affordable housing – RI Future

July 26, 2016

Neighborhood improvements coming to Olneyville

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Olneyville is getting an upgrade as two new commercial spaces and 36 new affordable housing units, in 14 different buildings spread throughout the neighborhood, will be developed by next summer as part of a new $10.4 million project being called Amherst Gardens.

“We are excited to be starting construction,” said Wendy Nicholas, the executive director of ONE Neighborhood Builders, formerly known as the Olneyville Housing Corporation. “Amherst Gardens has been in the works for several years, and we are delighted that all of the pieces – the properties, the designs, the construction crew, and the funding – are now all in place.

The project, Nicholas said, is part of ONE Neighborhood Builders “campaign to improve the neighborhood, block-by-block, making it a better place for families to live, to raise their children and to find employment.”

ONE Neighborhood Builders described the project as a “scattered site housing development, with the new or rehabilitated homes scattered throughout the residential core of Olneyville, primarily along the Amherst Street corridor. The development will reinforce the small residential scale of the neighborhood, provide much-needed affordable housing, and resolve long-standing areas of blight.”

Cynthia Langlykke, of ONE Neighborhood Builders, said the scattered site design of the project allows for many properties, encompassing 10 blocks of Olneyville, to be improved. “The acquisition process for a project like this never easy,” she said. “But we think it has the biggest benefit to the community.”

Nicholas added, “In addition to creating much-needed affordable housing, our goal also is to improve the whole neighborhood as a good place for everyone to live, to raise their families and to work. We tackle the deteriorated or otherwise troubled properties scattered in our community.”

The apartments will be rented to people who earn annually less than about $30,000 a year, depending on family size. The two commercial properties do not have affordability restrictions. “Neighborhood businesses will be encouraged to apply,” Langlykke said.

“On behalf of the Olneyville community, I’d like to thank ONE Neighborhood Builders for rebuilding and reimagining Amherst Street,” said City Councilwoman Sabina Matos, who represents the Olneyville neighborhood. “Quality affordable housing is paramount to a thriving urban community. This development expands our housing options, creates a safer, more vibrant neighborhood for Olneyville families, and further improves the area around one of our most important assets—William D’Abate Elementary School—and directly benefits the students who learn and play there.”

The Amherst Gardens development, slated to break ground in January and be complete by August, “will reinvigorate blighted properties into vibrant, much-needed housing for families,” said Barbara Fields, the executive director of Rhode Island Housing, which contributed more than $700,000 to the project plus an $800,000 loan. “The Amherst Gardens initiative builds upon other investments in housing, commercial development, parks and the arts – all of which are enhancing the quality of life in the Olneyville neighborhood. Amherst Gardens is a great example of the kind of transformational development that the proposed $50 million Housing Bond will support.”

March 10, 2015March 11, 2015

RhodeMapRI and preventing future Fergusons

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A new report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) by Richard Rothstein titled The Making of Ferguson: Public Policies at the Root of its Troubles puts some of the recent brouhaha over RhodeMap RI into keen perspective. We all know the story of the police murder of Mike Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, MO, the high profile demonstrations from the black community in response, and the heavy handed, militarized police reaction. The US Department of Justice released a shocking report of systemic racism and economic exploitation of the black citizens of Ferguson, but the report from the EPI provides insight into how a racially segregated, predominantly low income African-American community like Ferguson can develop in the first place.

Rothstein begins by blaming racial prejudice and racist public policy. “No doubt, private prejudice and suburbanites’ desire for homogenous affluent environments contributed to segregation in St. Louis and other metropolitan areas. But these explanations are too partial, and too conveniently excuse public policy from responsibility. A more powerful cause of metropolitan segregation in St. Louis and nationwide has been the explicit intents of federal, state, and local governments to create racially segregated metropolises.”

It’s important to understand that the policies Rothstein exposes in his report are not located only in the immediate area of St. Louis, these policies existed across the nation, and even where such policies no longer officially exist, their effects can still be felt today. These policies, according to Rothstein, include:

Government subsidies for white suburban developments that excluded blacks, depriving African Americans of the 20th century home-equity driven wealth gains reaped by whites;
Denial of adequate municipal services in ghettos, leading to slum conditions in black neighborhoods that reinforced whites’ conviction that “blacks” and “slums” were synonymous;
Boundary, annexation, spot zoning, and municipal incorporation policies designed to remove African Americans from residence near white neighborhoods, or to prevent them from establishing residence near white neighborhoods;
Urban renewal and redevelopment programs to shift ghetto locations, in the guise of cleaning up those slums.

