Councilor DiBello also appealed to our better spirits, to rise above the ad hominem attacks and rancorous ridicule that volunteers in the public service are subjected to from vocal quarters of the political opposition. Hers was an appeal to debate the issue, rather than attempt to debase the speaker. It was an appeal to civility, and I thank her for making it from the podium.

However, the site does identify one initiative that the CDTC proposed. This is the only initiative this party proposed over the last two years. Some individual residents proposed more than the entire CDTC. The proposal CDTC focuses on is called the Homestead Tax Exemption that the presenters thought should be offered as a tax credit. The tax calls for adding to the tax rate only for those landowners who live out of town. The aim of the tax was to relieve the burden on middle income year round residents. The CDTC characterized the out of town landowners as the “rich” who are not paying their fair share.

Out of state and year round residents overwhelmingly decried the unfairness of this tax. Many called it class warfare and divisive. The proposal was also characterized as a political ploy to gain votes in this year’s elections. The presentation made no mention of anyone having trouble paying their taxes, only that the “rich” should pay more taxes. Many residents thought this was tantamount to picking their neighbor’s pockets and refused to partake in this obviously ill-conceived idea.

The CDTC gave the residents a peek at what it wouldn’t list as part of their platform. Raise taxes at the expense of a segment of the town’s population that can’t vote. At some time this sort of thinking would adversely affect the people of this town. Sound government is inclusive. All taxpayers of Charlestown are equal from a jurisdictional viewpoint. The CDTC tried unsuccessfully to exclude taxpaying out-of-town residents from the benefits of this town unless they paid more for their services, which they only get to use part-time. Full time residents get the benefits year round from taxes they paid and paid by out-of-towners as well.

Seeing the folly of their unfair tax must have been beyond the ken of these local politicians. Other Democrats, elected to respect all of the taxpayers at the town and district levels, were uncomfortably silent of this proposal and may even have given it their wholehearted support. Evidently, no one in the party advised the CDTC to remove the Homestead Tax Exemption proposal from the website and therefore the site continues to display a political stain on their party’s image.

Under the authority granted to the Charlestown Planning Commission by the Town Charter (Section C-174A), I proposed last January that the Commission authorize a study that asks basic questions about performance of the law since its implementation in 2004.  Has the law served to provide housing to meet local needs, or has it recruited new residents to town?  Has the law provided more housing for families in distress, than for those financially able to purchase unsubsidized housing at market rates (the law allows for subsidized housing to households with above average income)?  What fraction of approved developments has been dedicated to providing affordable housing (only 25% of imposed high-density projects need be “affordable”; the rest can be whatever the developer speculates the unsubsidized market will bear)?  What has been the demand for home ownership vs rental housing at the various eligible income brackets under the law?  Are vacancies in new affordable-housing construction an indicator of low demand, or a measure of poor quality, unsuitable location, or some other cause for rejection?  These questions need to be answered in order to allocate resources to best meet housing needs of highest priority, especially during times of constrained government spending.

To improve statistical weight of the findings, I proposed that we include data gathered from the surrounding towns of Hopkinton, Richmond, and Exeter.  All four towns are rural in character and outside the urban services boundary; they are largely dependent on individual water sources and independent septic systems.

After several false starts, owing to competition for oversight within the Town Hall, we finally appear ready to begin by hiring an appropriately trained intern to gather and organize the required data from town and state records.  Our intent is to make a preliminary report available to all interested parties for comment before a final report is drafted for submission to the Town Council.  Courtesy copies will be provided to the other towns participating in the study.  Until we address the questions above, we can not have a meaningful discussion of the merits of the affordable housing law, or the policies it spawned.

George Tremblay

The writer is a member of the Charlestown Planning Commission.

Admittedly, the events of the day in our town, whether they are wind turbines, fiscal management, land use and/or acquisitions, personnel and political ideology, have been the catalyst for strong intelligent and visceral reactions among many residents. And that is what democratic societies should allow and honor. However and sadly so, instead of promoting a climate where we can express our differences in an atmosphere that invites lively discourse, shared responsibility and more effective, collaborative decision-making, we find ourselves embroiled in defending, not our positions, but rather our personal character. Voices of reason have been drowned out by the screech doctrine replete with baseless attacks and anonymous internet assaults. One can only surmise what motivates and justifies this insidious behavior within the minds and hearts of its authors.

There is no question that our civic responsibility is to express our opinions. It is essential to advancing social justice and the overall quality of life in our town. The means to this desirable end is weakened when rude behavior is interspersed in our politics. Anger and disagreement are a distinct function of the human experience. They can be placed within the context of a simple axiom, “Be hard on issues and soft on people!” Our actions should take place in an open forum in which we are willing to accept personal responsibility for what we say and believe in respectful tones.

