The ‘Emergence’ of painter Amy Rudis


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

EMERGENCE-New-Works-by-Amy-Rudis-Window-Gallery-web

Rhode Island College alumnus and East Providence High School art teacher Amy Rudis will become the featured artist of the URI Feinstein Providence Campus Urban Arts and Culture Program Art Windows & Providence Art Windows gallery exhibition from July 1-August 21 with her new show EMERGENCE.

33a25f_c27a0119314744d8906d276a90c34917.jpg_srz_p_478_464_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz
Artist Amy Rudis.

The principal portrait painter at TEN31 Productions, her work has reached a nationwide level with TEN31’s Performance Art/Living Statues show and individual canvas work.  She concentrates her efforts especially on human figure and nude paintings.

8e7a7b68084f19cdfe26a6dbd7a12b83

dff075d7daba72d42d17773395db0bae

660e7a4b12ace1c4219c7be09601a1c7

In her artistic statement, she cites as some of her influences Lucian Freud and Philip Perlstein, as well as the chiaroscuro notions of using light and shadow as seen in major works of the Renaissance.  She writes in her artistic statement:

As a figurative artist, I feel the importance of capturing both beauty and imperfection in the human form is imperative in evoking emotion within the viewer. Nudes have long been a popular subject matter amongst artists, and have in the recent past seemingly, become a dying art form. It is my desire to give rise to the appreciation for figurative art simply as a work of beauty; drawing the viewer’s eye into the subtle nuances of form and color being my main goal.

The exhibit’s Gallery Night Reception will be held from 5-9 PM on July 16.  Questions can be directed to Providence Art Windows Director Rebecca Siemering at rebecca.siemering@gmail.com.  Founded in 2010 with funding from Arts Jobs Program of the New England Foundation for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Providence Art Windows is a juried series of exhibitions of art held in empty retail storefronts and collaborating galleries.  For more information, visit their website at http://providenceartwindows.blogspot.com.  The Urban Arts and Culture Program at URI Providence Campus is a program that brings together students, alumni, and community groups to foster education about culture, urban issues, diversity, and nonviolence.  Their website is http://www.uri.edu/prov/arts/ and can be contacted via the URI Urban Arts and Culture Program Marketing Department at 401- 277-5162.

kaGh5_patreon_name_and_message

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.

Tanzi stumps for South County as budget cuts its tourism funding


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

Just because House Finance passed the FY 2016 budget onto the House floor for next Tuesday, doesn’t mean the entire House of Representatives has to like it. In fact, much of the bill is contested – such as the tourism cuts that Representative Teresa Tanzi, Narragansett/South Kingstown, has voiced her opposition to.

The RI House of Representatives before convening on the floor on June 11, 2015
The RI House of Representatives before convening on the floor on June 11, 2015

“When I moved here from Utah, everyone said “Oh, Newport, Providence!” People already know about Newport and Providence and I would say “No, Narragansett,” and nobody would know what Narragansett was. I have a really difficult time turning a portion of our money over from South County to help promote more Providence and more Newport.” she said, citing that the South County tourism board works very hard to market their area of the state.”

In response House Speaker Nick Mattiello said, “Despite that wonderful job, everyone still talks about Providence and Newport. It’s the integrity of the entire system that we’re looking at, and you need a Rhode Island brand. It’s not about localities. The current system doesn’t work, and we cannot go back to a system that doesn’t work.”

Their disagreement stems from Governor Gina Raimondo’s idea to centralize state tourism spending. Currently, Rhode Island has no unified state marketing efforts and instead dives proceeds from hotel tax receipts between 8 regional tourism agencies. The money will now go more towards the state Commerce Corporation, rather than the tourism bureaus themselves. In the House version of the budget, $4.7 million goes straight to the Commerce Corporation, while less than a million goes to the actual tourism district. In Gov. Raimondo’s version, $6.4 million would go to the corporation, leaving the districts with $1.7 million.

Rep. Tanzi (D- District 34). Photo courtesy of http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/
Rep. Tanzi (D- District 34)

After the hearing, Tanzi continued to express her concerns about the funding cuts, and how they will harm her district as a whole.

“I think that the way that the South County tourism board is run is actually very effective. We have been compliant, we turn in our reports when we’re supposed to, our production cost of our marketing materials, everything is done in house. We’re very conscientious about how the money is spent,” she said, especially in comparison to other tourism boards across the state. Tanzi believes that this will only disserve the southern portion of Rhode Island, especially because Newport and Providence, in her opinion, do not need more marketing.

“The beaches are their own unique part of it,” she said. “We need to have our own budget to market that appropriately. We’re competing with the Cape, we’re not competing with Massachusetts.”

As the budget is currently written, Tanzi stated that to “cannibalize” the smaller parts of the state in order to market Rhode Island as a whole is not the best use of money, and it will only show poorly within the coming years.

“My guess is that my businesses in South County, who have five months out of the year at most, to make their living to make it through the entire summer, are going to suffer as a result of this,” she said. Tanzi has spoken to many of the businesses in her district since the budget first came out in March, adding that such funds are always a concern for business owners in the area.

But, the prospect of Tanzi submitting a successful amendment to support her district is slim to none, in her view, calling South County the “small fish,” in comparison to Newport and Providence.

“Just the basic numbers of looking at it, you’re talking about a couple of South County people, versus the city folk and the Newport people, who outnumber us on the floor. So, my chances of an amendment passing are ridiculously infantile. They’re infinitesimal, they’re so small, so, no, I won’t,” she said.

Even without the hope of amending the budget, this year, though, Tanzi still holds out hope for next year, planning to bring forth data showing the exact effects of these cuts on South County tourism, and maybe even get to create a separate brand for her district in the process.

Q&A on the 6/10 Connector


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 6/10 Connector rips Olneyville and Valley apart from Federal Hill and the West End. Replacing it with a boulevard would be less expensive and reconnect these neighboring parts of the city.

With Governor Raimondo’s recent push for transportation funding, people are talking about patching up the 6/10 Connector vs. replacing it with a boulevard. Best practice in urban design recommends replacing urban highways with boulevards. But that would be something we haven’t done before in Rhode Island, so it’s understandable that some people have concerns. Here are a few questions I thought you might have about updating the 6/10 Connector for the 21st century.

