Providence Riverfront I-195 Land Forum Audio


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

With over 200 people in attendance, Providence’s Point Street Dueling Pianos ended up being a hot ticket on Tuesday evening. The event, a forum about the proposed construction of a baseball stadium for the PawSox hosted by Harvard Business School Association of Southeastern New England and Leadership Rhode Island. In favor of the stadium were Syd McKenna, Listening Tour regular and Community Outreach Director for the team, as well as Patti Doyle, the team’s spokesperson. In opposition was Ethan Kent, Senior Vice President of Project for Public Spaces in New York, and Sharon Steele, Quality of Life Chair and Past President of the Jewelry District Association. The overwhelming majority of the room was in opposition and remained unconvinced by the end of the evening.

One of the more unique moments toward the end when, referring to issues related to the intersection between patrons of the night clubs downtown and residents of the Jewelry District, Syd McKenna tried to make it into a class-ethnicity issue. She tried to rebuke Steele and say that the PawSox would be welcoming for all Rhode Islanders, whereas the opposition was elitist and didn’t welcome certain segments of the population. As we have seen earlier, the reality is that stadium construction causes massive public debts and, as is the case with Rhode Island, these shortcomings would probably be taken out on the poor.

File Aug 25, 11 15 40 PM

Photo by Ethan Gyles.
Photo by Ethan Gyles.

Mayor Grebien rallies support, says new owners are no Ben Mondor

DSC_3426
Don Grebien

The potential move of the Pawtucket Red Sox to downtown Providence has caused heated debate between the public and the General Assembly since the idea was first floated earlier this year. On Thursday, opponents of the move rallied outside of the State House to express their passionate disapproval for the move.

Pawtucket Mayor Donald Grebien shared his own memories of McCoy Stadium at the rally, saying that he knows that he’s not the only one with such an emotional attachment.

“Like many of you, the first baseball game I ever attended was at McCoy. As a kid, I used to go to McCoy with my parents and grandparents to enjoy the games and see the future Red Sox greats before they were household names,” he said.

“I am certain all of you have similar experiences and traditions that you hold dearly as well. The memories and traditions formed at McCoy are things we all cherish. Memories we fear Rhode Island’s kids may never get to experience for themselves.”

Grebien continued to speak about the stadium’s previous ownership under Ben Mondor, and how Mondor was dedicated to the Pawtucket community as well as the team. The new ownership does not hold such sentiment.

“The new ownership has a very different business model, one that some could say is totally contrary to what exists there now. It lacks the vision, compassion, and commitment to the core principles that have made the franchise so successful,” Grebien said.

After his speech, Grebien added that the citizens of Pawtucket have not been involved in any of the business decisions the new owners have made. Residents have not even been made privy to the feasibility study that was reportedly conducted to determine the condition of McCoy.

“What we’re trying to understand, and what we’ve asked for from the ownership, is a feasibility study that they’ve done to give us an idea. How bad is it? If it’s bad, show us it’s bad,” he said.

Grebien is not the only one who feels this way, though. Sam Bell, the Rhode Island State Coordinator for the Progressive Democrats of America, has his own reasons opposing the PawSox becoming the ProvSox.

“There’s so many issues,” he began. “It starts with the basic principles of the public planning. Taking away a public park, flooding the area with surface parking, clogging out businesses, creating massive amounts of noise that disrupts the residents who live there.”

According to Bell, most people who he has spoken with who live or work around the vacant I-195 lands, which is where the new stadium would be built, do not want it there. The request for public money to help fund the project is also wrong in Bell’s eyes.

“It’s the public’s money. The amount they’re asking for is grotesque,” he said. “The amount they are asking for here is obscene to a degree that we often don’t even see.”

“I actually think it’s bad for Providence, to move it into that location, which is going to be a park, and it would hurt Pawtucket to leave it. One of the great things about this is that there’s so many issues and people come at it with so many different perspectives, but everyone agrees, we have to stop this deal,” Bell added.

Economic development has been one of the biggest talking points in support of a new stadium. Sharon Steele, a board member of the Jewelry District Association, finds that exact reason is why everyone should be fighting against a stadium. If a stadium were to be built, it would only bring minimum wage jobs, rather than small businesses that could directly benefit the community. Steele also mentioned that the park would help to draw in business more so than a stadium.

