Slyke of Hand, Part 2: Spit in my face and call it rain

Van Slyke touts land scam as grand achievement

By Will Collette

Read Part 1 HERE.

This is the second part of a series of articles debunking an 8-point manifesto published by CCA senior Town Council member Bonnie Van Slyke. Van Slyke, at least for now, lives in Arnolda. Van Slyke’s article is entitled “Ignore deception and focus on accomplishments.”

In this “Slyke of Hand” series, I intend to take Van Slyke at her word, looking at the truth behind the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) deceptions about its so-called “achievements.”

Here’s one of Van Slyke’s eight bullet points:

·         Preservation of Critical Natural Resources—The Council voted to acquire, with the help of a $400,000 Natural Heritage grant, over 66 acres of forested open space along Alton Carolina Road (Rt. 91) that will protect important natural, scenic, ecological and agricultural resources.

This statement refers to an effort led by Van Slyke and CCA co-founder and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, to spend town and state funds to buy Tucker Estates. Using the CCA's majority grip on the Town Council, Platner got her wish when the Council voted to buy the land for $900,000.

Ruth Platner announced the completion of the deal like this:

The Charlestown Town Council voted to acquire this property as protected public open space at the April 12, 2021 Town Council meeting. The real estate closing to purchase the property took place on September 30th. The land was acquired with funding from a $400,000.00 Natural Heritage grant from the state and the remainder in town open space funds approved by voters in a 2015 referendum.

I couldn’t help but notice the constant reference to the $400,000 in state money - which incidentally is our money, too – and no specific mention of the $500,000 of Charlestown taxpayer money.

Platner's and Van Slyke's boasts omit the total cost of $900,000 to buy land our Tax Assessor Ken Swain assessed at only $333,600 as you can see below.

Paying almost three times how much the land is worth is NOT a deal worth bragging about!

How the deal worked

Platner and Van Slyke argued for this deal to protect Tucker Estates from being developed. In fact, the land owner, Wakefield developer Brian Lind, did try to get town approval to build 22 housing units on that property in 2005, 15 years ago. But Platner and her plucky Planning Commission killed that project and kept it dead for these 15 years.

Platner decided to take this 15 year-old dead project to get a grant from DEM. One problem to overcome was the difficulty in coming up with an appraisal that met Lind’s bottom line price.

Swain had already caused a problem by assessing the land at only $333,600. Now Platner and Van Slyke needed an appraisal that was higher – much higher.

Using the false assumption that 22 units of housing could be built on the site, the town had two appraisals done. The first appraisal came in at $660,000 and the second at $725,000 after they tweaked some of the assumptions to get the price up.

Unanswered question: Since when is it the town's job to manipulate appraisals to increase the amount of money taxpayers will pay for a property?

These two town appraisals – based on the false assumption that 22 units can be built there – weren’t good enough for Brian Lind so he commissioned his own appraisal. To my shock and amazement, his appraisal, also using the 22 units of housing assumption, came in at $915,000.

Out of the kindness of his heart, Lind offered Charlestown (meaning the CCA, Platner and Van Slyke) a discount of $15,000 so we could buy his property for “only” $900,000.

And, oh my God, we accepted it. More details of that dirty deal are HERE.

And, oh my God, Platner and Van Slyke are actually bragging about paying more than double the assessed value and more than the town’s own appraisals for reasons that perhaps only a Grand Jury can uncover.

And Charlestown taxpayers must endure this – as an old Russian proverb put it “you piss on my face and call it rain.”

Another dirty deal

Let me remind you that this Tucker Estate rip-off overlapped with another attempted rip-off – SPA-Gate or as some call it “Oyster-gate,” a proposed land deal similar to Tucker Estates where the town was going to buy a parcel on Oyster Road at Foster Cove for many times the assessed value.

Again, DEM funds were involved. So were low tax assessments and artificially high appraisals. Like Tucker Estates, the owner’s appraisal used the assumption that the land was buildable – which it is not.

Ron Areglado, currently president of the Sachem Passage Association (SPA), presented SPA’s appraisal of $426,000 in the sales pitch to the town. By contrast, Tax Assessor Ken Swain told town Planner Jane Weidman the land was only worth $61,800 and spelled out all the reasons why the lot was unbuildable in a memo you can read below:

But even though Weidman had ASKED Swain to explain the low appraisal, only days later, she ignored them and submitted Areglado's $426,000 appraisal with the grant application to DEM.

DEM approved the application for $213,000, half of the land’s SPA appraisal value. DEM also wanted an independent appraisal, one without the fake claim that the land was buildable. That independent appraisal came back with a figure of $75,000, a figure SPA rejected, effectively ending Oyster-gate.

And another deal in the making

That brings me to the town’s latest plan for land acquisition.

On October 12. at the last Council meeting, Van Slyke got the Council to approve, on a 3-2 party line vote, another DEM grant application. Except this time, she said she would not disclose the land in question because the seller wants confidentiality. The Council members were given the identity of the seller AFTER the agenda for the meeting was set. 