  1. That’s a big change. Wouldn’t it be expensive to remove the highway?Governor Raimondo is proposing a tractor-trailer toll that would allow the state to bond for $700 million. $400 million of that (plus another $400 million RIDOT wants to get from the Feds) is earmarked for the 6/10 Connector repairs. That is expensive.

    Prices vary a lot for building highways, but urban highways with as many overpasses as the 6/10 Connector tend to be on the high end of the scale (and $800 million is quite high). Boulevards (think Memorial Boulevard in Providence, but more multimodal) tend to have a cost roughly ten times lower than an urban highway. Imagine how many structurally-deficient bridges we could make safe with an extra $360-720 million? That’s a very rough cost comparison, but what we can be sure of is that replacing the 6/10 Connector with a boulevard (even tripped out with the best complete streets features you can think of) would cost dramatically less than rebuilding it as a highway.

  2. So many cars use the connector! Wouldn’t removing it create massive traffic jams?Actually many cities have removed excessive urban highways and seen no marked increase in traffic. There are a couple reasons for this. Traffic is created through a process called “induced demand” where if you build more highways, drivers will use them. Conversely, if you eliminate an urban highway, fewer people will use it as a short-cut.

    “But wait!” you say. “I use 6/10 as a shortcut! You want to reduce my transportation options!” Actually, in other cities that remove urban highways, they see the traffic that previously used the highway spread out over the city’s other streets. And there’s less potential for traffic jams when drivers have lots of options. It’s like how bugs congregate around lights on hot summer nights, but out in the dark it’s less buggy. 6/10 is the bug-clogged light, city streets are the cool night air.

    And one more thing: our current transportation network overwhelmingly favors driving; it has big highways that cut swaths through neighborhoods that are uninviting to other ways of getting around. Leveling the playing field by making our street system more comfortable for more ways of getting around (RIPTA, walking, and biking as well as driving) gives you more choices and more freedom. Plus, it means more other people are choosing to walk or bike and they’re not clogging up the road in front of you.

  3. It’ll never happen. We can’t do innovative things in Rhode Island.I mean, this isn’t that innovative. And hey, we started the Industrial Revolution and moved rivers to revitalize downtown Providence. I think we have it in us to make a prudent economic decision to give Rhode Islanders more transportation options and safer bridges.

    Plus, you cynics, politicians like ribbon-cuttings and ground-breakings. It’s not as sexy to photo-shoot the replacement of an archaic 1950s-era project as it is to pose for the first complete multi-modal corridor in the State.

We can assume that because the 6/10 Connector is in Raimondo’s investment plan, now is the time that something will happen with it. The state should choose the approach that is best for the neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor, which coincidentally is the option with the best return on investment. Replace the 6/10 Connector with an urban boulevard.

Want to help make this happen? Transport Providence is organizing a walk around the area in question today at 5:15 with Providence City Councilman Bryan Principe. The best thing you can do is to talk to people about this. Which people? Especially your representatives (state, federal, and city if you live in Providence), the Governor’s office, and RIDOT.

Providence school busing routes require rethinking


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

School Bus

Last week, more than 60 local students marched in circles around City Hall holding signs that read, “Keep Your Promise,” and “My Feet Hurt.”

The Providence Student Union (PSU) organized the action in protest of Mayor Elorza’s failure to follow through on his campaign promise regarding school transportation to “bring the walking limit to 2 miles, and to grant bus passes to anyone who lives beyond that.” Currently, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) passes only extend to students living farther than 2.5 miles from school. This 2.5 mile radius came after a reduction from a 3 mile radius by former Mayor Angel Taveras via the inclusion of additional funding in the 2014-15 budget, with plans for further reduction of the radius in the 2015-2016 school year. As WPRI reports, as “Elorza and school officials scrambled to close a projected $34.7-million shortfall in the budget year that begins July 1, the $680,000 needed to reduce the distance to two miles was deemed too steep.”

PSU organizer Roselin Trinidad, in an interview with NBC 10’s Bill Rappleye, stated, “Kids have actually told me I’d rather stay at home than walk in the snow because I’m safe. I know I’m not going to slip on the sidewalk. I know I’m not going to get frostbite because I’m home.” And she continued, “the sidewalks are not well plowed, so it forces me to walk on the street. I’ve been lucky so far.” Indeed, the need for a solution to this massive lack of transportation for students who live substantial distances from their schools is incredibly palpable after this past winter, when the unplowed and unsalted sidewalks became dangerous.

It’s a predicament that I myself can relate to: while I don’t attend public school in town, I live exactly 2.5 miles from Brown’s campus where I go to teach and attend classes, and I often walk the distance. Here is the crucial difference: if I get a blister, or my feet hurt, or I’m just exhausted, or there has been a blizzard, I have the option of either taking the bus (which is paid for), getting a ride from my partner, taking a Brown-provided safeRIDE, or driving in my sometimes-functional car. When the streets were at their worst this winter, I walked to campus as little as possible, because I didn’t feel safe walking down the slippery sidewalks, or, worse, down the middle of the street because the sidewalks were too icy or completely unshoveled. Again, I live 2.5 miles from campus, which is relatively far, regardless of whether the city thinks this is a reasonable distance for high school students to walk. I fell one of the few times I did walk this winter, and I heard many stories of fellow students, a number of whom lived much closer to campus, who fell multiple times, often getting injured or bruised in the the process. If Brown students with access to multiple forms of transportation are having trouble getting to school, it is absurd that high school students being asked to make such long treks without access to public transit.

Indeed, the 2 mile mark is not enough, and this seems especially true when the weather turns sour. I say this not solely as a Brown student, but as someone who has attended 8 different public institutions across the grade spectrum, including several public colleges, all of which provided better access to transportation than Providence currently provides its students.

As Elorza himself said while campaigning, “denying students who live between 2-3 miles away from school bus passes impacts learning, impacts health, and impacts safety, and our low-income communities are disproportionately affected.”

Roselin Trinidad’s response as quoted in Bob Plain’s recent RIFuture article seems apt:  “Mayor Elorza pledged that the City would put money in next year’s budget to lower the walking distance for Providence high school students down to 2 miles. Yet his proposed budget does not direct a single dollar toward keeping this promise. It is unacceptable for Mayor Elorza to value our ability to access education before an election, but not after, and we will not quiet down until this wrong has been righted.”

