To give you an idea of what Rhode Island thinks of these dueling perspectives, note the size of the crowd in the two pictures I took today.

Here is the Democratic rally in favor of helping refugees:

And here’s the Republican event against helping refugees:

And here are a few more stories RI Future has reported on the Syrian refugee crisis:

• Cathy Cool Rumsey will run against Elaine Morgan
• Rep. Nardolillo thinks Elaine Morgan owes Muslims an apology
• State senators to hold rally to support Syrian refugees
• Humanists of RI support sheltering Syrian refugees in RI
• Cicilline to Obama: Accept 100,000 Syrian refugees
• Diossa to Obama: Central Falls will take in Syrian refugees
• Dorcas International explains Rhode Island refugee process

SCA, the only all-women boat competing in bi-annual race, brought up the rear, finishing at about 10am. Dongfeng, a team made up of Chinese and French sailors, finished almost exactly 12 hours earlier. They beat Team Abu Dabi by only 3 minutes, in an exciting night of sailing that saw hundreds of boaters welcome them to Rhode Island. Team Almevidica, captained and partially crewed by Rhode Islanders, finished 5th of 6 at 3am.

]]> http://www.rifuture.org/ri-progressive-democrats-condemns-vandalism-against-islamic-school-of-rhode-island/feed/ 1 http://www.rifuture.org/mattiello-open-minded-on-marijuana-legalization/ http://www.rifuture.org/mattiello-open-minded-on-marijuana-legalization/#comments Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:18:55 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=44918 Continue reading "Mattiello open-minded on marijuana legalization"

House Speaker Nick Mattiello said he’s keeping an open mind when it comes to legalizing marijuana this legislative session.

“Right now I have no opinion on marijuana other than I know it’s an issue that will come up and we’ll consider it,” he told me on Friday. “I’m not necessarily opposed, I’m not necessarily in favor. I can tell you it’s not an item that is on my agenda right now but I will certainly consider it. I’m sure it will have some benefits, I’m sure it will have some costs.”

Here’s our full conversation on the matter:

Governor Gina Raimondo recently told NBC 10’s Bill Rappleye legalizing marijuana “is absolutely something we should evaluate because if we think it is inevitable and if there is a way to do it that is probably regulated so people don’t get hurt, we should take a look at it.” She said she is currently taking a “wait and see approach” as she said during her campaign.

At approximately 6:30:

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

]]>

But this is the 21st century.

In the 21st century, people don’t want to wait around in the cold for a bus, because they don’t have to. They have the internet, which can tell them, based on real-time location data, exactly when their bus is going to arrive. Or, maybe they live in an urban area that values its transit system enough to provide frequent enough service such that, even if you miss one bus, the next one will be along before your toes fall off from frostbite.

Unfortunately, neither of those things are true in Rhode Island.

Google Maps and other transit apps are still waiting for RIPTA to provide them with real-time data, instead of relying on scheduled bus arrival times. When you’re standing out at a stop in the cold, and you have a meeting you need to get to, what do you do with the statistic that a majority of buses arrive at each stop within 5 minutes of their scheduled time? Do you wait to see if the bus will come? Or do you walk over to the next transit corridor to maybe catch that bus? Or, more likely, you just don’t rely on the bus, because you don’t know whether it can get you there. When you can’t rely on the bus, it’s not a good alternative to car ownership for most people.

Or wait! Even if there’s some major technological, bureaucratic, budgetary, or other reason RIPTA can’t set up a process to format its data in the necessary fashion and provide a feed for Google and other apps (or even *gasp* citizen developers!) it doesn’t matter, right? There are a lot of bus lines; people can rely on the schedule and function pretty okay, yeah?

Except the problem is, RIPTA’s bus service is on the low end of frequency. Transit expert Jarrett Walker categorizes transit service based on off-peak frequency into four categories: buses every 15 minutes or less, every 30 minutes or less, every 60 minutes or less, and occasional service. If you miss those most frequent buses, no worries, because another will be along soon. If you miss the less frequent ones, you know the drill. Walk home, and tell that fantastic job or client you were really excited about that you won’t be able to make it.

