Our right to a healthy workplace


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

Workplace BullyingThe following is testimony given before the Senate Labor committee on S2377, the Healthy Workplace Bill.

I wish there were no need to convince anyone that we should all have the chance to work in Healthy Workplaces. It sounds like a no brainer. Of course there should be healthy workplaces. Why do I think there is a need to talk about having them? Don’t we already have them?

We are being ever more productive and successful in our businesses, aren’t we, when many CEO’s are earning billion dollar salaries?

Oh I must be talking about businesses and companies different from that.

Actually, no. In every kind of business, every kind of employee, male, female, of all races and income levels can almost expect at some point to be harassed, humiliated, isolated, mobbed (when coworkers side with the bully against the target), gas lighted (pressured to think that they are no longer competent), have their work sabotaged, have lies told about them, have black marks falsely made against their records, be screamed at and excoriated in public or behind closed doors with great regularity followed by being wrongfully terminated.

After such vicious attacks, people are having and often dying of heart attacks, strokes and even committing suicide. There is no quality of life in our workplaces where these toxic conditions exist despite the corporate slogans to achieve, be the best you can be, do more-better- faster.

There is great denial about this happening and there is great misunderstanding about why.

A lot of people think that bosses need to be tough on employees; that employees are by and large lazy and unmotivated, but this simply is not true. In any case, treating people with ever increasing cruelty does nothing for their productivity and therefore the productivity of any business.

The problem as I see it is that money has become our sole indicator of success along with a top down approach to management. Management likes to promote middle managers who will do what they are told but aren’t necessarily the most competent in the actual field of expertise they are managing.

I believe that when those types of middle managers, or others, see productive people around them but they see their job is solely to control others for the top managers, they can feel incompetent and lash out at their underlings – often in staggering displays of violence – either psychological or actual physical onslaughts which can last years. Extreme bullying can take place as the “control message” is passed from upper management down. For example, I and many others witnessed my manager’s boss scream at my manager full blast for 20 minutes in the open. She and everyone around her were out sick the next day. I felt sick hearing the onslaught.

Both targets of bullying and the perpetrators are terrified of losing their jobs so the bullies attack harder and the targets absorb the abuse, initially too terrified to do much of anything in their attempt to survive.

Families, partners and spouses often measure their successes in money as well, often not wanting to notice the ill health of the person making the money, the stress, nervousness, fear at revealing the problem then cut off if they say anything about being bullied at work. The shame.

It also boggles my mind that so much vicious negative energy is expended to indulge in bullying or what I often call “kick the dog” behavior: “I don’t feel that great but making you cringe might help.”

How could that energy be used, instead, to encourage others toward higher objectives, be actually productive, creative or active in the development of the goals of the manager themselves, their employees and the company? I often wondered what my manager had in mind by attacking me daily with literally hundreds of emails and instant messages per day which delayed getting the clients what they expected.

I personally know of two men here in Rhode Island who died of heart attacks following being bullied out of their jobs before retirement. I witnessed many people who were pillars of Quest Diagnostics in Cambridge get bullied from their jobs just before retirement.  Their fear at being rehired at their age must have been staggering along with the damage they sustained from being in such a hostile work environment for years. Not only that, the spouses of the Rhode Islanders and even family members were unwittingly no help to them as they feared THEIR livelihood threatened by the possible loss of their husband’s job – “Oh stick with it, dear. EVERYONE has a tough boss.” Imagine the pressure – both at home and at work. Compounded. Isolated.

On the other hand, if the spouse, partner or family member IS supportive, then they are volunteering for the extreme roller coaster of the bully’s whims and how it affects the target. Is he or she going to be not so abusive today or will we have to plan to have the target go out on medical leave because of how the inevitable illness of being so harassed presents itself?

Workplace Bullying is an extreme abuse of power and must be stopped – literally –  before more people die.

There was a Vietnam Vet named Ernie LaVoie who worked at the Oxford Public works in Massachusetts. I am told he always had a kind word for everyone. He was routinely harassed for years by his coworkers and managers. Often the nicest people are harassed because they pose no threat. He asked to use a particular piece of equipment in his work, was denied and as an indication he had had it with all the long term abuse, he hung himself on that piece of equipment. He was not weak, disturbed or crazy – the bullies fit those categories. I tell his story to honor Ernie, his friends, coworkers who witnessed and reported his distress and his family.