Is there a way to make bussing more sustainable? Can bus passes have some form of nominal fee attached to them that is tiered much like many free or reduced price student meal programs in order to make the program budget-friendly in a way that opens it to students up to the 1.5 or 1 mile mark (according to an RIFuture article from 2014, over half of Rhode Island school districts provide transportation for students living within 1.5 miles, and almost a third of districts provide transportation to students living beyond the 1 mile mark)? Is there a way to expand this program to more students when the weather turns sour for months on end? Can schools do anything in the interim to help students get to their classes like school organized car-pooling?

I think this issue needs to be looked at seriously, and just reducing the limit to 2 miles, while a necessary first step, also leaves many other students still in precarious positions, especially if the city experiences another winter like this last one. Providence’s utter neglect evokes one of those “back in my day” stories where a grandparent describes walking uphill, through the snow both ways, to school. Except the city’s current students experience such ridiculous slogs on a daily basis. Except now, when the the students do get to school, the buildings are often crumbling. Seriously, Providence can do better.

Tear down 6/10: Pictures of our potential future


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

Some on the conservative right and the progressive left are angry about tolls and others, on both the right and left, are smart enough to understand why tolls make sense. But everyone should agree, beyond all doubt, that it doesn’t make sense for us to put 4 out of 7 toll dollars to work rebuilding an urban blight.

The oldest section of the 6/10 Connector, Rt. 10 Huntington Expressway, is the oldest highway in the state, and is mostly redundantly a mirror of I-95. It cuts neighborhoods from each other, lowers property values, takes up developable space, and pukes smog into the air for poor folks to breath. One of our state’s best resources, the Washington Secondary Bike Path, is poorly used because its natural connection to Providence from Cranston is at Cranston Street, where only the boldest ride their bikes under the highway through thick, multi-lane traffic jams.

Read: Why Should We Remove Rt. 6/10?

Read: RIDOT Director Alviti Promises 6/10 Bus Lanes: Why Are They a Bad Idea?

Read: Providence is in the Top Ten for Lane-Miles Per Capita of Highway

But forget all that. Here are some places that used to be highways in other parts of the world. If pictures can’t convince you, then what can?

Seoul, South Korea

Used to be a(n American-built) highway. This is one of several that have been removed.

Portland, Oregon

Used to be a highway. The on- and off-ramps for the Harbor Drive highway now serve a bike path.

 

 

 


San Francisco

Used to be a highway. There was no access to this old ferry building when the Embarcadero stood. Luckily an earthquake took it down, and the people of San Francisco decided it wasn’t worth replacing it.

Milwaukee

The Park East Freeway–not there anymore. Removed.

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Used to be this: limited access.

Now it’s this: complete streets.

Memphis

Before.

After:

Jamaica Plain, Forest Hills

I-95, proposed:

Almost happened:

Stopped:

Dallas

Rt. 345. What it is:

What it could be: lots of development land, right next to downtown.

New York City

West Side Highway. Before:

After:

Philadelphia:

(Never happened, South Street)

Proposed:

What it would’ve taken:

Isaiah Zagar helped fight that highway. Here’s his Magic Garden.

Providence

How it was: (Oh yeah! We did that!)

How it is:

Olneyville

How it was:

How it is:

