Bonnita Van Slyke AND Ruth Platner should NOT be re-elected

The CCA’s Toxic Twins need to be retired from Charlestown politics

By Will Collette

Like I said, conjoined twins

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) paints itself as Charlestown’s savior and cites Town Council member Bonnita Van Slyke and Planning Commission commissar Ruth Platner as the real heroes. 

These conjoined toxic twins have been almost inseparable for the past ten years, though Platner is the dominant partner while Van Slyke’s served as Platner’s puppet.

Both are up for re-election on November 3 and hopefully both will lose their seats.

The CCA’s decade-long rule over Charlestown, ended in 2022 when they were trounced by the slate of candidates under the Charlestown Residents United (CRU), was marked by corrupt land deals, financial mismanagement, seemingly endless fake threats to the town’s existence, town government secrecy and cover-ups, and constant rancor.

Platner and her dog’s body Van Slyke were at the heart of just about all of Charlestown’s CCA-inflicted wounds.

This duo has been the driving force behind the CCA policies that voters finally repudiated in 2022. I compiled a list of articles (below, near the bottom) that gives you more detail on all the myriad reasons why the CCA, and Van Slyke and Platner in particular have been bad for Charlestown. 

I'm voting YES on Charlestown Question 7

But today, as many of you ponder early voting or mail-in ballot decisions or as you pore over contradictory mailers, here’s another reason to reject the CCA and its leaders Platner and Van Slyke.

That’s the CCA’s urgent plea to voters to reject Charlestown Question 7 which would change the staggered term of office for members of the Planning Commission from 6 years to 4. You might ask, “Who cares?”

Here’s why. Ever since Ruth Platner was named to the Planning Commission in 1997, she has campaigned to block virtually all home building in Charlestown. When she elbowed the respected late Bob Rohm out of the Planning Commission chair, she turned the Planning Commission into the place where projects go to die.

She did it by using the clock to kill projects. Now she desperately wants to maintain the six-year terms, explaining that “Long, staggered terms let the same commissioners review a large development through from start to finish” urging voters to vote NO to Charlestown Question 7. Naturally, I'm voting YES.

Platner expects commissioners to ponder development projects for as long as six years. No wonder so many projects go nowhere when the funding or investment disappears as Platner talks projects to death.

As one Planning Commission observer once told me, it’s remarkable that Platner and her Planning sidekick Frances Topping can talk for three hours straight at Commission meetings and say nothing.

Under Platner, any project applicant could look forward to years of hell and an ultimate denial, unless they acceded to Platner’s demands on matters as trivial as the color of roof shingles or switch plates on electrical outlets. It helped if the applicant made a substantial donation to one of Platner’s favored charities, such as the Charlestown Land Trust.

By 2000, Platner’s policies succeeded in causing Charlestown population to stagnate and, as she admits in the town Comprehensive Plan, even to decline, a pattern that continues today. She covered that up by cooking Census data to make the claim that growth in Charlestown actually exceeded the rest of Rhode Island, making it unfair for the state to insist the town build more affordable housing.

She cooked the data by choosing 1970 as the start date, which allowed her to use the period of 1970 to 1999 where population grew rapidly to offset the stagnant growth period of 2000 to the present brought about by her policies.

By 2023, alarm bells were sounding about Platner’s obstinate refusal to allow housing for families as reported by Alex Nunes on public radio: In Charlestown, limited progress and lots of discord on affordable housing - TPR: The Public's Radio.

We have no affordable housing for town employees, the children of existing residents or the people who come into town to work to clean our homes, mow the lawns, take out the trash, or change diapers. Those folks are expected to be out of town by sundown. Charlestown has become in the classic sense, a “Sundown Town.”

So, the Planning Commission needs six years to process an application. By sharp contrast, when Platner and Van Slyke want a project, whether its laying down tons of asphalt to build Faith LaBossiers’ ridiculous bike path in Ninigret Park or buying a piece of overpriced land from a CCA political donor or ally, they can operate at warp speed.

At last January 12’s Town Council meeting, we saw the CCA playbook for how to kill good projects.

Charlestown residents have long seen the derelict motel topping the moraine north of Route One just opposite the former Hitching Post, now Monahan's clam shack. It’s an eyesore as well as a waste of space, a tribute to the CCA’s anti-business attitudes.

Along comes the WARM Center, one of our area’s most venerable charities with a plan that would have warmed the heart of WARM’s founder, the late Rev. Jean Barry of Charlestown. (Jean and my wife Cathy served together for years on Charlestown’s Affordable Housing Commission.)

WARM wants to convert the derelict motel into affordable housing units by refurbishing the existing building, using the same footprint and making no additional demands on groundwater. They would continue helping residents with support services after they move in. By every measure, the perfect Smart Growth plan for affordable housing that even Ruth Platner should get behind.

Jean Barry’s successor Russ Partridge talked to Cathy and me about this project a few years ago and we loved it, becoming one of the first private major donors to the work.

All WARM asked for from Charlestown was a letter of support that they could use in their efforts to secure necessary state funding to make this important project happen.

Of course, Council President Deb Carney crafted such a letter and asked her colleagues to approve sending it. Given that this project really is a no-brainer on the facts and the merits, that letter should have immediately received unanimous approval.