I lost a dear friend on April 14th in Wisconsin, Cheryll Nelson, who founded a healing group for targets of bullying on Facebook – her own family and husband did not believe she was going thru what she was experiencing. She could not keep up with the demands of two jobs rolled into one at the school where she was the speech therapist and Medicaid biller – not how her job was presented to her originally. She lost track of her health in her attempt to keep up with her work and died after her heart stopped while in a medically induced coma for her out of control pneumonia. She wrote a letter to her manager that she never sent but we in the group got it. Once she died one of our members sent it to the bully. At Cheryll’s funeral, the bully accosted her family who then attacked all of us verbally.

I know personally a man at my church here in Rhode Island who, along with many other teachers at the same school, was taken from his job on a stretcher.

Of course, I need not tell anyone that this should not be happening. What I AM asking is for you to help me and help all of us stop this inhumane activity by giving legal recourse to targets of bullying as presented in S2377 the Healthy Workplace Bill.

If this is what it takes to motivate employers to start treating employees like the valuable producers of the very goods and services that make the company, healthcare organization or business successful, then this is what we must do.

Our conscience, people’s lives and the health of our country demand it.

Safer Rhodes Coalition visits Mattiello’s parish advocating for driver’s licenses


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
13173986_10209480191272064_1359602808062318864_n
Community members advocating for H7610. Photo by Chris Coughlin.

On Sunday, just days after celebrating Rhode Island’s independence, community members, students and undocumented workers part of the Coalition for Safer Rhodes went to the Mother’s Day service at Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s Immaculate Conception Parish to reiterate the support of Bishop Tobin regarding House Bill 7610. The legislation would allow undocumented workers to obtain a limited driver’s license.

“Our Holy Father reminds us that he himself is the son of a immigrant family, and he has urged American’s to welcome immigrants into our midst.” –Bishop Tobin

Undocumented labor, faith and the student community called on parishioners of the parish and Speaker Mattiello to recognize the need for limited licenses for the undocumented community, and the need for the General Assembly to pass H7610. Flowers were delivered to all parishioners who are mothers as a sign of solidarity among every Rhode Island family, and as a wish that every family live in security and freedom.

From an RI Jobs with Justice press release

Raimondo agrees to meet with Burrillville residents about power plant


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

2016-05-09 Raimondo in Warwick 007Governor Gina Raimondo agreed to meet with Burrillville residents about the proposed Invenergy power plant Monday evening after Kathy Martley, a Burrillville resident and founder of BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion) invited her. Raimondo was in Warwick, at the Veterans Memorial High School, as part of her “series of community conversations” around issues of job training. As the question and answer period began, Martley rose to give the Governor a flower and a card and invite her to Burrillville to discuss the power plant.

“We have a lot of worries about it,” said Martley.

Raimondo took Martley’s card and said, “Yes. I will do it… if you will host me at a community meeting in Burrillville I’d be very happy to do it.”

Raimondo has been an unwavering supporter of the fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant since the plan was announced back in August of last year.

Rep Shekarchi
Rep Shekarchi

Before the event started, outside the entrance to the school, members of BASE approached Representative Joseph Shekarchi, who doesn’t think the RI House will be voting on the plant, but said he is very close to Burrillville Representative Cale Keable and that he would support Keable’s opposition to the plant. Keable, along with Burrillville State Senator Paul Fogarty, wrote a strong letter to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) in opposition to the plant. The EFSB has the ability to approve or reject Invenergy’s application.

In a Facebook post Keable wrote:

I have been exploring legislative possibilities with the State House legal staff. As the application has already been submitted, there are significant legal hurdles to simply “stopping” the plant. There is no doubt we could seek to change the law for future applications. We will continue to explore all possibilities. Legislation will be introduced shortly and there will be a public hearing scheduled at the State House. We are looking at requesting this hearing on the same day as a planned rally at the State House designed to let the Governor hear our voices. More on that as soon as I know.