Call your reps, state senators, and other officials, and let them know what should be done with the 6/10 Connector. No urban place has ever been made better by a highway. Every urban place that has removed a highway has flourished. It doesn’t make sense to spend so much money on something that will make our city worse. It’s a no-brainer.

~~~~

Voter initiative launched to stop downtown stadium deal


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

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

providence-stadium-rendering-april-2015Since the idea first surfaced to move the Pawtucket Red Sox to downtown Providence, many Rhode Islanders have feared a backroom deal would be made – regardless of the project’s merits – between the affluent owners and local politicians. But Sam Bell says a start-up group calling itself the Providence Campaign Against the Stadium Deal has a plan to make sure the decision is made by the people of Providence instead.

“We are now more than halfway towards the 1,000 signatures we need to send our anti-stadium ordinance to the City Council,” Bell told RI Future in an email.

He explained, “Our voter initiative uses Section 209 of the Providence Home Rule Charter, which allows us to collect 1,000 signatures to bring an ordinance to the City Council.  If the City Council does not approve it, the Charter allows us to collect more signatures to put it on the ballot.”

The same Providence process allowed hotel housekeepers last spring to put on the ballot a $15 an hour minimum wage for that industry but the idea was squelched when the General Assembly passed a law forbidding municipal minimum wages that differ from state law.

Bell said the anti-stadium “initiative forbids the stadium from being built on the part of the I-195 land designated a public park, and it forbids Providence from providing any special financial treatment for the stadium, including tax breaks.”

He said the formal campaign against the downtown stadium began collecting signatures 8 days ago and has already amassed more than 500. There is no deadline for reaching the requisite 1,000, he said.

“Providence residents are incredibly opposed to the stadium deal, but popular sentiment is not always heard in the back rooms of the State House and City Hall,” Bell said. “What makes us so excited about this campaign is that it gives the power back to the people. We hope to win the support of the City Council and the Mayor in our campaign to stop the stadium deal.  If not, we will stop it at the ballot box.”

Elorza on students’ insistence he keep campaign promise about school busing


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
Roselin Trinidad speaks at a City Hall rally for school transportation. Photo courtesy of PSU. Click image for more.
Roselin Trinidad speaks at a City Hall rally for school transportation. Photo courtesy of PSU. Click image for more.

Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza says he hasn’t broken a campaign promise to provide bus passes for local students who live more than two miles from school. He just hasn’t made good on it yet.

“I remain committed to reducing the walk-to-school radius and fixing the school assignment process so fewer students are facing long commutes,” Elorza said in a statement. “I have walked with these kids, I understand the difficulty they face, and I look forward to working together to address this issue.”

The Providence Student Union and other local high school students held a rally at City Hall Tuesday to hold Mayor Elorza accountable for a campaign pledge he made to provide bus passes for students who live more than 2 miles from school.

“This is a matter of priorities, not cash,” Elorza said in February, according to to RI Future, when he was first running for office.

But now that he is mayor, it seems to have become a matter of cash. The roughly $1 million expenditure to expand the number of students who get bus passes for their school commute was not included in his budget. As a candidate, Elorza said, “With a total city budget of $662 million, we must make it a priority to find the $1.35 million to fund passes for the 2,100 students who live between 2 and 3 miles from school.”

Elorza spokesman Evan England said today, “It’s not something we don’t want to do. There are a lot of difficult decisions right now.”

England added, “It’s not necessarily off the table for next school year,” noting the mayor may approach RIPTA about partnering on the costs, and looks forward to meeting with PSU members to talk about other potential solutions.

But when asked if the issue was an imperative to solve before next school year, England said, “I don’t know. I know it’s something the mayor feels very strongly about and something he wants to see get done.”

Most Rhode Island and many regional urban school districts provide public transportation to school when students live greater than two miles from school, according to this RI Future post. Providence provides public transportation when students live greater than 2.5 miles from school, reduced from 3 miles in September.

“Last year, a clear and simple promise was made by the City, the School Department and most of all by then-candidate for mayor Jorge Elorza to set this issue right,” said PSU member Roselin Trinidad, a senior at Central High School, in a statement about the group’s rally yesterday at City Hall. “Mayor Elorza pledged that the City would put money in next year’s budget to lower the walking distance for Providence high school students down to 2 miles. Yet his proposed budget does not direct a single dollar toward keeping this promise. It is unacceptable for Mayor Elorza to value our ability to access education before an election, but not after, and we will not quiet down until this wrong has been righted.”

Said PSU member Diane Gonzalez, a junior at Central High, “I am here today because I live 2.4 miles away from my school. That means I don’t qualify for a free monthly bus pass. My family cannot afford to spare $60 each month for a pass, so I have to walk halfway across the city every single day just to get to school, and then back again to get home. While that walk can be a pain in any weather, it can be downright dangerous when the poorly plowed streets are covered in ice or when the temperature hits 95 degrees. That’s why I hope Mayor Elorza is listening, and why I plan to come back here every day until he does.”

PSU created this video (which utilizes RI Future footage of Elorza pledging to address the situation) to draw attention to the matter.

Update: the original version of this post said Providence provides school busing at 3 miles. Last year, the city reduced that to 2.5 miles. The post was corrected.

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.

Alert: Key hearing on Custom House tax breaks Thursday


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

custom houseThis Thursday at 6pm, the Finance Committee of the Providence City Council is meeting to consider a generous tax break proposed for the Custom House downtown office building.

Currently, the Custom House is downtown office space, and the developers want to convert the upper floors to apartments. And they want public money to do it.

The deal the developers are pushing for is structured as a 12-year tax stabilization. For the first three years, there would be no new taxes, and the new taxes would ramp up over the next nine years. Make no mistake, this is a special deal for a specially connected developer. These deals aren’t being made available to ordinary small-time developers, who can’t afford the same network of well-connected lobbyists, lawyers, and tax credit brokers. If you expand your house or renovate a dilapidated triple-decker, you don’t get your taxes stabilized.

This special tax break is crucially important because the city is currently writing a standardized policy on special tax breaks for big developers. During the campaign, Mayor Jorge Elorza was critical of the abuses of the tax-stabilization agreement program.  Newly elected Council President Luís Aponte has been even more vocally critical of abusive and unfair special tax breaks for developers.  According to multiple City Hall sources, the new standardized policy could severely restrict some abuses, making these special breaks much shorter than the twelve years being proposed for the Custom House.

That’s why stopping this deal is so vitally important.  If the city approves an excessively long twelve-year stabilization, it will set the bar abysmally low for the standardized policy.   Valuable revenue that could go to underfunded priorities like schools, snow plowing, and tax relief will be wasted on corporate special interests.

There is serious skepticism on the Council over such an overly generous deal.  Its future is very much up in the air.

That’s why it will be so important to come to this hearing at 6pm in the Council chambers.  We can stop this unfair deal.

What should be done about RIPTA’s deficit?


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

RIPTAAt the May 5 Senate Finance RIPTA budget hearing, RIPTA CEO Ray Studley projected a $1.4 million deficit this fiscal year, and about a $5.6 million deficit next year (which starts July 1), and said he is “running out of options” to reduce deficits without cutting service.

This deficit is mostly due to paratransit, or transit for people with disabilities. Changes to this program may cost RIPTA about $5.9 million next year due to elimination of the “Rhody 10” revenue and the shift of many clients from some DHS programs to unreimbursed but expensive ADA rides. There was also a loss of revenue due to changes at Johnson&Wales that reduced sales.

His “ask” to address this, as far as I can tell, was to refer to bill H6108 which seems to authorize RIPTA to charge a $1 fare to the 1/3 of all passengers who ride free, mainly low income seniors and the disabled.

