To the Editor,

Aren’t we all worthy?
On behalf of the group of residents who have fought the clear-cutting and blasting of almost 30 acres of forested land in Western Cranston to make way for a commercial energy facility, I write in response to ‘Neighbors Fight Solar Farm Plan in RI High Court’ (12/5/2024).
We appreciate the timely restoration of the Herald’s coverage of this important matter, coverage that has lain fallow for some time despite the many newsworthy events in this project’s travel. Over 300 families are directly affected by this project and hundreds of others along its miles-long power distribution plans may be impacted as well. The Palumbo family’s Revity Energy project was ill-conceived from the beginning, and it will place our community at risk in multiple, serious ways.
As the article states, our group has opposed the insertion of energy production into our residential neighborhood since 2018. As we enter our seventh year of opposition, we find ourselves not only defending ourselves and our neighbors but also, in an unlikely turn of events, the Hopkins’ administration’s Planning Commission and Zoning Board. In short, should the RI Supreme Court agree to take up this matter, it will be private individuals footing the bill to defend the city’s position. Yes, you read that correctly.
According to the Mayor’s statement to the Herald, he was advised by counsel that the city should not appeal the lower court’s decision because it was based on a “solid rule of law.” We find this curious since our counsel believes the exact opposite based on the same legal system. We won’t split hairs on this, but we will say that being forced to defend the City of Cranston’s boards and commissions on our own is a heavy lift even for our group’s strong notion of civic responsibility.
Mayor Hopkins also baulks at what the city has spent on the case to-date, stating that $71,000 is his cap on this egregious threat to our community. We find this particularly strange for a mayor who recently began a suit against the City Council, whose “stolen car” case is quickly racking up city lawyers’ bills and who chose to defend the city’s ill-fated panhandling ordinance to the tune of a quarter-million dollars (Cranston Herald 8/21/24). Finally, when the Natick Solar project was initially approved in 2019 and our group appealed the decision, the mayor chose to defend his commissions and boards in Superior Court. So why not now? What changed? We’d love to know. Could it be that he favors the project over his constituents’ welfare?
We don’t know because the mayor has never met with us and calls to him go unanswered. If he were to meet with us, we’d ask him to explain how he chooses which of us are worthy of defense and protection and which of us are not. After all, we are all his constituents.

Drake Patten
Cranston