Council President Carney debunks Ninigret Park misstatements.

Presents a run-down of the issues before Council meeting

By Deb Carney

The purpose of tonight’s [April 15] meeting is for the Town Council to discuss and take any potential action on the Ninigret Park Master Plan as drafted by VHB.

After the Council has had the opportunity to discuss the plan and ask questions of the VHB representatives, I will open the floor up to public comment. 

The Council will not take a vote on the plan until after those that wish to speak on the plan have had the opportunity to do so.

I am taking a few moments to remind everyone of proper decorum for Council meetings.  There will be no name calling, no yelling out, no booing, no jeering, no applauding. Tonight’s meeting will not be a free-for-all.  Everyone will be given the opportunity to speak without fear of being heckled or booed. 

Please be respectful of those sitting around you.  If you wish to carry on a conversation, please take it out to the hallway. 

To have a productive discussion this evening, everyone needs to be on the same page as to what the Master Plan Update is, and what it is not. 

Over the past several months, there has been much misinformation about the Ninigret Park Master Plan update posted on social media.  This misinformation campaign has created division in our town, which is unfortunate.  The Park is being used as a political tool to create confusion, concern, hostility, and discontent.

The park is supposed to be a place for all to enjoy. A place to come together as a community. Not a weapon used to divide us.

To get everyone on the same page, I need to correct some statements made online.

Contrary to what was written on social media, this is the Council’s first discussion regarding the draft plan.  The Council has not approved this plan, nor has the Council discussed implementing any of the recommendations, let alone spending over $30 million or $40 million of tax-payers money, as we have been accused of doing.

Contrary to what has been repeatedly posted online, the Council has not proposed constructing a concert/ event stadium.  We are not constructing one for 12,000 people. We are not constructing one for 14,000 people.  We are not proposing constructing any concert/ event stadium.

Contrary to what was written on social media, the Council did not remove proposed cost estimates from the plan. VHB was working on updating the cost estimates which they did, and then emailed to the town last week. 

Contrary to what was written online, the Council did not remove the letters from the end of the report, as we were accused of doing. The Council had nothing to do with the letters.  I know that not all communications were included. For example, the Chariho Cowboys Football and Cheerleading Organization submitted an online petition in support of improvements to Ninigret Park with over 59 signatures. Their petition was not included at the end of the report. The Town Council had no role in determining what was included, and what was not included.

To further clarify non-factual information posted online, I offer the following answers to questions I have been asked based on social media posts:

1.  Why is the Town Council updating the Master Plan?

The Town is required to update the Ninigret Park Master Plan every ten years, The last plan was adopted in 2008. That was sixteen years ago.  The Town is past due.

Page 77 of the draft Master Plan, which is packet page 79 this evening, includes meeting notes from July 13, 1994, with Mr. John T. Kelly, who at the time administrated the Federal Lands to Parks Program for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.  Mr. Kelly attended a meeting with town officials.

This document from this meeting states, “The application to acquire surplus government land included a ten-year plan of Utilization.  This plan must be updated by the end of each ten-year period.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: also see minutes of a follow-up meeting on October 17, 2002 HERE. To read the original deed that conveyed Ninigret Park to Charlestown from the federal government, CLICK HERE.

I stress this, because I have been asked by multiple people, why is the Council updating the plan.  The answer is because the Town is required to do so.

2.  What happened to the 2014 Master Plan? 

A Master Plan update was drafted in 2014 but it was never approved by the Town Council.  I was not on the Town Council in 2014. I don’t know why it wasn’t approved.  But as of today, the town is not current with our obligation to update the plan.

3.  Why is the Council only looking at the 2008 and 2014 Master Plans? 

We aren’t.  We are looking at numerous factors. This accusation is false.

On January 23, 2023, the Town Council first discussed updating the Master Plan, as the Town is required to do.

The Town Council unanimously approved the following motion: “Motion to direct the Parks and Recreation Commission with the assistance of the Parks and Recreation Department to compile a draft Master Plan detailing the steps necessary to implement improvements to Ninigret Park utilizing the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan and the 2014 Ninigret Park Master Plan Update draft, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the 2021 Townwide Survey documents.

