Post prison services would stem system’s revolving door


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 ACI

The ACIThe Rhode Island Department of Corrections is obligated under law to protect the public by providing ex-inmates with treatment in the community to help rehabilitate them as productive members of society. Too often it doesn’t meet this obligation. Inmates who return to difficult and stressful circumstances and lack supportive structures and services are at greater risk for post-prison adjustment problems. More needs to be done to help them.

Right off the bat, the ex-inmate is socially and economically disadvantaged. Secondly, without the direction provided by prison, life outside can quickly become chaotic. Hard tasks of finding and maintaining work, affordable housing, dealing with pre-existing problems, such as drug addiction, mental health, and disgrace of past incarceration lead most to return to drugs to self-medicate themselves right back to prison.

The problem is so bad that the RIDOC and many prison systems are better known for their revolving doors than their rehabilitative services. The inmate goes out and comes right back – over and over again – because they lacked the structure to adjust to the reality of post-prison life. It’s very expensive to keep an inmate locked up in prison. Helping one stay out of prison would surely be cheaper and keep the public safer from crime.

I propose that the RIDOC should offer to provide inmates with post-prison “aftercare.” They should work toward supplying the inmate with a stable environment and structured lifestyle upon release. But don’t stop there. Assist the ex-inmate with initiating a plan and providing support throughout the process.

Providence school busing routes require rethinking


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

School Bus

Last week, more than 60 local students marched in circles around City Hall holding signs that read, “Keep Your Promise,” and “My Feet Hurt.”

The Providence Student Union (PSU) organized the action in protest of Mayor Elorza’s failure to follow through on his campaign promise regarding school transportation to “bring the walking limit to 2 miles, and to grant bus passes to anyone who lives beyond that.” Currently, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) passes only extend to students living farther than 2.5 miles from school. This 2.5 mile radius came after a reduction from a 3 mile radius by former Mayor Angel Taveras via the inclusion of additional funding in the 2014-15 budget, with plans for further reduction of the radius in the 2015-2016 school year. As WPRI reports, as “Elorza and school officials scrambled to close a projected $34.7-million shortfall in the budget year that begins July 1, the $680,000 needed to reduce the distance to two miles was deemed too steep.”

PSU organizer Roselin Trinidad, in an interview with NBC 10’s Bill Rappleye, stated, “Kids have actually told me I’d rather stay at home than walk in the snow because I’m safe. I know I’m not going to slip on the sidewalk. I know I’m not going to get frostbite because I’m home.” And she continued, “the sidewalks are not well plowed, so it forces me to walk on the street. I’ve been lucky so far.” Indeed, the need for a solution to this massive lack of transportation for students who live substantial distances from their schools is incredibly palpable after this past winter, when the unplowed and unsalted sidewalks became dangerous.

It’s a predicament that I myself can relate to: while I don’t attend public school in town, I live exactly 2.5 miles from Brown’s campus where I go to teach and attend classes, and I often walk the distance. Here is the crucial difference: if I get a blister, or my feet hurt, or I’m just exhausted, or there has been a blizzard, I have the option of either taking the bus (which is paid for), getting a ride from my partner, taking a Brown-provided safeRIDE, or driving in my sometimes-functional car. When the streets were at their worst this winter, I walked to campus as little as possible, because I didn’t feel safe walking down the slippery sidewalks, or, worse, down the middle of the street because the sidewalks were too icy or completely unshoveled. Again, I live 2.5 miles from campus, which is relatively far, regardless of whether the city thinks this is a reasonable distance for high school students to walk. I fell one of the few times I did walk this winter, and I heard many stories of fellow students, a number of whom lived much closer to campus, who fell multiple times, often getting injured or bruised in the the process. If Brown students with access to multiple forms of transportation are having trouble getting to school, it is absurd that high school students being asked to make such long treks without access to public transit.

Indeed, the 2 mile mark is not enough, and this seems especially true when the weather turns sour. I say this not solely as a Brown student, but as someone who has attended 8 different public institutions across the grade spectrum, including several public colleges, all of which provided better access to transportation than Providence currently provides its students.