Peter looks for, but can't find the answer (photo by Will Collette)

Town Lawyer Peter Ruggerio was asked his opinion whether it was legal to vote under these weird conditions. As he usually does, Peter said he didn’t know but that it was probably up to the Council. 

I don’t recall ever seeing the Council approve moving a deal forward without even saying what the property is or the amount of money involved. 

If there is a precedent for this, please let me know. And, lawyers, I’d like your opinion on whether this is legal. Write me HERE. 

So the three CCA council members voted to approve a grant application from Charlestown to DEM without knowing how much the application will be because they don’t have an appraisal nor do they know what the seller wants. 

If we knew the name of the seller, we could at least check the town’s tax assessment, but because of the secrecy, we can’t do that either. 

The 3-2 vote broke down like this: Council President Deb Carney and Councilor Grace Klinger voted NO. CCA Councilors Van Slyke, Cody Clarkin and Susan Anderson (CORRECTION: That's Susan COOPER. Sorry - WC) voted YES to a blatant violation of any reasonable sense of open government, if not in itself a crime.

Bye-bye, Bonnie

Coincidentally, CCA senior Town Councilor (and main proponent for this secret land deal) Bonnie Van Slyke just listed her Arnolda property with Lila Delman for $2,995,000. It consists of three parcels. One is 10.58 acres of vacant land described as “buildable” and zoned R3A. The smallest of the three parcels is zoned as “R2A Open Space 30%.” The combined assessment is $1,133,400, a little more than one-third of the asking price. 

Her own house is being sold “as is.” Further, the description notes, “This is an unsurpassed opportunity to renovate or build your own palatial coastal retreat.”  

Based on the language of the sales pitch, Van Slyke’s current house is treated as a tear-down and the buyer is advised to either build a new McMansion or sub-divide the property. 

Could Van Slyke be teeing up to pitch her own home as the next big CCA land deal?  Probably not because that would be an ethical step too far. But we can’t know that for sure because the CCA Councilors approved Van Slyke’s secrecy motion on a party line vote. 

All we know for sure are the incredible lengths the Charlestown Citizens Alliance will go to run Charlestown and do their dirty deals in secret. If I had a crystal ball, I can see a grand jury in the CCA’s future.

FOLLOW-UP: Rail Roar

In Part I of Slyke of Hand, I wrote about the uproar sparked by the CCA over what they claim is a reincarnation of AMTRAK’s Old Saybrook-Kenyon bypass, a thoroughly unpopular plan that was thoroughly defeated in 2017. But Ruth Platner says – without evidence – that “They’re Back.”

Here's a photo from that ground-breaking, put out by the Providence p.r. firm
New Harbor Group, the consultants hired by Charlestown Town Administrator
Mark Stankiewicz to fight to invisible terror of a new AMTRAK line through
Charlestown. Does Ruth Platner know Stankiewicz just hired
people who are working for the CCA's enemy?

I’m surprised she didn’t go nuts when the Independent ran an October 14 article entitled “Groundbreaking hints at future of rail in South County.”

The article described the ground-breaking for a new Mill Creek Rail Yard at Quonset Point. That will allow up to 58 more rail cars to bring cargo to businesses located there.

As you might expect, there was talk about more jobs and tax revenue for the town and business activity for the state. The 200 businesses at Quonset already employ more than 12,000 at a payroll of $1.3 billion. That’s 1 of every 6 manufacturing workers in the state. Quonset also generates $136 million in state and local tax revenue.

Funding for improved rail includes a $3 million Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, supplemented by a $1 million match from the QDC.

The report also notes that RI’s members of Congress have also secured $160 million in federal grants to improve freight rail in the state and the state has invested another $75 million over the past decade.

Since the CCA and Platner have seized upon any efforts to improve rail transport within a 200 mile radius as “proof” that the AMTRAK boogeyman wants to destroy Charlestown, her silence on this is surprising – maybe it means she doesn’t follow the Independent.

Why the exodus of CCA leadership?

“I love you Charlestown but buh-bye”

By Will Collette

For people who profess an unremitting love for and undying commitment to Charlestown, it surprises me to see so many leaders of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) beat feet out of town.

Just recently, one CCA founder, long-time Town Council Boss Tom Gentz, sold his Quonnie home to a couple from New Canaan, CT for $1.25 million and left without saying goodbye.

We’re all going to miss Gentz’s happy alter ego, Uncle Fluffy, who would show up whenever Tom was in a frisky mood.

I don’t know where Uncle Fluffy went but I can tell you he is no longer listed as a property owner in Charlestown. Maybe he took himself lock, stock and fleet of antique Porsches to wherever his long-time Deputy Dan Slattery went. Slattery left the Town Council in 2014 after coming up with some of the most bizarre schemes but occasionally returns for a drive-by.

Then there’s CCA Councilor Bonnita Van Slyke who is listing her Arnolda waterfront compound for a second time, at the slightly reduced price of $2,395,000. As she did in the first listing, Van Slyke is advertising the 14 acre property as ripe for development.

