Prepare yourself for another episode of the Charlestown Choo-choo

Article in the ProJo may give temporary life to a dead issue

By Will Collette

There’s an article in the July 15 edition of the Providence Journal by Patrick Anderson entitled “Will Amtrak ever improve its Northeast Corridor through Providence? Where it stands.” Judging from the past, there is a pretty good chance we may again see some extreme anxiety in Charlestown over the content of this article. 

Since 2017, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) has used the specter of what was called “the Old Saybrook-Kingston Bypass” to stir panic in Charlestown that Amtrak would destroy the northern half of town by building a new rail line to accommodate high-speed Acela trains.

The current Amtrak line from New Haven to Westerly currently runs dangerously close to the shore. While that makes it a truly spectacular trip through coastal salt marsh, the line is vulnerable to washouts either quickly in a hurricane or slowly through sea level rise.

The Bypass was never a real threat to Charlestown because it was publicly revealed after the 2016 election that led to Donald Trump's first term. Then as now, Trump also had a Republican-controlled Congress. Trump notoriously hates trains (unless they burn coal) and the Republican Congress was as reluctant then to fund Amtrak as it is now, never mind a new rail line through Charlestown.

Indeed, the only apparent interest in rail policy by either the Trump regime or the current Congress is to sell Amtrak to some oligarch. Ironically, such a sale may be the only scenario that could actually revive any rail modernization or expansion as I suggested in THIS ARTICLE.

But Anderson’s ProJo piece contains this section that may lead Ruth Platner and the CCA to press the red Charlestown Choo-choo panic button:

And the Transit Costs Project plan revives the proposed "Kenyon Bypass" through southwest Rhode Island and southeast Connecticut that engendered fierce local opposition a decade ago.

In fact, the new plan would extend the bypass – which starts near Kingston Station and mostly follows the path of Interstate 95 – all the way to New Haven instead of returning to the current alignment at Old Saybrook, Connecticut like the version studied a decade ago in the Federal Railroad Administration's NEC Future planning.

To alleviate some of the opposition that helped scuttle the bypass in 2017, the Transit Costs Project plan would move new tracks north of I-95 through Old Lyme to reduce disruptions to that Connecticut town. 

The bypass is estimated to cost $5 billion and save 32 minutes of travel time, while alleviating concerns about flooding of the current low-lying coastal alignment. Upgrading the Providence and Stoughton lines is estimated to cost $250 million to $300 million.

But before Charlestown residents once again succumb to CCA-induced panic, take a closer look. First, remember these facts:

·       🚂The actual Amtrak Northeast Corridor plan is “at least two years from being completed,” according to Anderson and, in my opinion, will probably be abandoned by the Trump regime.

·       🚂The $17 billion Northeast Corridor plan has no funding. In fact, Congress cut total Amtrak funding for Northeast Corridor operations from a total of $1.14 billion to only $850 million in the Big Beautiful Boondoggle Bill.

·       🚂The latest version of the bypass, laid out in a recent report by The Transit Costs Project, proposes new track be laid well north of the original Old Saybrook-Kingston bypass. It would skip over Lyme, CT, Westerly and possibly even Kingston.

·       🚂Further, Charlestown Town Council President Deb Carney has stayed in regular contact with the RI Department of Transportation to closely monitor any new developments and none have been forthcoming. She has reached out to RIDOT specifically about Anderson’s article but, as we go to press, she has not heard back.

Let’s take a look at the actual map in the Transit Costs report that spurred Anderson to say the Kenyon Bypass has been "revived":

The dotted line shows the present rail line. The solid line labelled “New Haven Bypass” and “Connecticut Bypass” is the route offered for consideration by the Transit Costs report. Note that it is well to the north of Westerly and Charlestown, though that may not be seen as good news in Hopkinton and Richmond. That is, unless the entire plan is scrapped by Trump as I believe is likely.

Facts have never prevented Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and the CCA from trying to use an Amtrak panic to their political advantage. In 2017, the CCA tried to compensate for their earlier failure to take note of the potential new track that was in a report no one at Town Hall apparently read. Said CCA leader and Town Council President Tom Gentz, “Who’s got time to read this stuff?”

Exuberant protests led to a legally-binding Record of Decision ruling out the bypass. But that didn’t stop Platner from trying to gin up more anxiety with a 2021 claim that “They’re Back!” She tried to stir the pot again in 2022. She made an especially weird move in 2024 attempting to use AI to simulate what a new rail line would look like.

