Report Inappropriate Comments

As evidenced by comments in this thread and elsewhere, it’s clear that some are taking the “NIMBY” position when it comes to Rocky Point. It is understandable that nearby residents would want to protect their neighborhood. But Rocky Point was purchased at GREAT expense to the Rhode Island taxpayer, and has racked up a bill that, so far, equals about 1/3 of what was spent on 38 Studios (not including the interest on the park’s bonds that we will pay for years to come). State money will continue to flow into Rocky Point yearly. The park is not for the exclusive use of Warwick or Warwick Neck residents. Rhode Islanders want a return on their investment, and an empty field with one walking trail, two composting toilets, and no automobile access just doesn’t cut it.

For those who want open space/green areas/protection of wildlife, do not be fooled by the veneer of Rocky Point in its present state. In their presentation of the Bio-Blitz survey results of Rocky Point last year, both David Gregg, Ph.D., director of the Rhode Island Natural History Survey, and Save The Bay’s Narragansett Baykeeper Tom Kutcher stated that the park shouldn’t have been cleaned up and its ruins should have been left as they were if protecting wildlife was a top priority. Dr. Gregg went so far as to say Rocky Point could be used as a case study in a Masters class dealing with invasive species, as the park is inundated. A rare and nearly extinct ladybug species that was discovered at the park prior to the cleanup (and no where else in Rhode Island) hasn’t been seen again. The walking trail which many rave about was built directly through and over wetlands. The old dump at the back of the park still exists, open, waiting to be covered by the Cardi Corporation with 2 feet of fill. The sea wall near the former saltwater pool will eventually lead to the erosion of the beach in front of it, as it prevents the natural flow of sediment behind it. The list goes on…

Both Bio-Blitz presenters also added that the large swaths of field - the new format of the park -completely lacks biodiversity and is now suitable for only one animal: humans. We might as well use it. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be environmentally conscious of future development proposals. But to leave a place that for over 150 years enjoyed financial/economic success empty, without exploring ways to use the site year round to the benefit of all, seems improper.