“Parkland is a hugely important center place for appropriate development,” she said. “Whether you look at Central Park, or you look at all the other magnificent parks across the country, and the I-195 land was specifically made for economic development, and a stadium simply does not fulfill that specific requirement.”

With both the House of Representatives and the Senate in recess until September, it’s hard to say what the fate of the PawSox will be. Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello has given his support for the move, but he has also said that he will not go against what the public ultimately wants. Unless something major happens between now and September, the public seems to believe that the PawSox should stay right at home, in Pawtucket.

Sam Bell
Sam Bell

DSC00908

DSC_3444

DSC_3440

DSC_3420

DSC_3419

DSC_3417

DSC_3413

DSC_3411

DSC_3408

DSC_3398

DSC_3388

DSC_3382

DSC_3365

DSC_3359

DSC_3351

DSC_3350

DSC_3337

DSC_3325

DSC_3322

DSC_3309

Public park is a better amenity than baseball stadium


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

PawSox Petition 02The May 27th commentary that dominated the Providence Journal editorial page with yet another large, beautifully rendered artist’s conception of the proposed AAA ballpark features the headline DOWNTOWN PARK WILL BE R.I. GEM needs careful scrutiny. If only we could substitute ‘park’ wherever ‘ballpark’ is featured in the commentary’s 12 paragraphs, we could join Miami, Chicago, NYC, Westerly R.I. and countless other cities large and small that understand that the public park is the lungs of the city.

The commentary erroneously states that the ballpark “using languishing land can add 2.5 million to R.I. revenues.” That very land was set-aside at its inception to become the gem of the whole I-95 land for the downtown public park. Architects, designers, artists know the power of the visual image. The newspaper has generously featured and dutifully printed colorful images to accommodate the ballpark teams constant access to the editorial page. The lawmakers and other powerful groups for the most part seem to have been seduced, cheerleading the proposal or worst still sitting on the fence.

For an honest debate to continue on such a statewide important issue, each side should be given an equal chance to participate. The park advocates deserve access to the editorial pages as well where a small public fund should be set aside for a competition to select an image for the downtown park. We appreciate the push for job creation that the I-195 district offers. We must however understand that jobs must go hand in hand with quality of life and not lose sight that inside the new buildings that are being proposed there will be quality institutions and a workforce that values access to nature in the city as one of its highest priorities. The development of a state of the art park bordering our restored, rejuvenated, active river with its world renowned Waterfire attraction should be the first and the key parcel to be realized in order to set a standard for excellence equal to the NYC Highline Park and the ensuing inspired architecture it commanded.

A progressive plea for a Providence ballpark


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

4Looking out the window of my office at 10 Davol Square, I can see the empty piece of Providence where they want to build the new baseball stadium.

Just five weeks ago, this particular parcel of land, left vacant by the relocation of a stretch of interstate, wasn’t any more or less interesting to me than any of the other plots in the Jewelry District. Now, of course, it ignites the imagination of this and many other Rhode Island baseball fans on a daily basis.

When the new Pawtucket Red Sox owners’ proposal came out this week, I didn’t have any strong feelings about it. It sounded like a lot of money, sure. But I know that any successful stadium project relies on some form of public subsidy. $4 million a year (net $2 million, if the economic study commissioned by the owners group is accurate) didn’t sound like too steep a price to keep a critical Rhode Island institution.

But my fellow progressives quickly tore into the proposal like rowdy fans heckling the opposing team’s pitcher. Now, negative reactions to the proposal have come from all points along the political spectrum. But while I certainly didn’t expect all of my friends on the left to endorse plan without some criticism, I’ll admit I was surprised by the steady barrage of unequivocal NO!’s that have come from the left.

Instead of taking a thoughtful, considered approach to this proposal, or carefully positioning ourselves to make a reasonable counter-offer, why are so many progressives rejecting the whole plan outright, unwilling to even hear an argument?

“Because we’re fed up!” some of my fellow liberals will undoubtedly say. Hey, I get it. The frustration is understandable and very real. But letting that frustration get the better of us is a huge mistake. Staking out a position of extreme opposition just feeds the worst stereotypes perpetuated about progressives: that we’re out of touch and inflexible. That makes us easy to marginalize and ignore.