Here’s the key passage in the ad: “This is an unsurpassed opportunity to renovate or build your own palatial coastal retreat.” This is toned down from her listing last fall where she noted the land was zoned R3A and was “buildable.” In the new ad, there is no mention of the property's zoning, but you can be sure it's in the sales pitch.

Interestingly, Van Slyke’s offer to sell her acreage for development did not trigger a recusal in the debate and voting over Ruth Platner’s controversial “Conservation Development” proposal.

Van Slyke also refused to respond to a call to recuse herself when she was challenged over her close proximity to the proposed Summer Winds development.

Next, ex-Eagle Scout Cody Clarkin either has, or is about to, become a resident of Westerly and thus ineligible to serve out his term as a CCA Town Council member. An August 24 Westerly Sun article quoted Clarkin saying that as he and his roommate were moving in to the new house in Westerly on August 19 when he suddenly “realized the ramifications.”

According to the article, Clarkin says he then contacted the Board of Elections and the RI Ethics Commission and then Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz and the town solicitor. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall to hear how Clarkin described his situation.

The result, says young Cody: “There is a lot of legal ambiguity that would come with living outside town.” Yeah well, no kidding.

He told the Council that he intended to complete his term by staying with his parents.

That’s quite a tale, but it’s a load of b.s. For example, Cody’s lease for the Westerly house on Bowling Lane took effect on July 1.

Cody told the CCA last November of his planned departure – and Ruth Platner told him to keep it a secret. Except Cody blabbed. Jim Mageau – who publicly chastised Cody – spoke openly and loudly about it at the Memorial Day Parade in May.

The story quoted in the Sun’s Jason Vallee August 24 article was a lie. Clarkin's claim that he only realized the "ramifications" on August 19 when he actually knew in November...and was outed by Jim Mageau in May is a lie.

Just goes to show you how corrosive the CCA has been to the moral fabric of Charlestown that they can get an Eagle Scout to dishonor his oath. 

“Scout’s Honor?” Phooey.

Clarkin also participated in the debate and voting over Platner’s controversial “Conservation Development” plan even though he was clearly ineligible to vote.

Also part of Cody's new life is the job he took with the town of Jamestown's Parks and Recreation. He was hired by Ray DeFalco who used to work for Charlestown Parks and Recreation and, according to the Jamestown Press, had employed Cody. 

Platner’s exclusionary zoning plan passed on a 3-2 vote with the CCA-3 winning the day again even though two of the three CCA council members (Van Slyke and Clarkin) may have cast unethical, if not illegal, votes. 

If Van Slyke and Clarkin had acted ethically and recused themselves, the vote would have been a 2-1 defeat for Ruthie.

You can bet that in future litigation over this issue, the illegality of the vote will be a central question.

Slyke of Hand, Part 1

The Big Lie, Charlestown-style

By Will Collette 

Van Slyke, Clarkin and Cooper: these three control Charlestown's
town council on behalf of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance

The senior Charlestown Town Council member among the majority who represent the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) is Bonnie Van Slyke. 

She leads the other two CCA acolytes, former Eagle Scout Cody Clarkin and newcomer Susan Cooper. 

Van Slyke protects the Arnolda neighborhood where she lives (at least for now) from any potential threat such as kids playing in Ninigret Park. But most of all, she carries the CCA’s water. 

She recently wrote a letter to the editor that ran in what’s left of our local newspapers as well as on the CCA website that challenged readers to “ignore deception and focus on accomplishments.” 

That's maybe the smartest thing she's ever said as a Council member. However, the rub is how you define “deception” and how you measure “accomplishments.” In Van Slyke’s view, deception includes any criticism of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance no matter how well documented . If it comes from someone outside the CCA fold, it is, by definition, deception. 

And accomplishments, well, that’s easy too: that's anything and everything the CCA has done or claims it has done, even when it hasn’t. Or wrong, such as over-paying on shady land deals. It's still all good.

She presents eight bullet points. Rather than run one giant article debunking them all, I’m going to tackle her claims in a series of articles. 

Let’s start with this Van Slyke claim of CCA "achievement":·        

“Protecting the Town from Outside Threats—The Federal Railroad Administration has announced a required study of capacity and speed in the area between New Haven and Providence. The Council has responded, including enabling our Town Administrator to take whatever action is necessary to protect the town.”

This is so classic CCA. 

They defend Charlestown from all the boogeymen, real or imagined, whether it’s AMTRAK or the Narragansett Tribe or the state Water Resources Board or whatever. One of my favorites is former CCA leader Dan Slattery's fear of poachers. There’s always something. 

Let's look at the latest "outside threat."

In 2016, there was a proposal floated by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) to build a new AMTRAK line north of the existing track that would have cut through lots of important land – farms, nature preserves, forest, even right through the Mystic Aquarium. It was called the Old Saybrook-Kenyon bypass. 

The Bypass was a stupid plan. However, it had NO funding from the 2017 Republican-controlled Congress and NO support from newly installed White House denizen, Donald Trump. The plan also had substantial opposition, mostly from Connecticut and then, belatedly, from Charlestown. 

