Dave Fisher To Run for Woonsocket Mayor


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

Dave Fisher, campaign manager for congressional candidate Abel Collins and former editor at ecoRI.org, announced on a new blog today that he plans to run for mayor of Woonsocket. The site is called Dave Fisher for Mayor of Woonsocket.

“I really believe we can stop the downward slide of the city of Woonsocket by providing some new leadership and fresh ideas at the local level,” he said in a YouTube video posted to the blog. “It pains me to see the decline of this city that I grew up in that I have so much pride in.”

He also speaks of recreating a culture that values diversity, arts and public education. He does not mention if he will seek the support of the Democratic Party, which is traditionally conservative in Woonsocket. Fisher managed Collins campaign for CD1. Collins ran as an independent.

In his first blog post, he takes aim at current Mayor Leo Fontaine.

Fisher is best known as a local progressive journalist who has authored several posts for RI Future and many for EcoRI, where he served as an editor prior to working for Collins.

Business Community Gets Behind Marriage Equality


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

From big city chief executives to small town chambers of commerce, the Rhode Island business community supports marriage equality, too.

“This is about competitiveness and creating an economic climate that allows Rhode Island to attract the best and brightest talent and employers,” said Alan Hassenfeld, former CEO of Pawtucket-based Hasbro, in a statement released today. “To be competitive, a state must create an equitable, fair and respectful environment for all of its citizens. From a business point of view, passing marriage equality just makes good sense.”

Rhode Islanders United for Marriage Equality announced today that “In recognition of the significant and positive impact marriage equality will have on the Ocean State’s economy, leaders from across the state’s business community today announced the launch of Rhode Island Business Leaders for Marriage Equality.

The most politically significant member might well be the Newport County Chamber of Commerce’s support. This means Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed will have to choose between her religion and her constituent’s economic interests when she weighs whether or not to support same sex marriage.

“The Newport County Chamber of Commerce said it best: Without marriage equality, Rhode Island puts itself at a significant economic disadvantage by not recognizing and respecting all loving, committed couples in the Ocean State,” Sally Lapides, president of Residential Properties Ltd, said in a statement. “Ours is the only New England state without marriage equality, and Rhode Island firms are losing business. That’s why we need the General Assembly to pass this important legislation.”

Another influential member of the business group for marriage equality is Providence Journal publisher Howard Sutton.

You can see the entire list here and pledge your support.

Why Leaving RI To Save Tax Dollars Is A Bad Investment


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

Anyone who leaves Rhode Island for a better life, god bless. Anyone who leaves to save money, good riddance. And to anyone who would confuse the two, get real.

As the progressive left in the Ocean State calls on the General Assembly to reverse the Carcieri-era tax breaks for the rich, the best defense the right has come up with is that the affluent will move away if we ask them to pay their fair share. While I’m fairly confident most folks are smart enough not to make such life-altering decisions based on the singular factor of tax rates, for those of you who aren’t, here’s a personal story for you:

When I was in elementary school, my parents split up and my dad lost his job. My mom, who worked at Bostitch, could no longer afford our big fancy house and our affluent lifestyle in the suburbs of East Greenwich. So she had a choice: she could either move us to a different community, where her meager salary would go much farther, or we could continue to struggle to get by in EG.

My mom, easily the wisest social scientist I have ever known, decided to keep us here. We moved to a smaller house but stayed in town. From our new home, I could almost see Warwick from the back yard, it was right there on the other side of Post Road less than a half mile away.

We could have moved there, too, and at a fraction of the cost. But my mom wanted to keep us in East Greenwich schools, which were already regarded as head and shoulders better than our neighboring communities. (This was the first generation in 100 years of Bostitch employees who didn’t by and large live in East Greenwich … now the manufacturing plant is still here but is virtually devoid of jobs.)

