Raimondo suggests direct mail, canvassing be included in People’s Pledge


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

raimondo taverasGeneral Treasurer Gina Raimondo is not only interested in coming to the table with her fellow Democrats seeking to be governor and agree to a People’s Pledge, but she’s also upping the ante to include other campaign-related activities like opposition research and door-to-door canvassing.

“Let’s keep all outside money off of the airwaves, out of our mail boxes and away from our phones and doors,” said campaign manager Eric Hyers in a statement released this morning. “We have a historic opportunity to come to an agreement that keeps all third-party spending out of this race and ensures that the Democratic primary for governor is just between the candidates running.”

Hyers suggested all negotiations be public and that it include “a complete ban on any and all outside spending, including advertising by groups that have not endorsed a candidate in this race in order to prevent outside groups from exploiting loopholes” and “cover all TV, radio and web advertising, all direct mail, paid phones, paid canvassers and opposition research.”

Agreeing to limit third party direct mail could hurt Clay Pell, who would seem to have the support of organized labor so far. A limit on canvassing could handicap Angel Taveras, who is said to have an advantage when it comes to boots on the ground.

Hyers said, “Rhode Island can be a national leader in crafting an airtight pledge and we strongly believe that these negotiations should not be conducted behind closed doors.”

UPDATE: Pell spokesman Bill Fischer said in a statement sent out this evening: “Clay Pell believes the impact of Super PAC money on our elections is a serious matter and should be treated as such. This process should be facilitated by Common Cause according to their protocols.  The public will be best served by a deliberate process, not by dueling press releases. It’s hard to imagine that a fruitful discussion can be accomplished with a roomful of campaign operatives playing to the camera, but this is a call best left to John Marion,” said Bill Fischer, Pell campaign spokesperson.”

RI Common Cause Executive Director John Marion said in an email, “Issues of campaign finance have taken a front seat in this election.”

A People’s Pledge is a tool to control outside spending in local elections. First used in Massachusetts, candidates agree to make a donation to their rival’s chairty of choice if an outside group pays for an attack ad. John Marion, of Common Cause RI, and Sam Howard, a contributor to this blog, were first to raise the issue and Angel Taveras was the first candidate to suggest it be used. Since then, Raimondo and Clay Pell have both agreed, while Republicans have been less enthusiastic.

The three Democrats now need to find a time to get together.

“Common Cause is communicating with the campaigns of Clay Pell, Gina Raimondo, and Angel Taveras to try and find a mutually accommodating time to sit down and begin discussion of a People’s Pledge that all three can agree to,” Marion said.

Did the NECAP requirement make a positive difference?


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

What’s likely to happen to the number of students receiving diplomas in Rhode Island at the end of this year?

Even after RIDE’s release of the latest NECAP results, it’s hard to accurately predict the impact of the standardized test requirement for graduation. Historically, we know that over the past four years the percentage has averaged out to slightly less than 92%, with approximately 1,000 seniors dropping out, opting for the GED, or transferring out of state.

But last year 4,159 students failed the NECAP and needed to retake the test to try to get a passing score. Of those students, RIDE reported 1,370 succeeded. Of the remaining 2,789, RIDE reports 154 dropped out. Regardless of these drop-outs, the fall enrollment count for this fall was 10,403, which seems in line with previous fall enrollments. In other words, as RIDE stated, the impact of the testing requirement on grade 11 drop-outs was not much.

If 4,195 students failed last year and 1,370 passed this year, our best guess is that 2,789 students in this class of seniors will not graduate with diplomas. For the sake of simplicity, this number assumes that all students dropping out, moving away from the state, or getting a GED are also students who failed the NECAP on their first try.

This is what that number does to the number and percentage of seniors graduating with diplomas: it decimates them.

necap graph[* Estimates based on number of students from the class of 2014 failing NECAP for the second time (2,789)]

Of course, 2,789 is the number before students begin to take the numerous alternative tests available, including the “min-NECAP”, and activate whatever waiver process their districts have in place to compensate for a failing NECAP score.

Hopefully, the 2,789 number will go down. If districts adopt liberal waiver policies, if could go down considerably.

But from this point on, the picture for these 2,789 students looks like a form of mayhem—they will be searching out opportunities to take a variety of tests, only one of which (SAT math) has its cut-score connected to the NECAP by more than air-thin logic. Or they will be trying to get admitted into a “non-open enrollment college”. Or they will be navigating whatever waiver requirements their district has put in place, which requires them to assemble whatever evidence of academic achievement their district has decided to accept.