Unsurprisingly, the Bypass plan quickly died in 2017. Dead. Kaput. Morte. Muerte. Finito. The FRA issued a legally binding Record of Decision in 2017 that officially killed the bypass. 

But for reasons that are obscure to say the least, Charlestown’s Planning Commissar Ruth Platner declared last July that “THEY’RE BACK!” and claimed that once again Charlestown is under threat from Big Rail because the Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass had risen from the death. 

This graphic, created and published by the Connecticut Examiner,
is the only "evidence" that the dead Bypass has come back to life.

Except Ruth Platner offered absolutely no evidence that this was true. Nothing. Nada. 

But as we’ve seen in recent years, facts and proof mean nothing when it comes to public perception and conspiracy theories. For too many people, the default response to any alarm, real or bogus, is panic. 

Council President Deb Carney looked into it, even going so far as to talk one-on-one with William Ryan Flynn, AMTRAK's CEO. He told her there was no truth to this story, that if AMTRAK was going to build a new line, it would probably go along the I-95 right-of-way. CORRECTION: Council President Carney tells me I got the last name wrong - the AMTRAK CEO is William Flynn (not Ryan). Except for Flynn's name, the rest of what I wrote is accurate.  - Will Collette

I have been doing my own digging, looking for evidence for or against the reemergence of the Bypass. I discovered that in 2018, after the last AMTRAK crisis ended, Charlestown issued a contract to Greg Stroud, publisher of the Connecticut Examiner, noted above, doing business as Lyme Street Consulting.

He was supposed to keep track of what the FRA and AMTRAK were up to, though I don’t have his reports to the town.

More on that in just a bit. 

Did Stroud play some role in the current “crisis?” Hard to tell since I've been denied access to town records. However, it looks like he is the only source Platner has. But even his material only shows that the FRA will conduct a traffic study for rail travel from New Haven to Providence. 

There are, however, lots of reports showing AMTRAK now favors a high-speed rail line directly connecting Hartford to Providence and Boston, but NOT the Old Saybrook-Kenyon bypass.

What's in the files? Where's the proof?

I wanted to see what Charlestown had in its files to support the hyperbolic activity by the CCA Town Council majority, especially Bonnie Van Slyke, against the supposedly resurrected Kenyon Bypass. 

It seems reasonable to me that if there really is any proof, Platner, Town Hall and the CCA would have already released or published it. I know that's what I would do. The CCA's "Railroad page" has nothing in it to show there is a reanimated Bypass plan getting ready to descend on Charlestown.

So far, the CCA Council majority has given Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz unprecedented and unlimited (and probably illegal) power to do anything and everything to fight the railway beast. 

His first task was to write a whole bunch of letters to public officials about this “threat,” probably provoking some of the recipients to wonder “WTF?” especially since the letters are really about the dead 2017 Bypass plan.

Stankiewicz has hired a Providence consulting firm that primarily does public relations. Their proffer says they will create "a climate of success" whatever that means. The CCA plans to put most of the town’s reserve funds at the disposal of this “campaign.” 

According to Ruth Platner, the "campaign" will involve mobilizing all the friends and allies that were part of the 2017 effort, even though there is NO EVIDENCE of an actual threat in 2021. I’d love to know how that’s going. 

Stankiewicz turned down my request for him to recuse himself
from judging an appeal against a decision he himself made.
He denied my request to restore the decade-old
waiver of fees and denigrated my arguments. 

My Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request for the records about Stroud’s work for the town and documents showing whether or not there really is a threat have been effectively denied by Town Clerk Amy Weinreich, backed by Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz who clearly is taking his orders from the CCA’s secret clubhouse.

Rather than serve up dozens of documents completely blacked out as they did on SPA-Gate, this time the town’s denial takes the form of billing me at extortionate rates. 

For the past ten years, the town has been providing me with electronic copies for free so I can give Progressive Charlestown readers a look at the real stuff. 

They want me to pay $178.35 for electronic copies of material basically in two files - all of which should be public record. 

Not only that, the town is now refusing to fulfill my requests for any other information, including material many of you have seen on subjects such as legal bills for the war on the Narragansetts, shady land deals, blasting permits, lawsuits against the town, etc. 

Again, this is material the town has provided Progressive Charlestown without charge, in the public interest, for more than 10 years. 

This is a radical break with a decade of relative transparency by the town government. The fingerprints of Mark Stankiewicz and his CCA masters are all over this. 

How are you supposed to know if the corpse of the Kenyon Bypass has risen from the dead without documents as proof? 

Since the AMTRAK issue is listed by Bonnie Van Slyke as a major CCA bullet point, it follows that she or Ruth Platner or the town administrator would show us what they’ve got. Where is the proof that there even is a threat? If I had such records, you can bet I’d publish them forthwith. 

If the Bypass is indeed alive, I promise to publicly apologize for my doubts and pledge to contribute all I can to the fight. In fact, my initial pledge is $178.35 should the threat turn out to be real. 