I’m quite pleased with my mom’s decision to keep us in East Greenwich even though it cost her more A LOT more to do so. So is she, as are my brother and sister. Interestingly, the four of us are pretty socially, politically and economically diverse, and perhaps the one thing we all agree on is that staying here was well worth the investment.

Now, you can argue that East Greenwich to Warwick isn’t the same as Rhode Island to Massachusetts. But you can’t argue that it’s cheaper to live in East Greenwich than it is in Warwick – and that is the argument conservatives are making on migration; not that wealth will cross state lines because it is better elsewhere, but because it is cheaper.

If wealth is moving to neighboring states because it is better there, then Rhode Island has a problem. But if we’re losing wealthy residents because it’s cheaper there, that’s not as bad … Ask anyone in my family and they will tell you those who would make such a short-sighted decision might not be destined to be wealthy forever…

The End of Cod: RI Loses A Natural Resource Economy


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 good old days of the fishing economy off the Grand Bank.

When we think of the Northeast, natural resource economies might not instantly come to mind. But of course the ocean has played a central role to the Ocean State’s economy since the days of Roger Williams. Rhode Island’s rich fishing history has faded significantly in recent decades as the collapse of the cod fisheries has caused severe declines in catch limits.

Reductions of 77% in the Gulf of Maine and 61% off Cape Georges are in order. Many fishermen will lose their jobs. Coastal communities will likely suffer serious economic problems, even if they have developed something of a tourist economy; the ones that haven’t will struggle much more.

Letters to the editor and interviews with workers in recent weeks have demonstrated the deep angst fishing reductions are causing. Take this recent letter to the editor in the Journal. The writer, a fisherman and Ph.D. student working on fisheries, says the reductions reject what his eyes tell him–that there are lots of fish in the sea, forget what the computer models say. The writer struggles with what this means for his family, his future, and his personal identity.

What does it mean to lose a regional identity based around natural resources? Again, while this might not define the Rhode Island economy to the extent it did 50 years ago, for communities in New England that still have active fishing economies, the cultural change can be as devastating as the economic struggles.

As a historian of natural resource economies in the American West, I’ve seen miners in towns like Butte, Montana and Leadville, Colorado struggle to adapt to closure of mines, holding on to their mining identity while other cities in Montana and Colorado create vibrant tourist economies. In my home state of Oregon, loggers turned out of their jobs in the 1980s and 1990s have also found it difficult to thrive in an economy now recast around tourism and high-tech industry. Pockets of poverty surround the supposed hipster paradise portrayed in the TV show Portlandia.

A significant number of loggers and their now-grown children have created a new way to live off the land: by growing marijuana or producing crystal methamphetamine under the forest cover. Ranchers around the West find themselves selling their cows and property, unable to compete with big industrial cattle operations and instead dividing their property into housing developments.

There’s no easy answer to the economic or cultural adjustments required when people get thrown out of their job by resource depletion, globalization, or other developments out of their control. Loggers blamed environmentalists, even though environmental regulations played a relatively small role in the timber industry’s decline. Ranchers blame government regulations on grazing national forest land and now fishing communities blame government bureaucrats and arbitrary regulations.

Again, the loss of cultural identity through work is a hard blow to take. But there is precedent for the federal government to assist workers who lose their jobs because of environmental restrictions. The 1978 expansion of California’s Redwood National Park led to the unemployment of loggers. Rather than leave them to their fate without government assistance, labor unions, environmentalists, and the federal government created the Redwood Employee Protection Program which provided significant payments to workers displaced by the shuttered mills. They received direct payments from the federal government until 1984 to build a bridge until they could find other work. The generosity of this was controversial–President Carter himself was quite skeptical when he signed the bill. And in many ways it didn’t work that well. There were battles over who should qualify–were the mills shutting down because of a lack of timber or because of globalization and mechanization? Moreover, there were some disappearing funds and management issues. We don’t need to get into these details now. What’s notable though is that at least one time the federal government decided to expand the welfare state, however tentatively, to workers put out of work in order to save rare resources.