It’s not a pretty picture for students from here on, and that’s the larger point.

Students who come from organized, well-resourced districts and have organized, well-resourced parents will do best of all and from there on it’s downhill until the devil take the hindmost.

This is as vivid a picture as possible of why the testing policy fails the mission of our education ideal—to educate all children well and to provide an education that will be the entrée to a productive life and career. Our education system has slowly been moving in this direction by including more and more academically vulnerable students into our enrollments–students with learning disabilities, students who do not speak or write English well, students from families with little of no literacy background.

These students pose a challenge to our traditionally structured education system.

They require especially skilled teachers, special lesson plans, more time, smaller classes and, in general, more resources. But, with more adequate and equitable funding, better teacher professional development, and innovative programming, we have slowly been learning how to help these students be more successful in our schools.

The testing requirement threatens to erode this progress. The scenario most likely to emerge in the next few months–as students try to save themselves–will probably be what happened on the Titanic—most of First Class is saved and most of the others go down with the ship. The irony, and it’s bitter, is that all this is being done in the name for what’s good for kids. Anyone who speaks out against it is branded as being against high standards.

This is truly an Orwellian twist, where what is disastrous for many kids is labeled as good for all kids and where condemning some kids is the prerequisite for saving the rest. And we know who those sacrifices will be, our already vulnerable kids. Go get the low hanging fruit.

Two commercials: SNL spoofs CVS, Alex and Ani spoofs Main Street


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

Alex and Ani wasn’t the only Rhode Island company with a commercial on national television this weekend. The costume jewelry company paid more than $3 million for an ad during the Super Bowl while CVS got a free plug on Saturday Night Live.

Click here if you can’t see the above video.

Both these Rhode Island powerhouses will clean up on Valentine’s Day, but what is even more interesting that CVS and Alex and Ani also both represent the two different kinds of flagships for a neighborhood economy. CVS traffics in convenience and Alex and Ani traffics in style, but one business model or the other usually anchors any successful enterprise zone – be it a Main Street or elsewhere.

But I think the Saturday Night Live spoof on CVS was more honest about that company’s business model than the message Alex and Ani paid local film maker David Bettencourt, senior cinematographer at Seven Swords Media, shot the commercial”to craft for them.

John Feroce's hometown Main Street still looks like this. Wayland Square hasn't since long before Alex and Ani.
John Feroce’s hometown Main Street still looks like this. Wayland Square hasn’t since long before Alex and Ani came along.

Alex and Ani isn’t helping to revive any Main Streets. It’s locating stores on already successful Main Streets. Here in Rhode Island, there are Alex and Ani stores in Wayland Square, Newport and East Greenwich. But there is not an Alex and Ani in West Warwick where Bettencourt shot scenes for the commercial and where company CEO John Feroce grew up.

I’m not suggesting there Feroce should put an Alex and Ani store in downtown West Warwick (though it certainly would certainly help the city’s economy more than it would hurt the company’s profit margin). But it sure does seem like a great argument for state aid to struggling cities if you ask me.

Think about it: West Warwick fits the bill for educating Feroce when he was growing up, but when he becomes a job creator he does so in East Greenwich and pays property taxes on a home he owns on Bellevue Avenue in Newport. That all works out great for East Greenwich and Newport, but not so much for West Warwick. This is Main Street revitalization only if you are okay with the West Warwicks of the world being left behind.

Rebuilding Rhode Island’s Economy, Part 3: Densifying Downtown


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
Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)
Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Recently, it was reported that Providence has the 5th highest residential occupancy rate in the country. This is good and bad news.

The good news is that an occupancy rate of 96.3% represents strong residential demand for Providence (this was validated by the market study of the Superman Building conducted by 4Ward Planning). This is likely because not much has been getting built in Providence since the housing market collapsed in 2006 (notable exceptions are the Providence G and the Arcade micro-lofts; my understanding is that the demand for these units is immense, particularly for the micro-lofts because of their affordability). But the bad news is that a high occupancy rate increases rental prices and is indicative of an undersupply of residential rental units. Between 1980 and today, the city’s population has grown from 156,804 to 178,432, a growth rate of almost 14% (admittedly the population of Providence is still much lower than the high of over 250,000 during the 1930s-1940s).