Charlestown is a wonderful place to live! Many of its residents have chosen to remain in their place of birth or have moved here because of its breathtaking beauty, a thoughtful focus on keeping this unsullied gem environmentally safe from unchecked growth and commercial development at the hands of unscrupulous profiteers. Its tranquility, family-centered environment and favorable tax rate add to the allure of this special town. Our diversity in terms of backgrounds and life experiences adds energy, intelligence and creativity to the governance of our town. In the best case scenario we can harness this talent by working cooperatively and interdependently to add luster to our community that will benefit all of us. At its worst, these same talents can be the groundswell for divisive, self-serving agendas and acrimonious relationships, which drain the collective spirit and give rise to apathy and a loss of civic virtue. If this were to happen, we will fall victim to our unwillingness to learn from history and tumble into an abyss of anger, suspicion and intolerance.

I have an abiding belief that Charlestown residents have the moral fiber and sensibility to stop the dysfunction that abounds of late. It will take courage, active involvement in the socio-political life of our town and the common sense to refocus our efforts on what we all want for each other and our legacy. The choice and the personal power to do so are ours to make.

Ronald J. Areglado
The writer lives in Charlestown

The number of birds counted in banding stations at Ninigret is higher than other banding stations in Maine and Massachusetts. Migrating birds can arrive thin and hungry. Their chance of survival is reduced if they avoid the Ninigret Refuge.

In the last few years developments have been proposed in the Town owned portion of Ninigret that have had the potential to negatively impact the importance of the Refuge to migrating birds. The three 440 foot tall wind turbines that were proposed for the border of Ninigret would have caused birds to avoid the Refuge. The flight avoidance by birds of tall turbines is well documented and the radius of this avoidance would have made a large number of migrating birds miss a stop in Charlestown. A longer flight for an exhausted and hungry bird means fewer survive the trip. The lighted sports fields were also proposed directly on the border of the National Wildlife Refuge. Many migrations occur at night and the proposed lights would have caused birds to be disoriented and again might have discouraged a stopover in Charlestown to rest and feed.

I believe the members of the Parks and Recreation Commission care as deeply about wildlife as others in Charlestown do. But neither they, nor I, nor a lighting contractor, nor a wind developer, have the necessary expertise to determine what impacts specific developments will have on the wildlife that depend on our National Wildlife Refuge. The Wildlife Biologists who work for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and others at local Universities are much more qualified to make those assessments. But in order to make those determinations, they need to know what is proposed, and for the last few years they have not been consulted or even notified.

The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) doesn’t give power to the Federal Government. The Federal Government has all the power it needs. An MOU is about information sharing between the Town and Wildlife Biologists. Such an arrangement would benefit the town greatly. In the last few years Town staff have worked hard to submit grants for a boat ramp in a sensitive area, and wind turbines and tall pole lighting in a critical bird migration route. All of those grants were lost when the granting agency found out about opposition from US Fish and Wildlife. If town staff had talked to the Biologists first, they could have modified the applications or pursued other projects. Charlestown forfeited a chance to receive money from DEM recreation funds this year by submitting a grant that was in conflict with the Wildlife Refuge.

In the end, nothing will be allowed by the Federal government that threatens the mission of a National Wildlife Refuge, but time and energy could be saved and more grant monies received if the Town works openly and cooperatively with the staff and scientists at the Refuge. The hysterical opposition by some to the notion of “understanding” is perhaps the best proof we have that a formal agreement is needed. I hope all of the Town Council will support Dan Slattery’s motion for a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Wildlife Refuge.

Ruth Platner

The writer is a member of the Charlestown Planning Commission.

The voters have approved $2 million in bond funding for open space. The Town Council voted earlier this year to use some of these funds to partner with the Charlestown Land Trust to preserve an openspace parcel on Watchaug Pond. The Budget Commission had proposed paying for this with funds from surplus and then debit the total amount of remaining bonding authority. This was proposed as a cost saving measure because selling bonds requires paying a fee to the bond council and other expenses. Legal staff have said the funds need to come directly from the bond funds rather than surplus. On Monday night the Town Council said they will take the transfer from surplus out of the budget.

As proposed the budget is as follows:

TOTAL MUNICIPAL BUDGET = $11,443,639
TOTAL CHARIHO BUDGET = $14,894,812
GRAND TOTAL MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOLS EXPENDITURES = $26,338,451

Voting will take place at the June 4, 2012 all day Referendum.

The ”Topics Around Town” tab on the CDTC website focused on as the only topic, a November 2010 letter of complaint about the Charlestown Citizens Alliance for not reporting their campaign finances. That was the only topic around town up to the present. Which is more stagnant, the town or the Democratic Town Committee? It isn’t the town, so what has the CDTC been up to? Maybe they will tell us one day. I mean besides complaining about topics around town. The rest of the website is internally directed - how to help CDTC and how to contribute to their group. Why would anyone contribute to a group that has only filed a complaint over the last two years and has no platform as its raison d’être?

