LETTERS

LETTERS To the Editor:

The Champlin's Marina legal team continues its claim that Coastal Resources Management Commission chairman Michael Tikoian revealed his vote prematurely. Well, from the perspective out here in the audience, his vote was never a sure bet. However, the votes of some other council members were predictable, based on their record.

The three who voted for construction at Bonnett Shores - on a lot with 97 percent wetlands - gave up all pretense of impartiality. If the Champlin's team could second-guess Tikoian's vote, it follows that they could do the same with those who voted for the Bonnett Shores construction. If Tikoian is forced to recuse himself, those who voted for that wetlands degradation should as well.

Mr. Tikoian has been under merciless attack. However, his efforts reveal a chairman who is willing to listen to public input, one who is willing to modify his opinions when debate proves convincing.

Finding a balance between the human and natural infrastructure is complicated. It should not hinge on narrow legal technicalities; we need the give-and-take of discussion to get it right. But the transcript shows that public input was ignored in the deliberations at the subcommittee vote, and Champlin's legal obfuscations block input from those who disagree with them.

In contrast, Mr. Tikoian deserves credit for respecting public concerns and for his attempts to achieve a responsible balance.

Keith A. Lewis

Cooneymus Road



To the Editor:

The entire ugly episode of the temporary asphalt plant on West Side Road simply never should have occurred. It was precipitated by the Town Council when they ignored the town's Zoning Ordinance last summer to exempt their project from obtaining a necessary permit, and exacerbated when they called a meeting last Monday to defend their actions.

Incredibly they failed to field a quorum for that meeting, sending scores of residents and many highly paid professionals home with no answers to their many questions. (Many other important items such as Seawinds and the Moped Ordinance were also sent into limbo).

It was my intent to address the council with the contents of this letter. I know I speak for many island residents who question the temporary asphalt plant in observing the following:

First: There is no issue with Joe Sprague, his workers or Sprague Farm. Indeed it is difficult to imagine how progress could continue on Block Island without Joe, his employees and his subcontractors - we see and appreciate their work all around us, everyday.

Second: There is no issue with Mr. Miozzi. He knew he needed a permit for an asphalt manufacturing plant. He asked for one. No town in Rhode Island would allow an asphalt plant in a residential zone without some kind of permit. That includes New Shoreham.

Third: We are very annoyed with a Town Council who through ignorance, arrogance or for expediency exempts its own project from the very ordinances they were sworn to uphold. The Zoning Ordinance has to be viewed in total, not cherry picked to suit the applicant's whims. The council took into account only one section (111), ironically entitled General Prohibitions, in reaching their hasty, un-researched decision. Sections 112, 505, 401 and 417 also apply. The bottom line is that a Special Use Permit was needed.

The request from Mr. Miozzi was received last August. The plant was not used until May - plenty of time to obtain the permit. Here are some of the things that are covered by a Special Use Permit: location, time duration, safety issues, hours of operation, land restoration, setbacks and environmental issues. The permit would also allow the Building Official the right of inspection and enforcement.

In addition to leaving residents with no answers to any of the above concerns, the council's inaction has resulted in ugly exchanges in the paper that border on class warfare - we don't need that on Block Island.

The plant requires a Special Use Permit - simple as that. The Town Solicitor is familiar with the process. I would suggest that one be obtained over the summer, so we can put this very unpleasant chapter of island life behind us.

Steve McQueeny

High Street



To the Editor:

"Maybe they're a'skeered," I whispered facetiously to the person next to me at the Community Center June 19, and we laughed. It was 7:30 p.m., and three members of the Town Council had not yet arrived for a lengthy meeting called by the council. The room was filled with busy, concerned people. Two town attorneys were present, courtesy of the taxpayers. We all waited.

Ten minutes later, one of two councilors present announced that one member of the council was "off-island, at the hospital," another "working," a third absent, unaccounted for. We waited 10 more minutes.

No third councilor appeared, and lacking a quorum, the meeting could not be held.

This council has proven adept at making up its own rules as it goes along: ignoring the Zoning Ordinance, setting itself up as sole arbiter of a major development while ignoring the Planning Board, ignoring recommendation of a helmet law by a safety committee that spent much time on the issue.

Hmmm - "ignore": "Ignorance."

And arrogance, in calling, then shunning, a meeting attended by so many hardworking people. Members of this council thinking of running for another term should be "a'skeered."

Fran Migliaccio

Sands Pond Road



To the Editor:

In your Saturday, June 17 issue, extensive coverage was given to an event held at St. Andrew Parish Center on Spring Street, June 10 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Since there was some interest in the use of a Roman Catholic parish facility, I thought you and your readers and letter writers would like the guidelines incumbent upon us as Roman Catholic pastors.