But that’s not what happened. Council member Bonnie Van Slyke, clearly at the behest of her master Ruth Platner, raised issues with the letter of support. Van Slyke made a little speech where TWICE she voiced her support for the generic concept of affordable housing but questioned whether this project could get proper CRMC approval, implicitly challenging the competence of the WARM Center.

This is not WARM’s first rodeo – they’ve successfully carried out several major construction projects – and they know the steps that need to be done. Besides, the motion on the floor was a simple letter of support that highlighted Charlestown’s dire need for affordable housing not the details of the project.

But Van Slyke’s tactic of fogging the issue was enough to get Councilor Steve Stokes to decide to abstain even though he said he generally liked the project.

Van Slyke, despite her phony praise for affordable housing, voted NO. Deb and Craig Marr voted yes. Peter Slom recused himself and Stokes abstained. The motion to send the letter failed.

Van Slyke tried to pile on by insisting Ruth Platner be given the podium to speak to the issue, no doubt to raise even more phony issues about the project. Council President Carney slapped her down, noting that the motion had already been voted on, so discussion was over.

Under Robert’s Rules of Order, that meant that Platner needed to go back to her seat and STFU without being allowed to pile on or take a victory lap.

If you think I’m making this up, watch for yourself: here’s the LINK to the video of the meeting and the discussion starts about 90 minutes in.

But wait, there's more!

The letter of support story does have a happy end. Deb brought the letter back to the Council on January 26 where it was approved on a 3-1 vote. Van Slyke, implicitly on Platner's instructions, again voted NO to sending the letter of support for what is arguably a model for affordable housing. 

Van Slyke's claim of support for affordable housing is shown to be a lie. The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) remains unalterably opposed to affordable housing. Platner and the CCA paint this election as being about local control, but this incident shows what "local control" looks like under the CCA. More like Mississippi than Charlestown.

More reasons to oppose Platner, Van Slyke and the CCA slate

As promised, here’s that list of key reasons why you should not support the CCA and its candidates in this year’s General Election.

The CCA claims they cut Charlestown's property tax rate.
They lie. They controlled the Town Council from 2010 to 2022.
 See what happened in 2023 to the present after Charlestown
Residents United (CRU) kicked them out of office.
SOURCE: Charlestown Tax Assessor.

We’re still digging out from the CCA’s financial mess. Also click HERE to see how the new CRU Town Council started cleaning up this mess and HERE for a summary of the CCA’s financial messes.

Dirty Land Deals. Read about some of the worst – Tucker Estates, SPA-Gate, and Sawmill Pond.

They ran up the highest municipal government costs in the state: Progressive Charlestown: Charlestown has very high municipal costs, according to new report. The CRU fixed that.

They used secrecy in government to hide their incompetence

They regularly created fake emergencies to “prove” how good they were at protecting the town. For a list of those emeergencies, read THIS ARTICLE.

They favored rich, non-residents over full-time residents. Prime example: Blocking tax breaks for permanent residents

They banned residential wind power

The put out a deeply flawed and very late Comprehensive Plan: Platner submitted the plan to the state eight years late. It was full of weird ideas (e.g. Seniors should use Uber to overcome Charlestown’s lack of public transportation): Progressive Charlestown: Slyke of hand, Part 3: The Plan from Hell

The CCA consistently raised Charlestown’s tax rate, not lowered it as they claim: https://www.progressive-charlestown.com/2025/11/the-charlestown-town-council-december-2.html

CCA’s thoroughly compromised Town Administrator carried out the CCA's policies: Progressive Charlestown: CCA favorite, former Charlestown Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz leaves the second job he’s held since leaving Charlestown in 2023.

Stanky made Van Slyke, Platner and the CCA look like idiots. They rose up to attack the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) newly elected Council majority for driving out such a talented guy. 

But, in fact, Stanky had already lined up the new job months before the election and didn't tell the CCA. He stuck around and milked the town for every last day of salary. Even after the details of Stanky's exit came out, Van Slyke still stuck to her story that he had been driven out. 

In case you’re wondering where Stankiewicz is, he’s back in his hometown of Stoughton where he’s doing weird YouTube appearances like this:

That's Stanky on the left. See if you can last through this entire video. I tried a few times but just couldn't stand it.

Amtrak Rail Study Sets Wakefield Open House Nov. 4

Another session on the Charlestown Citizens Alliance's (CCA) top obsession

Adriana Vossari, RI & Local Government, is NOT an actual person but rather is an AI-bot used by UpriseRI to review and summarize public records. Click here for their explanation for how this is done: How we report meeting stories →

Charlestown, R.I. — Amtrak's study of rail capacity between New Haven and Providence will hold a public open house in Wakefield on Wednesday, Nov. 4, according to a notice posted by the Town of Charlestown. A second session is set for the next day in Groton, Conn.

The study will weigh new rail alignments or upgrades on the line ending in Providence, and Rhode Islanders can weigh in at a Wakefield open house on Nov. 4. Amtrak says no route has been chosen.