If Ruth follows her past practice, we should expect to see a new attempt to get Charlestown residents once again worked up. And, of course, you can count on Ruth (or her spokes-troll Bonnita Van Slyke) to make the claim that only the CCA can save us from this deadly albeit imaginary peril.

A model approach for Charlestown?

Leading dark sky protection organization endorses model for sport field lighting. Are you paying attention, Ruth?

I want to tell you about a special school on Canada’s rugged east coast: Université Sainte-Anne.  As a student there, you must sign a pledge that you’ll only speak French. The school is equally serious about protecting the night as it’s located within a Starlight Reserve.  Please help institutions like this one succeed. The university aimed to build a football pitch to give its whole community a safe place to stay active, even in winter when daylight is scarce. With support from people like you, that athletic field became the first DarkSky Approved Outdoor Sports Lighting project outside the U.S. “Seeing students, staff and community members use this facility at night and knowing that we’re preserving the surrounding dark sky at the same time makes me proud,” says University President Kenneth Deveau. This project can be a model for communities worldwide. Will you keep that momentum going with a gift to DarkSky International today? With gratitude,  Ruskin Hartley CEO & Executive Director P.S. With global light pollution increasing 10% each year, there’s no time to wait.

A new angle on an old CCA lie

Platner pans progress

By Will Collette

Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, leader of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), has put out a new version of an old CCA lie, claiming that Charlestown is being treated unfairly because the state will not allow the town to ignore the law.

In Platner’s latest screed against the state for wanting Charlestown allow more homes to be built for average families, she headlines the issue this way: New State Plan, Housing 2030, Mandates Rural Towns Grow At A Faster Rate Than Urban Areas.

She's referring to Housing 2030, Gov. Dan McKee’s attempt to appear proactive about Rhode Island’s affordable housing crisis. His plan has been mainly seen as too little, too late but to Platner, it seems like an existential threat. Why? Because it singles out rural towns, particularly Charlestown, as most in need of new housing, more so than the cities.

Duh. Of course rural towns need to do more because over the past 25+ years, they’ve done less.

In her new CCA blog article, Platner continues to try to manipulate data to make her case that Charlestown is being treated unfairly. This is far from the first time that Platner has followed the adage the “if you torture statistics enough, you can make them say anything.”

In March 2024, she attempted a particularly obnoxious approach using census data to “prove” her thesis that “Charlestown has grown 11 times faster than the state.” Her point was that the state wanted Charlestown to grow even faster and really, enough is enough.

Except Platner cooked the census numbers. Using 50 years of data, she arrived at the 11 times number. But all of Charlestown’s growth was pre-2000. In this century, Charlestown’s growth has flatlined as Platner admitted in the Charlestown Comprehensive Plan:

"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 [SIC] 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…”. 

Since 2000 and certainly since Platner rose to become Planning Commissar, the most powerful politician in Charlestown, the town has devolved into a gated senior citizens’ enclave as Platner and the CCA blocked new housing for working families.

Here's a Charlestown house that just sold to a Connecticut couple.
It was assessed at $1,060,000 and sold for $1,300,000.
(Charlestown Tax Assessor)

Here’s what Platner herself wrote about Charlestown housing under her dominion:

“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."

She made an even blunter assessment in a CCA blog article:

“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.”

Currently, the best many low and moderate income
buyers can hope for in Charlestown is a campsite
at Burlingame Park (DEM photo)

Even though Charlestown’s overall population may not increase by much, Platner admits town demographics are changing. This is what she wrote in the Comprehensive Plan:

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."

Those 8,000 of us who make Charlestown our home understand the status quo that Ruth Platner created and desperately seeks to maintain. 

Contrary to Platner's claims, Charlestown experienced massive population growth each and every year. 

EcoRI photo by Frank Carini

During June, July and August, our population jets up to 30,000. We pay for an infrastructure year-round to serve those 30,000. We put up with their trash, bad driving and the inflationary effects their property purchases place on Charlestown real estate.

This morning's Providence Journal carried a deep dig analysis - spread over several articles - of housing sales statewide over the past five years. The first piece is entitled "Out-of-state buyers are purchasing more RI homes. Is that a good thing or bad thing?"

