the RI Office of Statewide Planning show a return to a growth trend, with a population of 9,329 by 2040. 

This represents a 20% increase between 2015 and 2040. However, this level of growth is not likely to be realized given recent trends, the ageing of the local populace and expected modest declines in average household size. While the actual numbers are likely to be considerably less, these projections will be utilized in this chapter for estimating housing growth, and the need for low and moderate-income units relating to the state’s 10% threshold…”. 

Rather than responding to “the need for low and moderate-income units,” Platner as head of the Planning Commission and the Charlestown Citizens Alliance and its precursors clamped down on housing in general but especially new affordable housing. 

This led to this situation described by Ruthie herself in her article:

“From 2010 to 2023, 357 new homes were built in Charlestown. However, those 357 new dwellings barely register in the census data as many are consumed for non-resident use. An additional 54 new house lots were approved in 2023 and have not been built yet; the majority are likely to be second homes."

That actually worked fine for the CCA because it counts on these non-residents to donate most of its campaign cash. These absentee owners may only “barely register in the census data" but, as the CCA’s campaign finance reports show, they do add lots of cash to the CCA’s cash register.

That has not been good for Charlestown.

As Ruth herself admits, Charlestown’s actual summertime population is a lot higher. We go from just under 8,000 people to almost 30,000. That’s because Charlestown’s policies, conceived and administered by Ruth and the CCA, feed absentee ownership and beach rentals, not housing for residents. The only “industry” that Platner favors is tourism.

Charlestown has had to create – and pay for – the infrastructure to support that bloated mass of summer people. We also must listen to summer people complain about having to support the Chariho School District, while also demanding the town repave their roads and rebuild their beachfronts. Under the CCA, town volunteers even picked up trash around their properties.

I’ve argued the financial burden of providing infrastructure to summer people is why Charlestown should follow the lead of other coastal Rhode Island towns and offer permanent residents a Homestead Tax Credit. But no, says the CCA, that would be unfair to those absentee landowners.

Platner also knows how Charlestown’s housing needs will evolve, based on her narrative in the Comprehensive Plan, but has refused to allow any action to address those needs. Here’s what she wrote in the Plan:

“For the timeframe of this plan it is expected that the overall profile of the Charlestown population will not undergo significant change or modification. While median age will trend upward and the segment of the population over age 60 will continue to grow, other general population characteristics should remain steady or change in modest form. 

“This trend may suggest a greater need for housing designed for and more suited to elderly occupancy and needs, including elderly rental, single-story accessible designs, smaller unit footprints and limits on bedrooms. Location wise [SIC] such housing should consider issues of service availability, ease of access and walkability. Entry level family housing, both homeownership and rental, will remain a need over the timeframe of this plan."

So, according to Ruth’s Comprehensive Plan, we need more “entry-level family housing” as well as various forms of elderly housing. But we’re not going to get it, because according to Ruth’s article, the situation can’t be fixed:

“The supply of affluent people willing to pay high prices for homes and short or long-term rentals will consume any increase in housing production.”

Granted that if we build more McMansions along the all-ready jammed packed and climate-vulnerable coast, all we’ll get are more Mercedes with Connecticut plates.

However, this is a classic Ruth Platner red herring. The state is pushing for more family housing and small accessory dwelling units (ADUs) while nobody wants more beach housing either for wealthy out-of-staters or summer rental.

This is not the first or only time Ruth and the CCA have used dishonest research, faulty data and bizarre reasoning to attack affordable housing despite her own admission that we sorely need it.

Former Town Boss Tom Gentz used to go up to the State House every year to argue that Charlestown should be exempt from the state’s affordable housing mandate. 

Gentz argued that Charlestown should be exempt because we're not like the rest of Rhode Island, except that, for purposes of her argument, Platner directly compares Charlestown and the state as a whole.

During the Great Recession, the CCA argued that homes where the owners were underwater should be counted as affordable housing.

