Steve Brown, the executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU has issued a statement regarding Providence City Councillor Kevin Jackson’s lawsuit against the two people, Patricia Kammerer and Karina Holyoak Wood, who have organized a recall effort and petition against him.

Jackson’s lawsuit also names the City of Providence and the Providence Board of Canvassers.

“The ACLU is not familiar enough with the mechanics of the City’s recall mechanism to comment on the specifics of the allegations contained in Councilor Jackson’s complaint,” said Brown in the RI ACLU statement, “We do agree that certain due process standards are essential before subjecting elected officials to the burdens imposed in having to defend themselves against removal from an elected position they obtained through a democratic process.

“At the same time, we are deeply troubled that, in addition to suing City officials and the Board of Canvassers, which is responsible for overseeing the recall petition process, the lawsuit names as defendants the two private individuals who have been involved in mounting this recall campaign. Their involvement in the suit is completely unnecessary in order for a court to address any legitimate due process concerns raised by the petition process.  Thus, the inclusion of these two individuals as defendants strikes us a classic SLAPP suit – an attempt to silence private citizens for seeking to exercise their First Amendment right to petition government.

“As Rhode Island’s SLAPP suit statute notes, ‘full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern before the legislative, judicial, and administrative bodies and in other public fora are essential to the democratic process.’ These two Providence residents should not be forced to defend themselves in a court of law for exercising petition rights granted them by the City Charter. The ACLU urges Councilor Jackson to amend his complaint and remove these two private citizens as defendants.”

In a statement the Kammerer and Holyoak Wood called Jackson’s lawsuit “an obvious delaying tactic.”  Holyoak Wood was the campaign manager of Marcus Mitchell, who ran an unsuccessful write-in campaign against Jackson two years ago.

More than a dozen people showed up for the event, only to learn from the hastily printed signs that the meeting was cancelled. People told me that they had made great efforts to be at this meeting. One man brought his six year old daughter with him, others arranged to leave work early. A nurse handed off a patient to her co-worker, and lost out a couple of hours of pay.

Several people, expecting a long meeting, paid for two hours of parking, as the on street parking, which used to be free at 6pm, is now free after 9pm. In all I talked to six people who paid for parking, including Sister Mary Pendergast, who said she’s “on a very limited budget.”

Representative Aaron Regunberg showed up. But even he, when asking various City Hall workers, including the Council President Chief of Staff Cyd McKenna, couldn’t get an adequate answer as to why the meeting suffered a last minute cancellation.

Councillor Seth Yurdin arrived ten minutes before the meeting was due to start. He had received a text ten minutes before arriving telling him the meeting was cancelled. He said he didn’t know why the meeting was cancelled. He had no more insight, it seems, than anyone else.

The people who arrived for the meeting were all prepared to give testimony on the resolution concerning the project at Fields Point, a center of toxic industry located in one of the poorest neighborhoods of color in New England. This was Councillor Seth Yurdin’s second resolution in opposition to the facility, and it was a much stronger statement.

Though Yurdin’s resolution was co-sponsored by half the City Council, passage of the resolution was prevented when Councilors Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett flipped their votes.

The resolution was sent to the Ordinance Committee which Hassett chairs. Hassett said at the time that, “I co-sponsored it but a committee review is necessary for a proper vetting and discussion before it is transmitted to the full Council.”

When I asked about why he cancelled the Monday evening meeting that would have allowed for “proper vetting and discussion,” Hassett said, in a written statement:

“The LNG ban, as proposed by Councilman Yurdin, has merit. I co-sponsored it on the floor of the City Council Session.

“However, we have not heard sufficient testimony from the energy developers on the plan itself – the productive results, the environmental impact – what is good versus bad. I’m an environmentally sensitive citizen and public servant, as most of us are. A new and productive proposal, as promised, is certainly worthy of discussion.”

Note that the “energy developers” Hassett is referring to is National Grid, a company that had just as much time and notice to make it to this meeting as the environmental advocates who made the effort to show up for the meeting did. In fact, National Grid has more time, if you take into account the fact that the company employs a full time legal staff.

“My difficulty,” continued Hassett, “is simply approving a resolution banning it until proper testimony is presented. Its akin to a court case. We cannot indict until and unless proper and verified evidence is presented and the jury agrees. Legislative language presents an argument.