But if this is all a hoax, as I believe it is, shame on the CCA and on Mark Stankiewicz for cynically corrupting Charlestown more than you ever have in the past. And shame on them for needlessly scaring the good people in northern Charlestown who were traumatized by the 2017 controversy.

"Ask Amy" 

Stankiewicz on guard to prevent any info getting out that might
damage the CCA

In the meantime, I ask readers for their help.

If you are a town employee and you have information to share, I invite you to send it on – via your private e-mail, since Stankiewicz may be monitoring your town account – to Progressive Charlestown.

If you are a concerned citizen, I urge you to “Ask Amy” by filing requests for these public records – Stroud’s contract, payments, reports as well as Charlestown’s proof that there is a threat – through the town’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) webpage.

There is a form and an e-mail you can use.

It’s easy to ask, though lately many citizens have found it’s hard to actually get anything. 

Our CCA-controlled town government has been strictly applying Draconian rules that involve long delays and high charges.

You can also “Ask Amy” about the other things I ask the town to routinely disclose: Joe Larisa’s bills, new lawsuits or claims, the town’s dealings with the Narragansett Indian Tribe, land deals such as SPA-Gate, and blasting permits. Or anything else you want to know. 

I have been told that many Charlestown citizens have gotten "work-to-rule" treatment when they ask for records. No doubt on Stankiewicz's orders, the town charges the maximum amounts for estimated time and copying allowed by law, turning routine requests into bills for over $100 or more. 

If you have run into this problem yourself, please let me know (CLICK HERE).

One remedy for Stankiewicz's stonewall is to only ask for one thing at a time and to have your friends and neighbors to also ask for one piece at a time. This will no doubt cause more work (sorry, Amy), but the state's open records act is premised on the public's right to know, not as Stankiewicz's cash cow.

Something Stanks in Charlestown

Town Council meeting swirls around Town Administrator

By Will Collette

Beware any interloper threatening Charlestown.
Mark "The Punisher" Stankiewicz is on the job.

Charlestown’s form of government vests the Town Council with nearly all power while granting very little to the Town Administrator, called a “town manager” in most towns. That power balance just changed radically on August 10. Read on.

When current Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz was hired on February 12, 2013 after his predecessor Bill DiLibero was fired largely for resisting the Charlestown Citizens Alliance’s (CCA) erratic decisions on Ninigret Park, Stankiewicz was expected to usher in a new era of calm.

Stankiewicz left his position as Plymouth, MA’s Town Manager to become Administrator in Charlestown. Before Plymouth, Stankiewicz was terminated – to his credit - by the Stoughton MA Town Council for firing corrupt cops and testifying against government corruption.

I used to meet with him for coffee and shoot the shit. He was obviously scoping me out, and I was doing the same on him. He seemed like a pretty straight guy but our association tapered off after he told me unequivocally that he saw himself working for whoever controlled the town, and that was the CCA. I figured that after Stoughton and Plymouth, he had decided to just get along and roll into retirement.

Stankiewicz bought this home in Stoughton, MA two years after
he was hired as Charlestown Town Administrator

Stankiewicz has never actually committed to Charlestown other than to negotiate a high salary ($128,845) and perks. In 2015, two years after his hiring, he moved, but not to Charlestown. 

Instead, he bought a new house in, of all places, Stoughton (👉). Not only was Stoughton the town that booted him out for doing his duty, it’s also a brutal 70+ mile one-way commute. But hey, he negotiated a $10,020 “travel stipend” from Charlestown.

Since his hiring, Stankiewicz has been a good and faithful servant of the CCA.

For their benefit, he has clamped down on the release of public information (👇) and went along with the CCA’s “pay to play” policy. If you want to get something from town government, you have to pay. An example: having to make “suggested” donations to CCA-favored organizations in return for permits.

This is how Stankiewicz typically responds to open records requests

At the August 10 Charlestown Town Council meeting, it seemed like every agenda item led to a discussion about Stankiewicz.

For example, the CCA Council majority tried to expunge Council President Deb Carney's negative evaluation of Stankiewicz from the April 12 Council minutes and only include positive things about Stankiewicz.

Carney had read her evaluation of Stankiewicz into the record to ensure it actually made it into the minutes. The full text of Deb’s evaluation of Stankiewicz appears at the end of this article.

CCA signal-caller Bonnie Van Slyke (CCA-Arnolda) pushed for a vote to expunge Carney’s critique of Stankiewicz but instead, Deb moved that the Council ask state Attorney General Peter Neronha for an opinion on whether it was legal under Rhode Island’s open government laws to censor the public records of an open meeting. That motion passed 4 to 1.

So-called independent CCA rookie members Cody Clarkin and Susan Cooper voted to ask for the AG’s opinion, but I predict they will seek to change their votes and offer a motion to reconsider. They have done this before when they failed to follow the CCA party line.

However, the CCA majority then defeated by 2 to 3 a motion by Carney to get a legal opinion on the CCA’s practice of using their majority to block agenda items from minority members if they didn’t conform to the CCA’s self-interest.