Platner argued that family housing was a plague because it brought new children into the Chariho School District. This raises taxes and apparently hurts the CCA’s donor base among absentee property owners. 

She even created her own “formula” so you can see for yourself how much these child lampreys raise taxes. That’s why she blocks that “entry-level family housing” she admits we need.

As for much needed elderly housing, ex-Town Council member and CCA leading expert on everything George Tremblay attacked affordable housing for the elderly based on an untrue story that a New York City condo developer was getting tax breaks to build luxury apartments for seniors under a program unique to the city.

Tremblay also claimed, without evidence, that building affordable housing for seniors in Charlestown would attract elderly speculators who would simply buy units up and then flip them for a profit. 

Churchwoods on Old Post Road

Does anyone have an example of elderly speculators exploiting Churchwoods, Charlestown’s only senior citizens affordable housing development since it opened in 2017?

He chirps at birds but would never eat one.
Photo by Will Collette

Platner added her own theory that affordable housing for the elderly would be bad for Charlestown because a lot of elderly people own cats.  Those cats might get loose and eat birds, presumably before they (the cats) get eaten by coyotes. 

No evidence was offered to support this purported menace. Again, any examples from Churchwoods?

So as you can see, Platner’s latest attempt to befuddle voters is part of a long tradition of the CCA’s Trumpish relationship with the truth. You should ask her how she can claim one thing in the Comprehensive Plan while espousing the direct opposite both in practice and in CCA campaign propaganda.

This is an election year, and we are also getting close to hurricane season. That means that Charlestown voters need to batten down for a Category 5 CCA Bullshit Storm that will surely disturb our rural tranquility.

CCA complains about policy they had established

Robert’s revenge?

By Will Collette

Robert Malin, a gentle soul who showed
very little interest in revenge. RIP.

It’s an election year, so, of course, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) is seething with anger over a host of grievances and threats that they hope voters will believe and return them to power on November 5.

Among the CCA’s grievances, the CCA is angry at the Town Council majority, all of whom won under the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) banner, for not automatically filling a recent Council vacancy with their guy, the one who finished in 6th place on the ballot.

The midterm vacancy occurred due to the sad death of Council member Grace Klinger. Grace had not planned to run for reelection, but died before she could finish her term.

The CCA insisted the seat then belonged to the CCA’s Peter Gardner, the 2022 6th place finisher who got 1,655 votes (compared to Council President Deb Carney’s 2,106 votes).

Although the CCA admits on its website that Charlestown’s Town Charter does not require vacancies to be filled by the next highest vote-getter, nonetheless they were outraged the seat didn’t go to Gardner (or the 7th place finisher, another CCAer Ann Owen).

Instead, the Council exercised its prerogative to make the appointment to pick Grace’s replacement will pick from applicants who filed an application by March 1. This is the procedure for filling vacancies on boards, committees and commissions as outlined in C-168 of the Town Charter.

That triggered CCA acolyte Mikey Chambers to offer this angry commentary:

Unless I miss my guess, and I don’t believe so, the appointment will go to the highest vote getter who did not run as an Independent (CCA), but as a CRU (Democrat?) candidate. So much for the wishes of the people! This will go the way of the wishes of the people in the town-wide survey. The preference of the people will again be ignored. If you can’t see this, you haven’t been paying attention.

Mikey, it’s not just your guess that you’re missing.

First, what makes you think it will go to the “highest vote getter who did not run as an Independent (CCA)?” If the Council follows the CCA’s precedent, they might pick someone who wasn’t a candidate at all in the 2022 election.

Second, what do you mean by labelling CCA candidates as “independent” when they must all swear allegiance to the CCA platform AND if they are elected but fail to follow CCA orders, they are severely punished? CCA politicians are about as independent as members of Vladimir Putin’s government.

Third, what makes you think a putative choice of a CRU member means appointing a Democrat? In fact, the four-member CRU majority that swept the 2022 election consisted of one Democrat and three Republicans. The 5^th candidate on the CRU slate ran as unaffiliated with either party.