“In this case I co-sponsored it on the floor of the City Council. My concern or our general concern is this….we need discussions in an open forum from those proposing the LNG and receive any counter testimony on the plan or proposal.

“Many have advocated transparency in government. I believe in it. It’s how the best decisions are made. So we will carefully review this proposal, a $40 million effort  should it meet our needs, our environmental protections and city economy.

“That’s my assessment based on your inquiry. It will be heard. Just better prepared for our decision makers and the public.”

Many who arrived at the City Hall to find the meeting cancelled are convinced that there were some backroom shenanigans involved. But no proof of these speculations will ever materialize. Instead, the blame for cancelling this meeting rests solely on Hassett and his decision, as he explains above.

I asked Hassett a follow up.

“The meeting was cancelled at 4:30. When meetings are scheduled on Friday afternoon and cancelled moments before they are to start on Monday, many people feel that there are shenanigans going on behind the scenes. At the very least, it shows a lack of concern for those who make the effort to attend. Do you have a comment on this?”

I received no answer.

I’ve experienced something like this before. Back in May 2014 a Providence City Council Ordinance Committee meeting that was to discuss the proposed $15 minimum wage for hotel workers was cancelled at the last minute, leaving dozens of working women in the lurch. At the time I wrote, “Working women secured childcare or brought their kids with them. They skipped meals, skipped overtime and traveled to the City Hall on foot, on buses or in carpools, only to find out that the Ordinance Committee meeting had been abruptly cancelled.”

The cancellation of this meeting allowed the General Assembly the time it needed to include an amendment in the State Budget to prevent municipalities like Providence from setting their own minimum wages, frustrating months of activism on the part of the hotel workers. The chair of the Ordinance Committee then was Seth Yurdin.

The resolution was referred to the Ordinance Committee last week, despite a near majority of City Councilors signing on as co-sponsors. At the time Councilor Jo-Ann Ryan said “I voted to send it to committee to provide an opportunity for community input at an open public meeting of the council. You can and should attend and voice your concerns. And encourage others to attend and participate in the process.”

Unfortunately, the meeting was filed on Friday, at 2:48pm, so it did not come to the attention of activists until Sunday afternoon. The timing might dampen “community input” especially given the last minute scrambling ahead of Tuesday’s primary elections.

There will be an opportunity for public comment at this meeting, so feel free to come out and speak your mind about fossil fuels and the future of the world.

Here’s the info:

Providence City Council: Ordinance Committee Hearing
Monday September 12th at 5pm
3rd floor, Providence City Hall (25 Dorrance St.)

And here’s the Facebook event page from NoLNGinPVD

Providence City Councillor Seth Yurdin introduced a resolution Thursday evening that would strengthen the City Council’s opposition to National Grid’s proposed Fields Point liquefaction facility. Immediately after introducing his resolution Councillor Sam Zurier rose to co-sponsor, as did councilors David Salvatore, Carmen Castillo, Wilbur Jennings, Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett.

Noting that it seemed as if a majority of the council was co-sponsoring the resolution, Yurdin moved that the resolution be voted on immediately. This caused councilors Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett to suddenly flip their support. Yurdin’s move for passage failed, and the resolution was passed onto the Ordinances committee.

Reached for comment, Hassett wrote, “I voted no to have an immediate passage on the floor without a Council committee review. I co-sponsored it but a committee review is necessary for a proper vetting and discussion before it is transmitted to the full Council.”

Ryan wrote, “I requested to be a sponsor of the resolution last night. It was sent to ordinance committee by a majority vote. I voted to send it to committee to provide an opportunity for community input at an open public meeting of the council. You can and should attend and voice your concerns. And encourage others to attend and participate in the process.”

There are no ordinance committee hearings on the current schedule. Hassett is the chair of ordinance and Ryan is a member of the committee.

National Grid wants to expand its LNG footprint in the Port of Providence with the new liquefaction plant. Environmental groups such as the RI Sierra Club and the Environmental Justice League of RI oppose the plan. Curiously, Save the Bay, whose offices are not too far from the proposed site, have not come out against it.