The guidelines for political campaign activity restrictions and use of parish/diocesan property for civic/political purposes are issued by the Diocese of Providence:

"Since 2006 is an election year, it is important to be reminded of the legal requirements and penalties governing political campaign activities. Internal Revenue Code indicates that parishes and diocesan organizations are prohibited from participating or intervening in political campaigns on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office or political campaign. Violation of the code may result in strict penalties and the possibility of revoked tax exemption status. Parishes and organizations are free to address issues of concern, even when such issues are relevant to a campaign, as long as the focus is on issues and not personalities. However, political endorsements, financial and other support, formation of political committees, and distribution of partisan campaign literature are prohibited.

"In addition, the use of parish and diocesan properties is prohibited when such use would serve either the purpose of espousing the cause of political candidates or that of groups whose stated purpose is contrary to the ethical teachings of the church.

"The use of parish and diocesan properties for civic purposes, including elections, is prohibited unless the municipality provides proper certification of insurance, or at least release or waiver of any claim arising out of any use of such property."

Rev. Joseph Protano, Pastor

St. Andrew Church



To the Editor:

In response to Thomas Miozzi's letter:

You seem to want to start a rift between the people who live and call Block Island their home. I ask you to defuse your rhetoric and recognize that Block Island is a place worth fighting for in a world bent on destroying the "last great places" on this earth. Period. We all support our police and fire departments. Period.

It is an insult to simplify the serious issues facing the community of Block Island. You talk about truth, but you impart no responsibility for the "good people" of Block Island to trust. There are many of us who have valid and substantial interests above your own. How about our children who will be the next stewards? Or our drinking water, which makes life worth living after a long day in the sun? Have you ever thought about your family on Block Island in 100 years? We do.

Mr. Miozzi, I studied chemistry in college, and I can tell you, water systems are fragile and easily contaminated. We have more-than-adequate information to determine what things are potentially unsafe and dangerous, and your mobile asphalt factory is one of them.

What you do not understand is that the privilege of being a part of Block Island comes with the responsibility of protecting it. If that means protecting it from potentially bad economic and environmental policies, then so be it. If it means finding an alternative to asphalt, so be it. You should take a good look at Steve McQueeny's legal assessment ("To the Editor," June 10).

The "truth" is that the government has an obligation under the law to protect our community. McQueeny's politics of government accountability are a breath of fresh air, something that all future works will have to address.

I have worked for Block Island families over the years since I was 12, including the Spragues, whose right to economic prosperity is well deserved and worthy of admiration. However, this does not mean that good people cannot stand up and ask questions about issues they are concerned about.

We can achieve a balance between economic prosperity and ecological preservation through careful planning and sustainable development. From your letter, I don't think you want to reach this balance. Block Islanders have varied experiences, both life-long and too short; we share a common goal to preserve the economic and the ecological treasure.

Let's work together to solve our issues, and leave off-island comments in the road.

Charles W. McMellon Jr

West Side Road

To the Editor:

At least three recent developments at Block Island Power Company (BIPCo) should be of great concern to ratepayers. The first is BIPCo acting as an intermediary between the ratepayers and HDR, the consulting firm collecting ratepayer surveys for the Integrated Resource Plan. Remember, BIPCo's management is not putting up one penny of their money for this study. It is 100 percent ratepayer financed.

How disturbing is it to realize that BIPCo management collects salaries and benefits by comparing themselves to executives at Northeast Utilities, a utility covering 11,345 square miles, that has 1.9 million customers, yet doesn't seem to have the ability to undertake fundamental planning? Ratepayers may elect to send their surveys directly to the company undertaking the study. The Town and the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) should require this, and copies to be sent to an independent third party. HDR's mailing address is: HDR, 8404 Indian Hills Drive, Omaha, Nebraska, 68114-4098.

The second development involves the attempt by BIPCo to transfer land assets to one of its owners in a private sale. The ratepayers once again will be shortchanged if the PUC allows this unprecedented transfer of this asset. Such a private sale does not maximize the benefit to the ratepayers, who in effect have been paying for this land through their rates.

It is ratepayer interest that is paramount here, and must be protected. For BIPCo to represent that this private transfer maximizes ratepayer benefit is absurd. What we have is, once again, private enterprise operating out of BIPCo's property, and being subsidized by ratepayers through the highest rates in the contiguous United States. You can be sure that there are development plans in action for this property, and it will not ever benefit the ratepayer. This sale needs to go through proper advertising and selling procedures.

The third item is BIPCo's attempt to exempt itself from energy resource diversification and least-cost procurement. In my opinion, this is just the latest example of BIPCo's management going behind the backs of the ratepayers and the town. Earlier, BIPCo exempted itself from the Renewable Energy Standard and energy conservation and renewable energy programs.

Unfortunately, the town really has no choice but to assume it has an adversarial position with BIPCo. No further surprises are needed to confirm this fact. I cannot think of anything BIPCo's management has said or done in the last eight years that would lead one to believe otherwise, despite much time and effort by advocacy groups, the town and ratepayers attempting to work cooperatively.

If the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission can't protect the ratepayers, perhaps it's time for the town to request that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission undertake an investigation of the situation on Block Island.

Chris Warfel

High Street