Rhode Island’s Rent Is Too Damn High


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Rental Property
Rental Property
(image via NYTimes Examiner)

A new national report entitled Out of Reach put out by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), shows that housing in Rhode Island is unaffordable to anyone who’s not making above-average wages. The study shows that:

  • Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment in the state is $924 a month. To afford that rent and utilities and not pay more than 30% of their annual income on housing, a household would have to earn $3,081 a month or $36,974 annually.  If you worked a 40-hour workweek every week for a year, this would mean your wages would have to be $17.78 an hour.
  • For minimum wage earners, the prospect is bleaker. To afford the FMR of a two-bedroom, a worker working at $7.40 an hour would have to work 96 hours a week (there are 168 hours in a week) for 52 weeks a year. To maintain a 40-hour workweek, the two-bedroom apartment would have to contain 2.4 workers.
  • Luckily, the average worker earns about $11.64 an hour. So assuming a 52 week work year, the average worker only has to work 61 hours to afford a two-bedroom . To maintain a 40-hour workweek, the number of inhabitants would have to be 1.5 workers.

According to the report: “Out of Reach speaks to a fundamental truth: a mismatch exists between the cost of living, the availability of rental assistance and the wages people earn day to day across the country. An affordable home, providing stability and shelter, is a basic human need. Expanding the availability of affordable housing to address the unmet need of so many low income Americans should be a top public policy priority.”

There are three conclusions the report reaches:

  1. The Need for Low Income Housing: 1 in 4 renters nationwide are extremely low income; but low income housing stock is decreasing.
  2. Wages Can’t Cover Rents: In no state can a minimum wage earner employed full-time afford the FMR on a two-bedroom apartment.
  3. Affordability Issues Are A Nationwide Issue: In nearly every state, the average wage earner is also unable to afford a two-bedroom apartment

In terms of our housing wage ($17.78), Rhode Island ranks 17th in the nation, with Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire all higher. But that isn’t the full picture. In terms of the gap between the costs of a two-bedroom apartment and what an average worker actually makes, Rhode Island ranks 8th in the nation.

“This report verifies what we are seeing day to day here in our state,” stated Brenda Clement, Executive Director for Housing Action Coalition of RI. “Despite the national trumpeting of a recovery, what we see on the frontlines is more and more Rhode Island families struggling to remain in their home or find an adequate, safe and affordable place to live.”

Advocates have been pushing policy-makers for a funding stream for affordable housing through the Neighborhood Opportunities Program, which would increase the amount of affordable housing in the state; lowering expenditures on housing and freeing capital for purchasing. As Chris Hannifan, Executive Director of the Housing Network (the state’s association of CDCs) puts it: “Housing is the cornerstone to our state’s economic growth and investing in affordable housing production will help our state on the path to economic recovery.”

Oppose Top-Down City ‘Reforms’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Providence Journal ran a piece by John Hill on Sunday about Chelsea, Mass., where a post-receivership shift to a city manager system appears to have invigorated democracy in the city. But I believe that Chelsea is an exception rather than the rule; and as the Journal points out, that shift to the city manager model was accompanied by a widespread discussion of needed reforms. To put it simply, the city manager model was probably the least essential part of Chelsea’s reforms. And in other cities, its long history of implementation has been a disaster for democracy.

According to G. William Domhoff, professor of psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, the city manager model is part of five reforms advocated by a model city charter drafted by the National Municipal League, which formed in 1894. Many of the reforms were largely in reaction to the growing strength of immigrant and working class politics, which favored Democrats and Socialists; as opposed to the staid WASP elites of the Republican Party. The four other reforms are:

  • Off-year municipal elections
  • Non-partisan elections
  • Citywide elections for city council
  • Elimination of salary for city council members

Each reform has the effect of limiting participation in politics. For over a century, the terms “good government,” “efficient” and “businesslike” have been applied the National Municipal League’s reforms. For cities looking for technocratic and plutocratic government, these are five methods are surefire ways to achieving it. Off-year municipal elections lower turnout, favoring more conservative candidates.

Non-partisan elections eliminate the handy party tags that accompany a candidate’s name; this has the effect of forcing candidates to spend more money to increase name recognition and policy recognition while at the same time eliminating the shorthand of standing for what the party stands for. Citywide (or at-large) elections likewise increase the costs for prospective candidates. The elimination of salary means that the poor or lower-middle class can effectively not serve in city government; they lack the ability to recover from the loss of income.