RhodeMap RI was developed with an understanding of many of the problems Rothstein cites. The public review draft of RhodeMap has a section at the end concentrating on social equity that explicitly called on the plan to “implement a new economic model based on equity, fairness, and opportunity.” It is this part of the plan, the part that seeks to undo the kind of problems that plague communities of color like Ferguson, that seems to most bother RhodeMap opponents.

Rothstein takes a shot at offering possible solutions towards the end of his report, writing, “Many practical programs and regulatory strategies can address problems of Ferguson and similar communities nationwide.” For instance, governments might “require even outer-ring suburbs to repeal zoning ordinances that prohibit construction of housing that lower- or moderate-income residents – white or black – can afford. Going further, we could require every community to permit development of housing to accommodate a ‘fair share’ of its region’s low-income and minority populations…”

Rhode Island has something of a fair share law (as part of the Rhode Island Comprehensive Housing Production and Rehabilitation Act of 2004 and Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Housing Act (Rhode Island General Laws 45-53)) which sets a 10% goal for each of the state’s cities and town to meet—the goal being that 10% of the units in a town are “affordable.”

Most of the pushback against RhodeMap comes from communities that have very little affordable rental housing and are predominantly White. Legislation to undermine existing laws requiring cities and towns to plan for affordable housing is part of that pushback , such as House Bill 5643, which would “eliminate the mandate requiring cities and towns to include an affordable housing program in their comprehensive plans” or House Bill 5644 which “would remove the mandate requiring cities and towns to include an affordable housing program in their comprehensive plans and would provide an opt-out provision regarding any provision in the state guide plan regarding affordable housing and any related land use provisions” are naked attempts to keep affordable housing, and those who need it, out of their communities.

The legislators who are introducing and supporting the bills are all Republicans, or in one case an “Independent” representing primarily suburban and rural communities like Richmond (Note: part of Rep. Justin Price’s district), West Greenwich (part of Rep. Sherry Robert’s district) Coventry, Hopkinton, Charlestown, Portsmouth, Exeter and East Greenwich. Note that Richmond and West Greenwich have made “no progress” and East Greenwich has made “no significant progress” in meeting the 10% goal.

Undoing the damage of decades of racist housing policy and preventing future Fergusons requires a plan. RhodeMap RI isn’t quite that plan, it’s more a collection of guidelines to help communities develop a plan, but it’s a good step in the right direction. Those opposed to RhodeMap like to put on their “free market” hats and declare that any government intervention into housing is some sort of fascist violation of property rights. However, racially segregated housing is the product of just the kind of government sponsored social engineering that RhodeMap opponents complain of, and many of those opponents have also waged fights to prevent construction of affordable rental units in places such as Barrington and East Greenwich.

To be consistent these defenders of the free market should be calling for a repeal of all zoning restrictions in their communities, but of course they will not. Instead, they will zealously guard the status quo by defending zoning laws that the prevent construction of low income housing too close to their safe suburban enclaves. Opponents of RhodeMap object to being called racists, but when their claims of defending property rights are not equally applied to property owners who want to build affordable housing on their land, what else are we to think?

December 21, 2014December 22, 2014

Pigs Fly: RI Tea Party endorses government regulation

In a stunning turnaround, the RI Tea Party today made a full-throated endorsement of some of the most intrusive government regulations on the books. In a fundraising email, the group called on its supporters to “…rise up against this assault on everything you’ve worked your entire life to earn” — by defending existing zoning and land-use regulations throughout the suburban and rural parts of our state.

For years, suburban communities in Rhode Island (and elsewhere) have stood firmly against affordable housing through land use regulations demanding such things as minimum lot sizes, height restrictions, and prohibitions on multi-family housing. Making it perfectly clear that land-owners’ rights to property are not absolute, these zoning regulations set very clear limits on what can and cannot be built on a piece of land, the key reason it is such a surprise to see these restrictions endorsed by the RI Tea Party and other “property rights” defenders.

There is demand for affordable housing in almost every community in Rhode Island. Were the housing market a free market, it would be built, and there would be affordable housing all over the state. But in the suburban and rural communities, local land use regulations often prevent such housing from being built anywhere in town.

