Letter: Council Can't Complain about Backlash over Rolling Greens Vote

By Colin O’Sullivan

Over the past few weeks, letters from two of the Republican majority members of the NK Town Council have been published broadly relating to the Rolling Greens controversy. But these letters did not confine themselves to the issues and facts and strayed close to ad hominem attacks against myself and other opponents of the rezoning around the Rte 2/102 west intersection in NK, designed to accommodate the proposed Rolling Greens project.

I have no intention of sinking to the level of personal attacks, but will say that there is a short answer to Ms. Dolan and Mr. McKay’s complaints and personal comments. When public officials act to reverse and discard long-established Town policy, act in disregard of the overwhelming view of the residents, and are incapable of offering persuasive substantive justifications for their actions, the question naturally arises as to the motives behind these actions.

As for the complaining and personal comments by Ms. Dolan and Mr. McKay, I’d remind them of Harry Truman’s advice to would-be public officials that “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. The comments of Dolan and McKay show that they do not like the heat; not surprising that there is heat given what they have been doing recently. But despite the heat, they along with the third Republican Carol Hueston, still cannot offer a solid, credible justification for the extreme actions they have just taken. That being the case, the result appears to be the kind of disagreeable and personal comments that make up the recently published letters.

Public officials are often harshly criticized; just look at some of the truly cruel depictions of several of our recent Presidents. But the right to speak out, including criticizing public officials, is essential to the workings of our democracy, and is embedded in both the Rhode Island and federal constitutions for that reason. Citizen opposition to the Rolling Greens amendments and frustration with the unresponsiveness of the Council was, for the most part, expressed in a reasonable and businesslike manner. Similarly, the Council minority (Kevin Maloney and Dick Welch) offered thoughtful and fact-based comment in expressing their opposition. It is obvious that the Council majority (Dolan, Hueston and McKay) was determined to go its own way and, in doing so, to disregard all of those comments, and the time and effort they represented. The question as to why they did so remains.

The Council’s 3-2 decision to approve this vastly unpopular rezoning of residential land to allow it to be developed is not necessarily the last word as the Council majority had perhaps hoped.