To be clear, ever since the CCA seized control of Charlestown over a decade ago, the results of Council meetings are pre-determined at the CCA’s secret meetings. YOU can’t attend those meetings. You can’t even find out where or when they are held. But those meetings are where ALL Charlestown decisions get made.

The mystery train

CLICK HERE for the original. This is apparently what has triggered the CCA into sounding the alarm. Note that the green line is the EXISTING track, NOT a proposed new track.

Next, the Council tried to grab at the nebulous issue that somehow AMTRAK might revive the Old Saybrook-Kenyon bypass that was resoundingly defeated in 2017. The bypass was a bad plan that would have cut a swath through northern Charlestown for tracks for high-speed rail. 

It was an easy win since Donald Trump didn’t care about trains unless they were powered by coal and Congress gave the project no funding. So in 2017, the Old Saybrook-Kenyon bypass was officially dropped in a legally binding Record of Decision. No matter what the CCA says, there is no evidence that it has been revived.

As I wrote HERE, those fears have been stoked by CCA leader and town Planning Commissar Ruth Platner who apparently misread a couple of blog postings from a Connecticut website and proclaimed – without evidence – that “THEY’RE BACK,” arisen from the dead.

I understand local residents being defensive about their property and nervous and upset about even the slightest hint that someone might take it away from them.

But Platner has them stirred up for no reason, perhaps to compensate for FAILING to pay attention to the bypass issue when it first arose in 2016. Only after Connecticut resistance had mustered did Charlestown finally engage in that winning fight.

Council President Deb Carney tried to allay public fear by reporting that she had personally talked to William Flynn, AMTRAK’s CEO, about the bypass. She said Flynn told her the most likely new route for a high-speed rail connection from New Haven to Providence would be along the I-95 corridor.

Nonetheless, the CCA is now claiming that the recently published ConnectNEC 2035 to improve rail service throughout the northeast corridor by 2035 somehow threatens Charlestown.

Part of the plan is a proposed “New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study. Study of investment options to improve capacity and service performance between New Haven, CT and Providence, RI.”

All transportation agencies regularly and often study capacity and ways to improve it. They would be deservedly lambasted if they failed to do so.

But in the CCA’s endless, paranoid quest for villains, this reference was all they needed to conclude “[t]hrough this study the Old Saybrook to Kenyon Bypass was put back on the table.” 

These are the CCA’s words, not AMTRAK, not the Federal Rail Administration, not the Northeast Corridor Commission. The CCA has no evidence that the dead and buried bypass has come back to life.

At the Council meeting, Planning Commissar Ruth Platner gave a long and largely incoherent speech to try to stir up more fear and called for re-mobilizing “the coalition” that defeated the bypass in 2017. She did not explain how you reassemble a coalition when there is no evidence of an actual threat, but Bonnie Van Slyke had some ideas.

Several residents whose homes and properties were in the path of the defeated bypass proposal spoke passionately and angrily about this supposed new threat. They wanted a total mobilization of money, people and resources to fight a threat that may not actually exist.

What we need is a Dictator?

This is Bonnie Van Slyke's original resolution which she wanted to fold into Deb Carney's broader motion. I'm not sure the content was improved by Van Slyke giving it "further thought."

Councilor Bonne Van Slyke (CCA-Arnolda) pre-filed an extraordinary proposal (👆) to give Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz absolute power to "take whatever action" needed to “protect the town.”

There is no definition or limit to Stankiewicz’s powers. Could he declare martial law? Could he set up road blocks or booby traps? Could he impose censorship? Could he order the arrest of anyone (like me) who thinks this "threat" is not real? Could he suspend all town bodies and rule by fiat? Could he cut off the internet? Could he direct DPW to blow up track? Could he draft residents into an armed militia (actually, state law prohibits that, expressly forbidding towns from raising, arming or funding their own militias)? 

There was a long debate over a resolution by Council President Carney that started out with directing Stankiewicz to write some letters to seek information and re-affirm Charlestown’s opposition to the dead bypass. As a result of that debate, a number of amendments were Christmas-treed to Deb’s resolution.

Among them was some yet-to-be-seen version of Van Slyke’s motion to give Stankiewicz dictatorial powers. Also added (I think) were motions acknowledging that this “fight” would take a lot of staff time, town taxpayer money, travel and meetings to thwart this threat, whether or not it actually exists.

Stankiewicz wants to hire consultants and told the Council members that they had to free up a lot of their time to go to meetings, implicitly saying that he wasn’t going to do it. I wonder if this directive to the Council was Stankiewicz's first use of his newly granted dictatorial powers?

We will spare no cost and endure any sacrifice to defeat this threat, whatever it is. Except don’t expect Stankiewicz to put in any extra time.

Somehow the Christmas-tree resolution got passed unanimously. We’ll have to wait a while to see exactly what the resolution says and how it will ultimately be recorded in the minutes.

Quite amazing.

Nothing’s too good for Stankiewicz

This jumbled series of decisions teed up the final drama of the evening over the seemingly mundane question of setting the time for future agenda planning meetings.