The information should include, but not be limited to, the following objectives, with no preference given to the order listed:

a.  Using as a guide, the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan and the 2014 Ninigret Park Master Plan Update draft, specifically the Master Plan Project Areas Map found on page 46 of that plan, compile the report so as to have separate project areas and the details of each individually identified so they may or may not be implemented as stand-alone projects, in groups, or as a whole.

b.  Within the Project Areas, make updates and recommendations taking into account existing infrastructure and any physical changes that have occurred from 2014 to current.

c.  Identify and recommend the order of priority in which each project area may be implemented if done individually.

d.  Analyze, update where needed, and combine the information from the 2008 and 2014 plans, respectively and include such in the draft Master Plan.

e.  Seek input and include participation from the National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Frosty Drew Observatory and Science Center, the Charlestown Senior Center, Police, Fire and Rescue agencies, the sports groups that utilize the current fields, the Chariho Cowboys, the Public, and additional interested parties.

f.  Compile a list of all steps needed to take project areas from current to completion for each project. The Parks and Recreation Commission Chair and the Director of Parks and Recreation, or their designees, shall appear at the April 2023 Town Council meeting with a preliminary update. Any additional resources needed for the Commission to accomplish its report can be addressed at that time. The Commission shall have one-hundred and twenty (120) days to complete this report or request additional time from the Town Council.”

4.  Why did the Town hire an outside company to draft the plan?

The Parks & Recreation Department requested assistance with the task of updating the plan. In part, the memo from the Parks and Recreation Director [Vicki Hilton] reads:

"As the director of the Parks and Recreation Department, I do not feel that the volunteer Parks and Recreation Commission members have the time nor expertise for this task. I feel an impartial and professional assessing of the information would be the best path for this major endeavor. We would like to seek proposals from a consulting firm in Park and Recreation Master Planning and community engagement. The Commission Chairman and I feel an outside qualified professional agency would create the most effective master plan that will reflect the unique environmental and community interests of Ninigret Park for years to come. We do not feel that we are able to meet the necessary design standards, editorial skills, environmental expertise nor are we equipped for the graphic capabilities that a full-time firm would provide.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is not the first Ninigret rodeo for VHB, Charlestown's contractor. For example, they were heavily involved in the town's planning for the Park in 2002. CLICK HERE.

5. Where is the money coming from to pay for this plan? 

The funding is coming from the American Rescue Plan Act funds that the federal government awarded to Charlestown in 2021. On February 13, 2023, after receiving the memo from the Parks & Recreation Director, the Town Council discussed this matter during the Town Council meeting and approved the following motion: 

“Motion to authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to seek proposals from a consulting firm in Park and Recreation Master Planning and community engagement for the creation of a 2023 Master Plan for Ninigret Park and the potential appropriation of $35,000 in budgetary funding for this purpose, to be taken from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds, Budget Line Item 43.000.5100 (ARPA FUND Expenses), and to authorize the Acting Town Administrator and Town Treasurer, each, to take any and all such actions, and to execute and deliver such certificates, receipts or other documents as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing.”

On July 10, 2023 the Town Council unanimously approved the following motion: 

"Motion to award the Ninigret Park Master Plan Update 2023 Bid to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) in the Amount of $31,300.00 as Budgeted in Line Item 43.000.51400 (ARPA Fund Expenses) and Authorization of the Acting Town Administrator and Town Treasurer, Each, to Take Any and All Such Actions, and Execute and Deliver Such Certificates, Receipts or Other Documents as May be Necessary to Carry into Effect the Foregoing."

6.  What is the Master Plan?

As written in the report, “The Master plan is a wholistic long-term strategy or blueprint that outlines potential opportunities for development, growth, or revitalization.”

The Master Plan is not a construction plan. 

In 1994, the Town Council approved the Ninigret Park Ten Year Utilization Plan.  That plan from 30 years ago included, among other items, a bandshell and a football field.  Even though both were in the plan, they were not built.  I point this out, because based on comments posted online, some people think that everything in this plan is somehow going to be built in the next few years. 