Mayor Jorge Elorza and a large group of state level Providence legislators have recently publicly come out in opposition to the project.

The City Council unanimously approved Yurdin’s previous resolution opposing the site in March. That resolution called for public meetings to be scheduled to address environmental and health concerns of the project. “Unfortunately,” said Yurdin, here we are in the Summer and no such meetings have been held… This resolution is stronger than the previous resolution.”

The previous resolution called for studies and review. The new resolution is a call to strong action.

The new resolution says, in part, “That the City shall take all necessary actions to oppose the proposed Fields Point liquefaction facility, including ceasing to act as a cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and shall not grant any tax stabilizations, subsidies, or any other forms of support to the project.”

Members of the Coalition to Pass the Community Safety Act (CSA) spoke out before Thursday night’s Providence City Council meeting about the importance of empowering local communities on policing.

“Providence needs the Community Safety Act because without it we feel unsafe,” said campaign coordinator Vanessa Flores-Maldonado in a statement. “The Coalition hopes that a public hearing will speak loudly to the need of an ordinance that seeks to hold police accountable when they harass and brutalize our community.

The Coalition, which is comprised of local community organizations and members, had previously submitted a petition on July 1 to have the city council hold a public hearing before going on their August break. However, the 90+ signatures submitted took 3 weeks to verify and no public hearing was scheduled within the 14 days required by the City Charter.

Malcus Mills of DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality) introduced three speakers, Dan, representing PrYSM (Providence Youth Student Movement), Wayne Woods of DARE, and Justice, speaking for RI Jobs with Justice.

Dan spoke about the gang database used by the Providence Police Department. If a youth is placed on the gang database list, they have no ability to remove their name or even check to see if their name is on the list. This may result in loss of job and educational opportunities in the future.

Right now, said Dan, the police, “judge people by their appearance, their race, gender etc, and they will say you are guilty… because they think you are part of a gang.”

Wayne Woods spoke of being profiled and pulled over on the East Side of Providence. After being removed from his car, searched, and then waiting for 20 minutes as his car was searched by police, he and his friend, both black men, were sent on their way. The police told the men, “To go home and take it easy.”

If the CSA were passed, said Woods, the car could only have been pulled over for probable cause and the police would have to issue a receipt to people they detain, outlining the conditions of the probable cause.

“A big part of why the CSA needs to be passed is so that we can hold people accountable to what they’re doing,” said Justice, representing Jobs with Justice. “Civil servants and law enforcement should be accountable just like other working people, and we need to be able to protect the people of Providence, we need to be able to protect the youth of color in Providence.”

The Providence Community Safety Act is a city-wide proposed ordinance that aims to hold police accountable and make communities safer. Developed by community members and organizations who are frustrated with police harassment and lack of accountability, the CSA has 12 key points that outline how police officers should interact with community members. These points range from video recording to traffic stops to the gang database.

Last summer, National Grid submitted a proposal to FERC to develop a $180 million facility to produce Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) directly from a Spectra Energy pipeline that delivers fracked gas from Marcellus Shale to Providence. LNG is produced by cooling natural gas to -260°F, which reduces its volume by 600 times and puts it into liquid form. As described in its application, National Grid would then utilize tanker trucks to export the LNG produced in Providence, primarily to locations in Massachusetts.

“No matter how you look at it, this project is a money-maker for the utility at the expense of our community and our state,” said Representative Almeida. “National Grid is asking us, the ratepayers, to foot the $180 million bill for this project, for what? So they can increase their own profits by exporting LNG out of the state! This does nothing to benefit our constituents, and it does nothing to benefit my neighbors on the South Side. All this proposal will do is transfer money from ratepayers’ pockets to National Grid’s coffers, and we’re not going to accept it.”

Legislators also expressed concerns about the safety risks of the proposed project.

“LNG is a dangerous substance,” said Representative Diaz. “Just two years ago, an LNG facility in Washington state exploded, causing an evacuation of everyone within a two-mile area. If that were to happen at this site, all of my constituents would be in danger. Why is it always our community that must shoulder the collateral damage and safety risks from these toxic projects?”

LNG is stable in liquid form, and without air it is not flammable. However, at any temperature over -260°F it converts to methane gas and expands by 600 times, rapidly pressurizing any sealed container. If LNG spills and mixes with airs, it becomes highly flammable and potentially explosive.

