Another $815 million for the Narragansett Bay Commission?


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

NBCmapBesides the $120 million taxpayer ballpark subsidy and the $100 million streetcar to hardly anywhere, another elephant in the room is the Narragansett Bay Commission’s (NBC) $815 million Phase 3 stormwater project.

This is not paid for by the entire state, but largely by the 118,000 households in the NBC district – Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls, North Providence, Johnston, Cumberland, Lincoln and the northern part of East Providence – almost $7,000 per household.

The NBC wants to proceed with this despite concerns about “affordability” – recognized by the EPA as legitimate, despite the potential of alternative “green infrastructure,” despite concerns about the fairness of who pays, and despite not having the time to assess the results of phase 2, just recently completed. Also, though there is some flexibility in meeting federal clean water standards, it seems the NBC goal is to go beyond the minimum, even as Phase 1 and 2 has already cost about $547 million and has approximately quadrupled sewer bills for residents, whether they rent or own.

The problem the NBC is addressing is the combination of our sewage with stormwater runoff overwhelms the treatment plant after a storm and untreated sewage get into Narragansett Bay. Phase 1 constructed the tunnels, pipes and pump stations to temporarily store the stormwater, phase 2 involved interceptors, drains and catch basin improvements. Phase 3 is apparently more tunnels.

Roughly 80 percent of the flow after storms is due to runoff from roads, parking lots and other impervious surfaces, but the cost is almost all born by those contributing the 20 percent of sewage. This is another subsidy to drivers from all over who use the roads and parking lots at stores, offices, state government, hospitals, colleges etc. A big beneficiary of the spending are shoreline property owners who pay nothing, shellfishermen and other Bay users. There is a possible social justice issue here.

There are few checks and balances. There was a “stakeholder” review process that few know about. The PUC rubber stamps what the NBC wants, even allowing monthly billing which tripled postage and processing costs compared to the previous quarterly billing, perhaps hiding the scope of the increases. Local politicians don’t much care, they are not blamed as the sewer bills are not collected through their tax system. The state’s environmental community understandably just wants the Bay cleaned up and is little concerned with who pays, even if the metro area becomes increasingly unaffordable. And though Transport Providence and others have tried to call attention to the role of parking lots and the auto culture that underlies a lot of this problem, and others on the problem of runoff from fertilized lawns, the issue, unlike the ballpark or trolley, is too complex to get easy attention.

While no expert on this, I do recommend attention to this issue and I wonder what the progressive community thinks about this project. Visit www.narrabay.com for the NBC viewpoint and plenty of information.

No permit required: political canvassing is a Constitutional right


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

DavidFasteson-225x300David Fasteson is mounting a challenge against Stephen Archambault who as the State Senator from District 22, represents parts of Smithfield, North Providence and Johnston. Archambault, though a Democrat, sits to the right on many progressive political positions. He has been rated at 29% by the ACLU and was rated 83% by the NRA, earning the National Rifle Association’s endorsement. In seeking the nomination of the Democratic party, Fasteson plans to run as a more progressive candidate.

It was while canvassing (going door-to-door in search of votes and support) in Smithfield on Sunday evening that Fasteson was approached by a police officer who told him that canvassing requires a permit under Smithfield law. A look at the law reveals that the permit is only applicable to canvassing for sales, not for religious or political reasons.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that onerous restrictions on religious and political canvassing are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Relevant cases include Martin v. City of Struthers, Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, and Meyer v. Grant.

In a phone call with the Smithfield Town Clerk Monday morning Fasteson confirmed that he would need a permit if he were going door-to-door seeking to sell some good or service, but politicians do not need these.

Most likely this is just a minor mistake by an overzealous police officer, perhaps responding to a citizen’s complaint. Even so, it would behoove police officers to be mindful of the protections guaranteed our citizenry under the Constitution of the United States.

As of our last communication David Fasteson plans to continue canvassing, without a permit.

North Providence Is Energized By Solar Project


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
Mayor Charles Lombardi, left, discusses the merits of the solar landfill project with Town Council President Kristen Catanzaro, center, and member Alice Brady. (Tim Faulkner/ecoRI News)

NORTH PROVIDENCE — Local solar energy got a boost Tuesday night from the Town Council.

At the urging of Mayor Charles Lombardi, the council voted unanimously to move ahead with a plan to consider dropping property taxes for the development of a solar array at the town’s old landfill.

Lombardi has implored the council for several months to move forward with the project, to take advantage of a state renewable energy incentive program — a program that would deliver reliable revenue to the town. Six solar developers responded to an initial inquiry to develop a 3-megawatt array on the 15-acres site.

Lombardi said the town would receive an annual fee from the owner of the solar array in lieu of taxes. Other proposed uses for the site, he said, such as a playground and wind turbines weren’t viable due to noise and gas leaking from the former Superfund site.

“We’re trying to get additional revenue from a barren piece of property,” the mayor said.

A solar project, Lombardi added, would allow the town to participate in Rhode Island’s popular distributed generation program. The four-year trial program is designed to boost local renewable energy projects by offering incentives such as fixed pricing for electricity generated from wind, solar and hydroelectric projects.

Two residents spoke at the Jan. 8 meeting. Joseph Muschiano was skeptical of a project that had yet to receive a formal bid from a developer. “You’re just asking us to throw away 20 years of taxes and letting this guy come in,” he said.

James Grande liked that the project was quiet, unlike the dirt bikes and four-wheelers that frequent the area. “You want something that’s not going to create any noise versus creating noise,” he said.