It’s not.

The approved 2008 plan also included a list of items that were never implemented.  For example, removing invasive species of plants, reducing the amount of paved areas and replacing them with grassed fields, clearing an area of the park for the festivals so as not to impact other areas of the park.  This is a short list.  

My point is none of these things were done over the past sixteen years, even though they were in the plan.

During the November 30th  meeting of the Master Plan Update Subcommittee, the consultants from VHB showed a new community center in their plan.  Contrary to what was printed online, this is not something the Town Council asked them to include.  

If a new community center were to be built, the cost would likely be over ten million dollars.  The new community center that South Kingstown built a few years ago cost over seven million dollars, and they have public water and public sewer.  Charlestown does not.  

That alone would increase our costs.  Also, Ninigret Park is in the hurricane zone, which has stricter, and more expensive building requirements.  This Town Council never expressed an interest in constructing a community center.  

The consultants included it so that if in the future the town decided this is something the town wants to build, then the location in the plan would be a logical place to put it, but not required.  

Also, if in the future the residents of Charlestown decide this is something we want to construct, then there would need to be a construction plan, along with associated costs, which would ultimately be voted on by the voters of Charlestown.

To put things in perspective, in 2019, the majority members on the Town Council proposed taking $3 million of the town’s surplus money and transferring it within the budget for a new “community/recreation /senior center”.  There was no plan for this “center”.  I was on the Town Council in 2019 and was the only Councilor that opposed this “plan”. 

For the record, none of my fellow Councilors this evening were on the Council in 2019, and none of them were involved with that $3 million proposed transfer of money.

In 2019 the voters came out in force to oppose this transfer of funds and voted down the entire budget that year. 

If a community center is ever seriously proposed, then an actual plan with associated costs would need to be developed.  Any proposal of that magnitude should be voted on as a separate warrant item question as was done in 2015 when the voters overwhelmingly approved the citizen petition for $1 million for improvements to Ninigret park as outlined in the 2008 Master Plan.

7.  If something is not in the plan, can it still be built? 

Yes. Just because something is not in the plan, that does not mean it can't be built.  For example, two years ago the town put in an outdoor exercise area.  That was not in the plan, but it was added.  

This is the so-called multi-use path - actually a bike path -
that the CCA pushed through based on the claim that it would
cost less than $7000. It actually cost $266,927, a 4000% overrun.
It was not in any master plan or list of priorities except
CCA founding member Faith Labossiere's. Photo by Will Collette

About seven years ago, the town installed a "multiuse" path, around the playground.  This also was not in the plan, but it was added to the park. [see photo, left]

To have a productive discussion this evening, it is crucial for everyone to understand what a Master Plan is. To that end, I will read from page 45 of the draft plan.

“The 2024 Master Plan is not promoting any specific type of development, but highly recommends any future development or park improvements need to be carefully limited to specific locations as depicted in this Master Plan and deemed appropriate through a typical town permitting process. It’s imperative for the Community, and anyone reading this report, to clearly understand the following:

• A master plan is a wholistic long-term strategy or blueprint that outlines potential opportunities for development, growth, or revitalization.

• It will serve as a guide for decision-making and future development.

• All decisions will have to go through standard permitting and approval processes, as determined by local, state, and federal governments.

• The result of the 2024 Master Plan is a culmination of master plan alternatives including the 2008 Approved Master Plan, the 2014 Draft Master Plan, as well as research and community input

• A thoughtful process incorporating “Placemaking Principles”.

• “Placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maximize shared value.” – www.pps.org

There is no way any plan is going to make everyone completely happy.  There will be some things some residents want, that others don’t.  This draft plan has a little bit of something for most people.  

I ask that as we discuss the plan this evening, we all keep an open mind.  While something in the plan might not be what you personally would use, it could be something others would use and enjoy.

Finally, nothing in this plan, or any plan, can be implemented without money.  It will ultimately be the 5000 plus registered voters of Charlestown that will vote on what improvements to fund, or not fund, in Ninigret Park.  