So here’s a map of Providence with RIPTA routes colored according to frequency. Red is the best, then blue, then green, then orange is practically nonexistent service.

But look! There are lots of red lines there! Except if you notice, those red lines are mostly along limited-access highways, without much in the way of transit access to the people living next to them. I could count on one hand the corridors outside of downtown with actual frequent transit access:

1. North Main (paragon of pedestrian friendliness that THAT is)
2. West Broadway
3. Cranston Street
4. Broad
5. Elmwood
6. Waterman/Angell
7. Eddy (only to Thurbers)

Okay I borrowed two fingers from the other hand. But THAT’S IT. No frequent service to RIC or PC. No frequent service to the Wards of City Council members Narducci, Ryan, Correia, Igliozzi, Hassett, or Matos, and hardly any to Councilman Zurier’s Ward 2 or Council President Aponte’s Ward 10. And really, the frequent coverage ain’t great in many other Wards; they just have one or two frequent lines running through them.

Ideally RIPTA would solve both of these problems, but of course there are budgetary constraints and an imperative to cover the whole service area with service. As Walker states in this awesome video (yes I’m a geek), there is a tension between the goal of coverage and the goal of frequency. And indeed, with the R-line and suggestions of further focus on the highest-potential routes, RIPTA is headed more in the direction of frequency than it has been historically.

But the other problem? C’mon RIPTA. We’re living in the 21st century. Get on it. Or tell us why you’re failing in this way. Do you think we don’t care? Or that you’ll look bad? We do care. You already look bad when you don’t tell us why you’re deficient in this area. Here are some links to help get you there if you’re not already on your way: GTFS-realtime. MBTA’s live-feed page. Transit Camp 2015 conference notes.

READ THE FULL 2014 EPI “RHODE ISLAND STANDARD OF NEED” REPORT HERE

A Rhode Islander with no children needs to earn $11.86 hourly – almost $3 more than what the state minimum wage will increase to next year – in order to afford “a no-frills budget that includes the costs of housing, food, transportation, health care, child care and other necessities such as clothing, toiletries and telephone service,” according to the new report. About 36 percent of single adults in the Ocean State earn less than this $24,666 annual threshold, according to the new EPI report.

A two parent family with two young children would need to earn $30 an hour to make ends meet, says the report. In other words, if each parent worked 60 hours a week at a minimum wage job the family would still fall about $3 an hour short of making ends meet.

According to the report, only 27 percent of all jobs in Rhode Island pay enough for a family with two children to survive on. “Child care and health care subsidies, tax credits, and nutrition assistance make a significant difference for families when wages aren’t enough,” it reads.

“Rhode Island is a beautiful state with sandy beaches, world class restaurants, and a vibrant arts and culture scene,” according to the report. “Yet many workers in our state struggle just to pay for the basics, making it all but impossible for them to enjoy all that our state has to offer. In fact, many workers would not be able to get by if not for government funded work and income supports that help close the gap between earnings and expenses.”

The report, it says, “demonstrates how work supports like food assistance, tax credits and child care and health care subsidies help close the gap between income and basic expenses.”

It uses the hypothetical example of a local bank teller to do so:

“Cynthia is a single mom of eight-year old Sam and Emma, aged two and a half. Cynthia works as a bank teller and has annual earnings of $27,112. The health insurance offered through Cynthia’s employer is unaffordable, but fortunately she is able to enroll her family in RIte Care Health Insurance at no cost. She also quali- fies for help paying for full-time care for Emma and after-school care for Sam which together costs $1373 each month. Based on her income, Cynthia’s co-pay through the Child Care Assistance program is $113/month. Without these child care and health care subsidies, Cynthia’s basic-needs budget would be in the red $1,135 every month. With these subsidies, Cynthia is able to meet her basic expenses with $110 left over.”

The EPI report stresses that the Federal Poverty Level is no longer an accurate barometer of poverty.

READ THE FULL 2014 EPI “RHODE ISLAND STANDARD OF NEED” REPORT HERE

What could I know about the figure in the window? I couldn’t be sure of the figure’s race or ethnicity. Medium build. Average height. Might be a man but in truth, until Commissioner Paré used identifying pronouns, I couldn’t be one hundred percent sure of gender.