It would also have the state make up any further subsidy needed as result of this reduced fare. Studley noted this is still more generous than federal requirements which allow full fare during peak hours. He indicated that with 5.6 million free rides/year, such a $1 fare with expected elasticity might produce about $3 million in additional revenue. He noted one reason for the high number of free rides is a generous qualification level at incomes up to 200% of poverty, Mr. Studley suggested consideration of lowering it to 150%.

It seems Pennsylvania and Illinois are the only other states having a comparable free ride level but those states explicitly make up the lost revenue with a state appropriation.

Studley also hinted at another gas tax hike dedicated to RIPTA, (there was a map of state gas tax rates in the power point) noted that is what happened last time RIPTA took a hit from changes in Medicaid transport policy. However, the gas tax is already going up 1 cent in July (RIPTA should get 5% of the additional revenue, about $210,000) and with MA gas tax 6.5 cents less than RI it will be a challenge to get the Assembly to boost it further.

The senators asked about fuel costs, the paratransit system, overtime expenses, but made no suggestions to close the deficit.

Charging low income seniors and disabled a fare is a sensitive subject but it is worthy of serious consideration as there seem no easy alternatives. Most passengers, RIPTA employees, and transit advocates who see the potential of transit to help our core cities, the economy and the environment, think the worst thing would be to reduce service, especially as lines with weak ridership have already been weeded out by the recent route study assessment. While a little revenue can be gained by higher fares on long distance park and ride expresses, a fare increase above $2 in the metro area may provide little additional revenue and would hurt the mostly low income working people who pay the fares.

I don’t expect much more help from the Governor. Channel 10 reported she stated her high priority was to end the car excise tax. That would be a boon to those households with many cars, or expensive cars, but at the expense of those without.

Perhaps RIPTA could do more to rebuild paying ridership which took a hit with the long KP construction and the snowstorms. It was also noted at the fare study hearing how little revenue was being generated by the employer-supported “ecopass.” Note that there is very limited support for Upass support from public colleges. For example, while Brown faculty and staff (as well as students) can ride “free” with Brown IDs, no such benefit is available to faculty and staff from CCRI, RIC or URI, not even at URI-Providence in the midst of congestion but with good transit access and where the “free” parking provided in the Convention Center garage is very expensive.

I welcome suggestions on how to proceed as does the RIPTA Riders Alliance.

Put Providence streetcar in proper context


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

pvd streetcarI have many points of agreement with Barry Schiller’s post on a potential Providence streetcar, but my disagreements are serious enough to be worth writing about.

Barry is right to raise concern about whether the Providence streetcar is the best use of our funds. Streetcars do cost more than buses, and they don’t necessarily upgrade service. The main features that make transit better–a train or bus having its own right-of-way, having signal priority, having an off-board payment system, all-door-boarding, and frequent service–may or may not be present with rail. Many Americans express a strong preference for rail because oftentimes the rail options they’re familiar with have these features, while the bus lines they’ve been on usually have not.

A subway in New York, for instance, has its own tracks, and never gets caught in traffic. Trolleys in the Philadelphia suburbs (and I believe many of the Green Line Ts in Boston) control intersections, so that when they come to a crossing the cars have to stop and they proceed. When you pay to get on a subway or some stops of a trolley, you often will pay through a turnstile, so that when the vehicle arrives you can just get on (using all doors). There are even upgrades that can happen to subways along these lines. The frequent problem of passengers bunching up on the middle cars of a subway is now being solved by putting stretchy accordion-like connections between the cars so that passengers can spread out and reduce boarding delays.

The Providence streetcar, as currently planned, currently has none of these features (If you need convincing still on why it should have them, read this “Dissent of the Week” in Human Transit, about the Washington, D.C. trolleys).

I have criticized the streetcar, but I am currently a proponent of moving forward on it. There are several reasons for this:

Our time is better spent fighting for good service features than fighting whether or not to have a streetcar. While there are many really bright transit-supporters who have legitimate complaints about the Providence streetcar, many of the people who are against streetcars are fighting them for totally different reasons than Barry (or me).

The right has long proposed busing as a way to supplant the greater costs of rail projects, but when cities have recently attempted to take them up on it by building quality BRT routes, the Koch Brothers have banded together with state governments to stand in the way of city planners in cities like Nashville, Tennessee. I’m concerned that we’ll have a pyrrhic victory if we block the streetcar, because it won’t necessarily mean that we’re going to get the money that was for the Streetcar given to us for buses instead. We can grow the strength of smart critics while giving no quarter to anti-transit folks by supporting the streetcar, and simply demanding better service patterns as part of it. We shouldn’t be passive about this–we need to fight! But let’s pick our battles.

Short routes in dense areas are okay. One big criticism of the streetcar you hear is that it’s not long enough. I don’t agree with this one. The comprehensiveness of our transit system is definitely a problem, but it’s not because of length of routes. In fact, Rhode Island has a tendency to run infrequent “coverage” routes to places where they can’t reasonably pick up large riderships, and often those routes connect from parking lot to parking lot in highly un-walkable, sprawly areas. I’m not even talking about little villages or whatnot, which I think should get transit because of their walkability even though they have low population counts. I’m talking about routes like the 54 that loop through multiple parking lots off of highway exit ramps, and as a result are bad connectors between their main urban locations–Providence and Woonsocket (RIPTA addressed the long travel time of the 54 by removing the urban stops along Charles St. and making them a separate route, the 51, but kept the suburban Tour-de-Parking-Lot stops, which just makes me smack my face with my palm every time). A short PVD Streetcar is not perfect. It should go from Central Falls (or at least Pawtucket) to the Cranston border. But the area that was chosen is a dense and walkable area with many trips that need to be covered. In fact, I think the choice to shorten the route and run it north-south between the Upper South Side and the T station is a great idea, because it makes more sense in the long-term to route a PVD Streetcar up N. Main and down through the S. Side and update the R-Line, with a separate route pulling east-west duty from Olneyville to East Providence). Pro-car thinkers (and even a lot of very earnest transit supporters look at a map and see the length of lines), but what matters is the frequency of those lines, not their length.

Streetcars are not the most expensive transportation choice we have. I agree, in principle, and spent quite a long time talking about the fact that Bus Rapid Transit is a better investment idea than the streetcar, and I know that Barry agrees. But I also know that Barry will agree with me that the streetcar is certainly not the most expensive transportation option we have. The 6/10 Connector, for instance, won’t cost $100 million, but $500 million, and unlike the streetcar–the worst of which I think can be said that it will provide mediocre service–the 6/10 Connector will pull neighborhoods apart and absolutely get in the way of sustainable development. The 6/10 Connector is small potatoes compared to some of the highway-oriented crap that gets built around the country, but it actually costs the same as the entire TIGER grant program for the whole United States. So given the fact that RIDOT may imminently decide to throw a bond issue out, or grasp for federal money, in order to rebuild 6/10, I think our time is better spent fighting that abysmal attack on our landscape than trying to stop a mediocre project.

south-lake-2

It can get better. A lot of cities have tried streetcars in part because of the Obama administration’s efforts to kick-start them through the TIGER grant program (which also pays for biking and walking improvements), and some of those streetcars have done quite poorly. One such example was Seattle, which built several of them, and saw ridership goals unmet. The Seattle streetcars were sitting in mixed traffic, getting caught at lights, waiting for people to pay with dollar bills at the door, and just generally sucking in every way that a bus does. So Seattle is now working to change the streetcars so that they have rights-of-way, signal priority, and all-door boarding so that they can be highly efficient transit. Providence should build these features into the PVD Streetcar now, but even if it doesn’t we can make the city do it later.

Remember, the Streetcar has a lot wrong with it. But we can make it better. And most importantly, we have bigger fish to fry.