EDITOR'S POST SCRIPT. This is not the first, or probably the last, time citizens have almost come to blows over the use of Ninigret Park. 

In 2013-14, in a conflict Progressive Charlestown called "The Battle for Ninigret Park," Charlestown Citizen Alliance (CCA) Council members claimed that a proposal to install lighting so kids could conduct football practice after daylight standard kicked in would constitute a breach of our deed with the National Park Service. 

Photo by Will Collette

They claimed there was a nefarious conspiracy being carried out by then Town Administrator William DiLibero and Parks and Recreation Director Jay Primiano. 

They said they had heard from ex-US Fish and Wildlife Rhode Island director Charlie Vandemoer (left) that the Interior Department was just a hair away from taking back the Park. CCA Council members Tom Gentz and Dan Slattery even suggested Charlestown preemptively give the park back to the feds. [Charlie told me later, face-to-face, he never said that].

All of the CCA's claims turned out to be false and when pressed by the RI Attorney General, Councilor Dan Slattery was unable to produce the so-called definitive proof he claimed to possess. Regional National Parks  Director Elyse DeForest came to Charlestown to answer questions and debunk the CCA's false claims. 

Dan Slattery. Photo by Will Collette

In the end, a chastened Charlie Vandemoer got a piece of paper saying he and Charlestown would talk when needed, something already guaranteed. We got to keep Ninigret Park. Gentz, Slattery and the CCA went on to concoct other phony scandals to create panic among Charlestown's residents to win elections.

Both Bill DiLibero and Jay Primiano lost their jobs. 

Deb is too polite to bring up this sordid past. 

I'm not.

- Will Collette

Maybe Charlie has a point

Short-term bang of fireworks has long-term impact on wildlife

Curtin University

EDITOR'S NOTE: Recently, Charlie Vandemoer, former US Fish and Wildlife manager for RI's National Wildlife Refuges, including Ninigret, sent a letter complaining that fireworks from Ninigret Park events had been exploding over the Refuge, disturbing the wildlife. Though Charlie has a notorious history of injecting himself into Charlestown politics, sometimes by, shall we say, stretching the truth, he may have a point about the fireworks, as this scientific review discusses.  - Will Collette

Popular fireworks should be replaced with cleaner drone and laser light shows to avoid the "highly damaging" impact on wildlife, domestic pets and the broader environment, new Curtin-led research has found.

The new research, published in Pacific Conservation Biology, examined the environmental toll of firework displays by reviewing the ecological effects of Diwali festivities in India, Fourth of July celebrations across the United States of America, and other events in New Zealand and parts of Europe.

Examples included fireworks in Spanish festivals impacting the breeding success of House Sparrows, July firework displays being implicated in the decline of Brandt's Cormorant colonies in California, and South American sea lions changing their behaviour during breeding season as a result of New Year's fireworks in Chile.

Lively Town Council meeting with a big ending

Jan. 23, 2023 Town Council Meeting Report

From Charlestown Residents United (CRU)

This was our second Town Council meeting this month, with some important topics that we previewed here.

This article summarizes what happened in the meeting. The agenda packet for the meeting is here.

The council chambers, though not having room for many people, was quite full for this meeting.

Ninigret Park Master Plan

Stephen Stokes proposed directing the Parks & Recreation Department to update the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan (complete wording too lengthy to type here during the meeting). Ms. Cooper suggesting simply designating this the 2023 Ninigret Park Master Plan. Ms. Carney suggesting emphasizing enhancement of the ball fields and a dedicated concert/festival area with, possibly, including electricity.

There was a lot of good discussion with support for the idea of an update and questions about specific things mentioned in Mr. Stokes proposal.

After the discussion, Mr. Stokes made his motion to initiate the master plan update with participation by the various stakeholders and considering changes in the park since the 2008 master plan. His motion can be heard at about 1 hour and 45 minutes into the video here. The motion passed unanimously.