And fourth, Mikey, how is it that you claim a 2021 town survey, larded with push-poll questions and followed by cherry-picked CCA interpretation somehow trumps the 2022 General Election as the “wishes of the people?” Maybe you should ask someone for help in understanding how the democratic process works.

The most recent precedent for Charlestown’s current situation occurred in 2018.

After the 2016 election brought in an all-CCA Council, a vacancy opened up when Steve Williams resigned in January of 2018. The 6th place finisher was Democrat Robert Malin. In fact, Robert was the only candidate among the six running for Council who was not CCA-endorsed.

The argument was made that Robert should be chosen since he actually ran for the office.

CCA President Leo Mainelli disagreed, stating at the February 12, 2018 Council meeting that George Tremblay should be appointed even though he was not on the ballot. Those so-called independent remaining four CCA Councilors dutifully followed Leo's command.

As it turns out, had Robert been appointed to the vacancy, he would not have fulfilled his term, dying of cancer in June 2018. George Tremblay suffered a stroke one year into his appointed term but did finish it out but did not run for re-election in November of 2018.

How a municipality fills vacancies to elected office is a matter of law. Some towns, such as Richmond, say in their Town Charters that vacancies are filled by the next highest vote getter.

However, remember that the MAGA majority running Richmond decided not to follow that clear legal mandate when it selected a right-wing nut who didn’t even run to fill a Richmond vacancy on the Chariho School Committee. The state Supreme Court ruled the town had to follow its own Charter and booted the MAGA choice.

Charlestown leaves the decision on how to fill vacancies to the Council. That’s what the CCA said in 2018 when it chose Tremblay over Malin and that’s what the current CRU majority is saying now.

How you feel about that has everything to do with how you feel about who is running the Town Council.

Voters can decide this question if a Charter amendment question is put on the ballot. Maybe it’s time to settle that question, and I don’t mean by running some self-serving survey.

Charlestown’s year without Democrats

Declarations filed at deadline for town office include only independents

By Will Collette

As of 3:30 AM, Thursday morning, the list of town residents seeking elective municipal office in Charlestown includes no one endorsed by either the Republican or Democratic town committees.

It's not unusual for the Republicans to run no candidates, since the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) has pretty much supplanted the GOP. 

However, this is the first time in my memory that no endorsed Democrat will appear on the ballot.

Here is the list taken from user-friendly Secretary of State’s website:

UPDATE: widow of Charlestown activist needs your help

UPDATE: Progressive campaigner Robert Malin has died

By Will Collette

Anyone who has ever met Robert Malin has felt his positive exuberance as he tackled a range of environmental and social justice issues.

Complications from cancer including pneumonia and infection led to his transfer to hospice care in Boston and his death.

A GoFundMe Cancer Treatment Fund has been set up on Robert’s behalf – CLICK HERE – that, among other things, helped his wife Marie stay up in Boston to be close by. And now there are the funeral expenses.

Even Robert’s political opponents in the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) have pitched in to help. Kudos to George Tremblay for being a class act and making the pitch in the CCA blog.

The honeymoon is over (with bonus video)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

By Will Collette

The orders are still coming from the CCA Party's
secret clubhouse

Fool that I am, I really thought the new leadership of the Charlestown Town Council might be open to ideas other than those emanating from the secret clubhouse of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) or their non-resident financial backers.

I even made a number of suggestions where there might be ways to build a broad base of support for initiatives to make life better for all of us who call Charlestown our home.

Silly me.

But the first major barb that burst the bubble did not come from me. Instead, it came from the most unlikely of sources – a January 13 Westerly Sun editorial entitled “Hypocrisy back on the agenda for Charlestown.”

Here’s how the Sun editorial started:

The club atmosphere that has become Charlestown government in recent years got a little more blatant last week when the Town Council — in a Trumpian move — named one of its own to fill a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Board after the board had vetted other candidates and made a recommendation for appointment.