A sensible state would not throw out land use regulation — building codes and zoning regulations exist for a good reason — but would recognize when those rules and regulations had been used in ways that encourage segregation and make finding affordable places to live so difficult.

This is exactly what RhodeMapRI proposes — in the very passage the RI Tea Party quotes in their fundraising email shown here — and perhaps is why the plan enrages them so. Apparently they prefer the old restrictions on market forces to new ones.

Looks pretty persuasive, doesn't it? — Looks pretty persuasive, doesn’t it?

Rumor had it that this endorsement would have come out a week or two ago, before the RhodeMapRI plan was approved by the RI Planning Council, but that there were delays in filing the paperwork necessary to renounce the group’s previously held pro-market, anti-regulation, views.

For the RI Tea Party to endorse the status quo of zoning regulation was a surprise for many local observers. As one put it, “It’s really remarkable how flexible they are. It’s almost as if the political philosophy they espouse is just a cover for, well, something else.”

Another man on the street said, on the contrary, it was laudable for the group to be flexible about the government regulations they hated. “It’s the mark of a sophisticated mind that it can believe two completely contradictory ideas at the same time. Somebody smart said that once, wasn’t it Socrates or George Washington or someone like that?” He went on to say, “It’s like Mitch McConnell running against Obamacare in Kentucky while endorsing, and even defending, KyNect, Kentucky’s popular Obamacare exchange. If that kind of flexibility is good enough for Mitch McConnell, it’s good enough for the RI Tea Party!”

A random woman accosted on the street said, “Let go of me!”

May 6, 2014

Are you there, General Assembly? It’s me, Woonsocket…

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Hey there, guys and gals.

I was just having a coffee cabinet and some dynamites, thinking about yesterday’s SCORI decision in the Woonsocket and Pawtucket School Committee’s case to alter and accelerate school funding for these two cities, when it occurred to me that I should reach out to you all because, who knows better what’s good for a city than the city itself? Am I right?

So, my good friend, Dave Fisher has allowed my the use of his mind and body to pen this missive, as it were. (For the record, this guy drinks way too much coffee, and is absolutely the worst typist in the world.) So here goes. I know you don’t get a constituent request from an actual community every day, so take a minute. Have a seat. Drink some water. Continue when you’ve regained your senses.

Scratch that. That might take forever for some of you.

I think I should get a bonus for exceeding state affordable housing guidelines. Frankly, so should my brothers Providence, Central Falls, Newport, New Shoreham – or Block Island to the natives, and…oh, right, that’s it. That’s right. Only 5 communities in Rhode Island meet and exceed state minimum housing requirements.

Notice that last word.

Requirements.

As in required.

You see, my four stalwart brothers and I have, in good faith, not only met – but exceeded – your requirements, leaving my remaining 31 brothers seemingly remiss in their dedication to a diversified Rhode Island; a place where people of all colors, creeds, orientations, and tax brackets can live peacefully. I would suggest the carrot and the stick. Those communities who fail to make efforts and progress toward the just goal of a mere 10 percent of their housing stock qualifying as affordable, shall have a proportional reduction in any state education and human services assistance. The withheld assistance shall be proportionally distributed to towns that exceed the state’s requirements. There’s that pesky word again!

While we’re on housing, can you do something about all the old mills around. I’ve lost count of how many mill fires have happened on my soil. How about a tax incentive for developers who refurbish existing commercial structures and land into mixed use developments, provided that the development meets LEED standards. Those old structures aren’t typically very good when it comes to energy efficiency. I think the building trades would love this!

Dave has assured me, that I could use his corporeal form as a vessel whenever I choose, so until next time.

Love,

Woonsocket

August 7, 2013August 7, 2013

Barrington affordable housing project lives

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Good for the Barrington Planning Board for unanimously approving a controversial affording housing project.

I think.

“Multiple conditions” were placed on the project, according to the Providence Journal, including that at least 10 of the 40 units only have one bedroom. This condition would effectively limit the number of families with children that could live in the proposed Palmer Pointe development.

Barrington Patch reported that the applicants, the East Bay Community Development Corporation, will need to reassess the project. “Three representatives for EBCDC … were very pleased with the outcome, although [housing consultant Frank] Spinella said: ‘We need to determine whether it remains feasible with the conditions.'”

The proposed affordable housing project was controversial because an organized group in this upper-income suburb don’t think it’s fair that poor people get to live in subsidized housing in their community, and that the new development would increase traffic.