Ninigret Park Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Charlie Vandemoer in his heyday in 2012 when he
conspired with the CCA to create a crisis we called
"The Battle for Ninigret Park" that was based on a collection
 of lies Charlie helped to concoct. As those lies were debunked,
the CCA (and Charlie) lost the battle and his consolation
prize was the MOU discussed last Monday.
These comments and photo by Will Collette. 

Mr. Stokes reviewed a letter from former Wildlife Refuge manager Charlie Vandemoer that was received by the town far after the events noted and clearly contains inaccuracies. Mr. Stokes made a motion to begin the 30-day notification period for revising the MOU and the start the revision process.

Ms. Klinger suggested that entering an MOU revision process is more drastic than needed and, lacking specific changes we want made, we may be better served by asking for corrections to the letter.

After discussion Mr. Stokes simply asked the interim refuge manager to send corrections to the prior letter to the town. The interim refuge manager agreed to that. No motion came to vote.

Zoning for Cannabis sales

The briefings on this topic from The Building Official and Town Planner can be read in the agenda packet here.

The Council unanimously passed a motion asking the ad hoc ordinance review committee to draft a template ordinance for discussion with legal counsel. There was discussion that policy decisions need to be made as input to this process and the Council felt that could work because the ad hoc committee has not been formed yet.

Town Administrator

The Council went into executive session around 10 pm. Upon return Council President Carney explained that the Council unanimously approved the resignation of the Town Administrator.

President Carney explained the terms of the resignation: affective February 13, 2023, last day in the office January 23, 2023. Comments from the audience were permitted and can be heard in the video recording around the 3 hour, 5 minute mark.

The entire meeting can be watched here.

Does killing wildlife in a wildlife refuge make sense?

Neighbors Feel Caught in Crossfire as Trustom Refuge Increases Hunting Access

By FRANK CARINI/ecoRI News staff

Trustom Pond NWR (photo by Will Collette)

Recent U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service approval that expands and, in the case of the John H. Chafee and Sachuest Point preserves allows, hunting in Rhode Island’s five national wildlife refuges has upset a group of neighbors who live near a refuge where crossbow hunting will be licensed next year.

While waterfowl hunting will continue to be allowed in a limited area at the Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge in South Kingstown, the Fish & Wildlife Service’s final hunting and fishing plan for the refuge allows archery hunting for deer, wild turkey, fox, and coyote throughout much of the 777-acre preserve.

Margaret Bucheit and her husband, William Ohley, have lived at their Coddington Way property that abuts open space next to Trustom for 13 years. They held a physically distanced neighborhood meeting Aug. 15 at the end of their cul-de-sac to discuss concerns about the refuge’s increased hunting opportunities. Eight of the 10 families who live in their Land N Sea development attended.

“In no way does our neighborhood consider this change of use safe. Many of us walk year-round in the woods behind our homes,” Bucheit said. “We do not want hunters with weapons in the woods behind our homes. We truly feel unsafe.”

The subdivision and its 35 acres of open space abuts 270 acres of Trustom that will be open to 35 bow hunters for four months beginning in fall 2021. Both Bucheit and Ohley, who shoots a longbow, are particularly concerned about the use of crossbows to kill game, noting they fire arrows that can move up to 400 feet per second (272 mph) and travel up to 1,500 feet.

“Fish and Wildlife is letting thirty-five strangers shoot those bows for four months of the year on the border of my neighborhood,” Bucheit said. “The season will be in autumn, during the bird migration, a time when most of us down here love to walk in the refuges, a time that draws visitors, educators, researchers, and families.”

The longtime Rhode Island couple, who have hired a Rhode Island attorney to represent the neighborhood’s interests, recently told ecoRI News that abutter concerns weren’t given enough credence and that the intent of property deeded to help create the refuge was ignored.

Westerly-based attorney Paul Singer has noted that Ann Kenyon Morse, in 1974, donated the refuge’s first 365 acres with the understanding that it would be used as “an inviolate sanctuary for birds and/or as a refuge for wildlife.” 