If you manage to get all of these together, you’ll have richer members of the city serving on city council. Finally, the city manager favors trained upper middle class candidates; in combination with the other reforms, you’ll have a government almost entirely drawn from the upper echelons of society. Government of, for, and by the people will effectively be eliminated. Or at least the definition of “the people” will have severely changed.

The data for this? Studies in Urban Review by Hajnal and Lewis (2003) and Curtis Wood (2002) confirm earlier studies (such as Karnig and Walter in 1983) that the policies of the National Municipal League depress democracy, rather than expand it. This has been apparent since the 1960s, at least. According to Domhoff, thousands of blue-collar politicians were removed from the roles of government. In an era where the political class is already grossly out of touch with the average person, restricting the ability of the average person to participate in government is not a solution.

There is no doubt that Rhode Island’s entrenched political class has mismanaged the state. This mismanagement is what’s responsible for allowing Central Falls receiver Robert Flanders for being able to suggest eliminating the position of mayor (RI Future’s editor-in-chief Bob Plain has an excellent take on it); and why the Journal (obviously an advocate of such “reform” ideas) has run their article about Chelsea, Mass. Indeed, this mismanagement is the only way by which such “reform” advocates could get their way. But the solution to mismanagement by a political elite isn’t to remove political power away from the people. This will further entrench politics in the hands of the few.

American democracy is supposed to be the realm of the happy amateur. Our founders were often elites; but many of them were also ministers and schoolteachers; people who had no experience in political matters. Later politicians rose from humble beginnings to run our nation. To hand over power to an expensive political class is an affront to the ideal of meritocracy. Elite, administrative, authoritarian democracy is not a solution to Rhode Island’s woes. If you truly believe that voter apathy is a problem, then the managerial model is not your answer.

Our lessons from Chelsea should not be to implement the managerial model of government. It should be to go into underrepresented communities and the rest of the city and have people rewrite their form of government to address the issues important to them. Give people the ability to be part of their government, and they will hold it accountable. Remove them from it, and expect more trouble.

Chafee: State Aid Cuts Put Poor Towns in Peril


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Governor Chafee said state aid cuts to cities and towns is a primary reason Rhode Island's poorest communities are struggling.

Governor Chafee said former Governor Don Carcieri and the General Assembly put struggling communities in peril when they cut some $195 million in state aid to cities and towns.

“It’s no wonder Providence is in trouble, it’s no wonder Pawtucket is having a trouble making payroll, it’s no wonder Central Falls went into bankruptcy,”  he said after speaking at a conference on the state’s economy at Bryant University today. “They just couldn’t sustain those kinds of cuts. There is no property tax base to transfer those kinds of cuts onto.”

Chafee said Carcieri and the General Assembly essentially balanced the state’s budget by taking money away from cities and towns – a move that he said the state’s wealthy communities could withstand but the poorer communities could not.

“I thought it was the path of least resistance,” he said. “That way they could go and say we didn’t raise taxes but at the same time they did raise taxes on the property tax payers of those communities. It was a little disingenuous to say we’re not raising taxes when you are passing it down to the property tax payers of the distressed communities.”

He said he would be unveiling a bill “later this week” that will help Rhode Island’s cities and towns. In addition to including enabling legislation that will allow cities and towns to rework annual pension increases as well as addition funding for local school districts. The additional school spending, he hopes, will be paid for by his proposed increase in the meals and beverage tax.

His bill will also include, he said, relief from state mandates for some of the state’s poorest communities, such as Providence, Pawtucket, Woonsocket and West Warwick. Other communities could be included as well, but he indicated it would not provide mandate relief for every community in the state.

He wouldn’t say which mandates would be included.

“It’s the usual suspects,” he said. “They are the ones that many of the town managers and mayors have been talking about for decades.”

RI Progress Report: How To Avoid School Suspensions

It turns out the easiest way to avoid discipline at local high schools is to be white. Non-white students at urban Rhode Island high schools are more likely to get in trouble than their white counterparts, reports RINPR’s Elizabeth Harrison, even as they make up a much smaller percentage of the student body.

In Cranston, for example, black students racked up more than half of the school expulsions while accounting for just 4 percent of the school’s population. And in Pawtucket, Hispanic students accounted for 2/3 of the in-school suspensions even though they make up just a quarter of the student body.