Barrington, nicknamed Borrington, has the highest real estate value, median income and NECAP scores in the state. It’s also been pretty good at keeping affordable housing projects out of town. State law requires there be 527 units of designated affordable housing but there are only 160.

May 15, 2013May 16, 2013

More fake reasons for fighting affordable housing

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Jim Hummel, an independent journalist who lives in Barrington, took a very different tack than me on the issue of affordable housing in Rhode Island’s favorite suburban utopia.

Last fall, he reported Barrington actually has a lot of housing that meets the state’s definition of affordable housing, but that not much of it fits what he called the “intricate formula set by the state.”

Here’s how Gary Morse, the Barrington anti-affordable housing advocate that Hummel’s report relies upon, put it: “It has the illusion that everybody in Barrington is wealthy when, in fact, one third of the entire town could quality for affordable housing and one third of the houses in Barrington actually fall into the affordable guidelines.”

This isn’t true. The reality of the situation is there are many homes in Barrington that meet one criteria of the state’s definition of affordable housing: the median income component.

Affordable housing means housing which costs a third of a paycheck for folks who make about the median income, give or take 20 percent whether they rent or own. More precisely, it means this definition.

In Barrington, the median family income is $117,000 a year. Those who make 20 percent less than that are still making more than $93,000 a year, those who make 20 percent more are making $140,000 annually. You can find a pretty nice piece of real estate anywhere – even Barrington – on that budget! But don’t forget, it’s the median “area” income, not town, so the numbers aren’t quite so stark. According to Hummel, “For a family of four the “affordable house” price would be about $315,000 or under.” (note the scare quotes)

Of course, there are other components to what constitutes affordable housing, such as a 30 year deed restriction. This means, for practical purposes, that if you own real property that takes advantage of affordable housing laws that you are encumbered by them for three decades. If not for such deed restrictions, affordable housing would come to mean little more than zoning relief and a temporary tax shelter for developers.

For Morse, Hummel says “the issue is not wealthy people trying to keep others out – but equity for those who live in what could be considered affordable housing – but don’t get tax breaks and other benefits given to projects like these.”

Again, this isn’t true. There is no legal relief being offered to any affordable housing owner/developer that isn’t available to Morse or any of the people he says he represents. If they want to live with a 30 year deed restriction on their Barrington real estate, they can decrease the amount they pay in property taxes.

Here’s how Hummel put it: “So while a modest house like this one is paying nearly $4,000 a year in taxes and is subject to the town’s periodic revaluation, the house in this affordable housing development, as defined by the state, has assessments that are locked in for 30 years. The only increase comes as the tax rate increases, but the assessments don’t.”

What he leaves out is that they also retain the right to sell their real estate for whatever profit they can make off it. Historically, that’s been worth a more than a tax break in the town of Barrington.

So what is it Gary Morse is driving at?

Does he want to alert Barrington residents making between $90,000 and $140,000 a year that they, too, are eligible to get a tax break for helping their community reach its state-mandated allotment of affordable housing units? Maybe. Depending on what you think of the future trajectory of Barrington property taxes versus real estate value that might indeed be a wise financial strategy.

Does he want the affordable housing definition altered in a way that means if and when subsidized housing is built in Barrington that it will attract the truly destitute instead of upper middle class families? Maybe that too. As I specifically argue in this piece, this would make Barrington a lot nicer of a place to live.

This is what he says his issue is: “…now suddenly many of those residents who are not living in affordable housing, but living on the financial edge, they are going to be asked to support lifestyles and property taxes for those who have much more. This is what I really find to be a problem with how this is being implemented.”

On this point, I am in complete agreement with Gary Morse. But something tells me he isn’t lobbying his state legislators for tax equity. Hummel didn’t ask. He did, however, ask Town Council President June Speakman if she considered asking the state to help Barrington pay for its own affordable housing. Hummel’s a better reporter than me if he can pull this question off with a straight face. Or maybe it’s easy to become myopic when you don’t have any poor people living in your neighborhood.

May 14, 2013May 14, 2013

Why Barrington doesn’t want affordable housing

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

When it comes to community, Barrington is by many measures Rhode Island’s standard for success. It boasts the best schools and the highest household median income. Crime is low, taxes are reasonable, real estate is valuable and amenities abound. Then how is it that this upper middle class suburban utopia epitomizes the state’s biggest economic issue and political problem?