On Tuesday, May 10 the EFSB will be holding the second half of its first public commentary hearing, starting from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM in the Burrillville Middle School Auditorium, 2200 Broncos Highway, Harrisville.

On Wednesday, May 11 the Burrillville Town Council will have its regular meeting at 7:00 PM in the Town Council Chambers, 105 Harrisville Main St., Harrisville. It is unclear whether any of the business or public comment will concern the proposed power plant.

2016-05-09 Raimondo in Warwick 000

2016-05-09 Raimondo in Warwick 001

2016-05-09 Raimondo in Warwick 002

2016-05-09 Raimondo in Warwick 004

2016-05-09 Raimondo in Warwick 005

2016-05-09 Raimondo in Warwick 006

Patreon

Why Democrats are as much to blame as GOP for Donald Trump


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

IMG_1093Every night the “experts” on cable news explain how the Republican Party has failed to stop the unanticipated rise of Donald Trump. Everything on the excuse spectrum from simple ignorance to absolute culpability.

They claim that the establishment Republicans did not take Trump seriously. His candidacy was looked at by many as an over the top public relations stunt, an attempt to sell more books and remain relevant in the field of popular culture. His rivals failed to attack him early and often enough. The media gave him an astronomical amount of coverage. Perhaps the most practical explanation for the rise of Donald Trump, is the complete failure of the Republican party establishment to recognize the level of anger in their own party.

Some in the Republican base have undoubtedly pledged themselves to the dangerously extreme, fact-free movement fueled by the rise of right wing media. They truly believe that President Obama was born in Kenya, or that climate change was invented by the Chinese in order to ruin the United States economy. It is no coincidence after all, that many listeners of Alex Jones have been represented at Trump’s rallies across the country.

But what about your college educated neighbor, the one who almost exclusively votes Democrat and the last person you would expect to support a candidate like Donald Trump? We have all, at some point during this exhausting primary process, been completely shocked when one of our otherwise sensible friends or co-workers admits he or she has jumped on the Trump bandwagon. After all, isn’t he a know-nothing bigot that stands for everything that the great United States of America is not?

Yes. But those criticisms ignore the most important point of the entire nominating process in 2016. Trump is not one of them. He is not one of the politicians that has continued to worship at the church of “trickle down economics” long after it has been debunked. He has not continuously supported global trade agreements written by powerful corporations that provide a select few of the world’s elites with the large majority of resources leaving billions to compete for the scraps. He was not in a government that allowed millions of jobs to go oversees and he was not in charge when Wall Street nearly wrecked the global economy with corrupt and illegal behavior, only to be bailed out using tax payer money. So while it is more than probable that he is everything his critics describe him as, in the eyes of a Trump supporter one all important fact remains. He is not one of them.

Democrats have become one of them, too.

IMG_1094For the better part of three decades, the Democratic party has undergone a complete ideological shift. The Party of F.D.R that championed the labor movement of the 20th Century has, for the most part, abandoned the millions of people it once regarding as its core constituency.  It has been hijacked by a band of intellectual elitists and self proclaimed experts. It is a party that has come to worship education and status, and dismisses anyone who is not part of the exclusive club.

The ideology of professionalism, as author Thomas Frank has labeled it, has become the very essence of a party that was once represented by a president who famously said he welcomed Wall Street’s hatred. Instead, today’s Democratic Party is represented by presidential candidates that are far more more likely to welcome Wall Street’s money than its hatred.

The most consequential period of economic deregulation in modern history took place during the Clinton Administration. By 2008, Senator Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to out-raise his Republican rivals on Wall Street. The promise of “hope and change” was quickly rescinded when President Obama appointed infamous members of the financial industry to vital cabinet positions early in his presidency. By 2010, most of the passion and excitement produced by candidate Obama was a distant memory to most liberals. Hilary Clinton refuses to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches for which she was paid a grotesque amount of money.

In a recent speech in Indiana, Bernie Sanders appropriately asked hose side are we on. “Are we on the side of working people or big money interests? Do we stand with the elderly, the sick and the poor or do we stand with Wall Street speculators and the insurance companies?” A profound question that would not have been considered 30 years ago and until recently had been completely ignored.