The Wakefield open house runs from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. at South Kingstown High School, 215 Columbia St. The Groton session runs the same hours on Thursday, Nov. 5, at the Thrive55+ Active Living Center, the Groton Senior Center. Both are drop-in events, meaning residents can arrive any time during the window, and the town notice says the same information is shared at both.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Even though the so-called Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass was never a serious threat, as I explain HERE, and died in 2017, the CCA has repeatedly attempted to revive this issue each election cycle. The CCA has always run on fear by raising up some demon, often imaginary, and presenting themselves as the only protection Charlestown has. Kind of Trumpian even before Trump emerged on the scene. I have also gotten a little Trumpy by calling this obsession the Charlestown Choo-Choo Hoax. - Will Collette

The final month before Charlestown town elections - early voting starts next week

Lowkey campaigns, but stark contrasts and high stakes

By Will Collette

This is the endorsed slate of Charlestown Residents United town office candidates

Early and mail-in voting starts on October 14 for the November 3 General Election. This year’s perennial struggle between Charlestown’s former rulers, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), and the current majority faction, Charlestown Residents United (CRU) has been pretty low-key compared to prior elections. Fewer yard signs, fewer mailers, less fireworks.

That’s because Charlestown’s new CRU leadership for the past four years has brought more competent, responsible government after 10 years of CCA chaos. Gone are the CCA’s mismanagement, secrecy and paranoia. The craziness has been turned down to a mere background buzz. Not surprisingly, the CCA has failed to come up with a full slate of candidates for town office for the first time in memory.

When Charlestown Residents United ousted the CCA’s Town Council majority in 2022, they did so after the CCA demonstrated it could not properly manage the town’s finances. The highest visibility evidence was a “misplaced” $3 million that for almost two years was somehow lost in the Byzantine system the CCA created. That's the “$3 million Oopsie” that no one in the CCA would accept responsibility for causing.

It didn’t help the CCA’s cause that they used that money, and more, to finance questionable land deals. And, completely missing the Watergate lesson that “it’s the cover-up that gets you,” the CCA tried to prevent the public from knowing what they did by having their lapdog Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz use every trick in the book to keep the records out of public view.

The CCA learned you can’t screw up the money and stay in office. The CRU by sharp contrast, resolved the financial mess the CCA created to the point where a detailed report by the Rhode Island Auditor General showed how the new CRU majority improved Charlestown’s fiscal systems:

The four years of Council control by Charlestown Residents United have been largely drama-free. Under the CCA, Charlestown seemed to be continuously assailed by “threats,” often imaginary, that supposedly only the CCA could handle.

Under the CRU, it seems the only chronic emergencies are weather related – drought, wildfires, sea level rise and severe storms – and this council has shown its ability to proactively handle these problems.

Here's a typical example of how CCA's flunky
Stankiewicz responded to open records requests. He actually
made you PAY to get records like this.

Gone is CCA lapdog Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz who told me to my face that he worked for the CCA not the people of Charlestown. He showed his mettle by covering up public records that showed how badly he and the CCA-controlled Town Council and Planning Commission screwed up the money and conducted shady land deals.

The CRU replaced Stanky with highly respected former Charlestown Police Chief Jeffrey Allen who has managed the town’s business without rancor or controversy.

The CCA first took total control of the Town Council in 2010.
Tax rate = $7.48. Under the CCA, it rose steadily to a
2016 peak of $10.21. When the CCA was booted in 2022,
the rate was $8.17. Under the CRU, the rate has dropped
to the current $5.05. The CCA's claims about the tax rate
are untrue. Source: Charlestown Tax Assessor.

During the CCA’s decade of control, they constantly touted Charlestown’s low tax rate, while failing to acknowledge that the tax rate is only one of two major factors determining how much property tax you pay. The second factor is property valuation.

But if you look at the actual numbers, under the CCA, tax rates went up every year as did the actual tax Charlestown property owners paid. 

Under Charlestown Residents United, the much-touted tax rate went down dramatically due to the sharp rise in property values.

The CCA, and especially its leader Ruth Platner who also has run the Charlestown Planning Commission, has continually tried to convince Charlestown voters that we are on the brink of environmental disaster. 

Again, says the CCA, only the CCA can save the town. This year’s theme has been “local control.” 

That’s Platner’s code for the threat that “people from Providence” might diminish her long-held sole control of what gets built in Charlestown.

To put it bluntly, Platner equates “local control” with control by her.

Charlestown property taxes are affected mostly
by market swings. Source: GoLocal

It’s been a challenging four years for Ruthie. Loss of control of the Town Council meant that she could no longer direct her Council majority to support her own anti-family, pro-nonresident agenda. And it could get worse if she loses her CCA-majority on the Planning Commission.

In the November 3 General Election, Charlestown voters could quite easily vote Platner off the Commission – she and her minions face a strong challenge from the CRU slate for Planning. With four seats on the ballot, obviously Platner needs to finish in the top four. Plus she needs to get her slate elected to maintain her majority. Otherwise, she can no longer tell any of her minions who get more votes than her to step aside so she can continue her reign as Planning Commissar.

I’d love to see Charlestown voters send Ruth Platner into retirement once and for all.

I also hope that with another term for the Charlestown Residents United Town Council majority, we can see the resolution of some unfinished business. These include:

Homestead Tax Credit. The CRU majority succeeded in getting the General Assembly to authorize Charlestown to change its tax code to grant yearlong residents a break on their property taxes as other RI shoreline communities do. The CCA long opposed the Homestead tax break, arguing that this would somehow be “unfair” to nonresident homeowners, who coincidentally finance much of the CCA’s political activity. A CRU majority needs to write the ordinance to enact this long overdue tax relief.