Because Rhode Island’s most vexing social issue is that there are actually two extremely different worlds mashed into the relatively cozy cluster of towns in between Westerly and Woonsocket. There are the suburban enclaves, where life is pretty much like I just described Barrington. And then there are the urban areas, where life is pretty much the polar opposite of life in Barrington.

And here in the Ocean State, the haves seem to want little to do with the have-not neighbors. Classism can be easy to ignore, but we see it playing out prtty clearly as a group of Barrington residents are vociferously opposing an affordable housing project.

The group calls itself “Community Opposed to Detrimental Development and for Environmental Responsibility 02806” and claims its concerns are related to traffic congestion and the integrity of the town’s zoning rules. But this group’s name and many of their stated objections serve only to disguise what is really occurring in Rhode Island’s suburban standard bearer.

Similarly, I would submit that this is front page news today not because Barrington is woefully short of the state-mandated amount of affordable housing (which it is, by the way) or because some residents might need a sidewalk someday sooner rather than later. It’s news because it shows how rich people don’t want to share what they’ve got with poor people – and how they come up with fancy names and fake arguments to game the system so that they won’t have to.

Some 60 people showed up to a zoning board meeting last night to and more than 500 signed a petition opposing the project. I’ll bet the last time a public policy issue generated so much community involvement it involved the death of a teenager. Reporter Christine Dunn notes the group handed out literature at the meeting raising several objections including, she highlighted, “compatibility with the surrounding community.”

That’s the real story here.

All of those superlatives that I listed at the beginning of this post, all of the attributes that make people think Barrington must be the best place to own a home, would be diminished if more poor people lived there. NECAP scores and median income levels would decrease just as surely as crime and taxes would increase. So, who can blame Barrington for not wanting to let in any more of the poor?

The rest of the state, that’s who. While mixed income development might not be in the immediate self-interest of the suburbs (though I argue in this post that it is), it is far and away the better row to hoe for the state as a whole.

That’s why Rhode Island is lucky that in this particular instance state affordable housing mandates trump Barrington’s two unit-per-acre zoning rule. But there is still a path to victory for the opposition: they could appeal enough decisions to exhaust the resources of the applicant – it’s not at all unlikely that a citizens group from Barrington will be able to outspend a community housing agency. Even if and when the East Bay Community Development Corporation wins the right to build low income housing in Barrington, it knows for next time that it is much more expensive to do so here. The only other affordable housing project in Barrington went all the way to the state Supreme Court.

The best thing anyone can do for Rhode Island is to get the people in the cities and the people in the suburbs to understand that our destinies are inextricably connected, even if our lives aren’t on a daily basis. We all end up living with one another in the long run – whether we’re neighbors or not.

February 24, 2013February 25, 2013

Don’t Be Afraid Of Diversity, Barrington

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Dear affordable housing-hating Barrington,

This is some friendly advice for you from your cross-Bay rival for best public education community in the state, East Greenwich. You might have higher NECAP scores but we have something you don’t: diversity.

A lot of people know us as a snobby suburb where affluent executives sleep and send their kids to school, just like you. But what a lot of people don’t know is that, unlike you, we also have a historic downtown that is the best neighborhood in the state. And a giant reason why it’s so great is because it’s extremely economically diverse.

downtown eg waterfront — Downtown East Greenwich from above. Many if not most of the housing units are affordable – right next to yachts and fancy restaurants! (Photo by Bob Plain)

Minimum wage workers live right down the street from the 1 percent in the Hill and Harbour District. In a neighborhood with only about 800 buildings, there are 230 units of state-approved affordable housing, which doesn’t include all the Section 8 vouchers (which are mobile) and all the effectively-affordable housing in terms of apartments for under $1000 a month.

My neighborhood is packed with poor people. I live near dishwashers, line cooks, quahauggers, landscapers and laborers. But the rich folks love it too. I also live near doctors, lawyers, business tycoons, TV stars and political heavyweights.

This is the neighborhood where both Don Carcieri and Al Verrecchia lived before they moved to waterfront mansions. (Little-known RI trivia: they lived in the same house on Marion Street – the Carcieri family in the 1970’s and, after another owner, the Verrecchia family in the 1980’s.)

It’s also where Rhode Island’s most renowned architect Don Powers lived before moving to Jamestown (all great RI architects eventually live in Jamestown) Powers is designing the controversial affordable housing project in Barrington and he also grew up there; but when he was picking his own home, he chose good old downtown EG.