Both parties have discarded the working majority of this country, and Donald Trump has mistakenly become the candidate for many blue collar citizens left to fend for themselves. He took full advantage of the vacuum left created when Democrats ceased representing the people. Trump’s ascendancy has been inevitable for decades. And for millions of desperate Americans, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Rhode Island’s economy needs a workers’ agenda


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

This is a really important video.

The Economic Progress Institute‘s Douglas Hall does four things in the video below. First he gives us a basic, overall big picture economic context, then he “drills down further” into the economy of Rhode Island. Then we’ll see, in big pieces, what a “workers’ agenda” might look like before finally recapping some of the good things done in our state towards advancing a workers’ agenda.

Hall gave the talk as an introduction to The State of Working Rhode Island: Workers of Color, that “highlights the many challenges facing Rhode Island workers, showing the many areas where workers of color fare less well than others.” For more info see here.

Douglas Hall, Ph.D, is the Director of Economic and Fiscal Policy at the Economic Progress Institute. The video was prepared from the talk Hall gave at the 8th Annual Policy and Budget Conference on April 26, 2016, and the Powerpoint slides he prepared.

Rhode Island's economy needs a workers' agenda

Patreon

Cathie Cool Rumsey is officially challenging Sen. Morgan


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

cool rumseyIt’s official. Cathie Cool Rumsey is challenging Senator Elaine Morgan for the State House seat she lost to Morgan last election. RI Future was the first to report this in November, after Morgan made derogatory comments about Muslims, but Cool Rumsey confirmed it for the rest of Rhode Island with a news release last week.

“My record shows I took the job of state Senator very seriously,” said Cool Rumsey in the release. “I worked hard for the benefit of all the citizens of my District and the state. I sponsored bills that became law and helped hard-working families and vulnerable children as well as bills that improved the economy, health care system and the environment.”

In 2014, Cool Rumsey lost to Morgan, a conservative Republican, 52 to 48 percent with approximately 10,000 people voting. Senate District 34 is comprised of parts of Charlestown, Exeter, Hopkinton, Richmond and West Greenwich.

“Unfortunately there are few ‘quick’ fixes for the many issues facing Rhode Island but I know that although the problems Rhode Island faces may be difficult and challenging to solve – they are still solvable,” Cool Rumsey said in her release. “Making snap judgments or parroting the ‘party line’ on serious, complex issues is not what is best for our district and it does not serve the people of Rhode Island.”

Senator Morgan made her path to reelection more difficult in November when she suggested in an email that Muslim refugees be kept in camps. “The Muslim religion and philosophy is to murder, rape, and decapitate anyone who is a non Muslim,” she wrote in the email that attracted scorn and ridicule from all over the nation.

More information on Cool Rumsey and Morgan.

New York and California divested pensions from hedge funds, can 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

California, the state Gov. Gina Raimondo was visiting for a fundraiser to promote her pension policies, and New York have recently divested from high-risk, high-cost hedge funds like those the Rhode Island fund invests in.

One New York City official in an April 14 Reuters story said of hedge fund managers, “Let them sell their summer homes and jets, and return those fees to their investors.”

The board of the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) voted to leave blue chip firms such as Brevan Howard and D.E. Shaw after their consultants said they can reach their targeted investment returns with less risky funds. The move by the fund, which had $51.2 billion in assets as of Jan. 31, follows a similar actions by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers), the nation’s largest public pension fund, and public pensions in Illinois. “Hedges have underperformed, costing us millions,” New York City’s Public Advocate Letitia James told board members in prepared remarks… NYCERS had $1.7 billion invested in hedge funds at the end of the second quarter 2015, according to its financial report. That amounted to 2.8 percent of total assets and was the smallest portion of its ‘alternative investments’ portfolio, which included $8.1 billion in private equity.

hIFE24_8_400x400This begs the question: when will General Treasurer Seth Magaziner do likewise?