The ProJo confirms that we're not imagining the influx of out of state buyers. They also bluntly note that they buy here because we're cheaper than where they live, plus they can and do out-bid local residents.

They provide more detail in a second piece, "RIers can't compete with out-of-state home buyers. Why building more is the only way out." Their data analysis and conclusions directly contradict the CCA's and Ruth Platner's stance on housing. 

There are two more articles that focus primarily on high-end property, of the type that have been selling for enormous prices in Charlestown and the demographics of the new buyers. These articles are entitled Where are out-of-state home buyers coming from, and what brings them to Rhode Island? and Out-of-state buyers snap up nearly half of RI homes over $1 million. Where they're going. 

Finally they rank Charlestown 4th among RI municipalities for non-resident buyers behind only Block Island, Little Compton and Newport. 

Another recent sale of a Charlestown property to a Connecticut couple.
This house was assessed at $2,415,400 and was bought at $2,850,000

These five reports back up findings that non-resident buyers are driving up housing prices and forcing potential first-time and low-income buyers out of the market. Legally, they can't be stopped. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits state and local interference with interstate commerce. And we can't outbid them.

The ProJo's main conclusion is: RIers can't compete with out-of-state home buyers. Why building more is the only way out. This is the point where Ruth Platner's head explodes. The ProJo collection of articles and research eviscerates the arguments she and the CCA have promoted since the millennium. I look forward to her counterpoint to the Providence Journal.

Platner thinks the solution to Charlestown’s problems is to accept the swarms of absentee property owners and summer people while restricting housing for everyone else, young or old. And she’ll continue to search for ways to rationalize that approach.

If you’ve followed Progressive Charlestown’s coverage of the many times Platner and the CCA have made different and contradictory claims, you’ll notice a pattern. When Platner produces an official document that will be fact-checked prior to state or federal approval, or is subject to perjury, she keeps the bullshit to a minimum.

But when she writes (or ghost-writes) campaign material or propaganda for the CCA blog, anything goes.

For me as a political writer, it’s a lot easier to debate a politician’s claims by using their own words. When Ruth the politician makes a claim, often about housing or open space, it’s a simple matter of finding what Ruth wrote when she faced the pain and penalty of perjury because it's usually the opposite.

Two-faced politicians are a plague on our civil society. Charlestown voters made it clear in 2022 and 2024 that they are sick of lies and deception.

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.

Do we still need to worry about Amtrak building a new high-speed rail line through Charlestown farmland?

Is the Charlestown Choo-choo crisis over?

By Will Collette

Since 2017, Charlestown has gone through periods of mass hysteria driven by Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and fearmongering by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA). This hysteria has been over the then implausible and now dead proposal by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) to build a new set of tracks in southern New England to allow Amtrak’s Acela trains to operate at full speed between New York and Boston.

The part of the FRA plan that so concerned Charlestown was called the “Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass and was part of a much larger and sadly overdue modernization of rail lines in the heavily travelled Northeast Corridor.

When the plan surfaced, the CCA swung into action, largely because they had ignored documents sent to the town from the FRA and were embarrassed that they were, as the cliché goes, asleep at the switch. As former CCA and Charlestown Town Council President Tom Gentz put it, “Who’s got time to read this stuff?”

Connecticut and Rhode Island communities mobilized and in short order, the FRA caved in, issuing a 2017 legally binding Record of Decision ruling out the Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass while calling for more planning. I believe even they realized the Bypass was a bad idea, plus they knew the project wasn’t going to happen anyway.

Within a month of his 2017 inauguration, Donald Trump proposed cutting Amtrak’s budget by 13%, centered mostly on halting new construction and long-distance subsidies. In 2017, conservative Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they weren’t keen on Amtrak either.

Without funding or political support, no rail project benefiting the blue states of the Northeast Corridor was going forward. The Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass was dead on arrival.

It only goes down hill and, of course, it burns coal
(Chris Morris) 

Don’t get me wrong: I thought the Kenyon Bypass was a bad idea and, in an abundance of caution, some organizing was feasible. But I predicted the only way Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress would move the Northeast Corridor work forward was if Trump (or his kids) ended up owning Amtrak.

Even though the Kenyon Bypass died a quick and predictable death, that didn’t stop Ruth Platner from trying to raise the alarm as if the Bypass plan was going to rise from its grave. On three separate occasions – in 2021, 2022 and 2024 – Platner tried to get Charlestown’s residents to freak out like they did in 2017.