The Sun followed up by putting the Charlestown Town Council meeting at the top of its weekly “Highs and Lows” editorial on January 15:

What a show in Charlestown last week. The Town Council picked a new member to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission without the standard practice of letting the Parks and Recreation Commission first interview the candidate. Another candidate, who had been vetted by the commission and who has attended meetings as an interested member of the public and happens to be familiar with the workings of town government as a former town councilor, was ignored by the council. The new member selected is also a member of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, a political action committee to which all five council members also belong. The council claimed it knew better and that its choice was the superior choice. That sounds like rule by decree, not democracy.

This is not the first time the Sun has written an editorial critical of Charlestown’s CCA-controlled government, but such editorials have been rare and generally far more temperate.

This editorial (and its follow-up) was remarkable not just for its cutting language, but also because it may be the first time a new town council in the Sun’s reading area was so excoriated so early in its term.

So what was this all about?

Let’s REALLY set the record straight on wind power in Charlestown

Despite CCA claims, wind power is essentially banned.

By Will Collette

While just about everybody in town agreed that the Whalerock project
was a bad idea, that doesn't mean that wind energy is evil

Out-going Charlestown Town Council member George Tremblay, a Charlestown Citizens Alliance stalwart, wrote a letter to the editor which ran in the Westerly Sun defending the CCA’s record on wind power, claiming that Charlestown has a “user-friendly” ordinance governing wind energy.

Many residents remember the horrible and divisive fight over the proposed commercial wind project known as Whalerock. Like many residents, I was happy to see the town take the most effective and fair route to ending this controversy by buying the land where the giant turbines were to be placed.

But along the way to that logical conclusion, many Charlestown residents dove deep into pseudo-science and NIMBYism to come to the conclusion that all wind power is bad. The result was Ordinance #344 which became part of Charlestown’s legal code.

Contrary to George Tremblay’s claims, Ordinance 344 changed Charlestown’s Land Use Regulations to make it impossible for anyone to construct or operate a wind-to-energy device of any size or type by creating conditions that are virtually impossible to meet.

An alternative: Squirrel power

That means none of the popular “do-it-yourself” kits (even available on Amazon) for home energy generation would be legal without going through Charlestown’s Gordian Knot of red tape. No also to vertical axis turbines – purposely designed to be close to soundless as well as bird-friendly.

The section addressing “Residential Wind Energy Facilities” automatically bans any wind device taller than 125 feet or that produces more than 20 kilowatts. 

It sets NO MINIMUM size or output. Indeed, the regulations say they cover “any proposed wind energy facility” and any device “regardless of height or rated capacity.”

All MUST acquire a building permit. Any device that goes more than 10 feet above the roofline must also get a Special Use Permit. The actual requirements for what a homeowner or farmer must do to apply for a building permit are truly amazing and should be read to be believed.

The practical effect of CCA-driven town regulations on wind energy is to ban the production of wind power in Charlestown by creating conditions that are impossible to meet.

If you don’t believe me, read the regulations (in their entirety, below).

If you don’t believe me, contact town building official Joe Warner and ask him what you would need to do to install a wind energy device to help power your home or business.

If you still don’t believe me, ask Joe how many permits he has issued for wind energy devices in Charlestown since Ordinance 344 was passed in November 2011.

George Tremblay describes that ordinance and the subsequent town regulations as “user-friendly.”

However, anyone who actually reads the ordinance or simply asks Joe Warner how to get a wind energy device for their own home will discover that the Charlestown Citizens Alliance once again uses doublespeak to cover up what it a green energy ban.

One last thing about the merits of wind energy – the most prominent opponent to all wind power is none other than Donald Trump.

For your convenience, I have copied and pasted in Charlestown’s entire “Residential Wind Energy Facilities” law below.

I highlighted in yellow conditions set on any and all wind devices and blue for additional conditions required if the wind device is more than 10 feet higher than the roofline or produces more than 20 kW of energy. I also added an editorial note (bold red) on the Zoning Board of Review which plays a key roll in this.

