CCA tries to distract Charlestown voters with shiny things

Don’t fall for this old trick

By Will Collette

To hear the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) tell it, if not for them, Charlestown would be lit up like a car dealership in Cranston. Unless they are returned to power, Charlestown will be lit up like convicts caught in the prison yard attempting a jail break. Without them in charge, Charlestown will look like the Las Vegas strip.

If you read their literature, this election is all about Charlestown’s dark sky. It’s not about the CCA’s financial screw-ups and mismanagement. Or about continuous tax increases during their ten years of power. Or their succession of shady land deals – over-priced properties, bogus appraisals, insider deals. It’s not about their decision to cover up their conduct by denying access to public records and denying non-CCA members to speak at Council meetings.

No, none of those issues matter at all. Just look at the shiny objects that the CCA wants you to think are a menace to you and all that you love.

My oh my, I am so sick of these people.

To learn more about the CCA's sleezy land deals, read The Politics of Charlestown Open Space.

Look, I grew up wanting to be an astronomer, at least until I found out it required a math aptitude I just don’t have. But I love sky-watching and appreciate the rare ability we have in Charlestown to see so much more of the night sky than our urban neighbors. We've run more than 400 articles in Progressive Charlestown on astronomy.

According to the CCA's campaign filing reports, these slick,
3-page flyers cost $3000+ to print and mail on a phony issue

But if you were to ask me to rank dark skies among the needs of residents, it would be on the list but not in first place by a long shot. As a voter, I’d put a higher ranking on good town management, clean water, affordable housing for seniors and workers, transportation alternatives, sound land management and honesty.

But apparently CCA leader and Town Council candidate Ruth Platner (possibly former Planning Commissar) wants this election to be all about dark skies. It sure beats talking about CCA financial foul-ups. Oh, look at the not-shiny thing!

For detail on just how badly the CCA messed up on finances and taxes, read Charlestown finances and taxes – Your choice on November 5 then read RI Auditor General finds new CRU leadership in Charlestown improved town finances to see how our current CRU Council leadership has turned things around. It also explains why the CCA is so eager to distract you with a bogus issue.

It’s worth revisiting how we got to this point. When Tom Ferrio and I started Progressive Charlestown, we found the CCA gave us lots to write about. In addition to shady land deals, Platner’s dark sky obsession figured prominently in the early years of the CCA’s rule.

For several years, Platner kept trying to figure out how to write a town ordinance to ban outside lighting, especially for sports and recreation, or at least force people to comply with using only shielded, downward facing outdoor lights.

In her early attempts, she tried to make it retroactive to cover every light in town but was told that wasn’t legal. She tried to make it compulsory on everyone, but that sparked a huge backlash.

She tried to regulate lighting as minutely as she has in such things as Charlestown’s anti-wind power ordinance or their newly released “Design Standards” that dictate down to the smallest detail what can or can’t be done with buildings in Charlestown. At one point, she went for a plan that would require you to install new dark sky-friendly light fixtures anytime you changed a lightbulb. 

Some CCA Planning Commission members had even more radical ideas, such as blacking out the town, noting that we get the best dark skies during extended power outages.

It was everyone’s worst nightmare of regulatory overreach.

Watching it was sad, but also funny. It was a battle that never needed to be fought and that’s still true today.

At the time, I suggested a better approach would be to conduct public education to pursue assisted voluntary compliance. The town could help promote dark sky lighting through property tax credits to offset the cost of retrofitting. It could also arrange a bulk purchasing plan to make it easier and cheaper to buy such things as hoods for outdoor floodlights.

But no, the CCA and Ruth don’t trust you to make good decisions.

After long and arduous failed attempts and endless public hearings, Ruthie finally got a watered down, unenforceable dark sky ordinance passed. In my opinion, she got less than she would have through the voluntary approach I recommended.

But that’s not all. It wouldn’t be a CCA campaign without an imaginary crisis, in this case “The Battle for Ninigret Park.” Like today’s phony CCA dark sky panic, it involved an approaching Armageddon sparked by the idea of after-dark activities in Ninigret Park.

To read more about the CCA’s habit of creating phony threats, read Fear and Loathing in Charlestown Politics.

