COMMENTARY: State Property Tax Proposal Right out of RHODEMAP RI Playbook

/in , , , , /by

By Mike Stenhouse

We warned you about RhodeMap RI.

While Gov. Gina Raimondo’s proposed new statewide property tax has already inspired arguments among various constituent groups, there are much larger, more fundamental issues to be concerned about.

Disguised as a wealth tax, the “Taylor Swift tax” is really an assault on private property rights and an infringement on municipal sovereignty, all part of a national agenda. Sound familiar? This tax idea is right out of the RhodeMap RI playbook, and it was probably designed by a nationally prominent sustainable-living, urban-planning advocate.

The month before the governor introduced this controversial new tax, a Feb. 18 WPRI-12 report confirmed that the Raimondo administration was bringing Brookings Institution scholar Bruce Katz to Rhode Island for private meetings and hinted that the state should find a role for him. Also, in 2013, Ms. Raimondo, in conjunction with the Rhode Island Foundation, brought Mr. Katz, a prominent national expert on urban economic development, to the Ocean State. Mr. Katz also has a relationship with Grow Smart RI, the primary architect for RhodeMap RI.

Like RhodeMap RI, the proposed state property tax targets wealthy property owners.

As our center informed the public during last fall’s RhodeMap RI debate, the underlying philosophy of the sustainable living and urban planning movement is that suburban sprawl, manifested largely through development of private single-family homes, is an unsustainable and inequitable ailment in our world.

In their view, such prime real estate would be more beneficial to society by being turned into “common,” “open space” or “high density” use. The goal of these central planners is to make it incrementally less attractive to own private property by making it more expensive (via tax policy) and by limiting development rights (through regulatory policy).

Since this would be politically unpopular at the local level, the strategy of the central planners is to supersede the authority and ordinances of local town governments by creating new regional authorities and statewide laws, such as the governor’s.

This strategy is clearly represented in the language of the governor’s proposed tax scheme, which describes property ownership as a “privilege.” It then takes the extraordinary step of taxing those properties, much like a “sin” tax.

Home and property ownership is not a privilege, nor is it a sin; it is a cornerstone of the American Dream, of our free-enterprise system, and the foundation of our constitutional rights. By demoting private property ownership to a mere privilege, sustainable living radicals can justify eventually restricting or removing that privilege.

Further, with the state exerting control over property taxes, local governments would find themselves with diminished sovereignty to manage real-estate issues. Cities and towns will have less authority to ensure that they remain attractive to in- or out-of-state homeowners and landlords, which are vital to their local economies.

A March 17 Providence Journal article described even more of the rationale, via familiar “sustainable” terms such as “fair share,” property “deterioration” and “stock of … real estate.” Urban planning advocates such as Bruce Katz believe it is not fair that some have the “privilege” of living in exclusive neighborhoods. Property deterioration, or blight, is a common rationale for governments to justify eminent domain seizures to increase the stock of available real estate for open space or high density developments.

Given the timing of Bruce Katz’ visit and the familiar language, there is little doubt in my mind that this ill-founded state property tax concept was originally devised by Mr. Katz. If he were to assume a role in the Raimondo administration, Rhode Island would become the model test-tube state for the sustainable development movement. Last year saw RhodeMap RI’s adoption; with Bruce Katz on board, RhodeMap RI will be on a fast-track for its implementation.

It’s one thing if this tax plan was merely about the Taylor Swifts in Rhode Island. If so, the discussion would be about whether or not it drives real-estate investors to other states and whether your home might be taxed next.

It’s a completely different and alarming matter if this tax is the first-step in a highly coordinated federal-state scheme to diminish municipal sovereignty and encroach on the property rights of Rhode Islanders — a scheme like RhodeMap RI.

Mike Stenhouse is CEO for the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, a nonprofit free-market think tank.

Center Issues Statement on Governor’s Proposed Healthcare Tax

/in , , , /by
Summary: Explanations by the Raimondo administration about the Governor’s proposed surcharge on health insurance premiums appear to be misleading. The truth about the new tax expose four major concerns about how it is NOT comparable to the would-be federal exchange tax.
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 17, 2015
Truth about the proposed HealthSource RI Tax
Is Not Commensurate in Scope to Federal Exchange Tax:
Tax Base, Tax Levy, Tax Certainty, and Next Steps are Considerably Different

Providence, RI — Explanations by the Raimondo administration about the Governor’s proposed surcharge on health insurance premiums appear to be misleading. Designed to raise money to partially fund continued state operation of the controversial HealthSource RI exchange, the tax is being positioned by administration officials as comparable to the fees that would be charged if the exchange were to be returned to the federal government.

