The politics of Charlestown open space

Is there ever enough?

By Will Collette

Let’s face it: the only thing the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) is offering Charlestown voters in 2024 is their zeal to buy up more land for open space, no matter the need, no matter the price.

CCA Town Council candidate Ruth Platner, who has run the Charlestown Planning Commission for years since elbowing out Bob Rohm as chair, makes her case that this is the CCA imperative. Read HERE if you doubt what I’m saying.

Like most Charlestown residents, Cathy and I love our open space, starting with our own 5 acres of trees and meadow. More than 60% of Charlestown’s land area is already protected space. The official list includes:

•        Town owned land,
•        Narragansett Tribal lands,
•        Federal land, especially National Wildlife Refuge,
•        State land, especially Burlingame Park and Charlestown Beach,
•        Land held by non-profits (e.g. Nature Conservancy and Charlestown Land Trust), and
•        Privately owned land protected under conservation easements or the Farm, Forest and Open Space Program.

These properties comprise more than 60% of Charlestown's dry land and that's according to the town's Comprehensive Plan that was written by Platner herself. See this map ↓ that was included in the Plan's narrative.

Unofficially, there’s a lot more unused open space when owners of 2 acres or more leave the land natural. For example, we use only a quarter-acre of our five acres.

Platner complains about those of us who question whether we can have too much of a good thing and should make more strategic decisions about acquiring more open space. According to Platner:

“Our opposition in this year’s election is claiming that we have too much open space, that we shouldn’t acquire more, and that land preservation is competing with development and causing residential growth to be too slow. The data do not support their claims.”

Except that data does indeed support those claims. Ironically, that data includes those used by Platner herself. For example, she opens her statement by citing a 2016 consultants’ report that projected a tripling of the town’s population unless more land was preserved.

Tortured data

Charlestown’s population flat-lined starting in 2000, more than a decade before Platner went on her open space buying spree.

The only time our population triples is during the summer when the tourists and part-time residents swell the population from under 8,000 to around 30,000. For our three-month tourism economy, we must maintain – and pay for - a year-round municipal infrastructure that can handle that influx.

Tourism, the only form of economic activity the CCA supports, is fine while it lasts at least for those in the tourism business, but it is expensive for the rest of us. 

In addition to the infrastructure costs, summer workers who can’t afford to live here must drive in since the CCA has steadfastly resisted RIPTA extending into town. They earn low wages with no benefits, and many survive on public assistance programs.

I would like to see an impartial study done to determine whether tourism brings in enough revenue to cover its costs.

Platner cherry-picked numbers to
"prove" her theory. By using 1970 as her
starting point, she misrepresents
Charlestown population "growth"

Last March, Platner offered up some truly tortured mathematics. In an article titled Charlestown Has Grown 11 Times Faster Than The State Yet The State Says We Must Grow Faster. In it, Platner gives a master class in how to cherry-pick numbers to prove an untrue theory.

Platner's disciple, CCA Council hopeful Bonnita Van Slyke tries to copy her mentor in a letter to the editor of the Sun where she tries to use Auditor General data to argue that the CCA didn't mess up town finances, raise taxes and let expenses run amok - except that's what the CCA did. CLICK HERE to see what the Auditor General really said and then judge whether Van Slyke can be trusted to another Council term.

Platner’s manipulation of data in this article rivals her all-time classic thesis, a mathematical formula she concocted to “prove” that families with children are parasites feeding off taxpayers. Think I’m making this up? CLICK HERE.

One of things I love about Ruth Platner is that when she lies, her own past writing often offers the best rebuttal.

Here’s what Platner wrote in Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan that contradicts her current arguments:

"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…”. 

As I wrote in my March article on Platner mathematics, “Let’s put a stop torture in Charlestown:”

“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."

Let’s remember Platner’s latest declaration is that “Open Space Is Not A Threat To Population Growth” even though she details in her article that the CCA has been dedicated to buying more open space and admits in the Comprehensive Plan that we need more housing for seniors and families but aren’t building it. 

AND she admits almost all new housing has been bought up by outsiders for vacation homes.

She also catalogs some, but not all, of the properties that the CCA acquired, or tried to acquire, for open space using either town money or town money plus some state bond funds (state money is still all OUR money). Let's take a look at several of the most recent.

Dirty deals but not dirt cheap

Platner’s land deals usually share these features:

•       Sales price is often far higher than tax assessment
•       Appraisals are often based on improbable conditions, usually with the appraiser noting that factors used in the appraisal are fictional
•       Seller often has some political connection to the CCA
•       Deal is cloaked in secrecy where documents are blacked out or simply withheld

Platner flags one failed transaction to mount a personal attack on Town Council President Deb Carney (D/CRU):

“We also received a $400,000 Natural Heritage Grant to purchase the 100-acre Saw Mill Pond Watershed, but that purchase was blocked by Councilor Carney [emphasis added].”