With absolutely no evidence, Ruth proclaimed  "They're Back?" And so it has gone for the past eight years. CLICK HERE for a detailing of Platner’s efforts to fire up the town over the bogus Charlestown Choo-choo crisis.

Fast forward to today

So here we are in 2025. King Donald Trump is back, newly crowned along with a die-hard MAGA Congress willing to do his bidding. The new feature is the emergence of South African Nazi Elon Musk as our de facto President.

So how does this affect Charlestown and the zombie Charlestown Choo-Choo?

Amtrak will be lucky to survive this Trump term without being sold off in whole or in part or being shut down.

AI art by Antonio Mavinga

Trump hates trains. Even though he claims he rode the New York subway in his youth – he called it “The Tunnel to Hell” - he just doesn’t like them. Here’s how he described his train experience in an interview with NY Times reporter Maggie Haberman:

“TRUMP: It’s been a long time. It’s been a long time. It has been. I know the subway system very well. I used to take it to Kew-Forest School, in Forest Hills, when I lived in Queens. And I’d take the subway to school. Seems a long time ago —"

In his first term, he proposed zeroing out federal funding for the New York subway system. His animosity toward trains is heightened by his predecessor Joe Biden’s unbridled love of trains. If Joe likes it, Donald hates it, pure and simple.

As Trains.com put it:

“Trump, meanwhile, has a vindictive streak a mile wide. And he clearly wants to erase anything that has predecessor Joe Biden’s fingerprints on it. Amtrak Joe’s signature achievement was the infrastructure law that sent billions Amtrak’s way for new equipment, route expansion, and Northeast Corridor improvement projects.”

Trump also doesn’t like high speed rail and has been actively trying to pull all $4 billion in federal funding from California’s high-speed rail project. Trump said that California doesn’t need a high-speed rail connection because, Trump claims, you can fly from San Francisco to Los Angeles for only $2. Yes, that’s two dollars.

He said:

“We’re gonna start a big investigation on that because it’s– I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said. “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. Nobody has ever seen anything like it. The worst overruns that there have ever been in the history of our country. And it wasn’t even necessary. I would have said, you don’t buy it. You take an airplane – it costs you $2. It costs you nothing. You take an airplane. But this got started. And if you have to, you drive, you can drive.”

As we know, King Donald has a hard time following the plot, in this case, Amtrak’s goal to give travelers an alternative to driving.

Trump and Musk are determined to either destroy or privatize federally-funded entities they don’t like (and that’s just about all of them), whether it’s the Post Service, NOAA or Amtrak.

A Pittsburgh-Post Gazette editorial summed up what we can expect in the near term:

“In Trump’s second term, with reality television personality Sean Duffy serving as U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Amtrak’s future feels less than secure. Feasibility studies to map new routes connecting Pittsburgh and Chicago via Columbus and Fort Wayne may never happen.”

Obviously, the same fate applies to the on-going feasibility study currently being undertaken to come up with options to improve Amtrak connections between New York and Boston, including a future alternative to the Kenyon Bypass.

On March 19, Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner resigned under pressure from Musk-Trump to accommodate the administration’s plans for Amtrak’s future. According to President Musk, this is the future as reported by The Hill:

“I think logically we should privatize anything that can reasonably be privatized,” Musk said while speaking at the Morgan Stanley conference on March 5, according to Newsweek. “I think we should privatize the Post Office and Amtrak for example. … We should privatize everything we possibly can.”

Amtrak CEO Gardner may have ended his career by releasing a five-page rebuttal titled “Proposals to Privatize Amtrak.” In that white paper, Amtrak listed its achievements and profitability. It also cited Great Britain's discovery that privatizing rail was not such a great idea:

“Proponents of privatization assert that it would produce better service at a lower cost and reduce or even eliminate the need for public funding…Great Britain’s recent renationalization of its rail service after three disastrous decades of privatization, and past unsuccessful efforts to privatize various Amtrak operations, show otherwise.”

It's also worth remembering that Amtrak came into being in 1971 because America's private rail companies collapsed, starting with the New Haven Railroad's bankruptcy in 1961. However, when logic and facts don’t matter, how can Amtrak resist Elon Musk’s chainsaw?