However, as broached in a recent post in The Ocean State Current, there are a number of major differences between the federal tax and Governor Raimondo’s proposed tax:
First, who gets taxed? Under a federally run exchange, only those who purchase a policy through the exchange, or who purchase an identical policy outside of the exchange, would be taxed. But, as the Center has been projecting for years, because of Rhode Island’s small size and low enrollment numbers, not enough revenue can be raised without charging exorbitant per policy fees.
Under Raimondo’s plan to pay for HealthSource RI’s high projected costs, there would be an assessment on ALL individual and small business policies in the state, whether purchased inside or outside of the exchange.
Also of note, vocal special interest groups, such large corporations and union shops, would appear to be exempt from the tax; yet another special interest handout?
Second, how much tax? Under the federal plan, it was estimated that the 3.5% federal rate assessment based on the 30,000 or so who are currently purchasing insurance through the exchange, would result in about $5-6 million in fees. The Governor’s tax is projected to raise an ‘initial’ $6.2 million in half a year, or about $12 million in annual revenues, making it at least twice as expensive for Ocean State policyholders as the federal option.
Additionally, the proposed 3.8% and 1% tax on individuals and small employers, respectively, is significantly higher than similar 1.35% and 2.5%-3% taxes in Connecticut and Massachusetts, which can afford the lower rates, as they can be spread across a significantly higher number of policy holders.
Third, a fixed tax rate? Use of the term ‘initial premium assessment’ indicates a potential slippery slope. In fact, if HealthSource RI’s expenses rise, or when federal funds disappear, the health and human services secretary is empowered to raise rates for this tax in future years, while the federal plan is statutorily fixed.
Fourth, a stepping stone to state control? Maintaining the exchange under state operation also maintains the threat of further state control over Rhode Island’s healthcare industry, with separate legislation in 2014 (H7819) and 2015 (H5387) already seeking to give government unprecedented new powers. A single-payer system, such as that advocated for by the new HealthSource RI Director, has long been a goal of progressive lawmakers. Under a federal exchange, this threat is virtually eliminated

CENTER’s STATEMENT on GOVERNOR’s 2016 BUDGET PLAN

/in , , , , /by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 13, 2015

2016 Proposed Budget Does Not Address Major Problems

No Game Changing Economic Ideas
Does Not Address Long Term Structural Deficits
Continued Special-Interest Spending

Providence, RI — Governor Gina Raimondo’s proposed FY-2016 budget plan provides no game-changing ideas to boost Rhode Island’s stagnant jobs market and overall economy and does little to improve the state’s poor-rated business climate or to address long-term structural budget deficits.

By shifting money from certain side funds to the general fund and by borrowing money from the future via risky re-financing schemes, the Center rates the plan as a temporary band-aid approach, instead of major steps towards a long-term solution.

“Despite years of Rhode Island experiencing negative results, this budget continues and expands the state’s practice of assuming that government knows best, and that a few insiders in back rooms can solve our problems better than the rest of us can,” said Justin Katz, research director for the Center. “From tens of millions of dollars in phantom ‘trust us’ savings to millions more poured into slush funds for centralized economic development to a scary new ‘statewide property tax,’ several back-flips backwards overwhelm the few positive policy steps forward.”

The plan’s government-centric approach toward economic development that favors specific industries is merely an extension of the same, failed public policy approach that is responsible for putting Rhode Island into its current economic rut. The Center, instead, recommends broad based tax and spending reductions as the primary means to boost the economy.

Other than vague goals to reduce Medicaid and state personnel costs, multi-hundred million dollar deficits are still projected in future out years.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS. The Center soon plans to publish a policy brief that will povide a more detailed analysis of the budget plan, but today also makes the following observations:

  • The plan gives government more power in attempting to orchestrate economic development, and is a further departure from proven free-market principles
  • The plan continues the practice of new special interest spending programs at the expense of the average Rhode Islander
  • The new state property tax fee is a slippery slope that could lead to this tax being applied to lower valued properties in the future
  • The increased hospital fee and health insurance premium fees will likely result in more costs being passed down to consumers and will likely also lead to health insurance premium hikes
  • The vendor/supplier corporate tax credit idea is a handout to special interest big corporations
  • New pre-K, full-day K, and construction spending ideas are handouts to special interest unions
  • The new rental taxes will be a drag on our state’s vital tourism industry, especially harming smaller entrepreneurs
  • The higher cigarette tax will likely lead to even greater “black market” activity, with the state is unlikely to meet the increased $7+million revenue expectations
  • The increased town tipping fees to RI Resource Recovery could lead to increased property taxes in those towns

Governor’s Minimum Wage Policy Based on Untruths; Union Connection?