All I could see was a human being, making contact, sharing the same pain and concern as those assembled below. I could have made up a thousand stories about the figure in the window, guessing at his or her reason for choosing to raise a fist in solidarity, but somehow, I never doubted the intentions of the act. Somehow the simple gesture of raising a fist in shadow communicated both solidarity and sincerity.

It was a meaningful, touching gesture.

Even those who believe that the firefighter’s actions were completely unwarranted and somehow a betrayal of his duty do not doubt the sincerity of the action. This was obviously not an act of mockery but an act of solidarity, and this came through even though the figure was only a silhouette, a shadow in the window, visually more symbol than human. The humanity of the act was palpable, almost psychic.

Commissioner Paré recognized the humanity of the action immediately. It was the sincerity of the gesture and the humanity expressed that made a silhouette with raised fist so dangerous. For the system to work, one side must be strong, powerful and monolithic and the other side must be weak, compliant and diverse. When the strong show tenderness and tolerance or the weak demonstrate strength and solidarity, the system strains to breaking, and punishments must be meted out.

I feel sad that my footage has caused the firefighter censure and official punishment. Commissioner Paré says the firefighter should have remained neutral, but were the disdainful looks or dismissive chuckles of other figures in the windows neutral? Dismissive attitudes also lack neutrality, yet it never occurred to me or the protesters to note such attitudes, because they are common. It seems neutrality is only neutral when it serves those in power.

If in the future I film police officers at protests laughing or taking a dismissive attitude towards the activists, will Commissioner Paré take them to task for their lack of neutrality? Perhaps the police should wear helmets to hide their emotions and mask their humanity. No one can see the tears of a stormtrooper as the trigger is squeezed.

Neutrality über alles.

Support Steve Ahlquist!

Walt Buteau, of WPRI 12, reports the firefighter, who has not been named “is the focus of an internal investigation into a gesture he made during a flag-burning protest in front of the Providence Public Safety Complex.”

The alleged show of support was captured on video by Steve Ahlquist (2:30 in video below).

Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare said police officers working the protest brought the matter to his attention, and the above video confirmed the incident.

“It’s a violation of rules and regulations,” Pare said. “Public safety officers are not allowed to protest or get involved in political activity when they are on duty.” Off duty public safety officials are allowed to express their political opinions, he added.

The firefighter could be reprimanded, Pare said but the action won’t be public because it’s a personnel matter, and he declined to give the man’s name.

“There was no doubt he was showing support,” said Pare. “When he raised his fist in support of the demonstrators, it incited them.”

Pare said he would follow the same procedure if, for example, an on-duty firefighter showed support for a union protesting a Gina Raimondo fundraiser. But he acknowledged that Ferguson protesters penchant for civil disobedience adds an element not present in the other example. “Is it more concerning because of the protests across the country, where we’ve seen some violence and some property damage, perhaps.”

Local 799 President Paul Doughty declined to comment on the issue.

RI ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown sent this statement to RI Future:

Unfortunately, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have severely cut back on the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace. Even so, seeking to punish a firefighter merely for silently expressing support for an anti-racism protest is troubling on a number of levels. After all, the City has taken the legal position that firefighters can be forced to march in a Gay Pride parade against their beliefs. It’s somewhat ironic if city officials believe they can demand that firefighters participate in a demonstration of solidarity for gay rights but then punish a firefighter for quietly demonstrating support for racial justice.

The response to this incident raises other questions. According to news reports, Commissioner Pare indicated that city policy may have been violated because the firefighter should have been “neutral” in a political protest.  While we can understand why police officers should generally demonstrate neutrality in a protest in which they are engaged in crowd control, did the police officer seen hugging a young protester in Ferguson engage in conduct that would have violated Providence’s “neutrality” policy? And even if such a policy makes sense for police officers in the middle of a demonstration, why must all other city employees demonstrate “neutrality” as well?  At a time of political unrest, is it a violation of “neutrality” for a city employee to publicly salute a flag in response to a flag-burning across town?

