Letter: Recent accusations of wrongdoing against Beauregard cross the line

11
1801

I promised myself I would not respond to Mike Clifford’s constant barrage of outright lies and half truths against my husband. However, he has once again crossed the line and I feel I am left with no choice. In Mr. Clifford’s latest post on his opinion page he accuses my husband of making some kind of, “sweet deal,” with a developer who was building on our dead end street, although he fails to mention what was so sweet about it.

Maybe in Mr. Clifford’s world, $120,000 for a little more than an acre of uncleared land is a sweet deal. However, in our world it represents years of hard work, sacrifice, and saving.

All the paperwork regarding our purchase of that land is public record. I still have a copy of the bank check. Our reason for purchasing this property was simple. When we saw the plans we discovered there would be a house practically in our backyard and only a few feet from where we have our pool and fireplace. So we purchased the lot that was for sale at the price he was asking. There was no sweet deal for us or the contractor.  He had no idea we were not going to build a house on the lot. Today, that lot has not been cleared and will remain that way for as long as we live in this house.

It is also worth noting that the likely reason Mr. Clifford is posting this is because no one from the press was interested in publishing it. Mike Clifford is no doubt attempting to influence an election. And considering the fact that he dropped out of this race because he could not win, he wants you to believe he is all about what is best for North Smithfield, when in reality he is all about himself and an obsession with John Beauregard.

He also went to the press in 2020 with the same allegation – with the same lack of results. So now, in a last minute desperate attempt, he is peddling lies on his Facebook opinion page and paying to boost it. If this is so important, why did he let it sit for two years? Why didn’t he go to the, “authorities,” any time in the past two years? This investigation could be long over by now. Was he withholding evidence of a crime to be used for a personal vendetta in a future election? That doesn’t sound like he’s acting in the best interest of the town.

How will he rationalize this to his followers? Read his post carefully. He speaks in generalities and makes no attempt to back up what he is saying. He says he’s saving his facts for the authorities but really he means he’s got nothing. Does he realize the burden of proof is far greater with “the authorities” than it is with the press? He’s essentially saying North Smithfield voters are all gullible like his followers and will believe whatever he tells them, like his followers. Members of the council can’t purchase land that was for sale to everyone? What government authority is he reporting this to? Will he share it with us when they turn him away? Mr. Clifford is throwing out red meat for his followers, (who I admit do eat it right up) and hoping some of you will devour it as well.

There is a larger issue here for my husband than a seat on the town council, and that is his reputation. John served on the Rhode Island State Police for 25 years, receiving dozens of commendations for his service and dedication. He rose through the ranks, and as the night executive officer, was in charge of the entire state when we were all home sleeping. He has also been in business for over 30 years, not once advertising, but able to rely on his reputation for his success. Never has anyone even hinted about him doing anything deceitful or dishonest as a state trooper or a business owner.

Those of you who know my husband personally know his reputation. Now Mr. Clifford comes along and he would have you believe John is running a criminal enterprise right out of Town Hall? All these years he has been fooling everyone, but Mike Clifford cracked the case. Or is it more likely Mike Clifford is desperate to be relevant – because he never really has been – and seeking validation from anyone who will listen? You need only to watch the first 15 minutes of a council meeting to see it. He should remember: I am the one who saw him taking a slow drive past our house, and I believe this has become an obsession.

We will be seeking the advice of an attorney because I believe Mr. Clifford’s post and constant lies about my husband crosses a line that no one should have to tolerate, even people running for public office. I am sure we have not seen the last of his lies.

A wise person once said; “cheaters will accuse you of cheating, liars will accuse you of lying, and people with low morals will accuse you of having low morals… pay attention to how people treat other people, it’s a reflection of who they really are.”

Janice Beauregard

North Smithfield

Janice Beauregard is the wife of Town Council President John Beauregard

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
close

Oh hi there 👋
It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox, every week.

We don’t spam!

11 COMMENTS

  1. Mr Clifford is a conniving, antagonistic, jealous waste of space. He continues to harass Mr. Beaugard without ever providing real proof. I’m willing to bet even his family is embarrassed by his behavior at this point. And I don’t need to hide behind a name.

  2. Anyone like MC who follows school buses is riding a thin line. In this day and age, if I caught someone following my kid’s bus around town, they’d be enjoying some time at the ACI for child stalking.

  3. Janice, thank you. Although I do not like to weigh in on posts on Facebook, I believe I must at this point. I am the Treasurer of the City of Providence and past City Auditor. I have no problem reporting on wrongdoings and making them public. The constant attacks on Council President Beauregard are unfair, uncalled for, hurtful, and either exaggerated or false. They serve no purpose other than divide our town. Remember, elected officials are our friends and neighbors basically volunteering to help our community. These vicious and unprovoked attacks are the exact reason why many good people do not run for office.