“I remember when Keyspan, which has since been bought by National Grid, applied to FERC with a similar proposal to build an LNG import facility at Fields Point in 2005,” said Senator Pichardo. “That application was denied due to the very real safety concerns of this kind of development. In fact, FERC Commissioner Nora Brownell cited the risks of accidents and explosions when turning down the proposal, stating that the project would not meet current federal safety standards. If doubling down on this dangerous fuel was unsafe ten years ago, it is unsafe for our neighborhood today, and I urge FERC to once again listen to the community’s opposition to this harmful development.”

Finally, the elected officials demanded that the climate consequences of the expanded fossil fuel infrastructure be taken into account.

“The science on climate change is clear. If my generation is to have any chance of inheriting an Ocean State with any state left in it, we need to transition to a clean energy economy as quickly as possible. This proposal would sink millions of ratepayer dollars into unnecessary new fossil fuel infrastructure that would be used for decades past our climate’s point of no return, and that is a betrayal of our children,” said Representative Regunberg. “Mayor Jorge Elorza and the Providence City Council have taken credit for being leaders on climate and environmental issues. But if the city awards a tax stabilization agreement to National Grid to support this project, then it is our belief that the mayor and council can no longer claim this kind of climate leadership. We hope they will do the right thing and tell National Grid that Providence will not facilitate this wasteful, ratepayer-funded, environmentally catastrophic scheme.”

The Providence legislators reported that they are submitting letters detailing their concerns to FERC, joining a growing list of community members and neighborhood organizations opposing National Grid’s application.

[From a press release]

“Do we really need another vacant or foreclosed property in our city,” said Council President Luis Aponte, who voted for the so-called tax stabilization agreement, after the meeting. He said the developers could have attained an administrative TSA for a smaller redevelopment had the council not awarded the tax break and that the city negotiated a good deal for residents by working with the developers.

Councilor Carmen Castillo was the only member of the elected board to vote against the TSA.

“We’re not a bank,” she said. “The neighborhood I represent never gets a tax break. We pay a lot in property taxes too.”

Councilor Sabina Matos said she supported the TSA because the council approved TSAs for downtown businesses so it was only fair that it do so for businesses in her district too. “We set a precedent,” she said. “We can’t give them to some developers and not others.”

Abacus Technology paid $1.8 million annually to rent 100,000 square feet of space in the Rising Sun Mills development on Valley Street but the company has decided to move to Johnston, said the developers.

“There’s no benefit to having Rising Sun Mills go dark,” said BJ Dupre, one of the developers, after the favorable decision from the Council. When asked if that would have happened if they didn’t get the tax break, another of the developers, Mark Van Noppen said it was a “distinct possibility.”

Aponte said the developers plan to reconfigure the commercial space into smaller offices. He said the TSA is void if they don’t pull all the requisite permits in 180 days.

“It’s hard to tell,” Aponte said when asked how much money the city budget would lose by extending the TSA to the Rising Sun Mills project. But, he added, “They are paying more than if they would have got a 5 year extension” as a result of the negotiations with city officials.

The Providence City Council has called a special meeting for Tuesday night and among the agenda items is tax stabilization agreements (TSAs) for 60 Valley Street, LLC and 166 Valley Street, LLC on behalf of the Rising Sun Mills Project. The ordinance is sponsored by Council President Luis Aponte. The details of the TSA can be found here.

The City Council unanimously rejected a similar TSA, for 100 Fountain St, in February, under intense public pressure. Aponte then said, given the city’s precarious economic situation, “It’s the right signal that the [Finance] Committee is sending to the public and to the [City] Council.”

The TSA being considered by the council notes that the “projects been suffered serious financial setbacks and hardships as a result of the collapse of the real estate and financial markets over the past several years” and hence a five year extension of TSAs granted in 2003 and 2006 is needed. In return, “the Project Owners of 166 Valley Street will make an additional investment of approximately $5 million which shall be used to convert approximately 85,000 square feet of the building from a single tenant space to multiple commercial spaces. This will assist in the Project Owners in attracting new tenants to the Project and will create new construction and potential permanent jobs at the Project Site.”