Obviously, a government agency can set reasonable limits on what employees can say or do in their official capacities, and we don’t wish to minimize the complicated nature of issues that can sometimes be raised by government employee speech.  But the investigation of the firefighter’s silent expression in this instance is problematic and undeserving of any sort of punitive response.

• A statewide teacher contract
• A state bank
• A state monopoly over marijuana sales
• And a revision of the election process

Statewide teacher contract

The idea of a statewide teacher contract for wages and benefits has great potential. By negotiating a teacher contract statewide on election years prior to the filing deadline for candidates for office would be a boom for Rhode Island.

By using the income tax system instead of property taxation to fund such an endeavor, the property taxes in most communities could be cut dramatically, fifty percent or more in most communities. This reduction in property taxes would result in seniors and others on fixed incomes being able to remain in their homes. It would also put the burden more fairly on those earning incomes, who, coincidentally, are the people who have children in schools.

The secondary benefit is that having low property taxes can serve as a lure for economic development. Presently, a high property tax rate would make business reluctant to locate. Just moving here places the responsibility of education costs on them, and, not having children in the system, they are in essence paying up front for services they don’t need.

With lower property taxes, a business would look favorably on locating, creating the jobs that would pay the income taxes required for education. It would work for economic development and by creating an environment of jobs, would then provide for education. It doesn’t change the cost, but it favorably changes the paradigm.

Sure, there is a possibility of a statewide teacher strike, but what sort of a deterrent is that? Yes, there will be resistance from entrenched teacher unions, but that can be negotiated away. There are ways to create a formula for the different wages that currently exist. It is not difficult.

Against these negatives, weigh the even greater potential for education. Local school boards, freed of the task of contract negotiations, would be liberated to focus on education policy, the very essence of their elected duty.

State-run bank

The second idea postulated was one of having a state bank. Since we pay roughly one half of a billion dollars a year to finance our state, why not become the bank? In doing so, we pay ourselves, freed of Wall Street and its ratings.

It is not a novel idea. North Dakota has been doing just that for almost a century. The problems relate to powerful banking interests that would clearly resist in that there is no money in it for them. Quite frankly, I see the biggest challenge in finding those honorable enough to serve in management, given the past struggles Rhode Island has had with corruption.

If we could get past this hurdle, and chart a well intended course to provide our own funding, we could seriously save the state billions of dollars and not worry about our debt servicing, since we are merely servicing our debt to ourselves.

Marijuana monopoly

A third idea is to have the state legalize marijuana sales and hold a monopoly. The state could utilize its land grant college, the University of Rhode Island, to grow the product. Under a legalized system, the state would then sell the product to the public. There would also be an educational benefit related to the agricultural program at the state university, a win-win as they say.

With the power of a state monopoly, the state could set its price to be twenty percent below the street value. In doing this, it would retain all the profits instead of the drug dealers. It would, in short, have a benefit of lowering drug crime in that it would put drug dealers out of a profitable business.

While states have legalized marijuana only to tax it, such an idea falls short. Taxing a product raises its street costs. Why would someone purchase taxed pot when they can get it on the street without taxes? The idea in creative public policy is to get a benefit to the state.

Selling the product below the street cost cuts out the middleman and provides all income to the state. Anyone purchasing the product will certainly not go on the streets to purchase it at a higher cost. In turn, this would reduce the criminal prosecution related to marijuana sales and use, saving precious law enforcement and corrections time and energy. It is that simple.

While there are some who will argue that legalization is fraught with danger, to legalize only to tax is not an alternative. The real value of legalization is for the state to be the grower and the dealer. Given the fact that we have the means of production, we are poised to exploit an opportunity.

And finally, it is time to step into the future with election reforms. Our state of the art election machines have now seen their age. We will be in need of new machines in the very near future. Why not use this as another opportunity to modernize our voting?

Instant runoff voting

It is without a doubt that multi-party elections are in Rhode Island’s future. The system that was designed for two party voting methods no longer holds as a viable position. In the last several elections there have been many elections by less than a majority. While we have legal provisions for election by plurality, it would be beneficial to all citizens to have a method that assures a majority of support.

There are two ways viable methods to resolve this problem. One is a simple system that requires a runoff election for the two candidates with the highest vote total if one hasn’t received over fifty percent.