CCA rookie Cody Clarkin introduced the agenda item to move the meeting start time to 3 PM from its usual 6 PM, which is fine for him since he doesn’t have a day job.

Van Slyke strenuously pushed the issue admitting it is for the convenience of Mark Stankiewicz who is just spending too many evenings in Charlestown when he could be home stoking the barbie in Stoughton.

Deb Carney even more strenuously objected, noting that as the manager of a small retail business, she’d have to close the store three hours early, losing needed income. This for the convenience of our highly paid Town Administrator who, by the way, also receives a handsome travel allowance to compensate him for his commutes to and from Stoughton.

It was an ugly fight. As I watched and listened, I wondered to myself what would have happened if Bill DiLibero had tried this shit.

Ultimately, Deb and Grace Klinger (who also has a retail job and would lose income) lost the vote to the CCA majority, who voted to change the time to 4:30 instead of 3:00.  How generous.  Now Deb only has to close 1 1/2 hours early.

Maybe the Council should compensate Deb and Grace for lost income – they can take it out of Stankiewicz’s travel allowance.

Just for your information, Bonnie Van Slyke is the senior CCA member on the Town Council. The other two are serving their first terms. One is former Eagle Scout Cody Clarkin and the other is recent transplant Susan Cooper. Both promised in the campaign to be independent and beholden only to the people of Charlestown and not just the CCA.

Both of them, especially Clarkin, have been total stooges for the CCA, even reversing their votes at later meetings when they mistakenly failed to vote the CCA line. Watch for them to try to reverse their votes on the motion to get an Attorney General’s opinion before sanitizing the meeting minutes.

Finally, please read on to see the full text of Council President Deb Carney's evaluation of Stankiewicz.

Neighborhood rumbles stop rumble strips

In the face of major community opposition, Charlestown Town Council votes 3 to 2 against rumble strips on Route One

By Will Collette

Rarely do the members of the all-CCA Party Charlestown Town Council have a split vote or even a close vote, but on June 8, we saw an exception. 

The Council took up the question of whether to give the state DOT the green light to install rumble strips along the edges of Route One through Charlestown as part of their major highway re-paving project. Click here for more detail on the rumble strip controversy.

The vote to withhold Charlestown’s approval of the work, which DOT says it needs in order to install the rumble strips, got YES votes from Councilors George Tremblay, Virginia Lee and Denise Rhodes.

Council Boss Tom Gentz voted NO, as did the Councilor Bonnie Van Slyke, the CCA Party Councilor who represents Arnolda.

Both Gentz and Van Slyke voted no after their proposal to allow DOT to install test strips pretty much in front of the Sachem Passage neighborhood received no support from their colleagues. 

Since Charlestown already has a roadful of “test strips” – the rumble strips along Carolina Back Road – this Gentz scheme sound more like “stagecraft” than a serious counter-proposal.

The Route One neighbors who opposed the rumble strips were happy to take the 3-2 victory - and they earned it. They turned out a couple dozen opponents at the June 8 meeting and delivered a petition with almost 100 names to the Council.

However, there is an odd smell about this whole affair.

Charlestown finances and taxes – Your choice on November 5

Do not let the crowd that messed up, lied and then covered up get back into office

By Will Collette

The CCA's 2024 campaign slogan

There are many reasons why Charlestown voters should reject the effort by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) to regain control of Charlestown. I hope to cover them all before election day.

But for starters, let’s talk about the biggie: Can you trust the CCA to manage your money?

In 2020, the CCA proved it can’t be trusted with taxpayer funds. The lead evidence was the “$3 million Oopsie.” This was a grave problem that the CCA called a “misallocation.” 

$3 million in town funds went walkabout, unnoticed by the CCA financial brain trust of ex-Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz and ex-Budget Commission chair Richard Sartor for almost two years. The error was finally spotted by the town’s ex-auditor and duly reported.

This sparked panic within the CCA as they first tried to find a word other than “lost” to describe the screw-up. They settled on "misallocation." Their word, not mine.

Next, they searched for someone to blame since as we all know, the CCA is always right. They ended up scapegoating the auditors who found the problem. 

Then they tried to distract and minimize the problem using laughable analogies. Ruth Platner compared it to parking your car in the wrong place. Bonnie Van Slyke came up with some story about a ladder that I've never quite understood.

Finally they fell back on that old “Hey, how about that low tax rate?” tripe.

During all these machinations, they had their pet Town Administrator Stankiewicz use every trick in the book to avoid disclosing town financial records that would have brought some disinfecting sunshine to this issue. The CCA also blocked even a public discussion of the need for an outside financial review and instead let Sartor and Stanky review themselves.

Two years later, the CCA and especially their mouthpiece Council candidate Bonnita Van Slyke are now denying there was ever any problem, claiming their political opponents made it up. I wish I was that clever.

Van Slyke personally attacked me for even raising the issue, saying my reporting hurts the reputation of such a stellar personality as Stankiewicz.

