Town Councilors asked why they voted YES on Y-Gate land deal

Did revelations about appraisal based on assumptions “known to be false” change their minds?

By Will Collette

Last week, I asked the three Town Council members who voted YES to giving $475,000 in town funds to the Charlestown Land Trust to buy the derelict YMCA campground on Watchaug Pond whether new information on the Y-Gate deal had changed their minds.

The $730,000 land price the Westerly YMCA will get from the Charlestown Land Trust ($475,000 in town money, $367,000 in state money) is based on an appraisal that became available to the public only shortly before the Town Council vote.

I wanted to know if Council members Tom Gentz, Marge Frank and Gregg Avedisian actually knew that the appraisal value was based on assumptions that DO NOT EXIST in the real world when they voted yes.

These assumptions were described by the appraiser as “known to be false” and included: re-zoning the land as residential, building a 10-home development and pretending that the 17+ decrepit buildings and additional structures, plus unknown toxic hazards don’t exist.

Here is the text of the e-mail I sent them on February 21:

I am working on a story for Progressive Charlestown as part of the series on the YMCA Camp issue. The article will describe the circumstances leading up to the vote by the Council majority, of which you were a member, to vote YES to pay the Charlestown Land Trust $475,000.

I would like to get your comments by return e-mail, so there can be no mistakes about any attributed quote, to use in the article. I plan to run this article early next week, so I ask for your response by Monday morning, February 27.

1. As you probably know at this point, the appraisal submitted to the Town Council by the Charlestown Land Trust was, according to the appraiser, based on assumptions that were known to be false. As I understand it, you only received this document when you received your package for the Agenda Meeting on February 9 (please correct me if I’m wrong), just days before the February 13 vote. My first question is: were you aware that the appraisal for the YMCA camp was based on assumptions known to be false when you voted YES on February 13?
2. If you DID KNOW the appraisal was based on assumptions known to be false when you voted YES, can you explain why you cast that YES vote?
3. If you DID NOT KNOW the appraisal was based on assumptions known to be false when you voted YES, would you have voted differently?
4. If you still would have voted YES, even knowing the appraisal was based on assumptions known to be false, please explain why?
5. If knowledge about the true nature of the appraisal would have changed you vote, what do you intend to do about it now?

I thank you in advance for your timely responses.

Here are their responses:

Marge Frank called me, and after I returned her call, we discussed the questions and what I meant by “false assumptions.” We discussed the matter. She told me she didn’t know about the appraiser’s statement that the assumptions used in the appraisal were “known to be false.” She cited remarks made at the podium by Charlestown Land Trust Treasurer Russ Ricci that are contradicted in the official documents, such as his claim of unlimited public access to the site.

She told me she still thought the land was a good deal and would have voted yes anyway.

After that, Marge sent me this written reply:

Council member Marge Frank

Hi Will,

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me today. 

I will do my best to answer you questions.

I did not know the appraisal was based on false assumption at the time of the vote.   I understood Dr. [Russ] Ricci [Charlestown Land Trust Treasurer] to say the conservation easement would give access to the 27 acres to Charlestown residents forever.  It is a beautiful piece of property and I look forward to enjoy its peace and beauty.

The appraisal was a small part of the conversations that took place before the vote and I expect the Land Trust to clean up the site, accept all liability and allow access to residents.  That is what I heard on the 13th.  Again I respect your opinions but on this one we disagree.  Peace, Marge

Here is Council member Gregg Avedisian’s response:

Council member Gregg Avedisian

Hopefully my answers will provide you with some insight into my actions regarding the YMCA property.

I was aware that the appraisal forwarded to the council was based on the appraisal that was done when Mr Veasey was proposing his project and that DEM required that the appraisal be based on the assumptions  that were included in it in order for them to approve the amount of the grant it provided to The Land Trust.

I do not believe the appraisal was based on false information as it does state that it is based on assumptions. Had they stated that any of the assumptions were fact than  you could make a case that the appraisal was based on false information and so invalid. I don't think the important question is what criteria the appraiser used to value the property, but what value the people placed in the property as it's being proposed to be used by the town (open space that the town will have access to).

Why I voted yes, has little to do with the appraisal and more to do with how we got to the 2/13 meeting. As I hope you remember I was in favor of the zone change that would have facilitated the sale of the property to Ed Veasey.

I felt that it was an appropriate use of the property and that Mr Veasey had done everything right, but that did not matter to the PC [Planning Commission]. Once they voted against the zone change and more importantly once Councilor Gentz empowered the PC to determine the out come, Mr Veasey"s project was no longer viable and any future buyers of the property had no reasonable expectation that it would be different for them.

The PC and the majority of the TC [Town Council] had unfairly impacted the YMCA's ability to sell the property.  The public sentiment was that The Land Trust be given an opportunity to preserve the land. I felt the fair thing was to give them the opportunity to put together a proposal. Once they did I felt that there was nothing to be gained by delaying the purchase. The town will receive a benefit (public access, which I will guarantee is unrestricted), Mr Veasey is off the hook (which he indicated to me was what he wanted)  and the Y is able to dispose of a property it no longer had any use for.

The real problem is not this land purchase or the appraisal, it is that unless the public at every turn calls the PC out they will continue to do what ever they want. They will continue to set policy that is anti any development and anti family.

I have requested of anybody who will listen to get up and speak against what I believe is a  systematic empowering of the PC, but to no avail. I asked the CC [Conservation Commission] to speak out in favor of the zone change and against the PC, but they apparently did not see the urgency until it was to late. 

Counselor Gentz and Slattery have empowered the PC to be the other legislative/policy making body in the town and will continue to do so until people stop them. I have heard from CCA [Charlestown Citizens Alliance] members on many occasions that the PC provides checks and balances to the TC.

I don't see anything in the town charter that empowers the PC to be a check against the TC, but for the life of this TC, CCA and the PC are calling the shots and unless people repeatedly in public, confront them, the perception will be that nothing is wrong. I voted yes because after the zoning change was rejected it was the best proposal on the table on 2/13, but I don't think that is the real problem. The real problem is why on 2/13 it "was" the best proposal on the table.

I hope this will provide some insight into my vote on 2/13 and thanks again for The Progressive Blog

Gregg Avedisian

Perhaps Council Prez Tom Gentz was too
busy working on his Porsche to respond

Whether you agree with their reasons (and I don’t), I credit Councilors Frank and Avedisian for their honest answers.

By contrast, Town Council President Tom Gentz did not respond.

If you think Council President Gentz owes the taxpayers an explanation for his vote to give away $475,000 of town money to two well-endowed non-profit organizations for land of highly debatable worth, then you should contact him at address, phone number and e-mail listed on the town’s official website:

Thomas B. Gentz, President

152 Sea Breeze Avenue

Charlestown, RI  02813

401-527-7181

tom.gentz@charlestownri.org