Part 3: Memorial Day Feature - Searching for a home for the "Ninigret Bomb"

Charlestown and World War II, Part 3
No Room at the Ninigret Wildlife Refuge Headquarters

By Frank Glista

From the Charlestown Press, August 2, 2007

In August of 2007 I invited my friend, Mark Godden, to join me at the Groton-New London Airport for an adventure.  Mark, never knowing what to expect from me when I used the word "adventure", looked puzzled.  

Years earlier, I requested that he ride along with me on my third cross country motorcycle trip.  Each owning a Harley-Davidson, we left Charlestown in May of 1979 and rode to California and back in about six weeks.  So what was I up to now?  I told him that we were going to go back in time.....for about an hour.

Charlie slow at holding up his end

New Sandy Point Partnership Off to Slow Start

By DAVID SMITH/ecoRI News contributor

Charlie Vandemoer: not holding up USFWS' end of interagency
agreement (photo by Will Collette)

Sandy Point in Little Narragansett Bay was supposed to have a new protector this year. 

But, according to the Stonington, Conn.-based Avalonia Land Conservancy, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service hasn’t been able to provide policing service nor has it been able to issue and check permits.

Avalonia, owner of the 35-acre island off the coasts of Rhode Island and Connecticut, worked out an agreement earlier this year with the Fish & Wildlife Service to provide enforcement of the nature preserve’s rules beginning this summer.

The lease was signed, according to the Fish & Wildlife Service refuge manager for Rhode Island, Charlie Vandemoer, but the agency was unable to set up the mechanism to collect fees and issue permits online as was expected by April. That permitting is still being handled by the Como Center in Borough of Stonington, Conn.

This special election is really about family values

The CCA Party wants it to be about fear and false information

By Will Collette

This budget proposes a tax rate of $10.10, the highest since
2004 and the seventh tax hike under the CCA Party.
SOURCE: Town Tax Assessor

Tomorrow, Monday June 1, you should go to Town Hall between 8 AM and 8 PM to cast your ballot in Charlestown’s special financial election.

You need to decide where you stand on four separate issues:

TOWN BUDGET – this budget will increase your tax rate to $10.10, the highest it’s been since 2004. It will be the seventh straight tax hike.

WARRANT QUESTION #1: Authorizes another $2 million to buy yet more open space even though more than 50% of Charlestown is already open space.

WARRANT QUESTION #2: Authorizes the CCA Party-controlled Town Council to give away property rights to the last big bloc of open space that town taxpayers paid $2.14 million to buy to an outside organization largely run by cronies of the CCA Party. Classic pay to play.

PETITION #1: Authorizes $1 million to commence with long-neglected maintenance at Ninigret Park and long-stalled improvements. This item was put on the ballot as the result of a petition by a non-partisan group of citizens.

Personally, and speaking for no one else but me, I will be voting NO to all the above items, including the budget, except for Petition #1 where I will vote YES to carry out work that desperately needs doing at Ninigret Park.

Just about every household has gotten mailers, maybe some e-mails or saw the opinion pieces run in the Westerly Sun or on-line that make arguments for and against all of the various items. You will need to sift through all the material, weigh the facts (hopefully checking to see which come with sources and proof and which are just opinion masquerading as fact), check your gut, use your common sense and decide.

Curiously, though very little attention has been focused on the budget which is, to me, one of the worst of the three items coming before the voters.

The Budget – I will vote NO

The CCA Party has raised taxes each and every single year they have controlled Charlestown government. Their own members get their own tax deals through exemptions, conservation easements, the Farm, Forest and Open Space program, lower assessments and fake fire districts while working families have to find more money every year to pay their property taxes.

The CCA Party has rebuffed efforts to bring tax relief to working families in order to defend the interests of wealthy non-resident property owners. Those wealthy non-residents supply 60% of the CCA Party’s funding.

The CCA goes there….Anti-family all the way.

The CCA Party says open space is the way to get rid of children by denying them places to live. Seriously.

By Will Collette

The CCA Party is out of the closet...they want to ban
school age kids from Charlestown. Seriously.