As Elorza himself said while campaigning, “denying students who live between 2-3 miles away from school bus passes impacts learning, impacts health, and impacts safety, and our low-income communities are disproportionately affected.”

Roselin Trinidad’s response as quoted in Bob Plain’s recent RIFuture article seems apt:  “Mayor Elorza pledged that the City would put money in next year’s budget to lower the walking distance for Providence high school students down to 2 miles. Yet his proposed budget does not direct a single dollar toward keeping this promise. It is unacceptable for Mayor Elorza to value our ability to access education before an election, but not after, and we will not quiet down until this wrong has been righted.”

Is there a way to make bussing more sustainable? Can bus passes have some form of nominal fee attached to them that is tiered much like many free or reduced price student meal programs in order to make the program budget-friendly in a way that opens it to students up to the 1.5 or 1 mile mark (according to an RIFuture article from 2014, over half of Rhode Island school districts provide transportation for students living within 1.5 miles, and almost a third of districts provide transportation to students living beyond the 1 mile mark)? Is there a way to expand this program to more students when the weather turns sour for months on end? Can schools do anything in the interim to help students get to their classes like school organized car-pooling?

I think this issue needs to be looked at seriously, and just reducing the limit to 2 miles, while a necessary first step, also leaves many other students still in precarious positions, especially if the city experiences another winter like this last one. Providence’s utter neglect evokes one of those “back in my day” stories where a grandparent describes walking uphill, through the snow both ways, to school. Except the city’s current students experience such ridiculous slogs on a daily basis. Except now, when the the students do get to school, the buildings are often crumbling. Seriously, Providence can do better.

Mattiello’s payday loan position opposed by Catholic ideology


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
Mattiello 1
Nicholas Mattiello

Correction: After this piece was published I received the following communication from Carolyn Cronin, Director of Communications for the Diocese of Providence:

“The article you are referencing in your piece was an editorial in the RI Catholic newspaper.  Bishop Tobin is the publisher, but he does not write or review the editorials. It is a separate opinion of the paper. So to attribute those quotes to him are not accurate. I would appreciate the clarification.”

When I asked Cronin what Bishop Tobin’s views on payday lending are, I received this reply:

“The Bishop supports the traditional teaching of the Church, but has not made any specific statements about pending legislation. Father Healey represents the diocese on this and other issues at the Statehouse.”

The piece below has been modified to reflect the fact that the statements made in Rhode Island Catholic should not be attributed to Bishop Tobin.

I regret the error.

The Rhode Island Catholic newspaper came out against payday loans in an editorial.

After referring to such loans as “heresy” Rhode Island Catholic said, “Usury, the charging of extreme interest, is condemned by Catholic doctrine. Recently Pope Benedict XVI explicitly condemned usury in his encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate. St. John Paul II called usury ‘a scourge that is also a reality in our time and that has a stranglehold on many people’s lives.’”

“Rhode Islanders,” continued Rhode Island Catholic, “especially R.I. Catholics, should stand up against payday lending, the usury of our time. The extremely poor need protections from what appears their only option in a challenging economy. Extreme rates of interests, with little chance of payment in a timely fashion, are not the way to grow a healthy economy. Instead, the poor need regulations against financial charlatans who seek the economic ruin of those on the margins.”

That usurious lending is ideologically opposed in Catholic theology should come as no surprise to Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello, a lifelong Catholic, who continues to oppose reform.

“The case has not been made to me to terminate an industry in our state,” said Mattiello last month, “The arguments against payday lending tend to be ideological in nature.”

This would not be the first time that Mattiello has found himself politically at odds with his putative faith. A Providence Journal report, published shortly after his accession to speaker, says, “A Roman Catholic who for half his life had been a lector at Immaculate Conception Church, in Cranston, Mattiello opposed gay marriage. His view changed, he says, as society became more accepting and the issue became one of equality. Today, Mattiello says his vote to legalize gay marriage is one ‘that I am proud of,’ even though it cost him his lector position.”

