Town Council Meeting
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 7 PM
The following plus more are on tomorrow’s agenda
- A change to Board and Commission appointments that would require a review and recommendation of the applicants by the current members of the Board or Commission.
- Discussion of homestead exemption
- Discussion of sports lighting for Ninigret Park. Request to submit grant application to develop a football stadium with a lighted practice area.
- Discussion of White Tail Deer Management at Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge.
- Discussion and potential vote regarding an Affordable Housing Resolution and proposed Affordable Housing Legislation. This is a request to the Legislature to enact a moratorium of at least one year to stop applications from for-profit developers under the law. This would give the towns and legislature time to work out changes to the law.
- Public hearing and possible vote to create a “Friends of Ninigret Park” organization
- Presentation of the preliminary report from the YMCA Property Advisory Panel and potential action on a Resolution in support of the Charlestown Land Trust’s purchase of the YMCA property for preservation.
Every once in a while people step into a big wet batch of political ideology. The stench of the homestead tax exemption clung to the ideologists who proposed to play Robin Hood and steal from the rich and give to the not so rich. At least that is what Deb Carney explained in her “save face” explanation to the Town Council. I feel bad for Ms. Carney because she was the Democratic horse holder who was left holding the proverbial bag, when the authors of the proposal slinked out of the Town Council chambers. I was told the authors were at the meeting but did not speak or opt to explain their thinking. Tom Gentz called the proposal taxation without representation. Mrs. Maureen Areglado called it a blatant political ploy to gain votes in November from those people who could vote (year round residents) at the expense of those who cannot vote (seasonal residents). They hit it on the head. So, in November, let’s remember how the vote went last night. Thank you Tom, Lisa, and Dan. Let’s do what the Democratic Party expected – remember!!
What we need more of: Sometimes we get so distracted by our own lives that we don’t stop to see the pleasant things around us, especially during the Christmas season. I think the video attached will show you what I mean. This is not a religious message as much as a neighborly message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnt7euRF5Pg
Let’s address the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee’s (CDTC’s) view regarding the effectiveness of the present Planning Commission. The CDTC uses the ordinances for accessory dwelling units, trees, dark sky, and residential wind energy as examples. A close look at each may shed a new light on the creation of these ordinances.
The accessory dwelling unit ordinance was created and guided through the process by the Charlestown Agricultural Preservation Committee (CAPC). The law was passed in September 2003 after a year of drafting, discussion, public hearings and town council deliberation. So that would mean the work started in 2002. I think Robert Rohm was the chair of the Planning Commission at the time: so it would be unfair to blame the present commission for delays.
The tree ordinance or more popularly known as the Public Tree Ordinance was written by the Charlestown Conservation Commission and passed in 2008. It seems the Town Council seated at that time had bigger fish to fry. I don’t see how the Planning Commission is at fault here.
Now we come to dark skies. If there is anyone who is a champion of dark skies, it is Ruth Platner. The ordinance was written, publicly heard and commented, sent to the Town Council back in August 2011. The Charlestown ordinance which was meant to be a cornerstone to a wider acceptance of lighting restrictions to preserve dark skies along the southern RI coast was held up after it got to the Town Council by entities not on the Planning Commission. The CDTC reported that it was frustrating to Ruth Platner to have come this far to be hung up at the last second. You can’t blame the Planning Commission for this delay.
Now the gem of the ordinance list set down by the CDTC – residential wind ordinance. This is what the Planning Commission had to contend with: (1) a combined Small Wind Energy System/Large Wind Energy System Ordinance. I won’t go into the sordid history of this one but it resulted in legal appeals that are under review to this day. (2) At the suggestion of the Town Solicitor and subsequent to two moratoria, the Town Council voted 3-2 to accept a No Wind Energy Turbine Ordinance. The intent was to clear the slate to handle the small and large energy systems separately. The CDTC sent a large delegation to decry the passage of that ordinance because they wanted residents to have the chance to generate their own wind energy. (3) The Planning Commission wrote the residential wind energy ordinance in two or three months. The two councilors, who pressed for large wind turbines and promulgated wind energy in Charlestown, did not vote for the residential wind ordinance. (Why the change one might ask.) Serving on this town’s planning commission is a thankless job. However, I have heard those residents, who regularly attend the planning commission meetings, commend the staff for their hard work and dedication. Those who feel Ruth Platner is not up to the job are not aware of the work going into the job, or (here we go again) have a political axe to grind.
I was at the January 9 Town Council meeting and did not find it boring at all! Thanks Tom for your openning statement. It was right on the mark. I had a copy of the presentation on the Homestead Exemption/Tax Credit. As presenters kept stressing the need for the homestead tax credit, two councilors emphasizing the need for tax reform for the poor, and creation of a “tax commission” as a followup to Tax Credit presentation, I reviewed the handout and saw no mention of people who could not afford their taxes. As a matter of fact, the gist of that presentation was that permanent residents of Charlestown would benefit from an adjustment of the tax tables for the seasonal residents. Basically, it proposed stealing from the seasonal residents for the benefit of all the year-round residents. The “poor” are not mentioned in the presentation. We need to understand that this Tax Credit was no more than a political ploy to get November votes. Year round residents were also at the public meeting to decry such larceny. I am glad there are year-round residents in Charlestown with a moral compass.