~~~~

Economists agree sports stadiums don’t help economy


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

skeffington10Rhode Island will not attract millennials, build a new economy, end homelessness or improve public schools by helping the Pawtucket Red Sox to move to Providence. Even according to Republican economist Greg Mankiw, 85% of economists oppose public subsidies of sports stadiums. Ideological journals from left to right, from National Review to Dissent, decry the giveaways and waste spent on stadiums for well connected owners.

Here’s a few words from the critics…

1. James Hamilton, UC San Diego: “I am not aware of a recent example of a major sports facility investment that earned anything approaching a reasonable return on capital or turned out to be self-financing in terms of tax revenues.”

2.Grace Lee Boggs, Providence-born Detroit Civil Rights activist: “I am saddened by the short-sightedness,” Boggs said, referring to the recent building of more casinos and sports stadiums.”

3.Steve Lopez, LA Times:  “It would be fun to have a pro football team to cheer and to boo… But as I’ve said before, the terms have to be right for citizens, not for AEG’s $7-billion man — Philip Anschutz — or for the band of barons who make up the National Football League.”

3. Joel Kotkin, an Urban Studies Fellow at Chapman University and author of The New Class Conflict:”… a fanciful approach towards economic development instead of building really good jobs. And except for the construction, the jobs created by stadia are generally low wage occasional work.”

4.Matt Connolly, writer with Mother Jones: “While there may be legitimate reasons for franchises to relocate—bankruptcy, low ticket sales, Jay-Z buying a stake—many recent threats to move have one common factor: stadium funding. If your local government decided against spending $400 million of public money to add a few more luxury boxes to Xtreme Cola Guzzle The Flavor® Memorial Arena, get ready to hear your team’s owner talking…”

5.Doug Bandow, National Review: “The primary justification for looting taxpayers to construct sports cathedrals is always “economic development.” …But that’s not the uniform experience. In D.C. itself you will have a hard time finding the renaissance that was supposed to be sparked by RFK stadium, which hosted the Redskins for years.”

6. Joan Didion, author, commentator“What we had in the tarmac arrival with ball tossing then, was an understanding: a repeated moment witnessed by many people, all of whom believed it to be a setup and yet most of whom believed that only an outsider, someone too “naive” to know the rules of the game, would so describe it.”

Forget subsidizing sports stadiums. Funding a good old boy’s development scheme is not the answer to empower the working women and men of Rhode Island.

Students, faculty try to sever PC’s relationship with Renaissance Hotel


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
Members of Local 217 gather outside the Renaissance Hotel for an Informational Picket.
Members of Local 217 gather outside the Renaissance Hotel for an Informational Picket.

Providence College students and faculty plan to leaflet campus tomorrow to draw attention to the school’s continued relationship with the Renaissance Hotel, one of the downtown hotels engaged in a bitter labor dispute with employees trying to unionize and win better wages.

“Consistent with our social values, the group wants PC to refrain from doing business with the Renaissance Hotel until management grants workers a fair process to decide on unionization,” said a press release from PC sociology professor Cedric de Leon.  “This means removing the Renaissance from the list of discounted hotels advertised on the PC website for Reunion Weekend, May 29-31, and telling alums why.”

de Leon has led an effort at the Providence College to stop doing business with the hotel because owner The Procaccianti Group “has a track record of mistreating Renaissance workers in a manner inconsistent with Catholic social teaching,” said the press release. “In 2007, U.S. Catholic Bishops wrote, ‘Catholic social teaching supports the right of workers to choose whether to organize, join a union, and bargain collectively, and to exercise these rights without reprisal.'”

In a subsequent interview, de Leon said, “We’re going to turn up the heat on the administration.” It’s unjust that Providence College boycotts sweatshop labor abroad but endorses poor labor relations in its host city, he said. “We won’t sell sweat shop clothing but the Renaissance Hotel is, for some reason sacred.”

Last year more than 200 faculty and students signed a letter expressing their desire to not do business with the Renaissance Hotel, but school administration declined to act upon the request, de Leon said.

Not only will the group leaflet campus on Wednesday, but they also plan on asking Rev. Gustavo Gutiérrez, a liberation theologist, about PC’s support of a hotel mired in a labor dispute with employees when he visits campus on Monday to receive an honorary degree.

A Providence College press release describes Gutiérrez: “A native of Peru, he is best known for his 1971 book, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, which advocated for supporting the poor in protests against poverty and in attempts to be liberated from exploitation.”  The Economist describes liberation theology as “an ideological movement that emerged in Latin America in the 1970s and sought to combine Catholicism with revolutionary socialism.”

Here’s the full press release from de Leon:

What: Leafleting urging Providence College (PC) to boycott the Renaissance Hotel

Who: Concerned students and faculty at PC

When: Wednesday, April 22, 12:30pm

Where: Starts at Harkins Hall (Main Entrance)

Why: Anti-worker practices by Renaissance Hotel

On Wednesday, April 22 at 12:30pm, students and faculty at Providence College will leaflet four major stops on the visitor tour circuit: Harkins Hall (the main administration building), Phillips Memorial Library, Raymond Hall (the main dining hall), and Slavin (the student center).

PC continues to do business with the Renaissance Hotel even though the hotel’s owner, The Procaccianti Group (TPG), has a track record of mistreating Renaissance workers in a manner inconsistent with Catholic social teaching. In 2007, U.S. Catholic Bishops wrote, “Catholic social teaching supports the right of workers to choose whether to organize, join a union, and bargain collectively, and to exercise these rights without reprisal.”

TPG, however, has been the subject of two federal enforcement actions at the Renaissance in the past two years: first, by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), for unsafe working conditions; and second, by the National Labor Relations Board, for workplace intimidation.

On March 26, 2013, a majority of Renaissance workers presented the hotel manager with a petition requesting a fair process to decide on unionization. Instead of granting workers a fair process, TPG has responded with an aggressive and illegal anti-union campaign, involving what the federal government itself has called “interrogating employees about their union activities.”