To help me parse through this further, Ted Siedle, who is now working on his third forensic audit of the pension, this time dealing with the real estate investment portfolio, sat down with me for an interview. He compared the pension scheme to “nothing Buddy Cianci would have ever dreamed of.”

Click the player below to listen to my full interview with Siedle

“My sense is that, from some some comments I have seen attributed to Seth Magaziner, is that he is preparing to distance himself from at least the Governor’s hedge fund gamble with pension assets. So it appears that he is moving from a ‘stay-the-course and incrementally fire poor performing hedge fund managers and replace them with promising hedge fund managers and make the case that the good outweighs the bad’, moving to an approach where he says either he will abandon the hedge fund strategy altogether or, going forward, or he will jettison perhaps half of the hedge funds and keep the remaining.

Siedle added, “But I think he’s making noises like he may make a bolder move to distance himself from the investment strategies that the Governor implemented. I think that Magaziner is heading in a better direction. I am not hearing a clear indication that his predecessor was wrong about anything and his predecessor was wrong… The massive benefit cuts and the massive investment in speculative hedge funds, high-risk high-cost hedge funds and private equity funds, was a foreseeable disaster, it was foreseen by me, I wrote about it before the strategy had been even fully implemented. Warren Buffett warned this was something that should not be done.”

Projected savings from pension cuts could soon be evaporated by poorly performing hedge funds, Siedle said.

“The benefits were cut to save $2 billion over the next twenty years. Within four or five years … the pension’s lost probably about $2 billion. So all of the projected savings have been, I suspect … will have been eliminated by foreseeable losses. So this has been probably the most disastrous investment decision ever made in the history of Rhode Island.”

He said, “So what I would submit a responsible, courageous State Treasurer would do would to be to call out that this was a horrific mistake, but I’m not hearing that. I’m hearing a distancing but not a mature, responsible response.”

To further clarify what Siedle feels about Magaziner’s time on the job, just look to his recent writings for Forbes:

At 31, Magaziner—lacking any meaningful investment experience—somehow convinced voters in 2014 that he could competently oversee the massively underfunded, embattled $7 billion state pension. Talk about chutzpah—a kid whose personal income the year before assuming office was reportedly approximately $5,183 (yet he somehow loaned his campaign $550,000)… Not only has Magaziner failed to follow through on his transparency promises, despite five years of dismal hedge fund performance at the pension he oversees, he remains committed to Governor Raimondo’s secretive, costly deal with Wall Street.

kaGh5_patreon_name_and_message

Privatizing our water neither responsible nor just


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

Providence City HallLast week Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza, based on recommendations from the National Resources Network, explored the idea of selling the water supply board as a way to remedy the city’s financial woes. While I am sympathetic to the challenge of meeting the Providence’s financial obligations, I believe that privatizing water is a dangerous option and should be abandoned immediately. Water is a public good and a human right, and does not belong in the hands of private companies.

We need look no further than the recent disaster in Flint, Michigan, for examples of how private involvement with a public good can be perilous. The Flint story, at the outset, sounds a lot like Providence’s—a broke city government, needing desperately to save money, ended its contract with the Detroit Water and Sewage Department and changed its water source. Nearly a year before the news broke of the widespread lead poisoning, the world’s largest water corporation, Veolia, had judged the water safe. The city of Flint had hired Veolia to evaluate water quality, and Veolia’s report didn’t mention the lead that made thousands ill. Veolia is a company—its first concern is making money, not public health. Those who paid the price were the residents, particularly the children.

2015-11-30 World AIDS Day 006 Jorge Elorza
Elorza

Or there was the case of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Between 1999 and 2000, tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets in response to at attempt to privatize the municipal water company. The so-called “Water Wars” put Cochabamba on the map, because the local government sold its values short in trying to make a buck off of the most basic human need. (The citizens prevailed, by the way, after five months of clashes with the police. Privatization was reversed).

Flint and Cochabamba are two examples, but there are many reasons to be skeptical of privatization. On average, privately owned water systems charge 59% more than publicly owned systems. This amounts to a difference of $185 in water costs per year, which can represent a substantial percent of someone’s income, especially if that person is in a lower income bracket.

