Comments for Charlestown Citizens Alliance

Comment on Site Visit TONIGHT by Michael Chambers

Michael Chambers — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:07:32 +0000

When I was a teenager, my father stressed the importance of frugality in a way that still resonates in my daily life. He made sure I worked to pay my own tuition which left no extra finances for luxuries like a car, clothes fads, and other expenses teenage boys couldn’t do without. I didn’t miss driving around town and dating. I concentrated on what was important to me. I guess you could say that I caught up with my friends socially and economically by the time I finished college. As my father said, “What’s the rush?”
I hearken back to those days when I think about how much the government spends and what they spend it for. It seems that Uncle Sam wants more and more money to spend on more and more programs that produce less and less results for more and more people. People who ask for tax hikes are asking for more spending, on more services, for more people, without regard to addressing real problems but only easing symptoms. Are the lessons I learned in my youth still valid today? I think so. However, circumstances have changed and spending is now out of control from the government level to personal finances. Our economy is in the red and so many families are in debt.
Our country has moved from an industrial-based economy where jobs were plentiful and just about anyone who wanted to work had no problem finding a source of income. Even a high school boy could find several ways of making money for tuition during ten weeks of summer and after school for 20 hours per week. Now we depend on a services-based economy that can be performed anywhere in the world and because of several pieces of legislation that allows companies to farm out their production, we now are faced with an employment drain that hurts our economy. The lack of job opportunities has created a new social class – the able-bodied unemployed. The rich and international corporations do not pay taxes enough to support this new class. The middle class workers are straining to keep themselves afloat much less support a new class of non-payers, and the downright poor are bearing the brunt of the blame.
Now for the naïve conclusions that the political apologists will focus on: create more jobs, don’t ship them out of the country; penalize companies that hire illegal workers or pay under the table; re-evaluate the welfare system; and if the government insists on spending money like a drunken sailor, institute a civilian reconstruction corps to revitalize our transportation infrastructure, sewer systems, and urban renewal projects. I am a fan of Franklin D. Roosevelt and think that one of our most important natural resources is our population and they should be put to productive activities rather than being paid not to work. Actually our Federal, State, and local governments need to practice frugality and reduce their budgets.
Building a strong economic foundation takes time. We have to ask our government officials a few questions when tax increases are proposed: What do we get for it and what’s the rush?

Comment on Site Visit TONIGHT by Michael Chambers

Michael Chambers — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:04:02 +0000

Those are good questions. They deserve sober answers. I think there was a plan for Ninigret Park that was voted on by the electorate a few years back and lighting was not part of the plan. As far as playing in the daytime, children don’t care about lights, they would play in the dawn, daylight, dusk, or dark. It is the parents that require lighting.

Comment on Site Visit TONIGHT by CCA emailer

CCA emailer — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:13:22 +0000

I have seen the lighting at Old Mountain Field. It is great for those playing sports at night. But what will this lighting do for Frosty Drew Observatory. Or rather what will it do to the over all ambient light situation and the ability to see the night sky? What will it do in this regards to those 1 mile away, or 2, etc.? I live more than 5 miles from URI and I see a glow many nights from the lighting which significantly disrupts my view of the sky to the north, especially near the horizon. Why is playing sports at night necessary? Why can’t they play before the sun goes down? Why do sports have to play such an important part in our activities as to ruin our beautiful dark sky?

Comment on Update On Feb 13 Town Council Meeting by Steering Committee

Steering Committee — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:35:03 +0000

It means “Request For Proposals”. It’s similar to bidding on a construction project, but also means they design the project or solution to a request. So they will propose a project and also estimate the cost. It would make more sense if we had the text of the RFP. We’ll try to get you a copy

Comment on Update On Feb 13 Town Council Meeting by CCA emailer

CCA emailer — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:43:47 +0000

Please tell me what an RFP is. See your statement below – Thanks
“The TA and Police Chief have sent out an RFP to install red light cameras to reduce accidents at corners. The Town has 5 red lights.”

Comment on February 13 Town Council Meeting plus your comments by CCA emailer

CCA emailer — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:24:57 +0000

I think “Unfunded liability” for town employees’ retirement health insurance is an emerging issue that has not been fully looked at. Its been raised at Town Council/Finance meetings. I have been told its a hot potato that no one wants to address.

Thanks for forwarding the concern.

Comment on February 13 Town Council Meeting plus your comments by CCA emailer

CCA emailer — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:52:14 +0000

Good Morning

I was wondering if any of you had been aware of a proposal by one of the area’s farmers to remove rotting sea grass from properties around Ninigret Pond?
There was an article in the Westerly Sun a few years ago that this person would remove this organic “mulch “and use it to fertilize his soil. There was to be no charge for the property owner and the farmer could use this organic matter, sort of “quid pro quo”.

As a property owner on Pond Street in Charlestown RI, I feel this proposal would have been a solution to a long-standing problem. The stagnation of the decaying organic matter on the pond adjacent to many properties creates a noxious odor in the summer months that greatly detracts from the area.

I appreciate the Alliance for taking the time to read this.

Comment on February 13 Town Council Meeting plus your comments by CCA emailer

CCA emailer — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:38:29 +0000

Regarding OPEB payments is medicare primary and the OPEB plan secondary, or is the OPEB plan primary?

Regarding the MERS plan which is a State Run Plan, is it solvent, and will it be down the road? If the State plan is questionable wouldn’t a Charlestown 401 plan be better?

Thanks

Comment on February 13 Town Council Meeting plus your comments by CCA emailer

CCA emailer — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:10:03 +0000

I noticed there were questions answered in your enewsletter. Can you answer this one?

What is the “Unfunded liability” for town employees’ retirement health insurance? How much of this unfunded liability has been funded by Charlestown? What should be the level of funding for this unfunded liability on an annual basis, according to accepted accounting practices?

Thanks

Comment on Town Council Meeting Monday night by Michael Chambers

Michael Chambers — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:05:00 +0000

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.