This crisis featured a phony dossier – referred to as "Document #2" - held but never revealed by former CCA President and Town Council member Dan Slattery. According to Slattery, any attempt to install lights in Ninigret Park would trigger the federal government to take back the Park. And he had the proof right there in Document #2.

The town was in an uproar for months and it took an appearance by regional US Interior Department office Elyse LaForest to establish that (a) Charlestown owns Ninigret Park, (b) no, the Interior Department had no plans to take back the Park and (c) under the federal program that transferred decommissioned military land to local governments, there were almost no instances of land reverting back to the feds.

In those rare instances, it was usually because the local government asked the feds to take the land back.

After an investigation by the RI Attorney General, Dan Slattery admitted that there wasn’t actually anything in “Document #2, his Ninigret dossier.

There were casualties in the Battle for Ninigret Park, of course, since the CCA needed blood. Town Administrator Bill DiLibero and Parks and Rec Director Jay Primiano lost their jobs.

So here we go again, another election and another bizarre CCA conspiracy theory.

Like I said, I am so sick of these people and the way they behave. After all this, how dare they ask for your vote.

How the Charlestown Citizens Alliance used fake enemies and bogus emergencies to gain and keep power

Fear and loathing in Charlestown politics

By Will Collette

Just substitute "CCA" for "GOP" and
you get the gist

One of the most despicable things a politician can do is to use lies to create fear and panic among the people to win their votes. 

Donald Trump has used that technique for years, but this year, has brought it to new heights, as the residents of Springfield, OH can testify. 

Trump’s running mate JD Vance admitted he spread phony stories about legal Haitian immigrants eating pets because "If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention..., then that’s what I’m going to do,”

Long before Trump, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) has used that technique, starting in 2008 by portraying Charlestown’s resident curmudgeon Jim Mageau as the devil incarnate. 

While Jim was a terrible Town Council President, his wacky behavior made him an ineffective threat to anyone other than himself. But as a "threat," Mageau helped catapult the CCA into power.

Since that initial success at seizing power through fear and loathing, the CCA has come up with some enemy – real or imagined – to stay in power. They create one or more villains and then claim that only they can defend the town. The CCA is as phony as Trump and Vance claiming Haitians are coming to eat your pets.

The CCA's list of threats and enemies is long

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance threat list includes:

The Narragansett Indian Tribe for their long-abandoned plan for an Indian casino. The CCA hired attorney Joe Larisa, called a "racist by tribal leaders" specifically to harass the Tribe and block any effort the tribe makes to improve the lives of its people.

“People from Providence” who will swarm in with all their kids if we build any family housing and overrun the Chariho schools. Another example of the CCA's use of racist code words.

Developers and Democrats – the CCA has worked hard to create the myth that they are one and the same even though it's demonstrably false.

Wind power, spurred by Larry LeBlanc’s proposed Whalerock wind power project, became one of the CCA’s most successful phony campaigns. Ironically, in 2011, the CCA leader Tom Gentz was a staunch supporter of wind power, even making a presentation to the Council about how good wind energy is. Of course, that was before anti-wind NIMBYs started to contribute heavily to the CCA. Charlestown now has an effective town ban on ANY wind-to-energy device, even small residential units.

AMTRAK made another good boogeyman when a half-baked, improbable idea surfaced to run new track through northern Charlestown, scaring the shit out of half the town. CCA leader and Charlestown’s Planning Commissar Ruth Platner has been trying to revive the Charlestown Choo-choo hoax since the furor died down. Her 2021 headline for a story that attempted to revive the Amtrak boogeyman read They’re Back: Northeast Corridor Commission Sets Out Plan To Implement NEC Future.

Lights. In 2012, the CCA went nuts when a town staffer explored funding for temporary lights to facilitate autumn kids' football practice. This innocent inquiry mushroomed into a full-blown crisis - The Battle for Ninigret Park. The CCA confabulated this lighting inquiry into a direct threat that the Interior Department would take back Ninigret Park because the lights during autumn twilight would disturb the birds and bunnies in the Wildlife Refuge. It was all bullshit - the Interior's regional director Elyse LaForest had to come in to debunk the CCA lies - but it cost then Town Administrator Bill Delibero his job.

The Narragansett Indian Tribe became a CCA target again when one official made an ill- advised and broadly rejected deal to sell water to a nonexistent power plant in Burrillville.