So Deb is bad for not liking this deal. Except there’s a lot more about this deal that Platner leaves out.

Let’s start with the fact that Platner, aided by her Council puppet, aforementioned Bonnita Van Slyke, insisted that the owner, property location and the proposed sale price be kept secret from the public while the town applied to the state for matching funds in October 2021.

DEM awarded Charlestown the $400,000 grant referred to by Platner in March 2022 but still did not reveal the owner, location or actual sales price.

When we finally got all the details, we learned it was the Richard Family property, already on the town tax rolls since at least 2010 as tax-advantaged open space, zoned "R40 Open Space," assessed by the town at $312.800. Platner wanted to spend at least $800,000 for a property that was already open space and worth less than half the assessed value.

And it’s all Deb’s fault, right? Well, in my opinion, congratulations to Deb and to late Councilor Grace Klinger for opposing this rip-off.

But in a twist, the real reason Platner didn’t get her way because one of the CCA Council members Cody Clarkin insisted on recusing himself - his mom owned property abutting the Richard Family land. That denied Ruthie her usual 3-2 margin. She doesn’t mention Cody’s rare display of ethics in her slander against Deb.

So many of Charlestown’s land scandals originated in the elected Planning Commission under Platner’s rule. 

For example, Platner and her stooge Town Plan Jane Weidman tried to buy a piece of property from CCA affiliate group, the Sachem Passage Association (SPA), and even secured a DEM grant for part of the cost.

The SPA wanted to sell the vacant lot they had obtained at no cost to the town for $426,000, a stark contrast to the fair market valuation of $61,900 on file at the Charlestown Tax Assessor’s office. 

Weidman was warned by Charlestown Tax Assessor Ken Swain that the property was wildly overpriced, but Weidman pushed the grant forward using an appraisal that contained this warning:

The SPA-Gate deal was good to go as far as Platner and the CCA were concerned. However, there was a catch in DEM's grant award: there had to be another appraisal, this time WITHOUT "extraordinary assumptions" or "hypothetical conditions." 

That appraisal gave the property a generous value of $75,000, not the $426,000 SPA and the CCA wanted. SPA leader Ron Areglado turned down the new, honest amount of $75,000 and this dirty deal died.

Then there's Tucker Estates, another Platner "triumph" where she and former and wannabe future CCA Council member Bonnita Van Slyke worked a deal for the town and the state to pay Brian Lind $900,000 for a piece of property only worth $333,600 according to the tax assessor.

To get to that $900,000 asking price, Platner had Planner Jane Weidman force the appraiser to re-do his appraisal until he got a number that met the seller's demand. 

Even using the bogus assumption that 22 units of housing could be built on the property, the town's appraiser's first appraisal was $660,000. Pushed by Platner and Weidman, he did a second appraisal but could only bring it up to $725,000. No matter how hard Weidman pushed and how much he tortured the numbers, he couldn't get it up to $900,000.

Owner Brian Lind wasn't satisfied with those numbers and commissioned his own appraisal. To no one's surprise, his appraiser came up with $915,000 which Lind, out of the kindness of his heart, rounded down to $900,000.

Somehow, Platner and Weidman convinced DEM to accept this bloated appraisal and Bonnie Van Slyke heralded it as a great triumph. 

That's not what I would call it. Us Charlestown taxpayers paid $500,000 directly with state taxpayers paying the $400,000 - $900,000 for a property assessed at $333,600.

Any or all of these deals could have gone to a grand jury since each involved deliberate deception in applying for and receiving state funds.

These are just the recent deals from just before the CCA was ousted from power by voters in the 2022 election. One of the first stories Tom Ferrio and I covered in Progressive Charlestown was one of Ruthie's first dirty deals, the 2001 "Y-Gate" scandal.

No to Platner, no to Van Slyke and yes to CRU's Planning Commission candidates

We need change on the Planning Commission.
Please support these candidates endorsed by
Charlestown Residents United (CRU)

Platner, for unstated reasons, is no longer running for Planning Commission but instead wants to go on the Town Council. I suppose she figures that would allow her to control both the Council AND Planning, but only if voters forget her record and elect her.

Van Slyke has done nothing to earn your vote.

Voters cannot do that. Only by giving the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) majority a second term in office can we curb the CCA’s land lust. Plus, we need change on the Planning Commission itself and I urge you to support the CRU candidates for Planning.

There must be a balance between our farms, forests and open space and meeting the needs Platner herself admits Charlestown has for housing for seniors, workers and families. I urge you to cast your mail-in, early or in-person votes for the CRU on or before November 5.

Should Charlestown go after more open space money?

Sure, but honestly and sensibly 

By Will Collette

Charlestown already has LOTS of open space

On Tuesday, DEM is opening a new application round for open space 50% matching grants of up to $400,000. A total of $3 million is available in this cycle.