/in , , /by
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 9, 2015

Minimum Wage Hike Does Not Mostly Benefit Low Income Families 

Most RI minimum wage workers were white, middle-class. Only 14% were sole family income earners.

Providence, RI — Governor Gina Raimondo’s press conference today to promote a hike in the state’s minimum wage will create a negative drag on her own goal to increase jobs in Rhode Island. Further, most of the higher wages will likely go to white, middle-income workers, while potentially harming many of the very families the Governor’s plan seeks to assist.

This according to the nonpartisan RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, which re-published findings from prior research reports.

The strong union support of the plan, with today’s press conference to be conducted at a union hall, raises significant additional questions. According to a 2013 Wall Street Journal article, it is common that many union contracts peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.

“It is disappointing that one of the first major acts of our new Governor is to perpetuate policies that are harmful to our state’s job market and that bend to special interest demands,”said Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Center. “The great irony here is that this policy will mostly benefit middle-class whites and union workers, as opposed to low-income minority families. The image put forth – that most minimum wage workers are minority family breadwinners – is simply not true.”
FAST FACTS. According to research by the Center, based on 2012 data, of minimum wage earners in Rhode Island:
  • Over 80% were white
  • $61,299 was the average family income
  • Over 71% were part-time workers less than 35 hrs/wk; 30% less than 20 hrs/wk
  • Only 6% were married, as sole earner
  • Only 8% were single parents
  • Almost 60% lived with their parents or some other primary breadwinner
  • About 60% were 25 years old or younger; over 40% 21 or younger
ADVERSE JOBS IMPACT. The Center’s 2013 report also found, that based on the minimum wage and jobs market at that time, a hike to the same $10.10 per hour level now being promoted by the Governor, would:
  • Destroy almost 3500 jobs, including breadwinners from low-income families
  • Be a continuing assault of the state’s economy
  • Be especially harmful to low-income workers who need upward mobility in a robust jobs market
Read the entire 2013 report here, Read other minimum wage studies by the Center.

 

Policy Brief: 2015 Educational Choice Legislation

/in , , /by

Read the full Policy Brief here

Watch the full legislative press conference introducing the bi-partisan legislation

The Way of the Future in Rhode Island

2015 Legislation: The Bright Today Scholarship and Open Enrollment Educational Act

Policy Brief: Executive Summary

Representative Ray Hull - Bright Today Press Conference

Representative Ray Hull (D, Providence) is the primary sponsor of the Bright Today Educational Scholarship Act

LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES: The Bright Today Scholarship legislation not only creates new educational opportunities for families, but does so without adversely impacting public schools. The top-10 policy objectives met by this legislation:

  1. Establish RI as a national leader in education reform
  2. Empower all RI parents with immediate choices to obtain an adequate education for their children
  3. Meet the documented demand for school choice by increasing the supply of available options
  4. Create an environment in which public schools are likely to improve academic outcomes
  5. Increase or maintain current per pupil funding levels in district schools
  6. Save money for school districts that could be used to repair crumbling schools or for property tax cuts
  7. Keep 100% of locally raised tax funding for use in local district schools
  8. Cost nothing to implement – zero increase in any local or state tax or fee
  9. Provide higher return value for taxpayer dollars
  10. Improve overall statewide educational performance so as to be a boost to economic development

BILL FEATURES: Bright Today Scholarships are a form of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). This innovative and cutting-edge educational choice bill, modeled after the ground-breaking Arizona ESA legislation of 2011, includes these features:

  • ESA scholarships are different from vouchers. 1) Funds flow directly into a debit account controlled by parents, instead of directly to a private school, 2) Funds can be spent on tuition or other educational services, 3) Unspent funds can be rolled over for future K-12 expenses
  • Universal Eligibility. Every RI K-12 student would be eligible (includes grandfathering of current private/home schoolers)
  • Approved educational expenses include: private school tuition, required textbooks, home school curriculum, fees for online or post-secondary learning programs, educational therapies for special-ed students
  • Scholarships are paid from the State portion of ed funding
  • Income Adjusted Scholarship awards, with $6,000 cap
  • Funding Formula. Scholarship students are still counted towards the public school district’s enrollment
  • Detail Admin. & Academic Accountability Standards
  • Fraud and Criminal Prosecution Provisions
  • Prohibition of Gov’t Control over private/home schools
  • Separate Open Enrollment provision allows transfers to other public schools

PROJECTED OUTCOMES: A WIN-WIN policy solution.