Frank Glista was trashed for selling open, undeveloped land to the state Water Resources Board to preserve water resources. The CCA normally worships permanently protected open space, but not when the land comes from Frank.

Tons of asphalt were laid for "Faith's Folly" despite the CCA's
hatred for asphalt. Faith sold this project, telling the
Town Council it would cost less than $7,000.
The final bill was at $266,927.

Asphalt is a hated substance except when used in a scandalous patronage deal for CCA founding member Faith LaBossiere to build “Faith’s Folly,” an over-priced, under-used bike track in Ninigret Park.

Progressive Charlestown and me in particular made the CCA enemies’ list early on for writing articles like this. I’m fine with that.

The CCA also hates Deb Carney despite her years of effective leadership on the Council and the Chariho School Committee.

You can add a lot of others to the list. For example, CCA Town Council President Tom “Uncle Fluffy” Gentz frequently mocked and belittled Janice Falcone when she would rise to support a measure the CCA didn’t like.

The CCA viciously attacked Janice when she attempted to get the town to buy the historic General Stanton Inn that Janice and her beloved late husband Sonny labored to keep in tiptop condition. The CCA fought hard to block a town referendum to buy the Inn as an anchor for the Cross Mills historic district even though the CCA was otherwise willing to pay any price to preserve the “historic village district.”

* NOTE the contradictions. The CCA wants to do whatever it takes for the Cross Mills Historic Village but killed the plan to buy and preserve the General Stanton Inn. The CCA is willing to pay any price to add more protected open space but attacked Frank Glista for trying to do just that with his land sale to the state Water Resources Board. The CCA hates asphalt but is willing to lay down tons of it for "Faith's Folly." Go figure.

They viciously attacked my colleague Steve Hoff, a retired CPA, for doing the research to expose the CCA’s fiscal irresponsibility, especially the “$3 million Oopsie.”

In their big 3-page flyer, the CCA sums up their position, stating “What is at risk in this election?” Note they use the negative instead of “what is our plan for improving people’s lives” or some other positive theme. At risk, according to the CCA are “low taxes,” “dark skies” and “clean water.”

First, the town tax rate has dropped since the CCA was booted from control in 2022. They left behind a tax rate of $8.17 per thousand. Under the CRU's first year, the tax rate dropped to $5.74. It’s currently $5.78. 

They claim there’s a $39.5 million plan for “commercial development” in Ninigret. There isn’t.

They claim this imaginary threat will thwart “the Ninigret Wildlife Refuge and our children’s ability to learn about the universe.” This is a total crock of horse manure, as stupid as the "Battle for Ninigret Park" described above.

The CCA flyer also raises the specter of the need for “a sewage treatment plant and miles of sewer lines that would cost at least $1 billion.” Yup, that’s the claim. They say this will happen unless there is a “delicate balance” between well-planned residential development and what the land can support.

Here’s the key question: WHO is proposing otherwise? Who? If the CCA is going to create a boogeyman, at least give it a name.

Early on in the CCA’s history, one of their resident geniuses, Mike Chambers, liked to brag about the CCA's effectiveness at. They used Hitler’s Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels’ formula: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”

Creating fear and hate through lies kept the CCA in office for over a decade. They have also gotten very good at covering up their lies by blocking access to public records that would unveil their deception. CLICK HERE for an example.

In 2022, Charlestown voters saw through the CCA’s blue smoke and mirrors and voted them out of office. The CCA wants to take back power using the same old Goebbels’ formula. Don’t let them.

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

Some honesty about protecting water in Charlestown

The real ‘monkey in the room’

By Frank Glista

Source: RI Water Resources Board

This article first appeared as a Letter To the Editor in The Westerly Sun on June 5. Note: Former Town Council President James Mageau also wrote a letter in response to Mr. Jacobsen. It can be read here.

In a recently published letter by Roy Jacobsen entitled, “Charlestown should be worried about water” (May 27), Mr. Jacobsen questions when the new Town Council will address the need for property that will serve as a source for fresh water. As a supporter of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, one would wonder why he didn’t approach the CCA Town Council regarding this matter during their 12-year reign of power?