The $3 million oopsie was and is a flashpoint in 10 years of CCA financial shenanigans. Before the “oopsie” went public, the worst abuses were questionable land deals promoted by Planning Commissar Ruth Platner who is now running for Council. Ruth never met a piece of undeveloped land she didn’t want to buy, regardless of price, using your money of course.

Time and again, she pushed deals where owners (often CCA affiliates like the Sachem Passage Association) would be paid far more than the land’s assessed values, often based on appraisals that relied on fictitious conditions. Stankiewicz helped by clamping down on the release of public records on these corrupt deals.

“But the tax rate!”

The CCA ran Charlestown from 2011 to 2023.
 Source: Charlestown Tax Assessor

To hear the CCA tell it, the only thing that matters to taxpayers is the property tax rate which they claimed was ultra-low, due to their genius. That, plus providing virtually no municipal services and relying on rising property values to buttress the tax base.

First, a few facts: under the CCA, the tax rate went up pretty consistently as the table to the right shows. 

After the voters gave the CCA the boot in 2020, the tax rate has plummeted to its lowest level in decades, going from $8.17 when the CCA was booted to the current $5.78.

But the tax rate is only half the equation. What you actually pay in taxes is the tax rate multiplied by your property assessment. 

Assessments have skyrocketed due to shorefront purchases by rich New York and Connecticut folks who discovered Charlestown is way cheaper than the Hamptons.

Their multi-million-dollar purchases drove up property assessments generally to the point where Charlestown has become even more unaffordable and we all pay taxes based on property values that we are unlikely to ever appreciate when we eventually sell our homes. 

The most recent reassessment increased the taxable value of our home by 65% to a level I can't imagine in my wildest dreams ever getting should we sell. Unless you’ve got a shoreline property, your assessment probably does not reflect market reality.

Even Van Slyke found that out when she tried to sell her waterfront Arnolda estate for $3 million but ended up having to settle for $2 million.

An economy out of balance

This East Beach Road property was assessed at
$1,967,700 and just sold for $3.65 million.

The CCA left the current Council majority from Charlestown Residents United (CRU) a large and complicated mess to clean up.

Actions have consequences. The CCA’s decade of reliance on rich people buying beach property and tourists flocking in during the summer has skewed our economy. 

While those beachfront owners pay a large portion of town taxes, they plus tourists triple the town’s population during the summer.

We have to provide – and pay for – a town infrastructure needed to accommodate them. Other seaside towns have the same problem and have chosen to resolve this tax inequity through homestead tax credits. 

These credits cut the property taxes of permanent residents to offset the cost imposed by visitors and temporary residents. While Homestead credits are working well in Narragansett, South Kingstown, Newport and North Kingstown, the CCA adamantly opposed a Democratic proposal for a Charlestown Homestead Tax Credit.

The CCA also turned a blind eye to tax rip-offs by Charlestown’s two “fake” fire districts – Shady Harbor and Central Quonnie. Between them, these homeowner associations (HOAs) in disguise own hundreds of millions of dollars in prime beach property and pay little or no property taxes.

We are long past the time to strip the fire district designation from these associations that do not provide actual fire protection. It’s insulting to real fire fighters and a tax rip-off. While state legislation may be needed to completely resolve this embarrassment, Charlestown should immediately begin taxing their properties at real value.

They’ll sue of course. As The Public’s Radio South County Bureau Chief Alex Nunes has chronicled, fake fire districts from Bonnet Shores to Watch Hill file lawsuits anytime anybody challenges them on any issue. I believe this is a battle worth fighting and one I believe we can win.

We could easily fund a Homestead Tax Credit by making the fake fire districts pay their fair share of taxes.

We could also fund a special tax credit for fire fighters who nol only deserve our praise and thanks, but might also help alleviate the shortage of volunteers. Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D) got the General Assembly to pass legislation authorizing a fire fighter tax credit in South Kingstown.

Some other problems in the Charlestown economy

The real tax question is tax fairness, not the tax rate. Affluent Charlestown property owners can use fake fire districts and loopholes in conservation law to cut their taxes while the CCA blocks tax credits for working families.

Charlestown needs to diversify its economy and not simply rely on minimum and sub-minimum wage jobs servicing tourists and part-time residents. The people needed to provide those services can’t afford to live in Charlestown. The CCA has made it even harder by making Charlestown the only mainland Rhode Island town without RIPTA service.

Contrary to CCA claims, Charlestown does not need an overly large budget surplus. Paying cash for capital investments, including the CCA’s shady land deals, just jacks up taxes.

For years, the CCA has known about mis-zoning – properties undeservedly designated for uses that lower taxes. Planning Commissar Ruth Platner promised to fix this problem in 2012. Twelve years later and she hasn’t done it. Yet she wants you to elect her to the Town Council.

Choose wisely in November. The CCA candidates are no longer simply listed as "independents" (as if they ever were). Most CCA candidates are co-mingled with the CRU slate as either Democrats or Republicans although none of them carry town party endorsements. 

Watch your mailboxes for campaign flyers. If you want to prevent a return financial mismanagement, DON'T vote for the CCA candidates and instead cast your votes for the CRU slate.