— Speaking of Cranston, the school custodians there recently agreed to a 15 percent pay cut. The move will save about $660,000 a year. Meanwhile, the school committee there spent about a quarter as much just to defend the prayer banner, a battle they had to know they would eventually lose.

— How has Citizens United changed presidential politics? Already in the 2012 campaign outside groups have spent twice as much as they did in the 2008 presidential campaign.

— File this one under solutions to things that aren’t problems: A bill sponsored by Rep. Karen MacBeth, D-Cumberland, would mandate that any driver involved in an accident that causes serious injury to submit to a drug and alcohol test. Even if the police didn’t suspect they were drinking or using drugs.

Homeless people being used as wifi hotspots at SXSW? That’s worse than we treat the homeless people here in Rhode Island. By the way, one of our contributors, Reza Clifton, will be blogging from the Austin, TX music and think tank expo all week long. Read her dispatches here.

— Classic Rhode Island logic: we hated the idea of having a casino when the Narragansett Indian Tribe thought of it. But as soon as Massachusetts puts a casino plan into action we move ahead with a similar one, but leave the Narragansetts out of the equation. Now the Tribe is suing the state. At least Don Carcieri won’t be sending any state troopers down to Charlestown to settle the dispute…

Projo Pulls Controversial Doonesbury Cartoon


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Providence Journal not only won’t publish a controversial Doonesbury cartoon that is running this week, its editors won’t even talk about it. When I called for a comment on why Garry Trudeau’s latest cartoons, which deal with Texas’ new abortion law, wasn’t in the paper yesterday two different editors hung up on me.

First some background.

Garry Trudeau, the creator of Doonesbury, decided to take on the Texas abortion law that requires women wanting an abortion to undergo, in Trudeau’s words to the Washington Post, “a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand.” As happened in 1985, the last time Trudeau took on the subject of abortion, many newspapers across the country decided not to run the cartoon.

Evidently, the Providence Journal is one of those papers. Instead of running the new, controversial stuff from Trudeau, the Projo ran repeats.

The strip (which runs all week and  you can see here) was not in the Projo this morning, so I decided to call for a comment. I explained to the features editor who I was and why I was calling and he began telling me why they weren’t running the controversial cartoon this week. Then it occurred to him that he was talking to a reporter and he literally hung up on me. I called back but it went straight to his voice mail.

So I called Deputy Executive Editor Karen Bordeleau. I had sent her an email earlier, and since we have known each other for years, she knew right away why I was calling.

“I forwarded your email to the correct person,” she said. “If they want to respond, they will get back to you.”

I began to explain to her what happened when I called someone else for a comment. She said the first person I spoke with didn’t understand he was talking to a reporter. Okay, fair enough, so I asked her another question.

“I think I am going to hang up now,” she said.

And then she did.

So now we don’t know why the Providence Journal didn’t run the cartoon. Did the publisher in Dallas instruct them not to? Did they make an independent decision here in Providence that their Rhode Island readers shouldn’t know what Trudeau thinks about Texas’ new law? Did they just think the old stuff was funnier?

Who knows. Maybe they will tell us on the editorial page later this week…

Brendan Doherty on Newsmakers: How’d He Do


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Brendan Doherty, Republican candidate for U.S. Congressional District 1

Would I vote for retired State Police Colonel Brendan Doherty? Not from what I’ve seen (I also don’t believe that the Republicans have governed their half of the Congress well; though I wouldn’t say Democrats have done much better).

But that doesn’t mean I won’t listen to him before I cast my vote this November in the U.S. Congressional District 1 race. So I’m glad Rhode Islanders got a chance to hear the presumptive Republican nominee on WPRI’s Newsmakers. But how did he do?

Well, appearance-wise, Col. Doherty looks like anyone, though with well-groomed hair. But that could easily be said of the race’s incumbent, Congressman David Cicilline. However, Col. Doherty appeared (to me) to be hunched over during the interview; sometimes it felt like he was bobbing and weaving around the bottom half of the screen.

Furthermore, he could put a bit more attention into his collar; his tie seemed to bulge out around his neck, causing what should be a nice straight collar to ripple, making him look less professional than he probably is.

Those are things his media team/person should cover with him, working on keeping the wardrobe neat and his on-camera appearance level. This race will be covered well, which means that it’s likely Col. Doherty will be on television many times more. Nailing how to position yourself for the camera has been part of the strong politician’s repertoire since Kennedy vs. Nixon. But voters don’t care about appearance, right? After all, they’ll decide this on the issues! Well, WPRI’s Tim White and Ted Nesi, joined by RI Public Radio’s Ian Donnis, have those covered.