Tax Fake Fire Districts fairly. Many coastal towns have homeowner associations (HOAs) who have found a legal loophole to style themselves as “Fire Districts” even though they have no ability to fight fires. Charlestown has two: Shady Harbor and Quonnie. Between them, they own millions of dollars in prime shoreline real estate yet pay little or no property tax, shifting those taxes on to the rest of us. These two neighborhoods are solid CCA territory so naturally they were protected while the CCA ran the town. A CRU majority needs to end the privileged tax treatment enjoyed by fake fire districts and tax their property as they would any other HOA.

Adopt prudent Bad Actor policies and practices. Charlestown buys goods and services from a variety of businesses and also awards lucrative permits and licenses to a variety of others. It does so without any policies to judge whether those businesses are honest and ethical. The CCA’s Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz actually granted the notorious Mob-connected Copar Quarry a business license to operate a quarry right off Route 91 on the bank of the Pawcatuck River. The CCA spent thousands of your tax dollars to fight the Dollar Store’s effort to site a store in the Cross Mills village district. These and other questionable businesses would have been blocked if Charlestown had enacted a policy that barred doing business with companies or individuals with bad track records. We can set our own criteria so long as they are reasonable and fairly applied. We can stop doing business with crooks. A CRU majority should make sure Charlestown does not do business with criminals.

Tax breaks for volunteer firefighters. The Charlestown Fire District is currently in another drive to recruit more volunteer firefighters. This is a regular problem when we ask people to step up for the hard and dangerous work of protecting people’s lives and property. I am in awe of those who do this and think they should be rewarded. One straightforward way to do that is to give them a generous tax break on the property or auto tax. We can work with the Fire Districts on a fair formula for earning the tax cut (i.e. length of service, response to turn-out calls, etc.) but let’s do it, both out of gratitude and to help with recruitment. A CRU majority needs to act.

All of these ideas have been kicking around a while. During the decade of CCA reign, they were all non-starters. The CRU majority has now had enough time to study these issues and, if they receive a continuing mandate from the voters on November 3, they should act posthaste.

Charlestown Gets a Seat on Amtrak Rail Study Panel

Town Administrator Jeff Allen will sit on the advisory committee for what the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) has viewed as an existential threat

By Adriana Vossari, an AI avatar used by Uprise RI to scan public records and then prepare articles like these. For more on how this is done: How a Rhode Island meeting becomes a story | Uprise RI

The study will weigh rail options between New Haven and Providence, including possible new alignments, a question that drew strong opposition in Charlestown in 2016. Residents can comment now, and the town has a seat on the advisory committee.

Charlestown Town Administrator Jeff Allen says he has been selected for the Public Advisory Committee guiding Amtrak's New Haven-to-Providence Capacity Planning Study, and he plans to attend the committee's first meeting on October 14, according to a notice posted on the town's website.

The study will look at ways to add rail capacity between New Haven and Providence, including possible new alignments and improvements to existing lines. No route has been selected, and the current phase does not include construction, land acquisition or environmental permitting.

For Charlestown, the subject is familiar. A decade ago, a federal rail plan proposed a new stretch of track that would have cut through the area, and residents pushed back hard.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Even though the so-called Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass was never a serious threat, as I explain HERE, and died in 2017, the CCA has repeatedly attempted to revive this issue each election cycle. The CCA has always run on fear by raising up some demon, often imaginary, and presenting themselves as the only protection Charlestown has. Kind of Trumpian even before Trump emerged on the scene. I have also gotten a little Trumpy by calling this obsession the Charlestown Choo-Choo Hoax. - Will Collette

What Allen's role is

Amtrak invited Allen to join the committee in an August 19 letter signed by Jennifer Mitchell, Amtrak's executive vice president for strategy and planning. The letter, attached to the town notice, describes the committee as a group of 10 to 15 community representatives.

Members are expected to help shape the study's outreach, goals and development of alternatives, and to review the alternatives analysis, according to the letter. Amtrak said it expects the committee to meet quarterly over a roughly two-year study, with three rounds of public open houses at key milestones.

Even Joe couldn't make it happen

The committee is advisory. It does not give Charlestown authority to pick or block a route. In his notice, Allen said his participation will let him bring Charlestown's perspective to the process and stay informed.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Since major renovations to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor has no support in the Trump Administration or in the GOP-controlled Congress, this is likely to be a very boring process where they will brainstorm what might hypothetically happen. It's worth noting that even under Uncle Joe Biden's administration, there was no movement and certainly no existential threat to Charlestown. Given Joe's famous love of Amtrak and Congressional support for infrastructure investment, Charlestown remained safe and secure from any choo-choo invasions.  - Will Collette

What the study covers

Amtrak announced the study on July 7. The agency is working with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, the Connecticut and Massachusetts transportation departments, the MBTA, the Federal Railroad Administration and the Northeast Corridor Commission.

The study area is wider than its name suggests. According to a study FAQ published in June, it runs from New Haven east to New London, north to Hartford, and northeast to Providence. It covers passenger service on Amtrak, CTrail Shore Line East, the Hartford Line and MBTA Commuter Rail.

Any alternative must begin in New Haven and end in Providence, but options may vary in how they connect the two, the FAQ says. Issues on the table include capacity limits on the existing corridor, movable bridges, roadway grade crossings and shoreline exposure.