During the long reign of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) over our town, these grants were highly prized by Planning Commissar Ruth Platner who saw them as an opportunity for sweetheart deals with CCA supporters plus a chance to advance her exclusionary zoning policy. 

Shudder to think that land might become available to house families with children or, worse, “people from Providence.”

Though Platner still holds her perch of power as Planning Commission chair and de facto CCA commander, the new Town Council majority, comprised of candidates who were endorsed by Charlestown Citizens United (CRU) doesn’t share her view of open space über alles.

That’s not to say they don’t value open space. In fact, the Council voted on July 10 to pursue the acquisition of a property at the corner of South County Trail and New Biscuit City Road to provide added public access to the Pawcatuck River.

This property could well be the subject of an open space grant application provided the groundwork laid out at the Council meeting can be accomplished before the October 27 application deadline.

Even Ruth Platner should applaud this project since it’s very close to the land where she and her husband ex-Zoning Board member Cliff Vanover share a home.

I think there is broad consensus in Charlestown that open space is a good thing. I certainly feel that way, contrary to what the CCA might say. But there is no consensus for unlimited, blind pursuit by Ruth Platner or anyone else to buy more open space with taxpayer dollars. More than 60% of Charlestown land (see map, above left) is already protected so new acquisitions should be strategic and a good value.

For a prime example of how NOT to pursue an open space buy, look no further than “SPAgate,” a shady deal if ever there was one. Platner directed her minion, town planner Jane Weidman to submit a grant application for open space cash to buy an unwanted property from CCA client group, the Sachem Passage Association, using a grossly overpriced appraisal.

Fortunately, after it initially awarded the grant, DEM insisted an independent appraisal be conducted. That appraisal came in at a fraction of what the SPA wanted – and what Platner was willing to pay – and the deal died.

If the Council decides to pursue an application, I am confident they will not repeat the CCA’s past practices of using public open space money as a political tool.

I have pulled extracts from DEM’s news release on the grant program containing the application details:

$3 million in matching grants are available to help communities and local organizations protect valuable open space throughout Rhode Island through DEM’s Local Open Space Grant Program. The grant round officially opens Aug 1, 2023, with a submission deadline of Oct 27, 2023. Funding is leveraged through the Rhode Island voter-approved 2022 and 2018 Green Bonds.

As part of this grant round, awards up to $400,000 – which may cover up to half of the project cost – will help preserve lands that offer significant natural, ecological or agricultural value by direct purchase or conservation easement. Projects that connect or expand existing protected lands will be prioritized. And climate change-related impacts of a project will be considered. In addition to these grants, funding is available to cover some costs associated with appraisal, title, and survey services. Restrictions apply, and applicants are encouraged to review the grant guidelines available at www.dem.ri.gov.

Electronic applications are encouraged and should be forwarded to the DEM’s Division of Planning & Development at dem.projects@dem.ri.gov by 4 PM on Friday, Oct 27. Proposals and supporting materials may also be mailed to the attention of DEM, Division of Planning & Development, 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908. Municipalities, land trusts, and nonprofit land conservation organizations are eligible to apply. Applications will be reviewed and ranked by the Natural Heritage Preservation Advisory Committee, with final awards to be made by the State Natural Heritage Preservation Commission.

Places used by residents and tourists alike for outdoor recreation, including iconic properties such as Weetamoo Woods and Pardon Gray in Tiverton, Mount Hope Farm in Bristol, Third Beach in Middletown, and Mercy Woods in Cumberland, all have been protected through this program. These natural assets play a big role in the state’s tourism economy by providing opportunities for the public to camp, fish, hunt, hike, and enjoy the great outdoors – all while generating revenue for the local economy.

DEM’s Green Space programs – which include Local Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, and Recreational Trail grants – fund land conservation, recreational land acquisition and development, and recreational trail development and improvement statewide.

The Local Open Space Grant Program is administered by the state’s Natural Heritage Preservation Commission and provides funding assistance to local communities for the protection of important open space and public recreation lands. Nearly every town in the state has received funding through the program over the course of the 200 grants administered since 1990, furthering the mission of preserving Rhode Island’s precious resources and increasing the public’s access and enjoyment of our natural lands.

UPDATED: Follow the money, Charlestown campaign 2022

As usual, the CCA counts on money from out of state as well as its old supporters

By Will Collette

UPDATE: I added an excerpt of the financial disclosure for Trumplican candidate Westin Place who is running for state Senate District 38. He admits he is in debt to the IRS for unpaid federal taxes. See below. - W. Collette

In case you were wondering where Uncle Fluffy Tom Gentz ended up, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance campaign finance reports tell us. Our former Town Council Boss sent the CCA $500 from his retirement home in Sunset City, Arizona. 

