The anonymous posts from activists in Tiverton are really going over the top.  The latest comes from the Facebook page of Don’t Mall Tiverton — which started out with the single mission of stopping a specific development some years ago but has become just another political page.  The headline is, “Matt Fabisch – Tiverton’s Latest Nightmare.”

That’s an extreme statement to make about the mild-mannered attorney who advises Tiverton’s Planning and Zoning boards.  As in the past, resident Tom Buchanan shared the misleading post onto Tiverton Happenings, which is the largest local Facebook group, so it is important to respond.

Let’s start with the more-mild accusation.  It’s true that Mr. Fabisch is not employed by Cameron & Mittleman, the firm of Town Solicitor Giovanni Cicione.  However, he is a sole practitioner who has worked often with the solicitor and has contracted with his firm.  There is a reason the solicitor’s contract gives him flexibility to bring in other attorneys, including contractors, as he balances expertise, workload, and cost.

The more dishonest claim from Don’t Mall Tiverton (and promoted by Mr. Buchanan) is about the areas of law in which Fabisch has experience.  Showing a closely cropped image from Fabisch’s Website, Don’t Mall Tiverton claims his “practice areas [are limited to] estate planning, litigation, and special education,” not “municipal land use and zoning.”  For some reason, the anonymous person does not actually give a link to Attorney Fabisch’s site.  Maybe that’s because a link would allow readers to click around and see what was left out.

On FabischLaw.com, the menu item “Practice Areas” is divided into “Elder Law and Estate Planning” and “Litigation and Appeals.”  One of the four items under Litigation and Appeals is “Municipal and Administrative Law.”  That includes “Zoning/Planning Appeals.”

Keep in mind that the site is targeted toward private clients, which will affect what is emphasized and what is not.  For individual clients, appeals would be the most important aspect of zoning and planning.  Similarly, the site emphasizes probate and estate planning for individual clients not Fabisch’s experience as a probate judge. It’s just how the Website is organized.

In addition to experience handling appeals for private clients, Fabisch worked for the Washington County Superior Court (the busiest land-use court in the state) and spent years, himself, on the Planning Board of Smithfield, including as the chairman.  He numbers the relevant cases in which he’s been involved in the hundreds, and because he’s working under contract with the solicitor he has one of the largest firms in the state as reinforcement as needed.

Making Don’t Mall Tiverton’s Facebook post even more outrageous is the insinuation that Mr. Fabisch will somehow allow developers to take advantage of Tiverton residents.  The emphasis of his Website is on protecting the rights of individuals over powerful interests who seek to abuse government.  That is exactly the sort of attorney Tiverton residents should want advising boards that make decisions about what we can and can’t do with our property.

In a letter appearing in this week’s Sakonnet Times, Tiverton resident Will Newman joins those who apparently believe that politics is about making false accusations to generate hatred against their neighbors.  Hopefully, he has merely been misinformed, and the following responses will ease Mr. Newman’s mind.

Does the Tiverton Taxpayers Association (TTA) win elections with “outside money”?  No.  Our campaigns are entirely funded by people here in our community, supporting the work of dedicated residents.

Does the TTA “favor shutting the high school”?  No.  Actually, we want the school district to improve to such an extent that Little Compton no longer feels compelled to bus its students from one end of Tiverton to the other in order to utilize Portsmouth High School.

Does TTA want to turn “our new library into city offices”?  No.  In fact, the budget the Town Council proposed increased funding to the library.  To the extent that TTA members have suggested plans for the library, the emphasis has been on expanding its activities as a library.

Do we want “normal town services” to “give way to de minimus taxes”?  No.  The budget the council proposed would have increased spending by 5.4%, and the Budget Committee brought it up to 5.9%.  Some people accused us of wanting to spend too much!

Additionally, the first draft of a long-term plan presented as part of the council’s budget proposal showed a path toward stable growth and controlled tax increases.  Meanwhile, we resolved a challenging negotiation to address ongoing staffing issues in the fire department, we approved an update to our emergency services communication and information technology, we fast-tracked the purchase of a new ambulance, we supported most of the Town Administrator’s proposed capital plan, and we’re working to open town offices during lunch hours and other times when residents can actually get to Town Hall.  In short, we’re working to improve services and make them more efficient.

People told me to expect it, but I’m still surprised by the willingness of some to spread falsehoods for political purposes.  It’s a shame.  When whisper campaigns spread false information, people aren’t even receiving one side of the story; they’re hearing fiction.  If you ever have any questions about what the Town Council is or is not doing or what TTA is working toward, please do not hesitate to contact me.  My email address is justin@justinkatz.com and my cell phone number is (401) 835-7156.

When it comes to budgets, with the possibility that the town will take hundreds of thousands of dollars more from taxpayers than even the Town Council and Budget Committee want, the numbers can become confusing.  It helps to narrow the question down and answer the pieces one by one.  For this post, I’ll address the question of whether both budgets use the new casino gambling revenue for tax relief.

They do not.  As the following chart shows, Budget #2 will collect almost exactly the same amount of tax as the town is collecting this year.  That means it is spending every penny of casino revenue.  Budget #1, on the other hand, lowers taxes by $562,218, which is direct tax savings from the casino’s revenue.

Both budgets will lower the tax rate, but that is because the total value of property in the town went up, so the tax burden is distributed more broadly.  However, in future years, the casino revenue will already be built into the taxes.