The amount of revenue Providence will lose in this deal is unclear.

Stop Tax Evasion in Providence (STEP) released a press release Monday claiming that that the Providence City Council leadership is failing taxpayers.

“You would think that the Council would be in no rush to go handing out more of these questionable extensions to projects that have already been paying very little taxes for 15 years, but you would be wrong,” says the STEP press release. “While the… promise of new spending and jobs from Rising Sun Mill owners would seem welcome, there are absolutely no safeguards to ensure they will invest what they say. Thus the city can be certain of neither jobs nor permitting revenue.”

The special city council meeting was announced on Friday, July 29, as big news stories broke, such as Representative John Carnevale deciding not to appeal the Providence Board of Canvassers decision that ended his re-election campaign and Attorney General Peter Kilmartin announcing the non-results of his 38 Studios investigation. Technically, the City Council went on break for August and was not due to reconvene until September 1.

As a result, this important meeting was almost missed.

The city council will also be awarding hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts at this meeting, according to the agenda.

The Providence City Hall Council Chamber was packed over capacity. The crowd was so raucous and loud it was hard to hear the speakers on their microphones.

“I Sabina Matos, would like to pass the Community Safety Act.”

“Seconded.”

Voice after voice pledged their support for the Community Safety Act.

“I, Seth Yurdin, would like to pass the Community Safety Act.”

“I, Sam Zurier, would like to pass the Community Safety Act.”

The Community Safety Act (CSA) passed unanimously. Not a single voice spoke against it. The City Council Chamber erupted in cheers and applause.

It was a brilliant moment.

But the Providence City Council never actually voted. Minutes before the City Council was to begin their meeting, their last meeting before taking a break for vacation, hundreds of protesters in support of Black Lives Matter had crossed the street from Kennedy Plaza and entered the chamber en masse. They took the seats of city councillors and acted out what passing the CSA might look like.

The CSA never passed. It has only recently been scheduled for consideration, when the City Council comes back in September.

As the crowd filed out of the chamber, Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective asked a just arriving City Councillor Seth Yurdin if he would really support the CSA when the time came.

“I don’t support the CSA,” said Yurdin.

Neither does Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza or Public Safety Commissioner Steven Paré.

Fifteen minutes earlier crowds gathered at Kennedy Plaza, across the street from City Hall. The Movement for Black Lives had called a nationwide, July 21 Collective Action for Freedom, in response to the recent slew of high profile police killings. In Providence, the action was organized by the Step Up Coalition to Pass the Community Safety Act and the White Noise Collective RI around the idea of supporting the CSA.

The proposed Providence ordinance has 12 key points pertaining to police interactions with community members, including providing interpretation, documenting traffic stops in a standardized manner, and limiting police collaboration with other law enforcement agencies such as ICE. The CSA would also re­establish the Providence External Review Authority (PERA) with the power to recommend that Public Safety and Police Department budgets be reapportioned to youth recreation and job training programs.

“We don’t want to compromise on the safety of our community. When you have women dying in jail because they didn’t use a turn signal or youth being shot in cold blood for having toy guns in an open carry state, we can’t compromise,” said Community Safety Act Campaign Coordinator, Vanessa Flores­-Maldonado. “We need police accountability now because no one feels safe in our community.”

The campaign recently scored a win when organizers secured a public hearing for the CSA at the beginning of September. The “mock hearing” was organized to put additional pressure on the City Council to pass the CSA.

At the mock hearing, Flores -Maldonado spoke directly to the city council members present, including Council President Luis Aponte, saying that the city council should listen to what the people had to say.

The protest left city hall and marched up Washington St towards the Providence Public Safety Complex, where people gave a series of speeches in support of the CSA, hiring more teachers of color, community defense, and abolishing the police. Here the speeches were in turn thoughtful and emotional. I would recommend them to those seeking a better understanding of these issues.

After leaving the public safety complex the march continued on to Cathedral Square, where there was some last words before the march disbanded.

Councilman Kevin Jackson is my city councilor. I’d like to see someone better. Here are the things I’d like to see taken on by whoever replaces him (as a challenger, or after he resigns):

Someone to fight for lower taxes on renters

Kevin Jackson gave some tepid support to changing the tax structure so that it stops taxing non “owner occupant” apartments at a higher rate. The next councilor needs to fight hard to make this a reality.