When Powers proposed the Greene Street Cottages project referenced in the Journal article on Friday, it was embraced with open arms by my neighborhood. Diversity doesn’t scare us in downtown East Greenwich. The rest of the town is just as deathly afraid of it as you are, Barrington. But here in the Hill and Harbour District, we know that diversity breeds understanding. And understanding is education. Even if it’s not the kind of education that shows up on standardized tests.

January 29, 2013January 29, 2013

Protest Cuts to Rental Assistance Program Today

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Goveror Chafee gets more guff today because of his reluctance to help the most struggling Rhode Islanders as housing advocates rally at the State House today, 3pm, to call for more funding to a rental assistance program.

“Because of State cuts to Rhode Island Housing Authority, tenants in seven apartment complexes in Providence, Central Falls and Woonsocket are in jeopardy of losing their subsidized apartments,” according to a press release from the Committee to Save Tenant Housing. “The Governor and other politicians campaigned this year on the Plan to End Homelessness Platform. Yet, 234 households are being affected by this cut back and could potentially end up homeless.”

Chafee has drawn considerable ire of those who advocate for the most at-risk Rhode Islanders.

Two weeks ago the RI Coalition for the Homeless was highly critical of the governor because his proposed budget didn’t include any additional funding to end homelessness in RI.

“The Governor is turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the needs of the most vulnerable Rhode Islanders,” said Jim Ryczek, executive direcotrt of the Rhode Island Coaltion for the Homeless.”He had the power to do something to alleviate the homeless crisis, to help those Rhode Islanders experiencing homelessness, and instead, he chose to do nothing. I don’t know how he sleeps at night knowing that while he sleeps in comfort there are hundreds of Rhode Islanders who have no place to call home.”

September 20, 2012September 20, 2012

Progress Report: Cicilline Surging Against Doherty; GOP for Father-Daughter Dances; Affordable Housing; 47 Percent

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

David Cicilline is surging. After comfortably beating Anthony Gemma in the primary it now looks like he’s comfortably ahead of his conservative challenger Brendan Doherty in polls commissioned by the Democrats. While Republicans, Buddy Cianci and other Cicilline detractors might dismiss partisan polls, it still gives the incumbent an advantage and shows momentum.

We’ll have more on Cicilline’s surge later this morning…

State House Republicans say they will join in the controversy in Cranston about what to call elementary school dances in Cranston (your tax dollars at work?). But this isn’t a partisan issue, as evidenced by David Cicilline’s position on the issue.

Three cheers to Gina Raimondo for using her political capital to advocate for affordable housing funding. She’s pushing for voters to approve a $25 million bond to build and/or rehab 600 units. This is an important economic development opportunity for Rhode Island. Raimondo is a longtime board member of Crossroads Rhode Island and her commitment to homeless people is admirable.

That said, we find it distasteful that she claims pension cuts made it possible to go out to bond for affordable housing. Of course, rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy – a move she objects to – would have a similar effect on the state’s finances. And, it would do so without pitting the working class against itself. In other words, she is arguing that the state needed to take money from teachers and state workers in order to give it to the homeless. Her logic reminds me of railroad tycoon Jay Gould’s famous quote: “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”

Speaking of class warfare, the Providence Journal weighs in on Mitt Romney’s 47 percent comment with a pretty muddled editorial. More to the point is what the New York Times editorial board said about it: “It turns out that Mitt Romney was right. There is class warfare being waged in the 2012 campaign. It is Mr. Romney who is waging it, not President Obama, and he’s stood the whole idea on its head.” Even the conservative-leaning Washington Post editorial board writes: “Mr. Romney suggests that Obama voters are such sheep that there is no point in reaching out to them — and that their support for Democrats is purely selfish. The possibility that principles might motivate their political behavior does not even occur to Mr. Romney. It’s a demeaning, as well as inaccurate, view of the people he hopes to lead.”

GOP strategists think Romney’s comments could give Democrats the inside track for control of the Senate. And Democrats think it could put them in position to take back the House. Unlike moderate Republican candidates from across the nation, RI GOP candidates have been completely silent on the controversy.

Update: Brendan Doherty has distanced himself from the comments, according to the ProJo.

Happy birthday, Upton Sinclair. The author of “The Jungle” was born today in 1878.

And today in 173, Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in tennis.