In its announcement, Amtrak said it has no preconceived preferred alignment or package of improvements and is not using the earlier federal plan as its starting point. The study stops at conceptual design and alternatives analysis. Amtrak said any project that came out of it would require separate planning, design and environmental-permitting work.

The study website says work began in mid-2026 and will include about 24 months of engagement, coordination and analysis.

How Charlestown got here

The earlier plan, known as NEC Future, was a Federal Railroad Administration effort to chart the Northeast Corridor's long-term future. Its December 2016 final environmental impact statement identified a preferred alternative that included a new rail segment between Old Saybrook, Connecticut, and Kenyon, Rhode Island.

Normally, fellow CCA leader and Charlestown Planning \
Commissar Ruth Platner (left) would read reports and
tell Gentz (R) what they mean. Photo by Will Collette

That proposal drew opposition in Charlestown and nearby communities. Public comments recorded by the FRA include concerns from Charlestown-area residents about home values, private wells and quality of life.

EDITOR'S NOTE: One reason the CCA got so worked up about the Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass is because they MISSED it when it was referenced in a report sent to the town months earlier. As former CCA leader and Town Council President Tom Gentz said at the time, "Who's got time to read this stuff."

The FRA's final decision, issued July 12, 2017, did not adopt that segment. The record of decision selected no capacity-expanding infrastructure between New Haven and Providence. Instead, it called for a later capacity-planning study that would examine options both on and off the existing corridor, including inland and shoreline routes. The current study is that follow-up.

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance, a local advocacy group, has warned that the new study could again consider a bypass-like route. EDITOR AGAIN: Of course, they do. It's an election year and they need a boogeyman. The group also criticized the notice and format of an Amtrak pop-up session held August 6 at Ninigret Park.

How to weigh in

Residents can submit comments and sign up for study updates on the official website, newhavenprovidencestudy.com. Amtrak also takes questions and feedback by email at info@newhavenprovidencestudy.com. Neither the website nor Amtrak's announcement lists a closing date for comments.

The advisory committee's first meeting is set for October 14, according to Allen's notice.

Charlestown invites residents to meet the team behind Amtrak's New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study

Charlestown Asks Residents to Face the Boogeyman

Adriana Vossari, RI & Local Government News

The study covers the rail corridor through southern Rhode Island and could shape future track alignments, speeds and service. Charlestown residents have a direct channel to comment while the work is still at the conceptual stage.

The Town of Charlestown is inviting residents to meet with the Amtrak team running a new study of the rail corridor between New Haven and Providence — the same 65-mile stretch that produced a proposal a decade ago to cut a high-speed bypass straight through town.

The invitation appears on the town's website under the heading "Public Invitation: Amtrak Northeast Corridor Study Team Community Engagement." Charlestown has maintained a dedicated page for Amtrak matters since the last round of federal rail planning, including an email address, amtrak-comments@charlestownri.org, for residents who want their comments on the record with the town.

The study itself began in May and is scheduled to run through May 2028, according to Amtrak's announcement of the New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study. It covers the Northeast Corridor main line between the two cities plus the connecting corridor through Hartford toward Springfield, and it accounts for Amtrak intercity trains, CTrail's Shore Line East and Hartford Line, and MBTA commuter rail. The Federal Railroad Administration awarded Amtrak up to $4 million on November 6, 2023, to complete the work.

What the study will and will not do matters for anyone worried about their property. Amtrak says the current phase is limited to conceptual design and analysis of alternatives. It does not include detailed engineering, land acquisition or construction. Any improvements that come out of it would then have to move through the CONNECT NEC and Capital Investment Plan processes, and later stages would depend on funding that has not been appropriated.

Amtrak also states plainly that the study "does not include a preconceived preferred alternative alignment or set of improvements," and that it will not build on NEC Future, the 2012-2017 federal planning effort. The company's own summary acknowledges that the earlier process was "unable to undertake the levels of public engagement necessary to respond to concerns raised by the public regarding that proposal."

That proposal is why Charlestown pays attention. In December 2016, the FRA published a Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement naming the "Old Saybrook to Kenyon Bypass" as a preferred alternative. New track would have entered Charlestown from Westerly, crossed the town from its western edge to its eastern edge, and rejoined the existing line near the Great Swamp State Wildlife Management Area in South Kingstown. The route ran through Burdickville village, the Carter Preserve, the Revolutionary-era Amos Green Farm, tribal land and Historic Columbia Heights housing.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Amtrak is facing handicaps at least as severe as they were in 2017 with train-hating Donald Trump in the White House and conservative Republicans in control of Congress. With no funding or political support, the Kenyon Bypass never stood a chance.  - Will Collette

Town officials learned about it from news coverage. An online petition against the plan gathered more than 1,500 signatures within days. A public meeting in Charlestown on January 10, 2017 drew more than 400 residents along with state and federal staff. Two weeks later, Charlestown and Westerly council members led a delegation of residents to the State House.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Charlestown Citizens Alliance leader and Town Council President Tom Gentz admitted publicly that Charlestown had received earlier notice in a large document that he and his CCA colleagues had failed to read.  - Will Collette

On July 12, 2017, the FRA issued a Record of Decision that removed the track realignment proposal from the New Haven-to-Providence section and instead directed Connecticut and Rhode Island to collaborate on a capacity planning study. That is the study now underway. It was the win Charlestown wanted, and it also created the process that could revisit alignment questions.