What if they had a Council meeting and no one came?

Really light agenda for Monday meeting

By Will Collette

NOT up for discussion: the resignation of Ray Dussault as Town Sergeant. A great guy
and public servant, Ray's great passion has been the fight against cancer. Here's
part of the Colors for a Cause fire truck that Ray used to generate support for
the struggle.

Charlestown Town Council meetings stopped being interesting after the 2014 election when the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) captured every Council seat. Now, you can reliably predict that nothing gets on the agenda that hasn’t been pre-authorized by at the secret monthly meetings of the CCA Party Steering Committee.

Members of the public can still stand up to argue against the CCA agenda, but they’re betting against the house that they can win.

This isn't going to change after the November election since there is only one non-CCA person on the ballot. However, we will no longer have Council Boss Tom Gentz or his Sancho Panza George Tremblay. Both have decided not to run for re-election.

The only good thing about CCA Party hegemony is short meetings. The Sun’s Catherine Hewitt summed it up in four paragraph long article entitled “Short agenda on Monday for Charlestown council”

As usual, I have reproduced the agenda in full below the fold.

The two main marquee items are new ordinances on tax breaks. One ordinance would expand the town’s current property tax credit to cover all honorably discharged veterans, rather than those who served during wartime.

It’s a nice idea, but won’t actually affect many vets. Under current law, the definition of periods of wartime is so expansive that it would be hard NOT to have served during a time of war. For example, we have been at war continually since September 11, 2001.

Click here to read about Charlestown’s current tax breaks for veterans.

Unless this is simply for show, my best guess is that some friend, relative or donor of the CCA Party must have somehow managed to fall outside the time window to qualify.

The other ordinance will create a new business tax credit estimated to be worth approximately $100. Sure, great idea, but how much do Charlestown businesses have to lay out to meet the mandates of the Charlestown Planning Commission? It costs business big bucks to meet Planning Commissar Ruth Platner's mandates on lighting, parking, building designs, trees, shrubbery, shingles, dormers, electrical outlet covers, etc.

I have long proposed an alternative way to help small Charlestown businesses. Whenever Charlestown passes new ordinances or regulations impacting small business, they should offset the costs of those mandates through tax credits. 

There is a gross omission in the Council’s Monday night agenda. If you scan down to the “Consent Agenda” or “CA” items, you will see that one of the nicest and most helpful guys in town government, Ray Dussault, has resigned as Town Sergeant effective August 6.

Rather than being up top of the agenda as a formal part of the program, Ray gets a little mention. 

Usually, when a well-known and popular person like Ray steps down, the Council does better than just pass him off as a footnote, as part of the “consent agenda” which isn’t even discussed.

Well, I wish Ray all the best and thank him for his many years of loyal service to the town and people of Charlestown.

Here’s the official agenda.

Town Council meets Monday

CCA Party continues to push its agenda

By Will Collette

This Council meeting is almost like a victory lap for the CCA Party

Now that the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) knows it will maintain its stranglehold on Charlestown town government due to lack of opposition to its 2016 slate of candidates, we see the results in the Town Council agenda for Monday, July 11.

Just a reminder that these Town Council meetings are really just a formality because all the decisions have already been made in the secret CCA Party Steering Committee meetings.

Some of the things we should expect to see this Monday:

The line-up for Charlestown races

Continued CCA control of Charlestown guaranteed by lack of opposition

By Will Collette

The outcome of November's municipal election in Charlestown is already certain.

The controlling Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) has a full, endorsed slate of candidates for Town Council, Planning Commission (a slate that includes well-respected former Planning Commission member Dr. Lew Johnson) and Chariho School Committee.

Neither the Republican nor Democratic Town Committees have come forward with their own endorsed candidates. Thus, there is only one person running who is not CCA-endorsed.