Of the six initial proposals, the town has taken an interest in a submission from Belmont, Calif.-based SunEdison. All of the developers sought tax relief before moving forward with the project, Lomabrdi said. The Town Council must approve the tax deal. Tuesday’s vote by the council requests the town’s ordinance committee to move forward with the mayor’s request to grant the tax break.

Richard Fossa, Lombardi’s chief of staff, said the land isn’t suited for businesses or recreation. “You are not going to get any restaurant or people on the grass. Nobody wants to go there,” Fossa said.

Lombardi noted that the site currently has no access to public water, sewage or electricity.

The state Department of Environmental Management (DEM) classified the site as suitable for a solar project, according to Fossa. If built, the town would be responsible for cutting the grass at the site and monitoring environmental conditions at the former landfill. The owner of the project would pay the cost of building a fence around the site. DEM allows new construction to disturb 30 inches of the landfill topsoil, or cap. But Fossa said the solar project wouldn’t require digging and instead be secured by weights.

Chris Kearns of the state Office of Energy Resources presented an overview of the state’s distributed generation contract law, which the General Assembly passed in 2011. The program reserves an allotment of generated electricity each year to be used for renewable projects. The electricity is typically more expensive than standard fossil-fuel-based power. The cost for the green energy is subsidized by National Grid ratepayers.

Renewable energy, Kearns said, is needed to diversify Rhode Island’s power generation supply. Currently, about 98 percent of the state’s electricity is produced by natural gas. The proposed project also would help the state reach its goal of 16 percent renewable power generation by 2019.

So far, 15 solar projects and one wind turbine have been approved under the distributed generation program. Of the municipally backed projects, East Providence received a contract for a 3.7-megawatt solar landfill project. Westerly is considering a similar solar array on town land. Kearns said Bristol and Glocester are seeking permits for large solar energy systems.

The 70-acre site in North Providence was an active regional landfill from 1967-83. It was declared a Superfund site in 1989 and capped in 2007.

“I think this the best idea for the neighborhood,” Council member Stephen Feola said. “This isn’t going to generate any traffic. It’s a win-win. It’s a no-brainer.”

By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News

ecoRI News is a Providence-based nonprofit journalistic initiative devoted to educating readers about the causes, consequences and solutions to local environmental issues and problems.

ACLU Sues Over Wrongful Detention of US Citizen


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

Ada Morales, of North Providence, is a US citizen. But twice she has been detained by law enforcement officials who didn’t realize she she had become naturalized in 1995.

In an effort to ensure the same thing doesn’t happen to her a third time – or someone else for the first time – the RI ACLU is suing state and federal officials saying they violated her constitutional rights.

Here’s the press release from the ACLU:

The ACLU today filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of a North Providence resident who has twice been detained as a deportable “alien” even though she is a U.S. citizen. The lawsuit alleges that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and Rhode Island officials often bypass Constitutional requirements and safeguards when they detain individuals on immigration grounds.

In May 2009, Ms. Ada Morales, who was born in Guatemala and who naturalized as a United States citizen in 1995, was taken into custody on unrelated criminal charges. While she was being held at the ACI, an ICE “immigration detainer” was lodged against her. Even though a judge ordered Ms. Morales released, the R.I. Department of Corrections held her in custody for an additional 24 hours because of the ICE detainer. “When I found out that I was being detained for immigration reasons, I was shocked,” said Ms. Morales. “I told the Rhode Island officials that I’m a U.S. citizen, and I offered to show them my naturalization certificate and passport, but no one would listen. They just assumed they could hold me because of my Guatemalan background and the color of my skin.” An ICE official later apologized to Ms. Morales for her wrongful detention, but acknowledged that it could happen again. In fact, she had been unlawfully detained in virtually identical circumstances once before, in 2004.

“Ms. Morales’s ordeal is another example of how ICE’s detainer practices lead to wrongful detention,” said Kate Desormeau, staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “ICE has no business detaining U.S. citizens. Yet because of ICE’s practice of issuing detainers first and asking questions later, we’ve seen U.S. citizens unlawfully detained all across the country.” Rhode Island ACLU executive director Steven Brown added: “This case is an important reminder of the collateral damage that harsh immigration policies can cause, and provides a compelling reason why Rhode Island should not be in the business of assisting with federal immigration enforcement.”

An ICE detainer is a document that advises law enforcement officials that ICE may seek to take an individual into custody for deportation purposes once state or local custody ends. The suit alleges that ICE officials issue detainers “without a sufficient investigation to determine whether arrestees who are perceived to be ‘foreign’ (based on their place of birth, race or ethnicity, foreign-sounding last names, and/or English language ability) are in fact U.S. citizens.”

The suit also claims that ICE has been deliberately misleading about the legal effect of immigration detainers, prompting local and state officials to believe that they are required to continue holding individuals on the basis of detainers even though detainers are only requests that a person be held.

ICE agents and state and local officials typically treat a detainer as authorizing continued imprisonment, even if no state or federal charges are pending and no deportation proceedings have been brought. Unlike a criminal warrant, immigration detainers are issued by ICE itself, and are not based upon a probable cause determination by a neutral judicial officer.

The lawsuit claims that federal and state officials violated Ms. Morales’s constitutional rights to due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and seeks injunctive relief and damages for violation of her rights.

The suit is being handled by RI ACLU volunteer attorneys Mark Freel and Erika Lindberg from the law firm of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, and National ACLU attorneys Omar Jadwat and Kate Desormeau.