More broadly, to privatize a public resource relinquishes control over a vital public good. To privatize would limit public accountability—corporations are accountable to their stockholders above all, not to the citizens of Providence. And it follows that the objectives of a profit making water company can, at times, conflict with the public interest. Do we really want to put ourselves in this type of situation?

Six years ago, the UN General Assembly declared that access to clean drinking water was a human right. As climate change makes accessing fresh water progressively more difficult, we will have to be particularly thoughtful about how we manage one of our most precious resources. Privatization is neither responsible nor just.

The parking tax: How to tax the rich, and get away with it


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

freparkingIt’s hard to tax the rich at the local level. The area within the borders of a local community is small, and tax avoidance becomes a game to people with money. One need simply relocate a block across the border to smack back at most local popular efforts. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying it’s true. But there is a way to tax the rich in Providence, and get away with it.

Taxing parking might seem like another consumption tax, but it’s not. It’s a Robin Hood tax– and one that even businesses should be in favor of.

Why? A great piece on this appeared in Greater Greater Washington just a year ago. It points out, for instance, that the tax write-off for paid parking is larger than the one for transit, meaning that commuters who pay for parking already get a direct subsidy to repay themselves. But it also points out an even deeper point about the marketplace for (garage and lot) parking in cities.

Parking acts as an oligopoly more than many other markets, so (in garages and pay lots) it’s being sold at the highest bid it can sustain:

[P]arking operators are in the business to make money, so aren’t they already charging as much as the market will bear? In other words, if they could raise their prices when there’s a new tax, why don’t they just raise their prices now regardless?

Well, isn’t that true of all markets? But in most markets, competition drives down the prices of goods. If you’re making more money than a small profit over and above the cost of providing the service, someone else will enter the market too and try to undercut you.

Parking isn’t really a competitive market. In the short run, the supply of parking is absolutely fixed, and there isn’t empty land to turn into new parking in central DC. Also, many people also only really want to park in the building where they work, are going to the doctor, etc. and aren’t shopping around. That’s especially true when a company is buying parking for executives.

These factors make the parking market closer to a monopoly and/or oligopoly, and consequently, the pricing is more at the level that maximizes total revenue in the entire market, a level that’s higher than the perfect competition price.

The GGW piece cited a report commissioned by the Philadelphia Parking Authority in which garage owners complained that they would have to swallow any taxes levied on parking because there would be no one willing to pay a higher price for parking if they tried to pass it to consumers. When your business is an oligopoly, you’re already getting the best price you can, so a tax on your business just means a lower profit margin.

Not everyone buys my notion that keeping the car tax where it is makes sense, though the fourth grade math involved in showing why that tax cut isn’t progressive is pretty straightforward. But everyone agrees (including me) that taxing a person’s car purchase is a type of consumption tax. If the reports on parking are correct, taxing parking lots (and garages) is not. The owner pays. And in Providence, the largest owner of parking lots is one of the wealthiest people in the state: former mayor, Joseph Paolino.

A business argument

I started my argument with the “tax the rich” pitch for the parking tax, because try as I might to convince people otherwise, I’ve still encountered friction from some on the left who think taxing parking is a flat tax on consumers (some people on the left even like the idea that parking taxes are a tax on consumers, saying that it’s a way to get the suburbs to pay their share towards city services they use). But if you’re a local businessperson, you might not care for this argument. Why shouldn’t you be concerned about the parking cutting and running? Isn’t a tax on parking going to drive people away?

Short answer: no.

Parking lots and garages aren’t golden geese. You can tax them, but like all things, their owners have the ability to try to evade taxation. But we shouldn’t be troubled by the this possibility because of the mechanisms involved. The PPA report cited within the Greater Greater Washington piece had garage owners complaining that while they would pay the cost of the tax in the short-run:

In the long run the story is quite different. An increase in parking taxes discourages the rejuvenation of aging facilities, the replacement of facilities lost to development, and the construction of additional facilities. Thus higher parking taxes will decrease the long-run supply of parking, will increase the cost to the public of parking, and will decrease profits to owners of parking facilities.