Another CCA regular, Peter Hernstein is now in Fountain Hills, AZ and he sent in his check for $100. Former CCA leader and co-founder Kate Waterman sent in her $500 from Connecticut. Nothing from Deputy Dan Slattery wherever he may be (maybe he’s on undercover assignment for the CIA).

As I read through the CCA’s report for the quarter going from July 1 to October, aside from the out-of-state money, I was amazed at how much the CCA took in from its candidates, past and present, various ward-heelers as well as prominent players in many of the CCA’s controversial land deals. Very little money came from newcomers.

People who stood to gain from the aborted Y-Gate Scandal are still giving, including Joanne D’Alcomo of Boston ($300) and Russ Ricci ($250). 

So are Sachem Passage Association folks who benefited from the town’s $2.1 million bailout of their botched resistance to the Whalerock wind turbine project (we bought the land where the turbines were to be built). 

Later on, the SPA tried it again, attempting to get Charlestown to take a bug-infested parcel off their hands for many times its assessed value – we dubbed that one “SPA-Gate.”   

In addition to Peter Hernstein, listed above, the CCA received $100 donations from SPA members Donna Chambers (seeking another term on the Chariho School Committee), Town Councilor Susan Cooper (SPA Trustee for the duration of Spa-Gate), and first-time donor John Kaptinski (SPA founding father), presumably holding out hope that Attorney Cooper can somehow engineer one last CCA bailout for the SPA should she be re-elected.         

Conspicuously absent is SPA El Presidente Ron Areglado, who “managed” the campaign against Whalerock and the bait-and-switch SPA-Gate scam, although his moneyman in both scams, Joseph Quadrato, coughed up $150 to reserve a slot in future CCA cash & carry do-overs.

Arnolda is well represented with donors but oddly, Councilor Bonnita Van Slyke donated nothing. She is not running for re-election, as she is trying to sell her Arnolda estate on the pond for $2.4 million to someone who will develop the land into “your own palatial coastal retreat.” 

Not only did Van Slyke stiff the CCA party, but she actually took $535.72 reimbursement for mailing expenses rather than make it an in-kind donation. 

In past years, the CCA attempted to hide the high level of out-of-state donations by reporting their absentee donors not at their actual addresses, but at their Charlestown vacation homes. 

They only did that once in this election cycle (so far), listing $1000 donor Robert Thavenius at 10 Dudley Lane when his mailing address is listed on the Charlestown Tax Assessor database as Avon, Connecticut. His family owns two properties in Charlestown assessed at $5,071,700.

In sum, the CCA began the campaign season with $7,911.24 and raised another $8,750 for a total campaign war chest of $16,701. Of that, they have spent $9,790 so far, most of it to produce and mail those laughable 6-page, trifold, fine-print graphic novels they’ve mailed to everyone – twice.

Though the CCA seems to be incapable of competently managing Charlestown’s money, they seem to have a good handle on their own cash. 

You can look up campaign finance reports for any candidate on the Board of Elections website HERE. If you enter “Charlestown,” you can see the files for anyone who has run for office from Charlestown going back to when the BOE set up the database. You can also enter a person’s name. 

I think campaign finance reports tell you more about a candidate than any other piece of information. For example, Trumplican Westin Place of Westerly is running for Senate 38 against Charlestown’s Victoria Gu (D) and former Republican Caswell Cooke of Westerly. 

Westin Place started out as a joke candidate, but his prospects came alive when the state GOP did some fund-raisers for him. In last quarter’s financial report, Place says he took in $2,100 from people he can’t identify. He also took major donations from big GOP donors statewide. In his last filing before the election, the only named donor is Gunowners PAC who gave him $200. 

One reason I didn't take Place seriously is that he was late in filing his organization report with the BOE and thus missed the cut-off to file a quarterly report. However, he did file his ethics disclosure statement with the Ethics Commission where he made this disclosure:

It's not a very good look for a candidate for state Senate to start campaigning while showing unpaid federal taxes.

A remarkable amount of money gets spent on political campaigns. It’s only loosely regulated and only occasionally do offenses get caught, like Charlestown’s Sen. Elaine Morgan who ripped off her campaign account to pay for personal expenses. Though she admitted the offenses, she threw her recently deceased husband under the bus by blaming him for her misdeeds. 

She got off with a fine, but I hope the voters will take this into account when they decide whether to re-elect her or replace her with her fine challenger, Charlestown’s Jennifer Douglas (D).

The Curious Case of Councilor Cooper

Caught in Sachem Passage!

By Robert Yarnall                       

Councilor Cooper’s thumbnail portraits above
were added as a visual aid for our readers. The original
image sans thumbnails, from the CCA Elections page,
are presumably attributed to Cliff Vanover.

Over the next fortnight plus, Charlestown voters need to be very curious about the candidacy of incumbent CCA Councilor Susan Cooper. 