Despite all this, the administration has resisted joining the boycott. When Renaissance workers came to PC, asking to suspend business with the hotel, the administration had them escorted off campus. Later, when PC students and faculty presented administration with 200+ signatures urging the College to boycott the hotel, they said there was “no compelling interest for Providence College to advise the families of our students and our alumni to avoid using the hotel.”

Consistent with our social values, the group wants PC to refrain from doing business with the Renaissance Hotel until management grants workers a fair process to decide on unionization. This means removing the Renaissance from the list of discounted hotels advertised on the PC website for Reunion Weekend, May 29-31, and telling alums why. Brown University and other organizations have already taken this principled step.

The group is also asking those concerned to email President Fr. Brian Shanley at bshanley@providence.edu to say that there are plenty of Providence hotels for our alumni to choose from and that the Renaissance should not be one of them.

 

Gun Task Force conduct shows need for more community policing in PVD


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

policing ForumI chose to live in Providence.  I have lived in other cities and moved back to the Capital City.  Providence is a city with many wonderful things to offer, but big cities come with big problems. One of our problems is guns. We all agree there are too many on the streets and we, as a community, respect and understand the Gun Task Force (GTF) aka the Jump Out Boys is a necessary unit. They do a lot of good work when it comes to taking guns off the street but because they do a dangerous job does not give them the right to degrade and humiliate the same citizens they are paid to protect.

I have said publicly many times that Commissioner Steve Pare and Chief Hugh Clements are part of the solution. Both are forward-thinking men. My community and I thank you for them for it but there have been many many complaints and many meetings with the GTF. They just don’t seem to get it.

On the night of the 15th Kobi Dennis’s son left work and started walking home with two other friends.  Two men jumped out of a car, swore at them, took a backpack out of his hands went through it and threatened them.  These boys did nothing suspicious.

I know Kobi’s son very well.  He is a thoughtful, quiet, well-spoken young man. He has worked at the McDonalds’ for over 2 years and is heading to college. Because I know this young man and the family he comes from I can guarantee you that he was polite and complied with every order these officers gave, but why should our young men have to go through this?  Let’s be honest, the GTF knows “the players” in the game.  They also know when they are just plain harassing our black and brown young men.

You have known me and many other “activists” through our work in the community and the programs we run for our youth.  The constant bad behavior of some PPD members has forced us to turn our attention to them.  This is not by choice but by necessity.

Real change needs to happen.  It won’t happen overnight and there will be dissension.

  • We need true community policing.
  • We need police officers that that WANT to be engaged in our community.  So many come to So many come to events and stand on the sidelines or even worse sit in their cars and watch.
  • We need diversity training and not only for the rank and file but for the command staff.  It was only a few weeks ago members of your command staff made disparaging racial comments on Facebook.
  • We need more minority police officers.  One of the reasons our young men and women have no interest in applying is because of their experiences with PPD.  Look into what cities with proven results have done to recruit.
  • We need a community liaison who could not only mediate issues by also create transparency and openness.
  • We need a citizens review board.  Somewhere citizens can go with issues other than PPD.  As you know, for some, the department is a very intimidating place to enter.
  • And lastly, you need to disband the Gun Task Force Unit and start over.  Look for different qualities and personalities when hiring for this very important and specialized unit.

Putting these two officers on desk duty is a good start but could we really take some action now? I would like to invite Commissioner Pare, Chief Clements, FOP President Taft Manzotti, the GTF and any other PPD member to attend our respectful and controlled Community Forum on Friday April 24th from 7:00 – 9:00 pm at The Salvation Army, 386 Broad Street.

RIPDA is against downtown stadium deal


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

skeff and rapp

In spite of a progressive plea to accept new ownership’s proposal to move the Pawtucket Red Sox to downtown Providence, the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats joined a large and bipartisan chorus of opposition to the idea. At its monthly meeting last night, the group “voted unanimously to oppose the stadium deal,” said chapter President Sam Bell.

Here’s the group’s press release.

One of our long-standing concerns with public policy in Rhode Island has been the misguided and corrupting practice of corporate welfare. We view the proposal from the new PawSox ownership group as an especially egregious example. To help move the team from Pawtucket to Providence, they are asking for $4 million per year cash from the state—on top of a complete exemption from property taxes. This is obscene.

On top of this, the state will now have to figure out some use for McCoy Stadium, a modern stadium that has received enormous amounts of public funds. Given the amount of taxpayer money Rhode Island has poured into McCoy Stadium, we find deeply troubling that this new ownership group would be willing to abandon it without compensating the state. Indeed, we believe this speaks to the corporate character of the new ownership group, and we remain skeptical that they—or whomever they eventually sell it to—will be any more loyal to Providence than they are to Pawtucket.

The prime defense of this proposal has been that other stadiums have received preposterous deals, too. While this is largely true, those deals tend to take the form of a free stadium owned by the state. This deal, which involves direct cash payments, goes even further. Moreover, this argument underscores a deeper concern. We worry this deal will be cited as precedent every time a politically connected corporate interest comes to the state for a handout. With the proposed radical expansion of the powers of the agency that did the 38 Studios deal, we worry that our state’s shameful addiction to corporate welfare will only accelerate.

The conservative machine that runs Rhode Island is currently pushing for brutal cuts to Medicaid, cuts that will cause untold pain among our most vulnerable citizens. They argue they need to do this because they can’t find the money. To even consider handing over public cash to corporate interests while championing these devastating Medicaid cuts demonstrates the machine’s hypocrisy.

While we expect that Nick Mattiello and the conservative House leadership machine are unlikely to oppose these payouts, we call on rank and file representatives to take a firm stand against such an absurd deal. We also call on Mayor Jorge Elorza and Council President Luís Aponte to reject any property tax break for the stadium.

It is time for Rhode Island to take a firm stand against corporate welfare and reject these absurd subsidies. Working families need help, not wealthy corporate interests.

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?

Jim Skeffington and Jon Brien want a downtown 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

skeffington10Is a new ballpark in downtown Providence corporate welfare or economic development? It doesn’t have to be either/or – but isn’t the real question: what is the best way to develop that land?

On NBC10 Wingmen, Jon Brien and I debate whether moving the Pawtucket Red Sox to Providence is the highest and best use of the I-195 land or is it another baseball boondoggle.

