Place an Ad in RIFuture’s Progressively Romantic Valentine’s Gift Guide


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

valentine-day-img01

Are you looking to make some profits from the Valentine’s holiday and need to do it on a budget? Are you an artisan or craftsman that can’t afford to advertise in traditional periodicals?

Then look no further than RIFuture’s Progressively Romantic Valentine’s Gift Guide. For a low rate you can either submit your own work or ask RIFuture’s advertising staff to develop one for you. Whether you are a business trying to get your name better-known or a piece-by-piece vendor that looks toward these seasonal sales, we are going to work alongside you to make sure it is worth your while.

Feel free to contact Andrew Stewart at Andrew.James.Stewart.Rhode.Island@gmail.com (please include RIFUTURE Valentines Day Guide Ad in the Subject line). We are still going to have the same advertising rates for our traditional sidebar/banner/mailing list customers, but we will be open to discussions that work for all parties involved. So give it some thought and remember, we reach 70,000 unique visitors per month and our popular email newsletter is sent to 6,500 politically-engaged Rhode Islanders. The organization and its writers have more than 6,000 followers on Twitter and some 3,000 on friends and fans on Facebook.

AARON BRIGGS HOLIDAY RIFUTURE

RIFuture Holiday Ad Your Ad Here

EP City Council members receive mysterious health insurance benefits


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

ResolutionIn 2012, East Providence’s state appointed budget commission voted to end the City Council’s health benefits. At the time East Providence was one of only 9 cities in R.I. that offered health insurance to its City Council members. However, in October of 2015, it became clear that some members of the City Council had started to receive health benefits once again.

During the City Council meeting on October 5th, resident and taxpayer Izilda Teves ​questioned the council as to how the benefits were restored. Mayor T​ommy Rose ​first claimed that it, “was done in a resolution… a while back,” and that P​aul Lemont, ​Acting City Manager, had restored the benefits. Teves then asked if there was a public hearing, and Rose said there was not.

Three Council members opted for health benefits when the rules changed, T​ommy Rose,​ H​elder Cunha, and Timothy Conley​, ​the same three that addressed Teves’ questions.

This month a version of the resolution Rose mentioned began circulating on social media. The resolution seems to grant the City Manager the ability to restore health benefits and reads, “Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of East Providence authorize the City Manager, at his discretion, to restore any departmental cost reductions or non­union, non ordinance based benefit reductions, including City Council health care benefits that the Budget Commission resolved.​”

However, the version of this resolution at City Hall does not include the language granting the City Manager the ability to restore health care benefits, nor does the version that appears in the meeting minutes, the Resolution Book seen here.

Resolution 9 was approved during a City Council meeting on June 16th, during which the City Council members opted to suspend the reading of the resolution. All City Council members voted in favor of the resolution.

For a sitting City Council and/or the City Manager to grant benefits to themselves is a dubious practice. According to the City Charter, Council compensation is supposed to be changed by ordinance and take effect for the following term. Spending ​almost $50,000 on benefits for Council members should be a matter of public debate.

Some East Providence residents on the East Providence – Townie Civic Discussion Facebook group say this incident once again raises red flags regarding the city’s management of personnel issues.  Recent allegations of racially biased city hiring practices, ​the poor decisions that lead to the almost hiring of the Dancing Cop and the problematic hiring of a new Town Manager without the qualifications mandated by the City Charter all contribute to an air of incompetence if not illegality.

Before trust in the City Council erodes completely, a proper investigation into the source of these new health benefits must be conducted.

Transgender oral history project in RI


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

2000px-Transgender_Pride_flag.svgEarlier this year, Frank V. Toti, Jr. previewed his play TRANS*, based on the oral histories taken from trans* people by Steven Pennell at the Paff Auditorium at the URI Downtown Campus. That performance, featuring Pennell, Cynthia Glinick and Cody Suzuki was a fantastic showcase of some of what this community faces on a regular basis.

See a work-in-progress performance of ‘Trans’ at URI Providence

Now Pennell has put out an appeal to the community looking for more oral histories.

The plan is to gather more interviews from people in the local Trans Community. The stories shared with me will be audio recorded. The information can be open or kept anonymous (if the individual wishes it to be), they will be transcribed and become an available resource for education and understanding. I will then create a performance work…to share some of these stores at the URI Providence Campus where I curate exhibits and create performances on topics of diversity social justice. It is my hope to have members of the Trans community present the stories in performance, and potentially to tour the play into the community to increase awareness and understanding.

This is the tenth such project that the author has conducted over the past two decades, including work with survivors of the Nazi holocaust and the wider LGBTQQI community. Those who are interested in participating can reach Pennell at uri.artsandculture@gmail.com.

kaGh5_patreon_name_and_message

Flawed Proposal: Background info on National Grid’s liquefaction proposal


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 Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (EJLRI) has created a position paper, “National Grid’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction Facility: Toxic Hazards in the Port Providence: Proposals for a Just Transition” that eviscerates National Grid‘s plans to build a new liquefaction facility for fracked LNG at Field’s Point in South Providence. Over the next few days RI Future will be presenting EJLRI’s paper in its entirety.