Susan was the Town Council Liaison to the Budget Commission, chaired by former Town Administrator Dick Sartor, when $3 million flew the coop. CCA Mother Hen Ruth Platner tried to bail out the Budget Commission, comparing the situation to a car parked in a garage. (So, the money was locked safely away in the trunk then? Ooops…)

Councilor/Attorney Cooper must have gagged as she heard Ruth go all-in Freudian: a perfect 4K High-Def image of the proverbial Bonnie & Clyde Getaway Car, hubby Cliff Vanover behind the wheel, sidekick wifey Ruth packing heat, careening through the woods to the secret CCA clubhouse with yet another trunkful of taxpayer cash to subsidize the CCA Spot Zoning Master Plan, deftly cloaked in faux environmentalism.

It certainly wasn’t the first time Susan Cooper Esq. had a front row seat during a clownish soliloquy. Exhibit A would be my email to her at the top of this story. At the Sachem Passage Association’s 2021 Annual Meeting, Joseph “Fredo” Quadrato let everyone know the extent of the CCA’s corruptive influence on the lives of town employees.

Attorney Susan Cooper is the only CCA Town Council member running for re-election. If she gets the most votes, she will be the next president of the Charlestown Town Council. Ruth Platner’s thoughts and prayers will have been answered. 

At this point in the political campaign cycle, voters have been inundated with multiple mailings of the CCA’s oversized, high-gloss trifold campaign brochures, paid for largely by a trifecta of wealthy people: retired baby boomers who have relocated here; out-of-state property owners who maintain vacation homes in Charlestown; the uberwealthy who maintain multiple homes in other states, likely even in other countries.    

For the past decade, CCA candidates have lip-synched the same Platnoidian-mode three verse chorus: low taxes, rural environment, groundwater protection (as if the rest of don’t care about those things) which illustrates the simplistic soul of their collective personas. 

CCA Councilor/Attorney Susan Cooper, however, has proven herself a much more sophisticated candidate since she became active in the CCA’s proxy neighborhood, Sachem Passage, in 2018.  It’s no coincidence a lot started happening in the Sachem Passage Association that year. 

In mid-October, 2021, while researching the Progressive Charlestown miniseries  Muddy Genesis detailing the Sachem Passage Association’s aborted attempt to abscond with over $400,000 in taxpayers’ money to bail itself out of financial turmoil, I downloaded Charlestown Town Councilor Susan Cooper’s Rhode Island Ethics Commission Financial Disclosure Report for years 2019 and 2020, respectively. 

Councilor Cooper self-identified as a Trustee of the Sachem Passage Association. A digital image of the pertinent pages of Susan Cooper’s RIEC Financial Disclosure Reports appears at the top of this story.  

I have been a member of the Sachem Passage Association since its incorporation as a non-profit business entity, June 15, 2000, and never knew my homeowners’ association had a trustee. I spoke to a handful of long-time neighbors, none of whom recalled the SPA ever having a trustee. 

During the SPA Annual Meeting on June 9, 2022, I told SPA President Ronald J. Areglado that I had come across paperwork which indicated the SPA had a trustee.  I further stated that neither I, nor anyone else I asked, had ever heard anything about a SPA Trustee.   

Mr. Areglado replied that the SPA does not have, nor ever had, a trustee. He asked SPA Treasurer Thomas Gilligan, SPA Director Joseph Quadrato, and SPA Archivist John Kaptinski the same question. None of them indicated the SPA has, or ever had, a trustee. 

Councilor Cooper, a member of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, did not list herself as a SPA Trustee on her 2021 RIEC Financial Disclosure Report. It was filed on April 28, 2022, less than twelve weeks after the final installment of Muddy Genesis, which chronicled the decade-long symbiotic relationship between the Sachem Passage Association and the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, circa 2012-2022.  

Councilor Cooper’s resume’, posted on the CCA website, includes a BA (Psychology) from Johns Hopkins University (Maryland) and a JD (Doctor of Law) from Washington University (Missouri), both top tier institutions.  Her legal experience is comprehensive, ranging from State Public Defender (Missouri) to Law Clerk/Staff Attorney, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri. 

Councilor Cooper was also an Attorney and Director for BJC HealthCare, a fifteen-member health care collaborative employing 32,597 people in adult and pediatric academic medical centers in eastern Missouri. 

The gist of my “nod and a wink” acknowledgement of Susan Cooper’s laudable educational background and professional experience is to establish beyond any doubt that she knows exactly what a trustee does and exactly why she listed herself as the SPA Trustee. 

I was unable to ask Ms. Cooper about her SPA Trustee status at the June 9, 2022, SPA Annual Meeting because she was predictably in absentia, having been given a “heads up” by a sympathetic neighborly CCA devotee.  