Someone to fight for higher taxes on parking

The parking tax is on the horizon as a serious proposal for the future, and a Ward 3 councilperson must be a supporter. The only way the city is going to reform its land-use while making more housing and business opportunities is if it wakes up and smells the asphalt that surrounds much of downtown. It’s time to do something about it.

Having a higher tax on parking would be one of the best taxes on the rich that Providence is capable of, but that money could then be put directly to lowering taxes on other properties, ensuring that it builds growth rather than resentment in the Capital City.

Someone who will fight to get rid of exclusionary zoning

Jackson was among a depressingly large majority of councilors who voted to increase exclusionary zoning in Providence– the city is currently being sued for the action. City Council needs to stop legislating multifamily housing and house-sharing away through zoning measures. Top concerns should be getting rid of the R-1 and R-1A designations, to allow single-family-detached-only neighborhoods to get rid of minimum lot sizes, allow granny flats, rowhouses, apartment buildings, and subdivisions of houses into apartments. The R-1A designation is so draconian that it even makes certain kinds of single-family detached housing illegal because it mandates exurban-sized plots of land around them.

Someone who will speak truth on the car tax

A year of RIPTA costs the same as the tax on a $15,000 car, but to hear many city councilors talk about it, you’d think the most important equity thing we could do in the city is raise the exemption on the car tax (which gives every car owner, not just the clunker-owners, a $60 per vehicle tax cut). The next councilor needs to say that cutting the car tax is off the table, especially at a time when doing so means raising the effective property tax*. Lowering the car tax is not about equity, it’s about politicking. 25% of the city is excluded from this tax reduction, which isn’t paid for and puts the city’s budget in danger.

Someone who will fight water privatization

Privatizing the water supply is a crazy idea, and should be stopped at all costs.

Someone who understands smart-growth and the value of downtowns, but isn’t going to give the budget away for free

Urban-style buildings– the kind that have mixed-use, and take up smaller patches of land– cost the city much less money in services, but generate a lot more money in taxes per acre. So, smart-growth naturally entails recognizing that reality and building it into the tax code. That said, there are good ways to do this, and bad ways. I’d be in favor, for instance, of seeing the city and state partner to fix the Superman Building, but I’d like to see taxpayers get shares in the property. I’m not at all fooled into thinking the point of fixing 111 Westminster is the direct, immediate profitability of the property– it’s a historic, iconic building, and fixing it is about the enormous benefit to the neighborhood around it. But if the city and state are going to pour money into something, they should own it. We may break even on the deal, but at least it’s us that breaks even. Just giving money away means we break even while someone else profits for free.

The next city councilor needs to recognize that there are many downtowns in Providence, and see how the value of urban properties is not just in Downcity or the East Side. That means recognizing the way the tax code disables businesses in other corridors, like Broad Street or Cranston Street. It also means fighting loudly against state agencies like RIDOT that create problems for the city’s prosperity. Urban neighborhoods are systematically harmed by bad policies from above, and the city council needs to be a sounding board against those policies, not just a quiet body for practical lawmaking.

Someone who isn’t too parochial

The city should operate as a whole, but often it acts as separate council fiefdoms. It would be nice to see a councilperson come in to Ward 3 that is concerned about the whole city, and thinks about communities outside of the East Side. An example, off-hand, would be the proposal to put a $1.5 million boardwalk bike path along the Seekonk River on the East Side (outside of Jackson’s ward). In itself, it’s a fairly worthy project, but compared to what could be done for biking throughout the whole city on the same budget, it’s not. The city of Minneapolis just budgeted for 30 miles of protected bike lanes– including changes to signal timing, paving, landscaping and so on that could accompany that– for $6 million. In a city of our size, $1.5 million is the kind of money we could spend to connect the South Side and West Side to Downtown and the East Side, but instead it’ll be used for a much smaller project. It’s not the worst kind of problem that could be named, for sure, but it’s the kind of thing that could be improved for future proposals. We should be thinking city-wide.

~~~~

*The “rate” on property taxes went down, while the amount paid has gone up in the most recent budget. This is because properties were assessed at a higher value.