Further, should an additional parking facility be required, a higher parking tax implies that the facility will require larger subsidies to develop than it would in the absence of the parking tax increase.

Parking lot/garage owners can only escape the parking tax two ways: they can sell their land to someone else (who still, of course, has to pay the parking tax), or they can turn the parking into something that’s not parking. The PPA report reveals a lot. For instance, why would a city worry that it’s not able to replace “facilities lost to development”? Doesn’t the fact that development is replacing parking imply a healthy local economy, and that people are visiting that new development by some means?

In the second paragraph, we have the even more revealing “a higher parking tax implies that the facility will require larger subsidies to develop than it would in the absence of the parking tax increase.”

Indeed, in many cities, parking garages are subsidized by a city or state authority because the all-knowing hand of government thinks that people need better access to parking above all else. (If you’re a local business owner and wondering why the all-knowing hand of government doesn’t have free money for you instead, you’d be right to wonder).

The truth is, parking lot/garage owners have three choices: pay up (and swallow the cost), develop something better (and make the neighborhood more desirable), or sell (at a cut-rate price, making it easier for the next person to develop something). As a business, none of these should worry you, because they all represent the neighborhood becoming healthier for your enterprise. Lower taxes or lower land prices will both mean more of the development that supports transit, and will also add to the tax rolls, so even as the revenue from the parking tax slowly dissipates, the problems that creates solve themselves.

Give it all back

If parking owners being unable to increase their prices, and the flat out arrogance of parking owners getting government hand-outs isn’t a good enough business argument, then how about this: the best use of the parking tax in Providence would be to directly lower other taxes.

Even in a hypothetical case where parking was more expensive, the collected money would equalize that shift in price, and returning the money to local businesses through lower taxes would help them compensate with better services or lower prices. But the more likely event is that parking prices will stay the same while allowing your taxes to go down. Who could argue against that?

You’re getting taxed anyway

The strongest argument against the parking tax is to ignore all the data and examples I laid out, and just cry Chicken Little. OH NO, EVERYTHING WILL COST MORE! OH NO, THERE WILL BE PARKING-GEDDON! OH NO, STOP TAXING US!

The problem with this argument is that you are being taxed.

Though rates technically went down on some taxes in the mayor’s budget, the amount paid has gone up on just about everything. One of the newly raised taxes is the “meal and beverage” tax.

If we were trying not to tax parking because we were worried it might chase people away from local businesses, was taxing restaurants instead the way to go?

Give it to me in a paragraph

Parking is a weird oligopoly, and the owners are charging you as much as they can. Taxing them more doesn’t actually allow them to pass that on to you, because they’ve already maximized their price. So parking taxes are a tax on rich people who are speculating on land. Parking taxes encourage those people to turn that parking into something else, but in the meantime, the city collects revenue that lowers your taxes. The city is “considering” taxes on parking rather than “implementing” taxes on parking because they’ve got cold feet about taking on one of the richest people in the city. You should tell the city government that you want a tax on parking, because if they don’t tax parking, they’re going to tax your house, your apartment, the restaurant you go to, and everything else first.

Tax parking.

Water shortage: the million dollar question about Invenergy’s new power plant


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

Invenergy’s Clear River Energy Center (CREC), the new fossil fuel power plant proposed in Burrillville, is likely to cause future water shortages, according to state documents obtained by Fossil Free Rhode Island. The power plant may cause such shortages unless the communities relying for their water supply on the Clear River basin forfeit future growth. If not, they risk running out of water during future hot and humid summer days when the demand for electricity is high and rivers run low.

According to a presentation at a meeting about CREC attended by several state agencies, 0.18 MGD (million of gallons of water per day) will be left for growth if the power plant is built.  June Swallow of the Center for Drinking Water Quality at the Rhode Island Department of Health attended the meeting.  Her longhand notes show that Harrisville and Pascoag each are expected to need 0.12 MGD for growth.  This suggests a deficit of 0.24 MGD – 0.18 MGD = 0.06 MGD.

Invenergy is one of the largest corporations in the growing “clean energy” business.  Of course, the Clean Power Plan, the US implementation of the Paris Agreement, not only fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  It also does irreparable harm to fracked communities and the environment by polluting air and groundwater.