As part of its role as provider of an alternative point of view, the CDTC on their website states that they want to debate issues with the Charlestown Citizen’s Alliance. What they want to debate is whether the CDTC has issued an imprimatur regarding the resignation of the Town Administrator. Because the CDTC officers have spoken and written about this issue, an official sanction, without an official disclaimer, is not necessary. In claiming that there has to be an official stamp on a piece of paper is disingenuous at best. Further in a letter to the Westerly Sun, the CDTC Chairperson accuses, without proof, that the Town Council Chair and Vice Chair attacked the Town Administrator and his staff. No finger pointing, just the facts are two elements of the CDTC mission; obviously just formal words without meaning. Also, nowhere can it be found that the CCA and its members claimed, as CDTC said it did, that the town must yield control over Ninigret Park to the Federal Government. Had that claim been footnoted it may still be questioned, but without citations, it is unbelievable. Also in that letter, the CDTC chairperson repeats “honesty matters”, but does little to promote that point of view.

But even more important than that is the fact that people feel safer when their property is lit with flood lights all night long. In this way they can feel safe whether the intrusion is from the left, right, ground level or from the air. Using shielded lights will keep the left and right and ground level intrusions in plain view but not the overhead intrusions. Ok, so we have to worry about those paratroopers - second story men who prey on the elderly and infirm. How can we survive an attack of such marauders without flood lighting the skies? People want maximum lighting for maximum protection against those who would attack them from above. Maybe these folks would feel safe with the WWII klieg lights and searchlights scanning the skies.

Finally, the commercial entrepreneurs, who feel that they have a vested interest in this town, and Charlestown should have a vested interest in them. This to the tune of offering them grants to put a $15 shield per flood light on their premises. As I recall, homeowners, who needed to change their cesspools to septic tanks at more than $10,000 per unit, were offered 2% loans, not grants. How can such grants be justified? It sounded very much like the commercial sector was doing the citizens of our town a favor by locating in Charlestown. Charlestown is a good place to conduct business. Perhaps the commercial sector prefers to locate in towns with a higher rate of crime than in Charlestown so they can vertically illuminate their property. I, like many of my neighbors, make a special effort to deal with local businesses even though the costs may be higher. I would expect that the businesses would be happy to work with the town even though lighting may cost slightly more.

People like being in Charlestown for many reasons, one of which is the night skies. Probably the most ardent arguments for dark skies came from the person on the street who moved here from a more urban area and was awestruck by the celestial display that was theirs for free. How people spoke in reverential tones about their feelings when first seeing the stars, not one or two, but billions! They spoke of the legacy they leave their children, the skies, stars, clarity of the moon, how awe-inspiring the skies became here in Charlestown. Here I need to interject. Those skies are not a legacy from us to our children, but are ours on loan to us from our children.

The mission statement of the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee (CDTC) is to give an alternative point of view on political events in Charlestown, without the name-calling and finger-pointing that has tainted political debate both here in Charlestown and across the country. It is curious that the mission is to promote a point of view rather than truthfully present the issues to Charlestown residents. Additionally, the statement refers to finger-pointing which until recently was the way the CDTC conducted business through their connection to the PC Blog.

The CDTC further states that they will present the facts, information sources, and well-researched and reasoned points of view. Presenting the facts is different than presenting opinions. Most high school students can tell the difference between the two. When a researcher presents a fact, the source is usually cited in a footnote or expounded in the rest of the text. Because the presentations are to be factual, citations and sources should be clearly identified. Also, if the information is to be well-researched, it would be no trouble for the reader to find those sources of factual information. A point of view can be the result of the accumulation of facts, but to present points of view without listing the facts, the result is just a point of view, an opinion. A review of the writings of the CDTC will show a decided lack of footnotes or identification of sources.

Naturally, the CDTC will take no credit for the PC Blog items, even though the members of the CDTC frequently use the Blog to promote their opinions and point their fingers at people who do not subscribe to their points of view. The connection between the Committee and the Blog is so striking it reminds one of the saying, “If it swims like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must belong to the Anatidae family.”

On June 5th, 2012, the planet Venus will do something it will not do again for over a century: Pass directly across the face of the Sun. This phenomenon occurs only four times every 243 years, so this is a sight that you might want to mark on your calendars.

Previous transits of Venus were very important in learning the size of the solar system. For centuries, there were no other means of determining the yardstick for measuring the distance between the Earth and the Sun - the astronomical unit. It was known that all the planets were proportion in distance to their motion around the Sun, but to actually measure that distance was very difficult. It was Edmund Halley, of comet fame, who realized the mathematical significance of a planet passing directly across the Sun, and the information that could impart.

On Friday, May 25th, Astronomer Francine Jackson will introduce you to Venus transits, and lead you through the centuries of discovery and observation. She will tell you of many explorers, some of whom risked their lives trying observe this unique phenomenon in order to learn one of the most important measurements in science: The size of our solar system.

Francine Jackson is Director of the Frosty Drew Observatory in Charlestown, RI. She also is on the staff of Brown University’s Ladd Observatory, a Lecturer at Framingham State University, and performs programs at the University of Rhode Island Planetarium. She has studied the historical aspect of transits of Venus for over thirty years.

Please note that the viewing of the Transit of Venus will be held at 4 p.m. on June 5, 2015, in Ninigret Park. There will be activities and food will be available.