The corridor's underlying problems have not changed: limited capacity and curved shoreline track that holds down train speeds.

Amtrak plans roughly 30 outreach events across the study area, beginning with appearances at community events this summer, and says it will form a public advisory committee. Not everyone is satisfied with that approach. Gregory Stroud, editor-in-chief of CT Examiner, who helped lead the opposition to the earlier proposal, has questioned whether pop-up appearances can adequately explain a complicated planning process, and said his concerns extend to how the study itself is structured.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Stroud and his CCA collaborator Ruth Platner have attempted to keep this issue alive for their own purposes even though the Kenyon Bypass issue flatlined almost a decade ago. It has helped Stroud build readership for his website and helped Platner whip up fear among the Charlestown electorate.  - Will Collette

Amtrak has set up a project website and email address where residents can ask questions, submit feedback, ask about upcoming public meetings and sign up for periodic updates. Charlestown residents who want their input logged locally as well can write to the town's Amtrak comment address. The full announcement of the study is posted on Amtrak's media site, and the town's Amtrak page collects the 2016-2017 record at charlestownri.gov.

Who’s running for town office in Charlestown?

CCA gives up on trying to regain control of the Town Council

Will Ruth Platner survive?

By Will Collette

For more than a decade, Charlestown politics has been dominated by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) and those who oppose them, most recently Charlestown Residents United (CRU). Rituals like this year’s June 25 deadline for filing Declarations of Candidacy for election to municipal office became closely watched events.

For a decade, the CCA ruled Charlestown by creating boogeymen to sow fear while turning Charlestown into a virtual gated community for elderly rich people. That worked for a while until the CCA got caught screwing up the town’s finances, a scandal highlighted by the “$3 million Oopsie.”

That cost the CCA control of the Charlestown Town Council in 2022 and their total ouster in 2024. In short order, the CRU cleaned up the CCA’s money messes, according to the RI Auditor General.

In most recent election cycles, 10 people stepped up to compete for the five Town Council seats. The CCA would field five and their opposition would field five. This year, only eight people are running.

There are three declared Democrats: incumbent Council President Deb Carney, retired journalist Cynthia Drummond and the close-second finisher in last December’s Special Election Jill Fonneman. Democrat/CRU incumbent Peter Slom is not running for re-election.

There are three declared Republican candidates: incumbents Craig Marr and Steve Stokes as well as newcomer Matt Westover.

There are two “Unaffiliated” but CCA endorsed: Bonnita Van Slyke and Sasha Puchalski.

Last year, the CCA made a minor comeback with CCA leader Ruth Platner getting her puppet Bonnita Van Slyke back onto the Council by a thin margin in a 3-way special election to fill the late Rippy Serra’s vacant seat.

But this year, the CCA has quietly surrendered by only running Van Slyke as a bona fide CCA candidate. They have announced they are also endorsing “unaffiliated” candidate Sasha Puchalski (daughter of the well-known Sandy Puchalski), though her actual relationship to the CCA is unknown as this point.

They also endorsed two Council candidates who didn’t ask for their endorsement. One is incumbent Steve Stokes, a staunch CRU member running as a Republican. The other is Democrat Cynthia Drummond who expressly told South County Star editor Alex Nunes that the only endorsement she wanted was that of the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee.

According to Nunes, “Drummond said she will run as a Democrat endorsed by the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee… She said she will not seek an endorsement from either of the town’s rival political action committees, Charlestown Citizens Alliance and Charlestown Residents United, although she said both are supportive of her candidacy.”

So, the CCA election strategy is to endorse candidates opposed to the CCA while running their old warhorse Bonnita Van Slyke. The last time Bonnita Van Slyke ran for Council in a General Election (2024), she ran dead last. Given her dubious record, it’s unlikely she’ll do much better in November and will have to give up the seat she barely won in the Special Election.

If the CCA is too feeble to run a full slate of its own people, then stealing candidates from the opposition might be their way to claim control.

I predict that after the votes are counted, the CCA will issue a statement claiming “CCA-endorsed candidates win majorities on Charlestown Town Council, Planning Commission and Chariho School Committee.”

CCA 2026 campaign cry: Save Ruthie!

It now looks like the CCA’s focus will be to preserve founding member and de facto leader Ruth Platner’s control of the Planning Commission.

Platner has used the Planning Commission to push her radical agenda of blocking families with children by excluding affordable housing, favoring rich beachfront property owners and acquiring land through shady land deals. In recent elections, her vote tallies have denied her full 6-year terms, forcing her to run as an “alternate.”

Since she controls the CCA, she could then force the CCA Planning Commission majority into naming her as Chair despite her vote tally.

But in the 2026 election, Platner could lose her CCA majority on the Planning Commission. She herself is running for re-election as is her sidekick Frances Topping plus two CCA acolytes Coleen Yaroshenko and Gordon Willcox

Three non-CCA, CRU-leaning candidates are running against them: Laura Rom, Katherine Gingras and Cheryl Lill.

Three current Planning Commission members whose terms expire in 2028 and 2030 hold their seats. One is a Platner person (Sarah St. Laurent) and two are not (Glenn Babcock and Patricia Stamp). CCA alternative member Carol Ann Mossa is not seeking re-election and will leave the PC this year.