Councilor Susan Cooper signed her 2019 and 2020 RIEC Financial Disclosure Reports filings under penalty of perjury. Those filings are definitive: she was the SPA’s Trustee during those years. 

During 2019 and 2020, SPA property owner Susan Cooper was also a member of the Charlestown Zoning Board of Review. She was appointed by the CCA-majority Town Council and joined SPA/CCA colleague Joseph Quadrato, CCA Treasurer Clifford Vanover, and SPA/CCA “professional author” (website propogandist) Michael James Chambers 

Besides being ZBR BFF’s, Quadrato and Vanover are also members of the CCA Steering Committee. Quadrato enjoys top billing on the CCA website, an acknowledgement of his fundraising prowess, a natural extension of his professional sales career selling office supply products from his home-based “Mom & Pop” business, Quad Products.

From 2012 through 2020, CCA Treasurer Cliff the Cash Guy Vanover “steered” six checks totaling $4,515.32 to Quad Products under the label “Campaign Expenditure.”

Quadrato resigned from the Zoning Board in May 2021 in conjunction with his appointment as SPA Finance and Real Estate Resource Person. “Fredo” holds no financial services certifications, no real estate credentials, no real estate licenses. 

Nonetheless, Quadrato was tapped by the SPA Board of Directors to craft a property sales proposal to be presented by SPA President Ronald Areglado to the Town Council. 

On November 8, 2021, the Charlestown Town Council deferred action on the  Sachem Passage Association 2021 Bait-and-Switch Property Sale Proposal.  

Although Cooper had recused herself from the SPA property proposal discussions, Ruth Platner would have certainly asked something like, “Susan, WTF was that all about?!” 

It would be disingenuous to suggest Susan was a party to Quadrato’s Bait & Switch scheme at any stage of the game. It’s not surprising Councilor Cooper opted out of her previously designated SPA Trustee position on her 2021 RIEC Financial Disclosure filing, was a no-show at the 20121 SPA Annual Meeting, and ignored my email request for clarification of her 2019/2020 RIEC filings. 

I want to believe Susan Cooper defaulted to her instincts as an experienced public defender, by simply not responding to my email regarding her “client,” Joseph Quadrato, the SPA’s thoroughly non-credentialed real estate expert and CCA’s lead fundraiser/ Steering Committee member. 

Nonetheless, Attorney Cooper has pitched her tent definitively in the shadow of the Platner Pyramid (low taxes, rural environment, groundwater) which, to rival the longevity of the Great Pyramid of Giza, requires the unfettered acquisition of open space to eliminate affordable housing opportunities for families with children, the singular, primordial threat to undermining the CCA’s symbolic essence. 

As Town Council President, and with a CCA majority town council, Attorney Susan Cooper is more than capable of setting agendas, steering discussions, and deflecting distractions like the $3 million “oopsie” to make Ruth Platner’s dream come true. Only Charlestown voters stand in the way. 

Sunshine week in Charlestown is pretty gloomy

As transparent as a lump of coal

By Will Collette

Today is the last day of this year’s Sunshine Week, a time when journalists around the world call attention to the need for openness and transparency, a free press and free flow of information.

It sure would be nice if any of those values were practiced here in Charlestown where the ruling Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) has decreed that there is no right to know and the public has no business poking its noses in government business.

Typical way Stankiewicz responds to open records requests

As for the free flow of information, under the decrees of Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz, you can get information under the state’s open records act, except you should expect most of the pages to be blacked out. Plus, if you ask for too much information, not only will you get blacked out pages, but you will be told to pay hundreds of dollars in advance.

This hasn’t just happened to me, but to several other citizens around town. Stankiewicz has made the very idea of open records meaningless.

Charlestown just received a state grant of $400,000 to buy some more open space land. But the CCA Town Council majority comprised of senior CCA Councilor Bonnie Van Slyke and two one-termers (hopefully) former Eagle Scout Cody Clarkin and SPA Trustee Susan Cooper voted to withhold the location of the land, the name of the seller and the asking price from the public.

We have since managed to get the name and location, but not the selling price or what the CCA/Town Planner claimed as the land value in the grant application. All we can know for sure is that it is going to be another rip-off, like SPA-Gate and the Tucker Estates deals within the past year.

The CCA Council majority has also voted to censor the minutes of meetings to remove any references to events or remarks that do not conform to the CCA’s myth of perfection.

The CCA Council majority has also voted to block any item they do not wish heard from being put on the Town Council agenda.

The CCA Council majority flouts the state open meetings law by coming into every meeting with their votes and their scripts locked and loaded by de facto CCA leader Ruth Platner and the CCA Steering Committee which meets in secret.

I can’t say they’ve taken their tactics from Vladimir Putin’s public relations playbook – the CCA has been practicing their style of closed, secret government long before Putin made it Russian state policy. I just hope the CCA doesn’t adopt Putin’s practice of killing journalists or sending them to prison for decades, but I do check under my car before starting it.