For years, CCA Party leaders and pundits Ruth Platner, Cliff Vanover and Mike Chambers have been making the outrageous claim that taking more and more land off the tax rolls as open space will actually reduce taxes.

For years, we’ve been asking for proof, or at least something resembling a cogent explanation since Charlestown taxpayers have had to endure an increase in the town property tax rate each and every year in the seven years since the Charlestown Citizens Alliance took power.

Finally, we have an explanation. Platner, Vanover and Chambers, each in his or her own way, say that by taking more land off the tax rolls as open space, we are actually saving money by blocking high-density residential development, as if that automatically happens to any property not zoned open space.

As the CCA Party has been saying for years, it’s a terrible thing to allow more family housing to get built because, well you know, families will live in them. And families mean children. And children mean Chariho students. And Chariho students mean higher costs to the taxpayer, in perpetuity, with no benefit to the community. I mean, why doesn’t the CCA Party just have its rubber-stamp Town Council pass an ordinance banning children?

They even published a gibberish math formula that is supposed to prove their assumption that children are parasites. See below for the link.

Again, I will remind you that the CCA Party has raised taxes every single year while they’ve been in power.

Some context for the informed voter

A brief, recent history of open space and recreation issues in Charlestown

By Linda Felaco

We all love open space

EDITOR’S NOTE: On Monday, June 1, a small percentage of Charlestown’s voters will go to Town Hall to cast their ballots for the town budget and three important ballot questions on land use. These issues have a history that goes back a very long time, back to Charlestown's founders taking land from the Narragansett Tribe. We’ve been covering that history since we launched Progressive Charlestown five years ago. My colleague Linda Felaco has gone through our articles to look at the biggest land use fights to create a bibliography to help you educate yourself before you vote.   - wc

Land use issues are highly contentious in Charlestown. In fact you could say that pretty much every issue of any magnitude somehow involves land use. Here’s a brief rundown of some of the major open space issues that have come up in the past few years. In each of these battles, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), the town’s ruling political party, has repeatedly demonstrated the lengths it will go to to prevent town residents from having any say over how town-owned properties are used.

Moraine plan – an issue of trust

Who you are determines who you trust

By Will Collette

Tom Gentz just loves giving away Charlestown property 
and money to his pals

In the end, the Charlestown Town Council decided to accept the management plan for the Charlestown Moraine Preserve offered by the Conservation Commission at the June 10 Council meeting. 

The plan lays out potential uses of the land as a natural site featuring the special topography of the Charlestown glacial moraine. The plan calls for the 75 acre parcel on Route One, the former site of the proposed Whalerock wind project, to remain undeveloped and undisturbed except for some trails that the Nature Conservancy has volunteered to design for Charlestown.

The Conservation Commission also recommended the town not seek to grant a conservation easement on the land, ending another contentious aspect of the long-running battle over this land. Click here for the video. If the link doesn’t work, click here.

When Charlestown ended the long-running Whalerock battle by spending $2.1 million to buy the land, Town Council Boss Tom Gentz (CCA Party) announced that the town would also be seeking to give away a conservation easement to a non-municipal group and he prepared a memo listing several groups that had either expressed an interest in gaining an easement or whom he considered to be good candidates.

Like so many of his brainstorms, Gentz’s proposal drew immediate criticism. One key element of his plan, that the town simply give away the easement, turns out to be illegal. A conservation easement turns out to be a “property interest” under the law, a thing of value, and the town cannot simply give away a valuable property interest like this without putting it before voters for their approval.

Russo concert plan for Ninigret dead…at least for this year

Council battle averted after artist drops out

By Will Collette

Not this year

According to records newly released to Progressive Charlestown under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), the controversial proposal by concert promoter Frank J. Russo to bring a “big name act” to Charlestown’s Ninigret Park this summer has fallen through.

Sparks flew last at the October 7 Town Council meeting when Swami Ron Areglado turned out his followers to oppose Russo’s proposal, even though Russo promised the entertainer would be some sort of lite rock or country act. More like Barry Manilow or Taylor Swift than Daft Punk or a Led Zeppelin tribute band.