Since Platner’s first revival of the Charlestown Choo-Choo Crisis, Town Council Deb Carney has diligently stayed in regular contact with the RI Transportation Department to watch out for Charlestown’s interests in Amtrak’s planning process. Nothing has arisen to raise any alarm.

Recently, Council President Carney, Town Administrator Jeff Allen and stakeholder Kim Coulter met with RIDOT to discuss a planned stakeholder meeting on the latest in the New Haven-Providence Amtrak study. Charlestown has been offered a place at the table. 

Deb Carney says no date for this meeting has been set. Given the turmoil, lack of funding and Musk's crusade to dump Amtrak, there's a good chance that meeting will never take place.

So, is it time to call an end to the Crisis? Based on all the above, I’d say yes. Except…

A far-fetched but plausible scenario

Both Donald Trump and Elon Musk are major fanboys of Russian despot Vladimir Putin. Putin’s route to absolute power began when he allowed Russian oligarchs to buy up Russian state assets for kopeks on the ruble after the break-up of the Soviet Union. To use Musk’s words, Russia privatized anything that can reasonably be privatized

These oligarchs made Putin a very rich and powerful man, at the expense of Russian citizens. As Trump and Musk start selling off US assets such as Amtrak, the Postal Service, et al., watch how they use the Russian model to offer fire sale prices to American oligarchs in return for kickbacks.

Privatizing Amtrak will mean some oligarch will get to buy it for cheap. They may have their own ideas about its future, but I’d expect them to maximize profits by modernizing the system. Plus, they will expect that the federal government to foot the bill.

Here’s how Trains.com summed it up:

Put all this together and the inevitable conclusion is that Amtrak as we know it will cease to exist. Long-distance trains will disappear. State-sponsored routes will continue in some form, so long as the states pick up the tab. And the Northeast Corridor will be raffled off to the highest private bidder.

I can easily see Elon Musk as Amtrak’s highest bidder followed by some flamboyant scheme to recreate the system as TrainX. As in all Musk’s venture, he will use other people’s money, no doubt expecting massive amounts of federal funding to turn his TrainX into a space-age system, perhaps using mag-lev technology. 

Note: there already is a TrainX, a private fitness center in California, but I'm sure Musk could convince them to sell their trademark. There is also a start-up maglev train company hoping to operate along the Northeast Corridor called Northeast Maglev.

Mag-Lev (magnetic levitation) is a technology that has been on the cusp of commercial viability for quite some time – high-speed monorails riding on waves of electromagnetic energy. China and Japan are already well on their way to building inter-city mag-lev lines where trains can run at up to 300 miles per hour.

The US is already funding Musk to build exploding SpaceX rockets and Tesla cars and trucks that crash and burn, making Elon Musk one of the biggest recipients of federal corporate welfare. If Musk “buys” Amtrak, he would expect the taxpayers to pay for him to pursue his dreams.

If Musk or some other oligarch buys Amtrak and try out some scheme to boost profits, they’re most likely to do it along the profitable Northeast Corridor. Any improvements they make will involve major construction. For instance, a mag-lev line would involve extensive new construction that would cause major environmental effects.

But Musk and Trump are wiping out environmental regulations that protect land, drinking water, farms, wildlife or human health and decimating the staffs at EPA and Interior that enforce such rules.

They won’t care if they destroy historic Charlestown farms, vital watersheds, forest land or wildlife habitats. 

For now, these are my theories about what might happen when Musk’s proposal to privatize Amtrak happens. I can only speculate about what a future Amtrak owner will actually do.

So now what?

In this article, I lay out what we know – Trump, Musk and Congress will not approve or fund Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor plans – what is reasonable to expect – Amtrak is likely going to go on the chopping block – and what we can reasonably guess. Unless something changes in Washington politics, Amtrak will be sold or closed. Some oligarch will be able to buy it for cheap.

The Trump Administration will almost certainly offer a new buyer generous financial incentives and clear away any environmental obstacles to whatever plans a new buyer might have for the system. The new buyer will, of course, be expected to give Trump a large back-hander.

But for now, the Northeast Corridor plan is dead.

For the past eight years, parts of northern Charlestown have been at DefCon 1, thanks to alarmist and unsubstantiated rhetoric from Ruth Platner and the CCA. Knowing what we know, we can reduce the alert level to Defcon 4 on the Charlestown Choo-Choo. We should pay attention to what happens to Amtrak but with a lot less anxiety.