From my perspective, though, the high occupancy rate is a huge opportunity for Providence and the state. Downtown/urban living is in high demand nationally, and Providence is no exception. Increasing residential density downtown, particularly by building on underutilized surface parking lots, would be a huge boon for the restaurants and retail shops that exist there and will create new vibrancy in an area of Providence that can sometimes seem a little bland. It would also be hugely beneficial for the city as more residential units = more property taxes. I say this BECAUSE residential demand is so strong. If it weren’t, there would be no reason to build.

Providence parking lots
Providence’s parking crisis illustrated. (by: Greater City Providence)

Making downtown Providence a more affordable place to live for young and mid-career professionals who are accessing Boston’s labor market would be a smart investment. I personally live downtown and work in Boston and take the commuter rail for my morning commute (along with hundreds of others). By doing so, I bring in external money into the city and state’s economy (i.e., my wages are paid by a Boston firm, but most of my disposable income in spent in Providence and the rest of Rhode Island). Increasing the supply of residential rental units within walking distance of the Providence train station will generate revenue for the city (via property taxes) and the state (via sales and income taxes).

People smarter than me have suggested that the overall lack of building residential rental units downtown has to do with the high cost of construction (costs are roughly the same as in Boston or Hartford), the ridiculous parking requirements (1.5 spots per residential unit), the height restrictions (most of downtown is limited to 100 or 120 feet), and the relatively modest rents that can be charged for rental units compared to other rental markets (average rental rates for downtown Providence are about $1,300 compared to $2,000 in Boston).

The minimum parking requirement of 1.5 spots per unit is particularly onerous. If we want more walkable neighborhoods, and more cost effective construction, this ordinance needs to be significantly changed. High parking minimums make construction more expensive by having to build garage parking to accommodate automobiles, even for those people (like myself) who do not own a car. These parking garages take up a lot of space and don’t deliver all that much value (a 70 square foot parking space may generate about $100/month while 70 square feet of living space is much more valuable). Further, the excess area required to allow for drive-in and out is simply wasted space.

Providence Zoning
Downtown Providence zoning map.

Similarly, most of downtown is restricted to about 100 or 120 feet maximum height (here’s a link to Providence’s zoning map). Depending on the ceiling height for the residential units, this limits construction to about 8 to 10 stories. If a developer is limited to 10 stories, and is required to put 1.5 spots for every unit, the economics for positive net return become very difficult. Closer to Rt. 95, a developer could build up to 200 feet high, and there is a small section of downtown that is zoned at 300 feet, but is occupied by the Convention Center, the Civic Center (or “the Dunk” as it is now affectionately known), the Omni Hotel, and the Residences. The surface lot across from the Hilton Hotel seems to be the only parcel that could be a prime parcel for a large tower, although its footprint is fairly small. Generally, the higher a developer can build, the more units that can be built, and the less space is taken up by parking, the more residential construction will happen. And an increase in rental housing supply brings down the cost of rental housing, as recently happened in Boston’s Seaport District.

As part of Providence zoning review, hopefully the parking mandate and the height restrictions will change (disappear). I personally like the Miami 21 zoning code that breaks through the rigidity of specifically designated land-use districts (like what Providence currently has) and adopts a form-based code that allows for organic changes in land use based on elements of walkability, the relationship between and among buildings and streets, and transitioning neighborhoods to accommodate growth and change based on what actually makes sense versus being restricted by a particular use that was set decades ago. Providence should really consider this.

Portland (of course) has been excellent when it comes to creating a bicycle friendly city, and it set another high bar for residential density when a 657-apartment project being developed in the Inner East neighborhood just outside of downtown Portland will have 1,200 parking spaces for bicycles rather than the almost 1,000 parking spaces that would be required in Providence. I imagine Providence doing something like this to minimize the wasteful impact of overly abundant car parking and making downtown living an attractive and AFFORDABLE option for all income levels.

But how does it get done? The city can be a partner by helping facilitate zoning variances to reduce the parking requirement and to build taller. To subsidize the cost and make the units affordable for low-income and average people to live there, the developer should access federal Historic Tax Credits and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Building near the train station is ideal since access to Boston’s labor market is a huge incentive. More people living downtown means a more vibrant and commercially dynamic downtown.