There is, however, a far greater, and less expensive, method that can provide a better result. This system is used in Australia, Cambridge, and other communities in the United States. It is called Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV.

Under an IRV, a person ranks the choices for a particular office. That ranking is translated into a number of points based on the number of people running for office. For example, in a four person race, the first choice would get four points. A person’s second choice would get three points, and so on.

In this day of computerized everything, including vote tallying, this system is completely workable, and it will ensure that the person elected has the general support of the entire population. It is far more representative of the people in that your ‘second choice’ may win based on your individual preference.

Sure, this system will be resisted by the political powers that be in that it may threaten its power, but it is in the interest of the people that such a system can benefit Rhode Island in that it will restore faith in the election process.

Given that we will be looking to purchase new voting machines in the near future, it is time we consider a voting process before going out to bid. By stepping into the future, by giving the power to the people, by demonstrating that Rhode Island can make changes for the betterment of its people, we can then show the world that Rhode Island has escaped from its tortured past.

To continue on the course without entertaining change will merely lead nowhere. It is time to chart a new course, embrace a new vision, experiment with novel ideas. We have an opportunity, I urge those in power to consider them. Even though these ideas were based on my campaign, I freely encourage all to take them and implement them in a way that is responsive to the needs and the people of Rhode Island.

The old saying is that when all you have is lemons, make lemonade. In Rhode Island, even this is perverted. Stocked with lemons, to open a lemonade stand in Rhode Island would require a state permit to make sales at retail, zoning approval, and other regulatory compliance. Unless and until common sense prevails, and we actually work to exploit our resources, we will only have lemons.

Gina Raimondo has the best ideas about how to better Rhode Island – and her middle class-friendly campaign message is far more appealing than Allan Fung’s policy proposals of cutting taxes and shrinking government. Couple that with Raimondo’s track record of being able to move political mountains and it seems like an easy choice.

But it wasn’t.

Maybe I’m holding a grudge because of her ability to shepherd through landmark pension reforms, which I still feel were too one-sided, but I’d like to think it’s more than that. I’m not sure I want to contribute to The Narrative of ‘A Democrat Can Screw Unions And Thrive’. There may be many short and long term wins to be had there (lower unfunded pension liabilities, for just one), but ultimately I’m far from convinced that’s the best row to hoe if we really want to fend off increasing economic inequality, which I firmly believe to be the root cause of much of our social and economic ailments.

Then there’s Wall Street.

It’s not a place in lower Manhattan, it’s a sector of our economy. Maybe the biggest, depending on how you define it, certainly it’s the strongest, and the only thing it makes is profits. This can be harmless in times of growth but, ultimately, can only be predatory unleashed on a society that consumes more than it produces. As such, Wall Street is the glue that solidifies increasing income inequality as the New American Way.

I’m not sure Gina Raimondo shares my thoughts on these issues. But I’m pretty certain Allan Fung doesn’t either. And in the short term, Raimondo will be far better for Rhode Island.

Payday loans don’t stand a chance with Gina Raimondo as governor. I bet she can whip the legislature into raising the minimum wage. I’m confident she can attract vibrant new businesses to downtown Providence and that she’ll be a fantastic ambassador for our tourist economy. She will not only defend our pioneering healthcare exchange, but I’d be surprised if she doesn’t find a way to make it even better. She will prioritize preparing for climate chance and sea level rise, and someday soon Rhode Island will regret if we are not.

Both Raimondo and Fung will support charter schools more than me. But I can see Raimondo turning the focus to a Constitutional right to an adequate and equal education for all. If one thing is obvious about education politics in Rhode Island it’s that we need someone to lead a high level conversation about where it’s going. I hope whoever is the next governor will pick up Bob Healey’s idea to fund education statewide as a way to offer both property tax relief and education equity. Raimondo is the only one who could pull this off.

I wanted to vote for Bob Healey, but it’s just too close with too much at stake. I think he’s the only one telling the truth on the campaign trail, even if he’s sometimes mumbling it. He may well be more popular if he had shorter hair, but instead he chooses to mock our political process. He’s the only one who earned my respect. But I think Rhode Island needs my vote, so it’s going to Gina Raimondo.