Col. Doherty isn’t bad on the first question about why he wants to run. Comments about Col. Doherty when John Loughlin was still seeking the Republican nomination often focused on claiming Col. Doherty was a Democrat in Republican clothing, and to his credit, he hasn’t let that get him. Col. Doherty doesn’t shy away from saying he’ll buck his own party and doesn’t back down from that position despite coming out and saying cleanly that’s he a conservative Republican. He’s free to say that he won’t be beholden to his party now, because he won’t face a primary challenge, but it could’ve hurt him with Republican voters had a primary opponent existed. As it is, it’s decent positioning. It casts him as a Lincoln Chafee-style Republican (circa 2004) while not bringing up Governor Chafee’s name, which isn’t as beloved as it once was in the state.

He flubs the Bush tax cuts question pretty badly. Given the heated nature of the extension, that this is likely to be at least a minor campaign issue. I don’t understand why he says he’s for letting them all (or most of them) expire. There’s a few ways to read that answer:

  1. Col. Doherty doesn’t understand the issue/simply didn’t listen to or understand the question at that moment.
  2. He doesn’t want to stick to Republican orthodoxy.
  3. He’s trying the whole “raise taxes on the poor” message that’s come along in some Republican camps (though letting the tax cuts expire wouldn’t do that, really).

Regardless, it’s not his strongest points. Where I’m with the Colonel is on the following issues:

  1. The Affordable Health Care Act is confusing as hell.
  2. The age for social security kicking in can probably be increased for younger folks, (though I think, at the very least, changing it for high-wage earners might be a good idea).

But then you have the typical avoidance answer of looking at waste and fraud as a way to cut the deficit. Mr. White tries to head that off, but to no avail, that’s the answer Col. Doherty wants to give. Anything else is “on the table” or “for review”. And while that might work for Rhode Island politics, it just doesn’t cut it for national politics. If you’re going to cut, you need to name something. You can practically see the exasperation on the reporters’ faces as Col. Doherty launches into waste and fraud; you can hear it in their responses telling him how often they hear it and just how little it really matters.

His response is pretty typical on Israel. Stock Israel policy; “strongest ally in the Middle East”, “stand with the people of Israel”, etc., etc. Except that he’s been to Israel for a week on counterterrorism training, so that’s at least slightly different. No nuance in the issue.

It’s hard to tell whether his position on President Obama’s contraception policy will hurt him or help him. I’d err towards the former, since a Brown poll found that women and young voters support Obama’s revised policy. Since Doherty is weak with young voters, and since they’ll play a larger part in a presidential election year (though not as strongly as 2008 due to Obama fatigue), he might want to rethink that stance. Couching it as an attack on the Catholic Church is rather nonsensical (Catholics and Democrats have a long-standing historical relationship) but would probably get a lot of support in Cranston. Unfortunately, they vote in CD2.

Col. Doherty appears to inadvertently make a statement which is should hold resonance for recession Rhode Island: that he’s been in hard times. “I know what it’s like to need, I know what it’s like to want,” he says, relating the story of his family becoming poor after being well-off due to family illness, discussing the possibility of losing their house and him being unable to attend then-Bryant College. For people struggling under Rhode Island’s ruined economy, that should be Col. Doherty’s lead-off pitch. Unfortunately, instead of that coming up during a question about the economy, it’s about making compromises and tough choices. While that’s fine, it’s clearly the strongest part of his campaign, and something that could draw a stark line between him and Mr. Cicilline (assuming Mr. Cicilline is the Democratic nominee, as rumblings of a primary challenge still exist).

This is where Col. Doherty could be weak to Mr. Cicilline. Economic arguments should be the focus of this campaign. By weighing in on social issues, Col. Doherty opens himself to attacks along those lines, which distract from the argument that Republicans should be the caretakers of the economy. Take the Tea Party for example. Tea Party members are really just the same social conservatives that have always existed in the Republican Party. But in 2010, they ignored social issues in favor of economic ones, leading to a titanic wave during the midst of the recession. But since that time, the state legislatures they captured have introduced more and more social issues bills, and it’s no surprise that the Tea Party has polled as more unpopular than Atheists and Sarah Palin. Col. Doherty just handed a hammer for any Democrat to hit him with.

Conspicuous in its absence? Providence.