Mattiello’s recent statement on payday loans is no different than the view he expressed back in March 2014, when he said, “Payday lending is a hot button issue, but the consumer likes the product. It’s an ideological approach. I will make my decisions based on evidence and how it actually impacts people and our economy. I’ve asked for evidence on that issue in the past in my position as House majority leader and I’ve been promised a dozen times over, and I’ve never gotten evidence on that.”

What evidence Mattiello is looking for is hard to imagine, given that year after year the House Finance Committee hears testimony from the AARP, the Economic Progress Institute, Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, Rhode Island AFL-CIO and the Rhode Island Payday Lending Coalition. These groups present reams of evidence detailing the harmful effects of payday loans to both individuals the state’s economy.

To some, Mattiello’s willful ignorance about the plain evils of payday loans seems predicated on the special relationship he has with the payday loan industry’s paid lobbyist. According to RI Monthly, former Speaker of the House William Murphy, who is the paid lobbyist for the payday loan company Advance America Cash Advance Centers, is “like a brother” to Mattiello. “In 1994, Mattiello ushered at Murphy’s wedding.” In 2006 Murphy encouraged Mattiello to go into politics, starting him on his path to speaker of the house.

One of Speaker Mattiello’s favorite words is “outlier” in that he claims he doesn’t want Rhode Island to be one. “Rhode Island is one of only 13 states with an income tax on Social Security,” said Mattiello, “and I am tired of our state being an outlier.”

Sam Wroblewski, at WPRO, writes, “Mattiello said not assessing fees to out-of-state trucking operations makes Rhode Island an outlier in the northeast.”

One way that Rhode Island is an outlier that doesn’t seem to bother Mattiello is payday loans.

“Rhode Island payday loans are authorized to carry charges as high as 260% APR,” says the Economic Policy Institute, “Payday lenders can charge this rate in Rhode Island because in 2001, payday lenders received a special exemption from the state’s usury laws, making RI the only state in the Northeast to do so. The exemption enables licensed check cashers to make payday loans as at 260% rather than complying with the state’s small loan laws.”

Apparently, being an outlier is okay if one of your best friends is making $50,000 a year.

It seems clear that the day Nicholas Mattiello will allow a vote on the abolition or restructuring of payday lending laws here in Rhode Island is the day that Advance America decides to stop employing Mattiello’s friend Bill Murphy as a lobbyist. Until that day, the poor will continue to be exploited and money will continue to be sucked out of Rhode Island communities.

Catholic ideology be damned.

Rhode Island Factsheet w Supporters

Patreon

Burrillville compressor station buildout for fracked gas exports


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

A grassroots coalition, No Pipeline Expansion (NOPE), stated in a press release issued last Friday that the Department of Energy’s (DOE) approval of Pieridae’s Goldboro liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Nova Scotia, Canada confirms their position that natural gas from Spectra Energy’s northeast pipeline expansions will be shipped overseas.

StopGasExports

 

According to the Goldboro LNG website, the Pieridae “facility is located adjacent to the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, a 1,400-kilometre transmission pipeline system built to transport natural gas between developments in Nova Scotia, Atlantic Canada and the northeastern United States.”  The Spectra Maritimes & Northeast pipeline connects directly to the Spectra Algonquin pipeline in Beverly, MA. Exports by Spectra, assisted by the proposed Kinder Morgan greenfield pipeline and Peabody lateral, could feed most of Pieridae’s needs for gas.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the Spectra Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) Project, the first of three proposed Spectra expansions on the same line, on March 3, 2015. FERC’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project insists that the gas will not be exported, but the approval of the Pieridae project and the statements by the Canadian company reveal the true reason for the huge expansion. “FERC, a Commission funded by fees from the gas and oil industry, has obviously rubber stamped a project that will negatively impact Americans to benefit foreign nations and private corporations,” said Susan Van Dolsen of NOPE. “Many of us raised the issue of export to FERC during the public comment period, but we were told that the expansion was strictly for domestic use. We knew otherwise and this proves we were right.”