Once Upon A Time
Most fairy tales begin with this phrase and once we read these words we tend to think of an allegorical account of something that happened in the author’s mind. We think of Aesop’s Fables, Hans Christian Andersen, or the Brothers Grimm. Usually there was a moral at the end of the story that was meant to teach youngsters an important lesson in self awareness or social behavior. Once upon a time doesn’t necessarily lead to flights of fancy with mythical beings and royalty under attack from villainous creatures.
Sometimes a fairy tale leads into a fiction that has enough bases in fact that the reader mistakes the story for an historical account. “Once Upon a Time in the West” has enough generally accepted fact to impersonate historically valid accounts of life west of the Mississippi in the 19th Century. By using names of famous characters, historic town names, Indian Chiefs, and historic icons like the general store, the livery stable, the saloon, and the watering hole, readers see a West that could have been but cannot be found on a map or in a history book. There is no moral to the story, just entertainment. And there is nothing wrong with entertainment.
I have to admit, I have been entertained by the Progressive Charlestown blog. They should start every article they write with “Once upon a time in Charlestown.” I don’t mean the articles they choose to copy from other sources, just the ones that originate in the minds of the Progressive Charlestown authors. If you are looking for fairy tales that contain just enough facts to make the story seen plausible, but don’t bear scrutiny, you might give it a try. There are no gremlins or ogres attacking princes and princesses, there are whiners and complainers, there are tax nimby’s and mud slingers, character assassins and a polarizer or two that will make story telling come alive. Story telling as practiced by serious actors is a skill and an art, but the Charlestown contingent has lowered story-telling to whatever tier resides below gossip mongering. That may not be quite accurate, but close enough. There is a moral to the “Once Upon a Time in Charlestown story, “Don’t believe everything you read.” The authors may be practicing the black arts of politics. There you go; this is the level I was trying to find below gossip mongering.
Funny how these levels of story-telling remind me of the levels in “Dante’s Inferno.” Dante assigned recognizable figures in Italian history to certain levels in Hades. But that may be better explored at a future time.
The State of the Union Address highlighted the Administration’s National Policy toward the growing separation of rich and poor. As a national policy, to bring the ends of the economic spectrum closer together is a rational approach. At the national level, the Federal Government has the authority and power to set income tax levels for corporations and individuals. At the state level, Rhode Island sets its income tax accordingly. However, at the local level, the town of Charlestown, as all other towns in the state, is basically restricted to setting tax rates for property.
Locally, there has been an effort to translate the Administration’s policy to the local level, to link income to property tax. To try to morph the Administration’s policy on income into a local policy on property is ill-advised and completely unfair. In November, the Charlestown Town Council was presented with a proposal to unequally apply the town’s property tax against part-time residents, who do not have voting representation in favor of full-time residents who have voting representation. Using a homestead argument, the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee attempted to curry the favor of the voter with a proposal that would decrease voter taxes and increase taxes of seasonal residents. A group that steals from Peter to pay Paul can always rely on the support of Paul. Unfair, ill-advised, and unwise, divisive, and polarizing were some of the descriptions of this proposal. Some Town Council members saw through the thinly veiled attempt to steal from Peter and by vote of 3-0 (2 abstentions) wisely voted against the proposal. It was amazing that two abstained!
Subsequently, the Democratic Town Committee turned the argument into rich against poor and that the poor of Charlestown needed to get relief from their tax burden. They politicized this argument by showing the supposed differences among selected groups in the town. Politics is not the answer; politics is the cause of the problem. These political proponents have not arrived at the crux of the problem. Because the tax rate is applied equally across the board, the tax rate is not the problem; besides the tax rate is the third lowest in the state. Another element in the tax process that the Committee could argue against is property value assessments. Understanding this element requires an in-depth look at the tax structure that may not fit into national policy implementation at the local level. It used to be said that an argument was sexy if it had appeal at an ephemeral level and that is what the rich vs. poor argument is at the local level. However, when that argument gets focused on local issues it falls apart rather quickly. Unless, of course, someone devotes the time and energy to show that the property assessments were unfair.
Under State law, (§ 44-5-26 Petition in superior court for relief from assessment), is a process for individuals to appeal their tax burden. Less than one percent of the residents of Charlestown have appealed their tax burden and from 2008-2010: less than 50 appeals were filed. The town works with the taxpayer to ease the payment burdens but unfortunately about ten properties per year from 2008-2011 resulted in foreclosure. How this situation compares to similar circumstances in other towns could be investigated and maybe the CDTC could report on the results.
As taxpayers, all we can do is to pay attention to local issues and not be swayed by glib national policy statements and those who echo them at the local level. We need to understand the arguments, the proposed solutions, and their impacts on our life in Charlestown. We need to separate political hyperbole from concrete local issues.