Below that, watch NBC 10 News Conference’s Bill Rappleye interview new owner PawSox Jim Skeffington.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

Bill Rappleye interviews Jim Skeffington:News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

Is Jim Skeffington selling snake oil or saving a baseball team?


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
skeffington
Jim Skeffington

Like everyone on planet earth, I’m not sure where the Red Sox’ AAA affiliate would attract the most fans, make the most money and/or do the most economic good. But I’m fairly certain new Pawsox owner Jim Skeffington is using some tricky accounting and very high pressure sales tactics to get Rhode Island to finance the relocation of the business he just bought.

First the tricky accounting.

The stadium will be privately financed, Skeffington said today. But he’s asking for $120 million in public subsidies after he privately finances it. The cost to build is $85 million, so Skeffington makes a net profit of $35 million for privately financing construction of the stadium.

Skeffington, a lawyer from Barrington, would like his $120 million in annual payments of $4 million, please. And the state needs to both rent from him and then subsequently sublease back to him the stadium. So he gets to be both the landlord and its the tenant while taking in $35 million.

Skeffington even had the gall to claim the people would only owe him roughly half that, so long as his sales and hotel tax predictions ring true for the next 30 years. Never mind the property taxes his publicly funded private project deprives from the Capital City. Oh and, by the way, existing zoning laws don’t allow Jim Skeffington to build a baseball stadium there. So he’s going to need some laws changed, too.

As if all this Orwellian accounting isn’t bad enough, Jim Skeffington is doing all this under the ruse that the people need to save minor league baseball in Rhode Island. Nonsense! The PawSox were a perfectly fine franchise – if not a model organization – before Jim Skeffington came along. The only thing endangering minor league baseball in Rhode Island is Jim Skeffington’s willingness to move the team to Massachusetts.

It’s his team now and, Ben Mondor be damned, he can do with it what he pleases. And I don’t begrudge him for wanting the best patch of dirt in the state. But I’m of the mind that Jim Skeffington needs Rhode Island a lot more than Rhode Island needs a minor league baseball team, especially given that Skeffington says he’s in it for all the right reasons and it will cost us a slice of the most prime real estate we’ll ever sell.

Let’s call this guy’s bluff. At the very least, let’s not treat him like he’s a savior while he rakes us over the coals. The PawSox will be plenty fun to go see in Massachusetts, and we’ll all love talking about how they used to be here. Jim Skeffington, on the other hand, will go down in Rhode Island history as the cruel lawyer who took our team to Massachusetts. If Skeffington is really in it for the right reasons, then it is the state that should be negotiating from a position of strength.

Bannister House fights for life instead of celebrating 125 years in PVD


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

bannister centered jpegInstead of celebrating Bannister House’s 125th birthday on Thursday, employees, activists and community leaders are fighting to keep the long-running progressive nursing home in Providence open.

Bannister House has been providing forward-thinking care since April 16, 1890, when it opened as a facility for former African American domestic servants who often had no one else to care for them. To this day, according to its website, “Bannister House promotes health and well being to all who require long term care, with optimum dignity and respect, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disabilities, or age. Our Friendly, progressive and well trained staff are here to make your stay a safe and comfortable one.”

But providing this kind of care isn’t easy, or cheap. And on April 7 of this year, the long-running elder-care facility filed for receivership. The future for the facility, its 80 residents and 125 staffers, is unknown.

bannisterBut there’s still hope it won’t close.

“Not if we can help it,” said Shirley Lomba, a CNA who has worked at Bannister House for 13 years.

On Thursday – exactly 125 years to the day after Bannister House first opened in Providence – employees, supporters, activists and elected officials will lead a march to the State House in an effort to keep the long-running elder-care provider operational.

“We are working really hard with community leaders, faith leaders, the whole community to keep it open,” Lomba said. “We need the help of city and state leaders. People need to come together with a plan.”

The action begins at Bannister House, 135 Dodge St., at 3pm. From there they march to Smith Hill, where they will lay flowers at the feet of a State House statue of Christina Bannister, the facility’s namesake.

Here’s more on the history of Bannister House, from its website:

Bannister began in the Meeting Street Methodist Church by a group of citizens concerned about the living conditions of elderly black women.

Mrs. Christiana Bannister, wife of well known African American landscape artist Edward Bannister, enlisted the aid of donors to support their cause. Land on the East Side of Providence was donated by the Shephard family.

On April 16, 1890, a three story building was opened with 12 residents, and so began the Home For Aged Colored Women. They succeeded in establishing a home that provided care for those who were no longer able to care for themselves.

To honor one of our founding members the name was changed to Bannister House.

And here’s more information from an SEIU press release:

Health Care Workers & Supporters March to Save Bannister House

Call for Action to Maintain Long-Term Care Facility in Providence’s West End

Exactly 125 years from its founding date, Bannister House employees – along with residents’ family members, community and elected leaders – are marching to the State House in an effort to preserve long-term nursing care in one of Providence’s lowest-income areas. Supporters will then hold a peaceful ceremony near the bronze statue of Christiana Bannister on the second floor of the State House.

WHO:           Over 100 health care workers (including RNs, CNAs, Med Techs, and more), residents’ family members, community members, and political leaders.

WHAT:         March to Save Bannister House and Keep Quality Long-Term Care in the Community

WHEN:                 Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 3pm

WHERE:       Begins at Bannister House on 135 Dodge Street in Providence. Ends at Christiana Bannister Statue on 2nd Floor of State House (near Senate chambers).

The event will have strong audio and visuals (including health care workers marching in scrubs and laying flowers at the foot of the Bannister Statue). Workers will be available for interview.

More Background:

On April 16, 1890, a group of concerned citizens led by Christiana Bannister opened the “Home for Aged Colored Women” in Fox Point to provide long-term care to African-American women in Providence, many of whom were retired domestic servants who had no family of their own to care for them.  The facility was later renamed in her honor, and in 1974, Bannister House relocated to the West End on land donated by Ebenezer Baptist Church, in a building constructed around the church’s original chapel. To learn more about Bannister House’s history visit www.bannisterhouse.org/history.htm

On April 7, 2015, Bannister House went into receivership. There are almost 130 Bannister employees, the vast majority of whom live in Providence, who provide experienced and compassionate care to about 80 Bannister residents.


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