Participation rate in the early years is expected to be 2.77% of the current public school population, or 3,682 students.

More budget friendly than charter schools. The math and budget implications of Bright Today Scholarships are very different than that of charter schools, and much more budget friendly to public school districts.

Simultaneous reductions in district revenues and district expenses. If the outflow of scholarship funds is less than the cost burdens associated with educating those students, then districts will actually save money.

Not including grandfathering, the Center’s RI District Impact Model for Educational Scholarships (RI-DIMES), projects the following fiscal outcomes:

  • Statewide scholarship of $5,016. $18.5 million total
  • Higher per student funding of in all public school districts; $299 statewide average
  • Net district fiscal savings in all but 3 smallest public school districts, $16 million cumulatively in savings statewide
  • Increase in statewide educational funding, public and private; public funding levels remain constant, with $17.25 million in “new” private monies spent on education
  • No new taxes. All scholarships and administration are paid for via existing education funding levels.

District savings can be used to repair crumbling schools or to reduce local property taxes.

Per the 2015 legislation, grandfathering would mean higher near-term revenue reductions for districts, resulting in most districts seeing net fiscal losses in the early years, cumulatively statewide of -$2.6 million.

Public schools also benefit from higher parental accountability. National research clearly demonstrates that because of higher parental accountability standards and the competitive forces introduced through increased competition, that academic outcomes at public schools is likely to increase. No major national empirical study shows an adverse impact.

Center to Participate in Legislative Press Conference on School Choice Legislation

/in , , /by
MEDIA ADVISORY
March 2, 2015
Center to Participate in Wednesday’s Legislative Press Conference
on School Choice Legislation To Release Policy Brief Describing
the Bright Today Scholarship Bill
Providence, RI — The Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity will participate in the legislative press conference announced earlier today by the RI House of Representatives minority office regarding the Bright Today educational choice scholarship legislation that will be introduced this Wednesday in both the House and Senate.

Joining the bi-partisan legislative sponsors who will speak at the statehouse event, the Center’s CEO, Mike Stenhouse, will distribute and review an Executive Summary of the Policy Brief that describes the goals, features, statewide fiscal projections, and history of this bold legislation.

If enacted, the legislation would become the most innovative and universal school choice program in the entire nation, according to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which is partnering with local organizations in advancing the scholarship program.

Also expected to attend are members of the growing BrightToday.org coalition, including Gertrude Jones, former President of the Providence School Board, who is also scheduled to provide remarks.

WHAT:     Legislative Press Conference – Bright Today Scholarship Bills

WHEN:     Wednesday, March 4, 3:00 pm

WHERE:  RI Statehouse – Room 101

WHO:     Representatives Ray Hull, Mike Chippendale

Senators Marc Cote, Nicholas Kettle

Mike Stenhouse

Gertrude Jones

The Center’s ed choice home page can be viewed at RIFreedom.org/EdChoiceRI.

Rhode Island Employment Snapshot, December 2014: With Revision Looming, the Job Market Erodes

/in , , /by

[Click here for the printable one-page PDF of this post.]

Labor force and employment numbers from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are due for their annual revision, soon, and there’s reason to believe Rhode Island will see its 2014 lose some of its rosey sheen. However, even before that happens, if it happens, the state’s unemployment rate — which fell below 7% in December for the first time since April 2008 — does not indicate what most residents probably believe that it indicates.

According to the BLS, in December, a net 1,266 Rhode Islanders gained employment, while 698 left the labor force — which means they’ve stopped looking for work. That combination explains why the unemployment rate dropped so much (to 6.8%, from 7.1%) month to month

The first chart at right shows how the labor force continues its decline. The chart also puts the seemingly significant increase in employment in perspective. The first half of 2014 saw a large (and inexplicable) jump in employment, but the second half saw no improvement at all — indeed, a small decrease.

The second chart shows how far behind Rhode Island continues to be. Both of the Ocean State’s neighboring states are now well above their labor force and employment levels of January 2007. Rhode Island? Not even close, and not improving.