In other words, no more Ruth Platner Charlestown Choo-Choo false alarms.

Charlestown new leadership gets top marks from the RI ACLU for transparency in government

Charlestown is one of only four municipalities to get a perfect score

By Will Collette

Of all the phony claims made by Charlestown’s former rulers, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), transparency in government was among the most outrageous. They claim in their campaign platform that they support:

Accountable Government
To provide open, honest, responsible leadership that listens to concerns and acts in the best interests of all our residents.

However, during much of their decade of control, the CCA was anything but what they claim. 

Using CCA stooge, ex-Town Administrator (now Pawtucket Finance Director) Mark Stankiewicz, the CCA made it nearly impossible to get public records. Using loopholes in Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act, CCA leadership imposed outlandish demands for fees to receive records, especially those related to shady land deals.

Those foolhardy enough to pay exorbitant fees then received documents often mostly or wholly blacked out (see example, left). I finally figured out the reason for the incredible number of hours the town billed for public records. It was to pay staff time to black out just about everything in those records. Cover-ups are often labor-intensive.

But there’s more. The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union just released a survey of Rhode Island’s municipalities and school district boards to determine which of them met the highest standards of transparency and public access to their proceedings.

Read their report HERE.

Charlestown is now one of only four municipalities with a perfect score – and the ACLU notes that Charlestown attained this status through changes made in 2023 after the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) defeated the CCA and took a 4-1 majority on the Town Council.

The ACLU looked at four criteria:

• Did they livestream their meetings?

• Did they record their meetings and provide a video archive of them for future reference?

• Did they provide links to agenda item documents online?

• Did they allow remote participation by the public?

Here’s the top line scores:

In Charlestown, people on the agenda can link in and participate remotely. If you aren't on the agenda and wish to speak, you must be present.

NOTE: According to the ACLU report, the Chariho School District only complies with three of the four criteria used for scoring because, the report says, it does not provide for remote participation.

The ACLU’s footnote about the changes in Charlestown’s transparency practices changing after 2023 is another example of an outside, well-respected source showing advances Charlestown made by ousting the CCA from power.

Another example was last year’s report by the Rhode Island Auditor General that detailed the remarkable progress the CRU-controlled Council made in Charlestown’s finances and fiscal management. Read HERE for a description of the Charlestown section in that report and HERE for the full, original report.

Here's the Auditor General's summary for Charlestown:

And if that’s not enough, check this third source, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) 2022 report on municipal costs under the CCA. The most glaring issue was that Charlestown’s administrative costs are double the state average and six times higher than Cumberland which has the lowest administrative cost in the state. Fortunately, according to the Auditor General, Charlestown new CRU leadership turned these problems around as you can see for yourself in the summary findings above.

Here's RIPEC's summary table - scoot your eye to the bottom to see how Charlestown under the CCA fared:

The CCA’s de facto leader, Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, and CCA spokes troll Bonnita Van Slyke continue to claim, without evidence, that the CCA provided Charlestown with impeccable, error-free leadership. They say their critics whom they call “apologists for the current Town Council” cherry-pick facts and lie and distort the truth to put the CCA in a bad light. Tough talk but nothing to back it up.

Read the actual reports. The ACLU, Auditor General and RIPEC have no reason to favor the CRU over the CCA. Yet their reports and data draw a bright line showing that once the CCA was ousted, Charlestown was more open and its finances were better managed.

So who are you going to believe? Ruth Platner and the CCA? Or the RI ACLU, RI state Auditor General and the RI Public Expenditure Council?

Platner levels charge that I did what she always does, and she doesn’t like it

Calling Sigmund Freud!

By Will Collette

Ruth Platner, left, and Bonnita Van Slyke, right

In the midst of national chaos and Constitutional crisis, it\s easy to forget that politics is also a feature of municipal life here in Charlestown. Though our local issues may seem trivial compared to King Donald and President Musk’s destruction of the fabric of our republic, those issues do get argued as passionately – if not weirdly – as Trump’s claim that we MUST take over Greenland by any means necessary.

Welcome to Charlestown political ping-pong.

The issue at hand stems from charges made by Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) spokes troll Bonnita Van Slyke that the Charlestown Residents United (CRU), which holds all five Town Council seats, committed a heinous crime against Charlestown’s established norms.