Last week, citizens from many states across the country gathered to protest FERC’s rubber stamping and undemocratic processes. #FERCus protestors, as they call themselves, include residents of communities along the AIM route who demand that their health and well-being should not be sacrificed for corporate profit and foreign customers. The protestors also oppose FERC’s approval of the Cove Point LNG export facility in Maryland. Beyond Extreme Energy, qualmless organizer Jimmy Betts said: “The bullying and deceptive tactics of how fracked gas infrastructure projects, like LNG export terminals, are permitted for private profits at the expense of our planet’s water, soil, air, climate, and human and natural rights, should be reason enough to question and ultimately block these devastating fossil fuel follies.”

Support for the Five who were arrested for blocking the FERC crime scene
Support for the five—front row left—who were arrested for blocking the FERC crime scene

The NOPE coalition is made up of grassroots organizations in the four states along the AIM route: New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. After issuance of the FERC Certificate, the coalition filed a Request for Rehearing with FERC on April 2, 2015, raising many serious issues including impermissible segmentation, overbuilding and significant risks to health and safety of communities along the route. FERC issued a tolling order on May 1, 2015, which means the rehearing requests are in limbo. Meanwhile, Spectra Energy began moving forward with preparations to begin construction on the project, despite massive resistance from residents and opposition from many elected officials.

Of particular concern is the new 42 inch diameter high pressure segment of pipeline that is proposed to cross the Hudson River, making landfall in Cortlandt, NY adjacent to the aging Indian Point nuclear power plant and two seismic zones. Pipeline expert Rick Kuprewicz and nuclear expert Paul Blanch have called for an independent risk assessment of the siting of the pipeline next to a nuclear power facility in a densely populated area that includes the largest city in the country. They maintain that the evaluation done by the plant’s operator, Entergy, and confirmed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was inadequate and seriously underestimated the risks.

FERCus banner
FERCus banner: natural gas and atomic energy, a match rubber-stamped by FERC

Furthermore, a new lateral proposed in West Roxbury, MA, would run dangerously near to an active quarry; the City of Boston, Congressman Stephen Lynch, and other elected officials have called for a health and safety review.

The Spectra proposals, called AIM, Atlantic Bridge, and Access Northeast, would significantly increase the volume of fracked gas being transported from the Marcellus Shale through New England, and ultimately send it through the Maritimes & Northeast pipeline to the Goldboro export facility. The NOPE coalition objects to the projects for many reasons, including the risks mentioned above, as well as upstream effects on communities where fracking is occurring and the increase in fugitive methane emissions that contribute to climate change. In addition, ratepayers may bear the costs. “It is a fact that more than half of all the fracked gas moved across Connecticut will be destined for export, according to the US DOE. Yet, our State Senate just voted to force the cost of constructing and operating fracked gas pipelines onto ratepayers. In other words, the customer will pay so that energy companies can export fracked gas and make four times the profit available to them domestically,” says Martha Klein, Sierra Club Connecticut Chapter Communications Chair. NOPE is outraged that FERC is placing local communities and the global climate at risk for the benefit of foreign nations and corporate profit.

Protest at National Propaganda Radio, aka Gas Commercial Central
FERCus Protest at National Propaganda Radio for Fracked Gas

It has been known for a long time that natural gas was meant for export. The American Gas Reporter had a cover story in May of 2013 that by 2017 “U.S. gas imports from eastern Canada will have completely flipped to exports.”  Members of our political class have been rather slow in understanding how they are being used by energy industry insiders.  It took 16 U.S. Senators until February of this year to express concern about the pace at which the U.S. Department of Energy is approving natural gas exports “at the expense of households and industries that will suffer from higher natural gas and electricity prices.”

Governor Gina Raimondo, who enjoys the support of donors from Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital and JPMorgan Chase, supports the AIM pipeline expansion project.  Blanking on exports, she said in a press release of April of this year:

I am committed to moving ahead with cost-effective, regional energy infrastructure projects – including expansion of natural gas capacity – that will improve our business climate and create new opportunities for Ocean State workers.

Of course all these politicians agree that it is necessary to destroy the global climate to save the local economy.