Charlestown mystery land deal identified

Another CCA deal looks to overcharge taxpayers for purchase of open space

By Will Collette

This is the photo used in the tax assessor database to represent the property
(assessed at $312,800) that the CCA wants to buy at a likely price in
excess of $800,000

Just a few days ago, I reported on the award of a $400,000 DEM open space grant to Charlestown to buy some more open space. DEM grants split the costs 50-50 up to a maximum of $400,000. You can reasonably conclude the purchase price for this land will be at least $800,000

What makes this land deal shadier than usual is that the authority to seek the funding was granted last October on a party line vote of 3-2, with all CCA-sponsored Councilors voting yes, even though the name of the seller, the location of the land and the actual asking price was deliberately withheld from the public.

The CCA has pushed Charlestown deeper and deeper into secret government. We have decisions for the Council made by the CCA Steering Committee which meets in secret. We have systematic hiding of public records by Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz. But I have never seen a land deal like this one that is so cloaked in secrecy.

Now we have winkled out the location of the land – Charlestown Map 25, Lot 10 – and with that information we can now reveal the seller’s name and the town’s assessed value for the property.

The property is owned by Carl E. Richard of Shannock and is located at 66 Carolina Back Road. The assessed value of this property is $312,800.

There is a garage on the property that was assessed at $110,900 in 2011 but is now assessed at only $9,000. The photo of the property posted on the town’s Tax Assessor website shows what looks to me like a paved vacant lot with a pile of junk (photo, above left).

The assessed value of the land alone only went up modestly in the past decade from $299,500 in 2011 to $303,800 in 2020. Most of us who live north of Route 1 have seen our land assessments climb sharply, but not this land.

The total assessed value of this property declined from $410,400 in 2011 to $312,800 making this land we are about to buy for $800,000-plus one of the few in Charlestown to see a significant drop in value.

The land is zoned R40 Open Space. Thus, it's unlikely the CCA/town can claim the lot is buildable. However, we might yet see another bogus appraisal that values the land as if a development could be built on it, the falsehood at the heart of the SPA-Gate scandal and the Tucker Estates rip-off.

We're still waiting to see the proposal the CCA/Town Planner submitted to DEM and what fantasy they concocted to justify a $400,000 grant on a $800,000+ purchase price for this property worth only $312,800.

The total property is 102 acres but the DEM news release about the grant says the town plans to acquire only 90 acres. That raises the question: what happens to the other 12 acres?

The last piece of the puzzle is the actual asking price for the land.

But it seems pretty certain that Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and the CCA Town Council majority are determined to rip off Charlestown taxpayers again.

If you have any doubts about my analysis, read on to see screenshots from the Tax Assessors database the shows you all the detail and more.

From Charlestown’s Tax Assessor’s database:

If Charlestown submitted the application that led to the $400,000 grant award from the state and knowingly misrepresented the land value as anything other than what these facts indicate, that could lead to legal jeopardy under this section of the Rhode Island General Laws:

§ 11-18-1 Giving false document to agent, employee, or public official. – (a) No person shall knowingly give to any agent, employee, servant in public or private employ, or public official any receipt, account, or other document in respect of which the principal, master, or employer, or state, city, or town of which he or she is an official is interested, which contains any statement which is false or erroneous, or defective in any important particular, and which, to his or her knowledge, is intended to mislead the principal, master, employer, or state, city, or town of which he or she is an official.

(b) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for a term not exceeding one year or be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).

Here we go again with ANOTHER questionable land deal

DEM awards Charlestown a $400,000 matching grant for SECRET land deal

By Will Collette

Today, the state Department of Environmental Management (DEM) announced that Charlestown has been awarded a $400,000 to buy a secret piece of land from an anonymous owner for a total price not disclosed to the public.

This is the way Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and the CCA majority on the Town Council wanted it. 

You have to go back to the Council’s October 12, 2021. Watch the video through the town's website, starting at the IQM2 portal and then follow the trail of breadcrumbs. Discussion starts at 2 hours, 22 minutes into the meeting.

Here’s the DEM announcement about the grant:

The Open Space grants being awarded today to protect 400 acres of open space and farmland include:

Town of Charlestown: $400,000 grant to acquire 90 acres of forestland in northern Charlestown. The property contains an important wetland complex that surrounds Saw Mill Pond. The land is part of a greater than 250-acre area of unfragmented forest and is nearly contiguous with The Nature Conservancy's Carter Preserve, which includes 1,000+ acres of conservation land.

The only new information we get from this announcement is that its approximate location, but not the seller or the asking price.

DEM open space grants are awarded as a 50-50 match with the state’s share capped at $400,000. This means the asking price for the property is at least $800,000.