This is not 38 Studios. I know, it seems like an easy connection to make–they both have to do with baseball! Except beyond that thin connection, the two scenarios couldn’t be any more different.

Rhode Island made a loan guarantee to a sports hero who had zero experience running a business, he just happened to like video games.

In this case, we’re talking about giving tax breaks to a group of experienced business people who have already proven their success, who clearly know what they are doing, and who are throwing down their own $85 million to get the thing off the ground. Instead of a software company that will employ a handful of people until it inevitably collapses, this time we’re getting a physical sports facility that will enhance our city and state.

Comparing this–or anything–to 38 Studios is the cheapest and easiest piece of political rhetoric that can be employed in Rhode Island. It gets lobbed from the left, the right and the middle. The comparison absolutely does not apply here. I don’t expect that fact to stop people from making it, but I will hope against hope that progressives, at least, can ditch this cliche in favor of something a little more thoughtful.

There will always be “something better” to spend the money on. Yes, I know the schools and the roads and the bridges are literally crumbling. I know the health care system is in shambles. I know that way too many people will sleep on the streets tonight. We absolutely need to make serious investments in all of these areas. But making any of those things an either/or tradeoff against this baseball stadium is wrong-headed and in some ways disingenuous. How often do we criticize conservatives for making the allocation of public funds a zero-sum game? And yet here are doing the same thing.

According to this rationale, we have to have full employment, state of the art schools in every community, 100% graduation rates, free college tuition, zero homelessness, a cure for cancer, all of our energy coming from renewable sources, guaranteed pensions for every Rhode Islander and protected bike lanes in all 39 cities and towns before we can even begin to think about a new baseball stadium. I disagree.

Can we please stop demonizing those we don’t agree with? This does not just apply to some of the personal insults I’ve seen hurled at Mr. Skeffington. This is becoming a really troubling trend among progressives. I know it can be satisfying to go on social media and make public figures out to be villains; it’s also petty, dickish, and the absolute definition of counter-productive. I expect it from right-wing talk radio. I’m appalled and disturbed by it when it comes from liberals and progressives. Please stop.

We have to consider the noneconomic benefits. I recognize that baseball is a business. I also know that baseball is a vital American institution. And whether they’re called the PawSox, ProvSox, RISox or Rhody Sox, our beloved baseball team is a treasure that must be kept in Rhode Island. The proposed new facility will have economic benefits for Providence and Rhode Island. Just as important are the social and cultural benefits which are difficult (if not impossible) to quantify–these cannot be overlooked. Again, it’s not a zero-sum game.

Let’s find a way to make this work. Let’s recognize the importance of professional baseball to our cultural and civic landscape. You don’t have to be a huge fan of the sport to be able to acknowledge the contribution baseball has always made to our history, our society, and our way of life–and to understand that to lose this team would be a devastating psychological blow to the Ocean State. I think most of those who will read this do understand. I think knowing just how much it would hurt to lose our Sox is exactly why the reactions have been so visceral. “How dare these rich people extort us like this!” some say. And rather than be backed into a corner, throw up their hands and say “Fine, take the team somewhere else! We don’t need you!”

Believe me, I do understand this sentiment, even if I don’t agree with the characterization that this is extortion. It’s business, and we’ve been wrestling with the tension between baseball-the-beloved-national-game and baseball-the-money-making-enterprise since the first professional leagues came about. But to dig in and shout “no!” instead of finding a way to move forward is a mistake. To give up on keeping the team because of some misguided principled stand would just feed another pervasive stereotype about those of us on the left: we’re all too ready to cut of our nose to spite our face.

I recognize how difficult it may be for many readers to come around to accepting the team owners’ proposal as it currently exists. That’s fine. But if the root of the word “progressive” is “progress,” then who better than progressives to craft an open, accessible, and constructive dialogue so that we can reach an agreement that benefits us all, rather than just toss our bat and retreat back to dugout just because we didn’t like the look of the first pitch?

The Providence WetSox


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 first thing that popped into my head when I heard that there were plans to move the Pawsox to downtown Providence near the river was, “Didn’t anybody check out that CRMC/URI flood map?”

And apparently nobody did. I’ve seen articles in the paper. I’ve even tweeted reporters. Nobody’s asking the question, “Is this stadium going to be built on stilts?”