The final chart illustrates what the unemployment rate would look like if the labor force weren’t shrinking. Even with the employment boost in December, Rhode Island’s unemployment rate would still be well over 10% if as many people were looking for work as were working or looking in January 2007. Specifically, Rhode Island’s unemployment rate would have been 10.6% in December.

RI-laborforceandemp-0107-1214

RIMACT-laborforceandemp-1214perc0107

RI-unemploymentrate-steadyLF-0107-1214

RI Already an Example of Parental Choice of Schools

/in , /by
... unlike 1-size-fits-all government-run schools

… unlike 1-size-fits-all government-run schools

Rhode Island parents want school choice!

They prove it answering polls, and they prove it in their behavior.

  • Strong majorities — of 56% and higher — favor policies that allow parents to choose schools other than regular public district schools.
  • When asked what type of schools they would pick if they had a choice, 68% named something other than a district school.
  • Among states in which a majority of students take the SATs, RI was second in the number of SAT-taking students in private schools, and first in the number attending religiously affiliated schools, which tend to be less expensive.
  • Looking at SAT scores, RI public school students perform worse than the average for high-participation states, while private school students perform as well as or slightly higher than the average for such schools, which is significantly higher than the average for public schools.

Read the full “Parents’ Choosing Without School Choice” study, here.

See associated media release below … 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 29, 2015
Report: In Practice and in Surveys, Rhode Islanders Want More Educational Choices
Center to Participate in Today’s State House Celebration of National School Choice Week 

Providence, RI — Rhode Islanders lead the nation when it comes to demanding and exercising educational choice … and they want even more. This according to a new report released today by the nonpartisan RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, entitled Parents Choosing w/out School Choice, which bolsters the case that expanded school choice options are necessary in the Ocean State, the primary objective of the recently launched Bright Today Educational Choice coalition.

“Even with some of the highest property tax burdens in the nation, many families are sacrificing thousands of additional dollars so that their children can escape the government-run school system,”said Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Center. “And our report demonstrates that parents want even more options.”
.
Highlighting existing trends about parental choice, and as part of its celebration of National School Choice Week, the Center’s new study cites recent polls and national private school enrollment figures as strong evidence of the skepticism that most Rhode Islander have for the state’s public school system.
.
In practice, Rhode Island ranks second overall when it comes to states with high participation rates of SAT-taking students that choose not to attend a public school, while ranking firstby a large margin when it comes to attending religiously affiliated private schools, among this same group of states.
.
In surveys, according to a 2013 poll, Rhode Islanders lead the nation in wanting to send their children to private schools. In that same poll, 68% said their first choice for their children would be an education other than traditional public schools.

“School Choice Rabbi” to Speak at State House Event

/in , , /by
MEDIA ADVISORY
January 28, 2015
Legislative Reception to Feature Speech by Nationally Renowned Educational Choice Rabbi
State House to be Illuminated in Yellow
Center to Man Exhibit Table and Release New Report
Providence, RI — Rhode Island Families for School Choice, a member of the recently launched  “Bright Today Educational Choice” coalition, will host its annual Legislative Reception at the statehouse tomorrow afternoon, featuring a rally-speech to attendees by the nationally renowned “school choice rabbi,” Rabbi A. D. Motzen from Cincinnati, as well as musical performances by area private school students.The event, which is part of the celebration of National School Choice Week, expects over 300 people to attend and will conclude with the state house being illuminated in yellow light, the signature color of the celebration. Also participating will be a representative from theFriedman Foundation for Educational Choice, and multiple private school groups.Legislators and the pubic are encouraged to attend to learn more about how expanded educational options can empower parents to be able to choose the best educational path for their children. The coalition expects to announce bi-partisan sponsored legislation in the coming weeks.

The nonpartisan RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity will man an exhibit table at the event, with “Myths vs Reality” of school choice handouts available. The Center will also publish a new report Thursday morning that documents how Rhode Island families, at nationally leading rates, are already sacrificing income so that their children can escape sub-standard government-run schools and, instead, choose alternative private educational paths … and that such demand exceeds supply.

All participants will be available for media interviews at the event, or can be scheduled by contacting the Center.

