When searching for a word to describe the current and on-going situation with the Sand Trace development, several came to mind. How about kerfuffle? A commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views. Definitely conflicting views. But there are others.

An Opportunity or a Slam Dunk?

Since last Fall, several public hearings have been conducted by the Town of Smithfield Planning Board on the proposed 180 units bounded in the area of Swan, Mann School and Log Road. Over the course of hours (and yes, it was hours) of public hearing, several items became apparent.

Experts or Concerned Citizens?

The developer has every right in a capitalistic market society to gain profit and revenue from the ownership of assets and intellectual property. Within the law obviously. In order to move through the regulatory and procedural issues, the developer has ever right to hire experts to analyze data to process into information.

In the speech before closing the public hearing, the developer provided his comments and thoughts. The dialogue about preserving his father’s name and reputation was admirable; even if neighbors do not agree with their strategy and proposal. Family is important and should be.

There is an old saying (with all due respect to my three careers) … Those who can do, those who can’t teach and those that can’t teach become consultants. People presented their “un-expert” data. In an edition of the Observer, the reporter categorized one presentation as “unscientific”. Interesting, it was based on an actual time study with real-time data. If the reporter’s argument was based on the modeling software, that is a fair discussion to conduct. But what really happened?

The second traffic study completed by an alternate company from the developer. Look at the video from the meeting. There are several instances between the expert opinions. In the model used. Conclusions. Etc.

Note on Developer Consultants

An interesting side note. Several neighbors opposed to the development attempted to hire consultants to assist in the presentation of alternative studies. Interestingly enough … all of the consultants contacted declined the business. Gee, businesses turning away revenue and projects? Hmmm, why? It was very clear that during these contacts, no consulting organizations would accept business from non-developers opposed to a particular development because it would preclude any future projects from developers. Interesting learning fact!

Town Competing Interests

All throughout this process (and probably into the future), the manner in which the Town has portrayed itself has been interesting to observe. The ability of the Town to foster development to create economic opportunities for its residents (and the region) while expanding the tax base is admirable. However, consider the following:

• Changing the “feel” of a neighborhood is not right. Residents “buy into” a town, area or neighborhood to live, play and enjoy the peaceful existence of what they purchased.
• While appreciating law, the entire low-moderate income (LMI) housing “mandate” is more than head-scratching. Appreciate and respect the ability of people to purchase housing. However, every proposal (law, strategy) has to be structured and implemented so as not to infringe substantially on others.
• Interesting note. The proposal of 180 units with 45 moderately-priced units. In State law, the threshold for each town is based on the number of residential units. Therefore, the 135 units (if built) increase the Town’s threshold for future calculations. While the math may be complicated, ultimately, the “ball” (Town’s threshold) keeps moving. The ONLY way to report sustainable gains toward the State’s threshold for Smithfield is to build developments near 100% LMI. Otherwise, without any intervention from the State Legislature, it’s a moving target. Ask that question of your Town leaders or the Planning Board?
• In all the rhetoric (public, quoted, private, unspoken) from the Town (employees, legal, appointed boards) … you sometimes wonder who is working for who? The excuses. Deflection. Legal complexity or lack of. The developers or being fiduciaries of the Town.

Attendance and Public Demeanor

Having attended all meetings, it was also interesting to observe the proceedings. The demeanor of the various constituencies. We all have busy lives. And residents, including me, volunteer our time for appointed commission/board positions for the Town. At the same time, reviewing the Planning Board attendance list provided some statistics and thoughts.

Only one-third (3) members attended every meeting associated with the Sand Trace public hearings. Two members did not attend two public hearings (60% attendance). Why is this an issue?

Boards and commissions have monthly meetings (generally). Public hearings are different; especially in the example of the Sand Trace development. Why? a) Detailed information on behalf of the developers, b) Detailed information on behalf of the affected residents and c) Comments from Town residents. Additionally, since there were several “editions” of back-and-forth as new information was provided. It was not just one meeting with various participants presenting their message over five months.

Again, there could be valid reasons for board members absences from the public hearings. However, it was clear to the audience, that for the meeting planned to close the public hearing … EVERY member attended. It was also clear from the content and demeanor of the post-hearing board comments … some wished to vote immediately at the March 7 meeting; one that did not attend two meetings.

Next Chapter

It was clear to determine the vote for/against (and who) the development proposal. People’s faces and demeanor always mark the “tone” of the vote (5-4 approval).

The next chapter … some issues with land deeds, privileged statements and other general “rumblings” relating to the development. Let the legal proceedings (PC-2018-8217) determine the merits of the Town’s actions.

One last note … For all the I have been stopped by several people around the town to discuss this issue. For all of the politics, legal maneuvering, deflection to draw attention away from the issues … I would always tell people in public … “I guess the best thing that happened from this situation, is that I met good neighbors.” First and foremost, Loreen and Steven Francazio. They invested their endless time, personal funds and effort to help point a light of honesty to this situation. Kudos to them and all the neighbors for their effort.

Kenneth J. Sousa, PhD