That crime was the Council’s decision to appoint Laura Rom to fill a vacancy on the Planning Commission created when CCA Commissioner Lisa St. Godard resigned her seat just days after winning reelection. 

According to Van Slyke, that seat belonged by divine right to one of the CCA people.

Except that's not true. 

As usual, Van Slyke regurgitated talking points fed to her by the CCA’s de facto leader Ruth Platner who is also Charlestown’s top Planning Commissar. According to Platner and Van Slyke, there are strictly established pecking orders for how vacancies are filled. For the Planning Commission, the sacred order is for each member to move up one slot when a vacancy occurs.

Platner and Van Slyke claim that this is what the Town Charter demands (it doesn’t) and what the Planning Commission has always done since its formation yea onto colonial times without fail.

Except that’s not true either, as I wrote in my dissection of an earlier Van Slyke-Platner treatise. During its 10-year rule over Charlestown, the CCA practiced patronage appointments over merit more often than not. 

I noted that in 2018, Platner herself broke this so-called inviolable dictum by getting herself appointed Planning Commission chair even though she finished last among an all-CCA slate. That last-place finish earned her only a second alternate position yet somehow, she jumped the line from the bottom to the top.

I also detailed more than a decade of CCA’s persistent use of the spoils system to provide patronage and political payola to their supporters and punishment for those who fail to support the CCA in general and Ruth Platner in particular. Read the article HERE to see the numerous examples.

That rubbed Platner the wrong way.

She claims that “apologists for the current Town Council” [that's me] cherry-picked the facts. She further claims that I “falsely claim that I [Platner] was not elected in 2018.”

I never said that or anything remotely like it. This is a tactic Platner has often used called setting up a “strawman argument.” Here’s the definition of a strawman argument:

A strawman fallacy or straw man argument is a rhetorical ploy that misrepresents an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack.

Obviously, it is easier for Platner to debate something I never said than to answer for the CCA’s documented history of brutal patronage policies.

Platner also claims I committed another rhetorical dirty trick – “cherry-picking.” 

I titled this article “Calling Sigmund Freud” because so much of Platner’s and Van Slyke’s writings are excellent examples of what Freud called “projection.”

Here's Psychology Today's definition:

“Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.”

In a recent article, I detailed the extent to which Platner will go to cherry-pick facts to mold them into a false narrative. Almost a year ago, Platner widely disseminated her attack on the state’s push for more affordable housing by claiming “Charlestown Has Grown 11 Times Faster Than The State Yet The State Says We Must Grow Faster.”

Such a remarkable claim demands equally remarkable evidence which Platner offers by citing Charlestown and state population data for 1970 through 2020 that mathematically supports Platner’s claim.

US Census data. Pick 1970 as your starting point
and you get Platner's result. Pick 2000 and you get an
entirely different result. Classic cherry-picking

Platner cherry-picked the data to come up with this remarkable claim. 

However, almost all of Charlestown’s growth occurred between 1970 and 2000. That makes a difference because since 2000, Charlestown's population flatlined and even shrunk some years. 

Why? Because the CCA brought home construction, especially for affordable housing, to a screaming halt.

Platner knew exactly what she was doing because she had this to say about the same data when Platner wrote Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan:

"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 [SIC] 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…”. 

So which Platner version is true? The claim that Charlestown's growth has dramatically outpaced the state's or the one where she correctly notes that growth came to a screeching halt 25 years ago. Both use the same data to sing two very different tunes.

Yeah, it’s tiresome to wade through the Byzantine minutiae to address such a picayune issue as Ruth Platner’s hurt feelings with so much else going on. The compulsive lying by Platner, and Van Slyke, is also pretty annoying. I've known people who didn't seem to be able to help themselves and lied even when there was need to do so.

Pathological lying is a genuine mental disorder often associated with malignant narcissists (e.g. Donald Trump). Maybe the CCA needs a resident shrink.

Some say we are living in a post-truth era where facts don’t matter. In Charlestown under CCA rule, we've been living fact-free since 2008.

I refuse to accept that. I believe we have a duty to call out politicians who lie, cheat, distort data and just simply make stuff up to push their agenda. 

The fight for truth is one that needs to be fought at every level, from the global stage to our own little Charlestown. We must each do what we can where and when we can.