LowWaterGambleThese may not be issues the people of Burrillville have direct control, but they should be aware of the water supply problems that may come with the megawatt power plant proposed by Invenergy.

Water usage has received some attention, but the question has not been addressed transparently, while public disclosure and discussion have been in short supply.

As Invenergy’s proposal states:

Water supplied to the Facility will be provided from the Pascoag Utility District (PUD) by re-activation and treatment of a currently inactive PUD groundwater well that became contaminated in 2001 by an off-site contamination source. As a result of this well-documented groundwater contamination event, PUD was forced to terminate is use of its primary well water supply and interconnect its water supply system with the Harrisville Fire District (HFD) to meet the requirements of its customers for potable water.

To find out what the Raimondo administration is planning, Fossil Free Rhode Island filed requests for documents under Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act.  Such requests for information went to the Departments of Environmental Management (RIDEM) and Health, to the Water Resources Board (WRB), and to the Offices of the Governor and of Energy Resources.

As many have noticed, the Raimondo administration, following the lead of its federal Big Brother, is rather secretive.  Indeed, the administration responded for the most part by withholding documents based on an overly broad interpretation of what information is exempt from disclosure.

Although, Fossil Free RI made some progress lifting the veil of secrecy, RIDEM and the WRB must have better and more detailed data than present in the documents obtained so far.  Such information is available from their Streamflow Depletion Methodology.

Water resource management is complex and there is ample opportunity for debate.  There is, for instance, the problem that water resource projections require somewhat arbitrary choices as to what is the relevant watershed. Rivers have tributaries, which in turn have tributaries, and so on, just as in this nursery rhyme:

Big fleas have little fleas,
Upon their backs to bite ’em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum.

As one increases the size of the watershed, one decrease the shortage problem, but the number of impacted communities increases.

However this may be, and even without considering the lingering issue of  the MTBE contamination of the Pascoag wells, the water supply raises important questions:

  • Are the Burrillville Town Council and its planner aware of the implications of the power plant for their future? How about the townspeople and nearby communities?
  • How does a potential water shortage feature in the tax negotiations of the Burrillville town council with Invenergy?
  • Can the Burrillville Town Council refuse permission to Invenergy to construct the required water supply pipeline?
  • Why is this issue not addressed in this letter from the Burrilville’s town solicitor to the town manager.
  • Does the Pascoag Utility District need approval of  an amended and extended water management plan in accordance with the Water Resources Board’s Rules and Procedures for Water Supply System Management Planning?
  • If so, will there be an opportunity for public comment and if so when?

There is another serious concern about good government. Rhode Island state law provides the WRB with the authority to allocate water among all users, one of which is the environment.  Fossil Free RI’s request for public documents has made it painfully clear that this pivotal agency has been reduced to a shadow of its former self.  It is no secret that this is due to underfunding.

WRB staff web page on May 5, 2016.
WRB staff web page on May 5, 2016.

Indeed, an email with a request for documents to the WRB’s chief of staff, Ken Burke, resulted in an automatic reply with the message that he no longer works for the agency.  Also the position of the supervising engineer seems to be vacant.  Obviously, the funding situation is so bad that the WRB even lacks staff to update its web page.

The people of northwest Rhode Island are entitled to a public process with full disclosure. They have to the right to be informed on how much water is available to their community and  how developments such as CREC will impact their future.  The WRB is a vital, yet clearly dysfunctional element of this process.
NoNewPowerPlant

In response to Fossil Free RI’s request for infomation, the Division of Legal Services of the Department of Administration, which now seems to represent the WRB, sent a handful of irrelevant documents.  In contrast, RIDEM responded with a past-deadline request for a twenty-days extension because of the “voluminous nature” of the material requested.

The inconsistency of these responses all by itself speaks volumes, but the most “entertaining” response came from the Office of the Governor:

Thank you for emailing Governor Raimondo!

Governor Raimondo is committed to open, accessible and accountable government.

The Governor’s Office made good on this commitment by sending Fossil Free RI a mountain of documents completely unrelated to the request.