Introduction

EJLRI01

This document is a detailed response to the many reasons to oppose National Grid’s proposal to build a $100 million Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) production plant in the Port of Providence. This project (also known as the “Fields Point Liquefaction Facility”) is costly and dangerous, and it is being planned for an area with many existing environmental justice concerns.

Beyond the obvious problem of having ratepayers (all of us) pay the bill for National Grid to benefit their own bottom line, there many specific concerns about the project. This report groups these concerns into the following major categories:

●  Flawed Proposal: Background info on National Grid’s unnecessary project

●  Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

●  Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

●  Climate Change: it causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

●  Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

●  Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

●  Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice & a Just Transition

The goal of this report is to make the case for organizations, businesses, residents, agencies, and public officials to join us in rejecting National Grid’s proposal, and supporting the alternatives and solutions highlighted at the end of the report.

Background on National Grid’s proposal

According to National Grid, their proposal to build a Liquefied Natural Gas production facility in South Providence in necessary, safe, clean, and will have no major negative impact. We disagree on all these counts, and explain why throughout the remainder of this report.

National Grid’s case for the project is available on their website. National Grid needs to get approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and all of the documents submitted by National Grid and comments from any other stakeholder are available on FERC’s website under Docket # PF15­28 (Search at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/) . Since National Grid’s perspective is detailed on websites, media stories taken directly from company press releases, and in hundreds of pages sent to FERC, we won’t use much space here describing their project proposal.

The main points are:

●  Instead of delivering LNG to the storage facility in Providence via truck, National Grid wants to build a $100 million facility to produce LNG directly from a Spectra Energy pipeline that delivers gas from Marcellus Shale (Pennsylvania) to Providence.

●  LNG is produced by cooling natural gas (methane) to ­260 degrees, which reduces its volume by 600 times and puts it into liquid form

●  LNG is currently only needed in RI for up to 9 days each year

●  National Grid would then use LNG tanker trucks to export the LNG produced in 
Providence to other locations in Rhode Island and Massachusetts

●  The production facility would require a gas compressor station and an electrical cooling 
system that would use 15 Megawatts. (for reference, this is half of the 30 megawatts that Deepwater Wind will generate off the coast of Block Island)

There is no justified need for the project.

According to National Grid’s own information, the existing LNG storage is only used up to 9 days each year, and is less than half of the gas used even on the coldest days with the highest demand. National Grid says the requests to increase the supply of LNG come from two storage customers: Narragansett Electric Company and Boston Gas Company. Both of these companies are subsidiaries of National Grid.

National Grid’s “Public Participation Plan” is incredibly flawed.

In the document submitted to FERC, there are no actual community groups on their listing of Environmental, Community, and Neighborhood Stakeholders. The only two groups included, the South Providence Neighborhood Association and the Washington Park Neighborhood Association, don’t actually exist. When questioned about this, National Grid’s spokesperson David Graves responded that “The stakeholder list was first developed when both of these groups were active in the 
neighborhood” which is also false, since neither group has ever existed. David Graves also stated that National Grid “[has] not been successful in locating any other neighborhood groups in the area that have an organized board of directors or a published list of officers and, to my knowledge, we have not been contacted by any neighborhood groups asking to be included in the list of stakeholders.” This is despite the fact that there are many thriving organizations in Providence, including three local groups that came to National Grid’s Open House on August 13, 2015 to speak out against the project (PrYSM: Providence Student Youth Movement, PSU: Providence Student Union, and EJLRI: Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island).

There were numerous articles written about the protest at the open house. (See: here, here and here.)

National Grid’s internal review and list of impacted stakeholders is flawed and limited in multiple ways. Most of their documents only refer to a 1⁄2 mile radius from the project, at some points only a 1⁄4 mile. Within this range are mostly other industrial projects and businesses, with only a few residential buildings considered. National Grid suppressed the addresses of who they have contacted, but stated they sent letters to affected landowners within 1⁄2 mile, which would only include industrial businesses and some landlords (not rental tenants). The required public Open House, held on August 13th 2015, was not well advertised. The time and date were printed once in the Providence Journal in July as part of the initial press release, but the time and date were not listed on National Grid’s project website, which just listed the Open House as being “in August” and required emailing National Grid to ask for time and date.

At the time of the Open House, the website and all materials were only in English, despite the fact that Spanish is a predominant language in the community where the facility is being proposed. It appears that National Grid has not made any effort to actually engage the community. Those community members who did participate in the poorly promoted Open House were racially profiled and threatened by an excessive police presence and were ignored by National Grid in later correspondences with FERC and media inquiry.

In order to understand the impact of the project on the neighboring community, the analysis must use a radius of at least 1 mile from the proposed site. Cumulative impacts and evacuation plans for potential disasters must consider at least a 2 mile radius. Given the demographics of the community and the concentration of other industrial activity at the location, a full analysis of the cumulative impacts must be included, and issues such as public health, climate change, and environmental justice concerns need to be analyzed in depth.

Next: Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area