If Platner’s slate loses to the opposition, the new Planning Commission majority may end Platner’s to Charlestown’s Planning Commissar-For-Life position.

Indeed, there is a chance she could lose her seat. Including alternates, the Planning Commission has seven members. Three seats are held by incumbents. That leaves four seats up for grabs in November. There are seven people running, Ruth plus three CCA people and three anti-CCA people. Ruth has to finish in the top four of seven to hold onto her seat.

The last time there was a concerted effort to oust Platner, in 2018, she finished last in a field of four. 

The CCA is also claiming by endorsement three candidates for the Chariho School Committee: Holly Eaves, Linda Lyall and Craig Louzon. However, all three are on the ballot as Democrats. The CCA’s primary voice on the School Committee, Donna Chambers, died earlier this year.

Two guys are running for Town Moderator, an honorific post whose only function is to chair the annual Charlestown budget meeting. CCA’s Dave Wilkinson is running for re-election against Tony Jones who is running as a Republican.

The next step is that these declared candidates will need to gather 50 signatures of registered Charlestown voters to get their names on the ballot.

I’m not running

I repeat: I am not running against our terrific incumbent state Rep. Tina Spears in the September 9 Democratic Primary despite being listed as a candidate on the Secretary of State's website.

It’s a paperwork glitch – my fault. When I filed my declaration to remain a member of the Democratic House District 36 Committee, I checked the wrong box. I’ve already notified the Charlestown Board of Canvassers and will do whatever I need to do to withdraw. And since I’m not going to collect any signatures, I will not be on the ballot.

As Civil War hero Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman said in 1884, "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve."

Election Year means Ruth Platner powers up the Charlestown Choo Choo for the 5th time

Enough with the irresponsible fearmongering!

By Will Collette

Since its founding in 2008, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) used fear to gain control over Charlestown town government and to stay in power for a decade until its ouster in the 2022 general election.

The CCA’s leader and founder, Ruth Platner, has an extraordinary record of conjuring up enemies and boogeymen that only she and the CCA can conquer. As chair of Charlestown's Planning Commission, she has a platform to spread false fear. However, over the years, just about all these existential threats have been either imaginary or grossly exaggerated.

Ruth’s most persistent boogeyman has been trumped up fear that Amtrak will cut a swath through northern Charlestown, obliterating precious farmland as well as natural and historic treasures. Amtrak gave this boogeyman a name when they included it in a 2016 draft preliminary long-term plan: “the Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass.” I call it the “Charlestown Choo-Choo Hoax” because it was a goofy plan that never had chance of happening.

She's trying to raise this dead issue again, as you can read for yourself HERE. This was posted on Saturday and is her third post on the Charlestown Choo-Choo in the past month.

A stretch of the Northeast Corridor between New Haven and Westerly runs right along the shoreline in Connecticut. In my last job before retirement, I commuted to Manhattan several times a month, always taking the train and loving every minute of its passage through the salt marshes between the Westerly station and New London. I’d ride on the seaward side, count osprey nests and wonder at the beauty of that stretch, easily my favorite of any between Boston and Richmond, VA.

But that section of track faces natural destruction, either in some major storm or from climate-driven sea level rise, severing the Northeast Corridor rail line. It will have to be replaced.

The Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass was an option offered in an Amtrak in a 2016 planning document that the CCA-controlled town government failed to read. As CCA leader and Town Council President Tom Gentz said at the time, “Who has time to wade through that?”

People in eastern Connecticut were the first to begin protesting the plan. In January 2017, chagrined CCA leaders tried to catch up by painting the Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass as the end of the world as we know it, at least for Charlestown.

I tried to point out the chances of the Bypass were slim to none, given that newly elected Donald Trump hates trains and would never commit to a multi-billion infrastructure project in the ultra-Blue northeast. The project had no Congressional support, and in fact, Congress drastically cut Amtrak funding for Northeast Corridor improvements.

I speculated at the time that the Bypass would only be built if Trump privatized Amtrak and sold it either to Elon Musk or one of his sons.

Look, nobody liked the Bypass. I didn’t like the Bypass. Even Amtrak began distancing themselves from it. They quickly issued a legally binding Record of Decision in July 2017 effectively killing the plan only six months after Charlestown first heard of it.

That should have been the end of it. But Ruth Platner felt the CCA got so much mileage out of supposedly blocking this sketchy threat that she keeps trying to revive it to help the CCA make a political comeback. This is the fifth time she's tried to fire up Charlestown over this dead project.

Look back at Platner’s 2021 claim that “They’re Back!” See how she tried to stir the pot again in 2022 and especially weird move in 2024 attempting to use AI to simulate what a new rail line would look like.

She's at it again, recycling the same claims of a Charlestown Armageddon. On May 26, she wrote (her emphasis included):

“Amtrak made an announcement on May 21, 2026, that the study required by the FRA’s 2017 Record of Decision had finally received federal government and other funding to proceed. Amtrak estimates that the study—the New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study—will take up to two years.

“… The selection of the new preferred alternative will be the outcome of the study. We’ll keep you updated as we learn more, and we may also need your help in contacting our federal and state officials as we move through the planning process. We are committed to protecting Charlestown and the natural resources and public and private property that would be destroyed if anything like the “Old Saybrook to Kenyon Bypass” returns.”

I suggest you read the actual report HERE: New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study.