That’s Robert Malin running for Town Council as a Democrat, though not yet endorsed. He had been considering a run against CCA Party favorite Rep. Blake “Flip” Filippi and sought the endorsement of Charlestown Democrats in that race. But for some reason, Malin switched his target.

Town curmudgeon and former Council President Jim Mageau had filed declarations to run as an independent for both the Town Council and as an opponent to Flip Filippi. However, as of this writing, the state Secretary of State’s website lists Mageau as having “withdrawn” from both races. By law, he could only have run for one position anyway.

You can read about Charlestown’s prospective new rulers HERE as all but one Council seat belongs to the CCA Party by default.

Some people don’t want you to vote YES to save the General Stanton Inn

And they are willing to commit criminal acts to “convince” you

By Will Collette

Unless it was done by a passing bus tour from the Nordic Lodge, it appears that some Charlestown residents engaged in a lot of vandalism and theft sometime Friday night to make a negative political point. 

Nearly all the yard signs supporting town purchase of the General Stanton Inn were vandalized wih spray-paint or stolen.

Charlestown Police have been notified. Theft and vandalism are crimes under Title 11 of the RI General Laws.

In 2014, there was a lot of sign theft, especially of signs for Democratic candidates. The CCA Party’s signs seemed to remain largely untouched. 

It bodes ill for this current campaign season to see this kind of thug behavior happen so early and against such as innocuous campaign as the one to Save the General Stanton Inn.

The yard sign in front of my house was one of those hit by vandals with a spray paint can. 

I’m leaving the sign up, graffiti and all, so town residents can see the kind of people who are opposed to a town citizens’ initiative for historic preservation.

Charlestown budget vote this Monday

What you get for your tax dollars

By Will Collette

The tax rate will jump to $10.22 in July if the budget is approved

On Monday, Charlestown voters will have the opportunity to vote for a citizens’ initiative to save the iconic General Stanton Inn, saving it from decay, arson or the wrecking ball and instead preserving it as an asset for the town. I urge you all to vote YES for this important measure.

But in addition to this important issue, Charlestown voters are also being asked to decide whether or not to approve the proposed town budget for the upcoming fiscal year that starts on July 1.

This budget calls for the eighth consecutive hike in Charlestown’ property tax rate even though the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) which has controlled town government for that period, keeps claiming that it is saving taxpayers money.

Yet taxes keep going up even though the CCA Party claims it saves money by (A) paying cash for major capital improvement projects that normally are financed by bonds and (B) uses bonds to add to Charlestown’s already loaded inventory of town-owned open space. This chart from the town tells the tale:

Chariho costs are down, town operating costs up less than 1%. Tax hike is being driven by the choice to pay cash for capital projects.

The CCA Party seems to also be running an unofficial, sub rosa campaign against the Save the General Stanton Inn citizen initiative. Just check out the CCA Party’s official website to see how they are doing it.

Ironically, nearly all the arguments raised by opponents to the General Stanton Inn (GSI) initiative could actually be levelled at the CCA Party’s town budget.

The GSI critics say the town should not be in the real estate business. Really? Tell that to Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and Town Council Boss Tom Gentz who gleefully take more and more land off the tax rolls and onto the town’s property inventory for open space.

The GSI critics say the town should not spend tax-payer money to take title to unsaleable property. Again, really? That’s exactly what Charlestown did in its most recent openspace acquisition.

The GSI critics say the town is taking on liability by purchasing a building like the General Stanton Inn. Well, duh. Every piece of property the town owns, from Town Hall to Ninigret Park to the Moraine Preserve represents a liability. 

Charlestown has its fair share of slip-and-fall lawsuits as well as its share of costs for upkeep to town buildings. CLICK HERE for an example for how the property could be managed.

It is a normal part of municipal business. And we are insured for the contingencies of accidents or major property damage.

I want to know where all the new critics of the General Stanton Inn initiative were when the town bought property in the past. All those "serious concerns" they are raising now could have been applied to these past decisions.