Here’s my mock-up of the location of the stadium cobbled together from the rough info we’ve received, plus an overlay of the flood zone maps.

rough-flood

This map assumes sea level rises and storm surges. It doesn’t have potential hurricane or the 100 year flood levels.

So, here’s the pitch question…

“What are the new Sox owner’s plans to deal with or mitigate flooding during and after construction of a proposed stadium?”

Disclosures: I love baseball. I love Providence. I like the Pawsox. I don’t like public subsidies of businesses that will make millions and return little in the way of revenue and long-term growth/momentum to a city. Oh, and I’m not a GIS mapper…

Black business group says RI violates minority contractor law


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

ranglin mattiello2New development on I-195 lands, as well as other public construction projects, violate a state law if 10 percent of a project aren’t awarded to minority business enterprises, said Lisa Ranglin, president of the Rhode Island Black Business Association.

“There is a law on the books,” Ranglin said. “Put it in the contracts, or it’s meaningless.”

Ranglin and the RIBBA say the I-195 Commission is neglecting to enforce a 1986 law as it moves forward with selling state land to private contractors for redevelopment. “RIBBA is putting together a team of professionals, business experts and local contractors committed to full enforcement of the MBE 10% set aside within this project to be developed by PPC Land Ventures,” according to a press release from the RIBBA.

A state law dictates that minority-owned businesses are to be awarded 10 percent of the value of public construction projects and procurements, Ranglin said.

RI law 37-14.1, passed in 1986, reads, “Minority business enterprises shall be included in all procurements and construction projects under this chapter and shall be awarded a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the dollar value of the entire procurement or project. The director of the department of administration is further authorized to establish by rules and regulation formulas for giving minority business enterprises a preference in contract and subcontract awards.”

The law has been systematically ignored over the years, said Ranglin.

Dyana Koelsch, a paid spokeswoman for the I-195 project, could not be reached for comment (updated below). But on Twitter yesterday she said Ranglin made a “good point” about the 10 percent minority business enterprise law. Here’s the exchange between Koelsch and Ranglin:

Ranglin said the RIBBA decided at a strategy meeting on Saturday to force the state and the I-195 Commission to enforce the law. “The strategy meeting on Saturday is the start of a new day,” Ranglin said in a press release. “For black and minority contractors, the existing legislatively approved 10% set aside for minority and women contractors has proven to be almost meaningless in practice.”

Ranglin, in an interview with RI Future, said the RIBBA is working with NAACP legal experts om how to force the state to comply with the law.

“We’re going to be out there in full force to make sure our community is thriving,” she told RI Future. “People in under-served communities, are stories are never told because we’re not powerful.”

But, she added, “We’re on the right side of the law here. It’s right there in black and white.”

Attorney General Peter Kilmartin’s office was contacted for an opinion on whether the I-195 Commission needs to comply with this law. The Secretary of State office’s and the city of Providence have also been asked for data on historical compliance. This post will be updated if and when they respond.

UPDATE: Dyana Koelsch sent this statement on behalf of the I-195 Commission:

The 195 Redevelopment Commission explicitly encourages the participation of MBE/WBE firms in the development of The LINK. This is reflected in the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Lincoln/ Phoenix Properties and its affiliate firm, “Friendship & Clifford” which is the developer of Parcel 28.

The Commission welcomes an open and productive dialogue with the Rhode Island Black Business Association regarding its concerns. By way of a correction and clarification, the RIBBA incorrectly stated the P&S includes a Project Labor Agreement. It does not.  The P&S, which is public record, does include specific language on the  utilization of MBE/WBE resources, firms and employees. The text of Paragraph 13 from the P&S is included below:  

PURCHASER’S AGREEMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT.

Purchaser agrees in connection with the development and construction of the Project that it will endeavor to employ and source from Rhode Island-based firms and employees to the extent reasonably possible. Purchaser also agrees that it will use its best efforts to employ minority- and women-owned firms and contractors to the extent reasonably possible and to encourage any contractors or subcontractors to do the same. Purchaser will register job vacancies as it deems appropriate with the City of Providence Department of Economic Development for inclusion in their First Source database and further agrees to use its best efforts to fill job vacancies with minority and women candidates from the First Source List. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Purchaser shall comply with the provisions of each and every term of the Tax Stabilization Agreement with respect to employment of Rhode Island residents, minorities and women.