Charlestown tapas

News briefs and nuggets

By Will Collette

• Platner suffers rare defeat
• Frank Russo project continues to roll
• CDTC hits xmas target
• Lawrence & Memorial says it is pleased with Westerly Hospital
• State legislators plan meeting with constituents
• Regulators quiz Millstone about bid to loosen safety standards
• Huh?

Platner suffers rare defeat

For the almost six years that the CCA Party’s Planning Commissar Ruth Platner took over control of the Planning Commission, she has almost always gotten her way. Since most of the Commissioners during her reign were CCA Party-endorsed, it was pretty much a given that they would vote with Platner to say no every time possible to block any new projects or construction in Charlestown. But on December 18, for the first time in just about everyone’s memory, Platner lost a vote.

You may want to view this historic event for yourself on the town’s ClerkBase video system, but there have been glitches in that system (click here for details and for a solution).

First Charlestown Town Council meeting of 2014 finishes with fight over Zoning Board

CCA Town Council majority begins positioning itself for 2014 election

By Will Collette

George Tremblay takes his turn on the ramparts of Charlestown's stone
wall against the people's right to know

LIVE BLOG ended at 9:50 when the meeting adjourned.

There were are some serious and far-reaching issues on the agenda.

Unfortunately, they got the usual Clown Council treatment by the CCA Party majority of Boss Tom Gentz, Deputy Dan Slattery and George Tremblay.

Among them is an attempt by CCA Party Councilor George Tremblay to curb public access to town records by cranking up fees to the maximum.

There’s the patronage appointment of CCA Party founder Cliff Vanover to a position on the Zoning Board of Review where he will be obliged to make quasi-judicial decisions - if you can believe that, given his famous temper. However, in the chaos of the debate, it seems like the Council may have left a lot of loose ends.

Charlie Vandemoer of the US Fish & Wildlife Service returns to get got a renewal of his Memorandum of Understanding that says that Charlestown and the Service will voluntarily talk to each other on matters of mutual interest. This MOU was all Charlie got out of the bitter, awful Battle of Ninigret Park in 2012.

CCA Party Council Boss Tom Gentz will float got approval for his idea for a referendum that would allow parents to send their kids to any of the Chariho elementary schools, not just the one in their town, which should add some gasoline to the simmering civil war pitting Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton against each other.

The Council approved this, even though even Gentz and Slattery thought it was a bad idea - they just want to stick it to Richmond. They also added an agenda item to discuss their battle plan for fighting with the other Chariho towns at Wednesday night's Chariho Omnibus meeting.

As always, there might be a surprise or two when a seemingly non-controversial agenda item turns into a major big deal. That's from my scouting report on the meeting. It's 7 PM and now It's Show Time! There was no Executive Session this month - a rarity.

PREVIEW of Town Council meeting on Monday January 13, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.

A look at what new plans are in store for Charlestown at first meeting of 2014

By Will Collette

George Tremblay takes his turn on the ramparts of Charlestown's stone
wall against the people's right to know

In this upcoming meeting, amid a lot of routine mundane business, there are some serious and far-reaching issues on the agenda. Among them is an attempt by CCA Party Councilor George Tremblay to curb public access to town records by cranking up fees to the maximum.

There’s the patronage appointment of CCA Party founder Cliff Vanover to a position on the Zoning Board of Review where he will be obliged to make quasi-judicial decisions - if you can believe that, given his famous temper.

Charlie Vandemoer of the US Fish & Wildlife Service returns to get a renewal of his Memorandum of Understanding that says that Charlestown and the Service will voluntarily talk to each other on matters of mutual interest. This MOU was all Charlie got out of the bitter, awful Battle of Ninigret Park in 2012.

CCA Party Council Boss Tom Gentz will float his idea for a referendum that would allow parents to send their kids to any of the Chariho elementary schools, not just the one in their town, which should add some gasoline to the simmering civil war pitting Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton against each other.

As always, there might be a surprise or two when a seemingly non-controversial agenda item turns into a major big deal. Here is Monday night’s agenda in the actual order of business.