  4. Nice name you’re hiding behind Anne Marie Omweg. Actually, a former student of mine who plows my driveway in the winter lives on Parkview Drive and was asking me how the assessment got so high. I told him I would try to figure it out. As soon as the Town told me the amount that I’d have to pay to get the records, I knew something was amuck. It’s an obvious sign they don’t want to hand over the documents.

  5. Mr. Clifford indeed seems obsessed with dragging John Beauregard down. Apparently MC is raking over town records just to find something, anything, to hurt John Beauregard. Certainly the town has real questions that could be legitimately asked about some transactions by others over these years, yet MC takes our Town Council leader’s history and sifts through and finding little or nothing askew, creates a problem where one does not exist. This is taking the lowest road in politics. Hopefully the good team we now have on the council will remain and continue with effective efforts and decisions they have already made for North Smithfield.

    • Nice name you’re hiding behind Anne Marie Omweg. Actually, a former student of mine who plows my driveway in the winter lives on Parkview Drive and was asking me how the assessment got so high. I told him I would try to figure it out. As soon as the Town told me the amount that I’d have to pay to get the records, I knew something was amuck. It’s an obvious sign they don’t want to hand over the documents.

  6. Mike Clifford
    Your assertion questions “the legality of certain actions.” Can you educate us on what specifically was illegal re. this transaction? Is it a problem for any homeowner to purchase an abutting property at market value, which then physically becomes part of their property? Why would anyone not merge the purchase with their existing property?
    And please tell us when exactly the purchased lot will be separated from the original lot – perhaps John would like to know?

    The argument re. construction of an affordable home is specious at best – were any laws broken there?

    You are driving slanderous commentary – yours and others, including labeling John a criminal – without definitive evidence or a ruling. This obsession you constantly parade is pathological, and everyone who considers your opinions should recognize that reality.

    • Thank you for your astute diagnosis Tony. I’ll add it to the case file. I’m not putting all my cards on the table for your benefit Tony.

  7. It is a sweet deal when you can buy an acre+ lot with sewer and town water available for $120,000 in this Town. It’s an even sweeter deal when you structure the transfer in such a way that the assessment for your property goes up by only $3,000 after you merge the lot you purchased $120,00 with the house lot you already own. Your tax bill increases by less than $50 dollars as a result. If the lot had been purchased but not merged with his original lot, the annual tax bill for that one lot would have been close to $2,000 a year instead of a $50 increase each year. While every other homeowner on the street was charged a sewer assessment of $27,991, Mr. Beauregard will benefit when the purchased lot is separated from the original lot. A sewer assessment of just $5,200 instead of the $27,991will be charged. Basically Mr. Beauregard will get sewers for two lots at a cost of $33,191. Not bad when every other homeowner had to pay $27,991 per lot. When Mr. Beauregard purchased this lot and transferred it as he did, it raised the cost of the sewer assessment by $1,000 for each homeowner on the street. Assessments are calculated on the total cost divided by the number of lots being assessed. The majority of the homeowners didn’t even want the sewers when the sewer commission first discussed the possibility. They voted not to go forward on the project after hearing from residents at the meeting. The next month however, the developer appeared before the Commission and convinced them they had made the wrong decision so they reversed their position and voted to move forward on the project. Initially residents were told the sewer assessments would be in the ballpark of $20,000 to $24,500 but the assessment ended up at $27,991. Unless it’s paid in full upfront they end up paying a total of $32,607 with interest included.

    As for the developer’s great deal, he was able to avoid having to build an “affordable home” on one of his six lots as the ordinance requires and the Planning Board had stipulated in their initial decision. Affordable homes are not the same as low income housing. This ordinance requires the builder to build a home close in size and appearance to the other homes in the development but he is required to sell it at a low cost which is based on the median income of the Town. In this case it could only be sold to someone with an income below roughly $75,000. It’s a bargain for a person who qualifies but usually results in no profit for the developer and could even result in a loss.

  8. Just asking for some clarification on the land. It appears Mr. Godfrin purchased the land around the early 2000’s for $100,000. Mr. Godfrin then split the land in 2017-2018 into 5 lots, extended the street, and cleared the lots. It appears he sold 2 lots to date for $150,000 and still owns 3 lots. Am I correct?

    The only issue I see and it may be minor is did Mr. Beauregard vote to approve the subdivision? I fail to see where Mr. Beauregard has made any personal gain unless in the future you sell the land for a gain and a house is built. This may be seen as a favor to vote for the subdivision. But since the land was sold at a fair market value at the time I do not see any wrong doing.

  9. You’re 100% right. At this point this is become slander. This is far from the realm of political name calling. This is straight up accusations of illegal activity than 100% could reflect on his character and business dealings negatively.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here