He also fails to acknowledge that the CCA attempted to deny a property owner’s right to sell their family’s land to the state of Rhode Island’s Water Resources Board back in 2015. This purchase eliminated the development of eight residential and two commercial buildings while providing 20 acres of open space, a wildlife habitat and a protected a water source for future generations.

Keep in mind that the CCA Town Council majority and Planning Commission Chairwoman Ruth Platner worked tirelessly to undermine this private sale. Not only were attacks levied against me and my family, but also against former Water Resources Board General Manager Ken Burke. But now, thanks to the Water Resources Board, this property is protected in Charlestown in spite of the efforts of the CCA.

In 2016, there was a meeting at the Quonnie Grange which was attended by a number of residents from Quonochontaug, where Mr. Jacobsen lives.

One of the speakers at this meeting was Lorraine Joubert, who at the time represented the Department of Natural Resources at URI. After answering a number of concerned citizens’ questions, she finally summed it up by telling the Quonnie crowd, “You are all drinking recycled wastewater.” Or, to put it bluntly, you’re drinking your neighbors’ sewage.

So “yes,” there is a water problem in Charlestown.

In his letter, Mr. Jacobsen asks, “What will it take?” Well, as long as he and others continue to support CCA candidates like Platner, you will never have potable water in Quonnie ... or anywhere else in Charlestown.

He also asks, “Would it not be prudent for the Town Council to reserve land for future fresh water access?” He continues, “This is the ‘monkey in the room’ that is being ignored.” As I see it, the only “monkey in the room” is the CCA, and fortunately, they were ignored during the last election. 

EDITOR’S END NOTE

By Will Collette

I covered the jaw-dropping 2014-15 story of the CCA Council majority and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner’s battle to BLOCK the state Water Resources Board from purchasing land from Frank Glista to be set aside as open space to protect groundwater resources.

Given the CCA’s endless claims that it is the champion of open space and clean water, their desperate struggle to block this deal went beyond hypocrisy and into the Twilight Zone.

Their personal assault on Water Resource Board’s Ken Burke shredded the CCA claims to “civility” to the point where they actually had to apologize.

Now Frank, good man that he is, won’t say this but I will: the only reason the CCA dug in against this transaction was because they hated Frank. 

This is the budget presented by LaBossiere
to the Council in 2015. 

Now to be fair - kind of - the CCA has also been willing to throw out its sacred beliefs, such as its hatred of asphalt, to do favors for patrons, like CCA-cofounder Faith LaBossiere, when they poured tons of asphalt on Ninigret Park for a bike path no one uses. Faith promised the Council it would only cost $7,000. The final cost was $266,927 plus interest on the bond leading to a cost over-run of 4,000%.

The Slattery Doctrine in a nutshell

Deputy Dan Slattery tried to rationalize the CCA’s irrational position by making up a new policy: he claimed that no state or federal agency had any right to do anything in Charlestown without the Town Council’s expressed prior approval. I dubbed this invention “The Slattery Doctrine.”

In fact, in August 2016, the CCA Council majority authorized this:

“CA” L. Authorization of the Town Administrator to Send a Communication to All State Agencies and Regulatory Boards, to Specifically Include the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health, the Department of Environmental Management and the Water Resources Board, and Any Other Pertinent Agencies, Requesting Notification of Any State Projects Scheduled to Occur Within the Town of Charlestown

Incidentally, the mandate of the state Water Resources Board is to acquire and protect lands to preserve clean water supplies. They don’t need Charlestown’s permission to conduct a private transaction to advance that mandate.

For that matter, the federal Departments of Interior, Justice, Labor, Forest Service, EPA, Mine Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, IRS etc. do not need Charlestown’s permission to enter Charlestown to conduct their lawful duties.

Neither do the state Departments of Transportation, Health, Environmental Management, Children and Youth Services, State Police, etc.

I am so sick of the CCA insulting the people of Charlestown by assuming there are no records or institutional memory of all the crazy crap they did when they ruled Charlestown.

Here’s some of the articles I wrote about anti-water CCA crusade back in the day:

Progressive Charlestown: Charlestown’s new water war (progressive-charlestown.com) 

Progressive Charlestown: VIDEO: New border regulations for Charlestown (progressive-charlestown.com)

Progressive Charlestown: Ruth Platner leaves fingerprints (progressive-charlestown.com)