But we don’t know the actual number because the CCA majority voted 3-2 at the October 2021 meeting to back this motion by Bonnie Van Slyke authorizing the grant application but keeping the owner’s name, price and location secret. 

Motion to authorize Town Staff to Apply for a 2022 Open Space Grant through the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) as requested by the Town Planner, Jane Weidman, and to authorize the Town Administrator to file the application with the RIDEM and to provide additional information and/or documentation as required.

Besides Van Slyke, the other two CCA Councilors to vote for this secret land deal are former Eagle Scout Cody Clarkin and Susan Cooper.

Council President Deb Carney argued against the motion largely on the basis that the public has the right to know who, where, and how much especially since this matter was being discussed in an open meeting. Councilor Grace Klinger objected because this process was being so rushed.

Carney also raised questions about added costs from buying this property such as adding and maintaining trails, parking, etc. She noted that Charlestown has not put enough money into maintaining the properties the town already owns.

The CCA Councilors all argued that they needed to chase the DEM funding and that all those pesky questions – the who, where and how much (like the asking price and additional costs) – can be answered later. If you don't believe me, watch the video of the Oct. 12 Council meeting.

The CCA posted an item on this grant on its website earlier today with a catalog of all the trees, rocks, bushes and critters on the land but nothing about who owns it, its exact location and most importantly, how much it's going to cost us. But then, they don't care about those details.

This is the third shady land deal pushed by the CCA in the last 15 months starting with the aborted SPA-Gate deal followed by the incredible Tucker Estates rip-off.

SPA-Gate

As you may recall, the Sachem Passage Association (SPA) proposed to sell the town a small, bug-infested swamp on Foster Cove for $426,000 even though the property was assessed at only $61,900. Tax Assessor Ken Swain prepared a memo explaining why the land was assessed so low at the request of Town Planner Jane Weidman.

Swain noted how numerous legal and regulatory restrictions rendered the property unbuildable. But only days after receiving Swain’s memo, Weidman ignored his findings and submitted a grant application to DEM requesting 50% of the SPA’s appraisal of $426,000.

The appraisal was based on the fictitious assumption that the land was buildable even though it is not. On the basis of that false information, DEM awarded Charlestown a grant for $213,000 but required the town to do its own, presumably honest appraisal.

That new appraisal came in at $75,000, slightly more than the town’s tax assessment. The SPA gagged on that new price, the deal fell through and Charlestown had to tell DEM we would not be taking the grant money after all.

Read more about SPA-Gate HERE and HERE.

Tucker Estates

Tucker Estates was another case where the seller’s price and the town’s tax assessment differed wildly. The town assessed the property at $333,600 while the seller wanted almost three times that.

This time, instead of working off of an appraisal from the seller, Town Planner Weidman commissioned two different appraisals, tweaking the conditions each time to get a higher price. None of them met the owner’s price so the owner submitted his own appraisal that gave the property’s value at $915,000 but said he’d give Charlestown a discount, taking the price down to $900,000 which the town accepted.

I’ve asked why it’s the town staff’s job to manipulate appraisals to get a higher price for private land sellers (in this case a South Kingstown developer). I’ve never gotten an answer.

Charlestown submitted a grant application that won a grant of $400,000 from DEM, the maximum amount DEM awards. Using the $400,000 from DEM, Charlestown’s share was $500,000 for property only worth $333,600 according to our Tax Assessor.

Even though the direct cost to Charlestown taxpayers was $500,000 in this rip-off, the state funds that were used are also taxpayers money.

On to the next dirty deal

These are the two immediate past precedents. Whether we have learned anything at all from these bad experiences remains to be seen. Our history shows that Charlestown, or at least the CCA, has no learning curve and that Ruth Platner’s insatiable appetite for more and more open space will prevail over all.

You can bet that Planning Commissar Platner and her CCA puppets on the Council will fight to the death to buy the mystery property at some ridiculous price, no matter what anyone in the public says.

After all, the CCA has the 3-2 majority and can count on the votes of all three of their Council minions to spend your money regardless of the facts.

You can also bet that Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz will use every trick in the book to block any attempts to reveal any embarrassing details about this deal, as he did with the other dirty deals.

One other fact to consider: Charlestown’s Open Space fund may be in deficit even though there is still some bonding authority that has been left unused. The Budget Commission likes to spend cash rather than issue low-interest bonds because its chair, Dick Sartor, has a severe allergy to debt, even sensible debt.

That leads to Platner’s open space shopping sprees to overlap with the current, unresolved fight over the $3 million oopsie where someone somewhere in town government misplaced $3 million in unassigned surplus funds.

The CCA is adamant that we do not need an outside forensic audit to determine why we can’t seem to manage our budget. Personally, I think the CCA should welcome a forensic audit because, given their smug and irresponsible behavior, they may find themselves having to deal with a grand jury.