I read it. Carefully. Line by line. Guess what I found? 

Nothing, absolutely nothing about the Old Saybrook-Kenyon bypass that died 10 years ago. It’s as if it never existed. This supposedly alarming document is nothing more than a watered-down version of Amtrak's ongoing effort to try to figure out how to improve service from New Haven to Providence. On June 20, Platner's shocking reveal is that Amtrak has created a website! OMG, the horror!

But in the actual report, the only concrete item I found in the report pertaining to our area was support for making the popular improvements at the Westerly Amtrak station that our state Senator Victoria Gu has been campaigning for.

So, Ruth: STOP IT! Sure, CCA’s formula for winning elections is to claim there are monsters under every bed that only you can kill. But your cynical attempts to manipulate people’s fears come at a terrible cost.

Here's what I mean: 

From 1982 to 1999, I was organizing director for two national environmental groups, first at Lois Gibbs' Center for Health and Environmental Justice, then the Citizens Coal Council. I worked with local citizens' groups to fight hazardous waste dumps, incinerators, coal mines, sludge lagoons and more. These fights were very intense, so intense that I learned early on that they could cause marriages to break up and, in some cases, suicide. 

My staff and I were careful to NEVER exaggerate or fear-monger because that only increases the stress. I'm already hearing that Platner's irresponsible efforts to jack up tension over the Charlestown Choo-Choo is indeed doing just that.

And if that's not convincing, just look at what Donald Trump's lies and exaggerated threats are doing to his followers and the rest of the country.

During the 2024 election, I catalogued all the various threats Platner has used over the years: How the Charlestown Citizens Alliance used fake enemies and bogus emergencies to gain and keep power.

Looks like I’m going to need to do an updated version.

WTF is Van Slyke talking about?

CCA Town Council mouthpiece warns spending emergency money on an emergency will decrease the amount in Charlestown’s emergency fund

By Will Collette

Joined at the hip

After years of trying to make sense out of the nonsensical, maybe I should quit trying. After all, no amount of fact-checking and debunking seems to stop the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA’s) only Town Council member, Bonnita Van Slyke from making foolish remarks.

Her latest nonsense is a critique of Charlestown’s proposed budget, due for a vote on June 1 to take effect July 1. In it, she argues that the town should defer major spending to repair significant winter storm damage to Town Hall until the Town’s 5-year capital improvement plan is adopted.

She criticized an April 27 decision by the Town Council majority to transfer $650,000 from the town’s bloated emergency fund (a.k.a. Unassigned Fund Balance) to deal with short-term costs exceeding the town’s Capital Maintenance account.

To understand why this gives Van Slyke agita, remember that the CCA holds as a sacred principle that we must accumulate a very large, unassigned fund balance – their goal seems to set a target of 100% of town operating costs– to deal with unforeseen emergencies.

Apparently, the extensive, costly damage done to Town Hall by our recent brutal winter doesn’t qualify as “unforeseen” and thus does not warrant drawing down emergency funds. As Van Slyke puts it:

The Town Council cannot draw down Unassigned Fund Balance year after year to lower/maintain a relatively low tax rate without jeopardizing services and /or without, eventually, services being reduced or the tax rate increased substantially. [Emphasis is Van Slyke’s]

During the Charlestown Citizens Alliance decade of control of the Town Council and Planning Commission, the unassigned fund balance was often used to fund over-priced land acquisitions by the CCA’s de facto leader, Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner. 

They would pay cash so they could argue that paying way over assessed value for Ruthie's deals was somehow offset by not paying interest on voter-approved $2 million Open Space bond. Also, Platner could keep buying land using the excuse that there was still leftover open space bond money even though that was a fiction.

The open space bond fund is still a sore subject for Platner and the CCA, especially after Town Council President Deb Carney moved to correct the misuse of funds. Carney’s motion directed that just over one million dollars be transferred from the open space account back to the unassigned fund balance.

That’s the amount the CCA lifted from the unassigned fund balance to fund Ruth’s shady land deals instead of using the bond fund the way voters intended. But OMG, you would think that someone pissed on Platner’s petunias! Oh the horror!

Other than that, Van Slyke’s and presumably her master’s voice Ruth Platner, haven’t got much to say about the substance of the budget. Expenses are increasing modestly, requiring 2.5% more tax revenue. Despite that, the Budget Commission projects that our tax rate will actually DROP from the current $5.93 to an estimated $5.07.

Van Slyke asks the obvious question: how can expenses go up and the tax rate go down? For once, she actually gives the accurate answer: the tax base, i.e. property values, went way up.

There was a time when all the CCA cared about was the tax rate. They took credit for Charlestown’s comparatively low rate even though actual taxes people paid during their reign constantly increased. 

Now that the Town Council is controlled by Charlestown Residents United (CRU) and tax rates have dropped dramatically, the CCA no longer cares about tax rates.

It’s an election year and you can be sure the CCA will make another run at regaining control of the Town Council. But they haven’t got much to go on when it comes to local issues.

Their main theme so far this year seems to be “local control over zoning,” a flawed local campaign issue for two reasons. First, it’s a dispute between Ruth Platner and the state legislature. Second, there’s no one arguing AGAINST local control in zoning although the subject is not as black and white as Platner and Van Slyke would have you believe.

We still have a while to see whether voters care as much about zoning as Platner hopes they will.