OPINION: The plots thicken, as Watch Hill schemes to exclude public from shoreline
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Aug. 31—You could probably craft a pretty engaging miniseries out of the drama unfolding in Westerly this summer, as the rich and influential summer residents of Watch Hill try to exclude the public from the shoreline in their village.
The drama even includes the recent resignation by the president of the Westerly Town Council, who has been on the payroll of two litigious Watch Hill organizations, after the councilor threatened to "step outside" from a council meeting and fight a beach access advocate.
I can't help but think the polite Watch Hill decision-makers must have regretted bankrolling the hot-tempered politician. Or maybe they thought the tens of thousands of dollars paid to him to "watch" local politics would never have been discovered and made public.
Actually, maybe some this is almost too fantastical to be believable in a television series.
There are two parallel plot lines, involving separate areas of the shoreline, in a series that might be called "Watch Hill vs. The Public."
Spoiler alert: So far, the town's congressional delegation, U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Seth Magaziner, seem to be siding with the rich of Watch Hill and not the town and the people who live there all year and vote locally.
One plot involves efforts by the Watch Hill Fire District to shut off the public's legal access to the wondrous, long and sandy Napatree Point.
The Watch Hill Conservancy joined the fire district in suing the town in May to try to shut down what the town long ago declared legal access to the beach at Napatree.
The other plot line revolves around the town seeking to overturn plans by the federal government to transfer ownership of the magnificent Watch Hill Lighthouse property to the nonprofit that has been managing it for the Coast Guard.
The rich and influential Watch Hill Lighthouse Keepers Association, which apparently can raise a lot of money by passing the hat among mansion owners, has a lot of expensive lawyers in place and the support of the congressional delegation in taking ownership of the lighthouse.
Those senators and congressman seem to continue to support the rich nonprofit, which, even as it managed the property for the Coast Guard, began to limit access to the public.
The senators and congressman, who won't respond to my questions, didn't abandon their support of the nonprofit even when the Town Council voted to ask the federal government to give the lighthouse property instead to the town, with a reasonable proposal to let the nonprofit manage the buildings.
Worse, the senators and congressman seemed to shrug off the recent revelation that the nonprofit, which had refused to provide the public copies of its application to take ownership of the lighthouse, actually said in that application that it could not promise to provide public access.
The association makes a long and tortured argument about problems it says exist for the legal access to the lighthouse property, issues which, even if they do exist, could certainly be resolved by the town if it secures ownership.
The bombshell that the association said it could not promise public access, as Sen. Reed has said it would, came from excellent reporting by Alex Nunes of The Public's Radio of Rhode Island.
Nunes, who I should note is a veteran of The Day's newsroom, obtained a copy of the association's application to own the lighthouse with a freedom of information request.
The summer of 2023 is just about over, but I feel confident the plots of "Watch Hill vs. The Public" will continue to twist and turn.
I wonder whether Sens. Whitehouse and Reed and Rep. Magaziner will finally endorse town ownership of Watch Hill Lighthouse and, if not, I wonder if we'll find out why not.
Why, after all, do they seem to favor instead the rich and influential when it comes to the federal government turning over ownership of this magnificent piece of the Rhode Island coastline?
Be sure and tune in.
This is the opinion of David Collins.