WHAT:    Legislative Reception to Celebrate National School Choice Week

WHEN:    Thursday, January 29, 2015, 2:00 pm – 6:00 pm

WHERE: RI Statehouse Rotunda

WHO:      Rabbi A.D. Motzen; SPEECH at 3:30 pm

                   Michael Chartier, Friedman Foundation

The Center’s educational choice home page can be viewed at RIFreedom.org/EdChoiceRI.

National School Choice Week (January 25 – 31, 2015) will be America’s largest-ever celebration of opportunity in education. Featuring more than 11,000 independently-organized events across all 50 states, the Week shines a positive spotlight on effective education options for children. National School Choice Week is independent, nonpolitical, and nonpartisan, and embraces all types of educational choice – from traditional public schools to public charter schools, magnet schools, online learning, private schools, and homeschooling.
About the Center
The nonpartisan RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity is Rhode Island’s premiere free-enterprise think tank. The mission of the 501c3 nonprofit organization is to return government to the people by opposing special-interest politics and advancing proven free-market solutions that can transform lives by restoring economic competitiveness, increasing educational opportunities, and protecting individual freedoms.

Legislative Antidotes to RhodeMapRI

/in , /by

PROPERTY RIGHTS and MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY ACT of 2015

The concepts of private property ownership and associated rights are considered core components of America’s free-enterprise system. It is also widely held that local government is the best government, as opposed to a one-size-fits all centralized planning approach. Preservation of each of these principles is vital to maintaining a thriving democracy in Rhode Island.

In recent weeks in the Rhode Island General Assembly there have been a number of bi-partisan legislative introductions and announcements in response to the passage of the controversial RhodeMapRI plan into the state’s official Guide Plan. While these legislative maneuvers would seek to free localities from being required to comply with provisions of RhodeMap RI, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity recommends additional legislative fixes should also be considered to minimize the grave risks that RhodeMap RI poses to property owners and the sovereignty of local governments.

As an antidote to some of those risks, the Property Rights and Municipal Sovereignty Act of 2015 should include:

Financial Transparency: Require the RI Division of Planning and its RhodeMapRI consortium, to provide a complete, up to date listing of all revenue and expense transactions on its web site, by listing full details of every transaction, by date, by source, and by vendor, for all activities related to the development or implementation of the RhodeMap RI plan. As of January 2015, only partial financial records have been released. Such practices would bring the Division of Planning into keeping with the transparency practices in other executive-branch departments.

Protection from Eminent Domain: The RI Home and Business Protection Act of 2008 [RIGL 42-64.12] ostensibly was passed into law to limit potential eminent domain abuse in the Ocean State following the landmark Kelo v. City of New London U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the law appears to actually open the door for aggressive eminent domain utilization by city planners when there is a local economic development in place, such as the “growth centers” envisioned by the RhodeMap RI plan.

This Act should be amended as follows:

  • Rephrase the section discussing “plans” [42-64.12-7A] to eliminate any RhodeMap RI inspired growth center or other plan, and any state-inspired plan, not created and developed exclusively by the duly elected local officials of that town or created with the explicit intention that it would fulfill the plan requirement for eminent domain seizures.
  • Bar any and all potential eminent domain action that would transfer property from one private party to any other another private party. Eminent domain should be limited in practice, and should only be considered for public use, never to enrich any private party at the expense of another private party, even it could be argued that greater tax receipts could be garnered from the receiving private party.
  • Bar any “transfer of development rights” transactions that are not 100% voluntary between the two parties, or that may have resulted from any form of government coercion, regulation, or mandate, or as a result from any plan not exclusively developed by the municipality.

Constitutional Amendment to Preserve and Government Sovereignty: The amendment would bar any state or local funding and invalidate any law that would support the establishment of or the participation in any regional or statewide authority, such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority contemplated in the RhodeMap RI plan, that would have any power to implement law, to supersede local authority, to bring or encourage lawsuits, or to implement any official state or local planning provision, without the requirement to present its recommendations for a public vote to a duly elected body of state or local representatives.

Real Economic Development Planning: Rhode Island could benefit from a well-researched, comprehensive economic development plan that would lead to economic growth, without infringing on individual rights or local government sovereignty.

The 2013 law, enacted by H6069 and S0712 [RIGL 423-64.17-1], should be amended as follows:

  • Set specific economic goals to improve the state’s overall business and economic climate
  • Establish an independent Blue Ribbon Commission, appointed by the governor, composed solely of economic experts and business leaders, that would develop a plan to meet those objectives.
    • Bar the participation of any government employee, special interest group or individual from any organization that receives any public funding from serving on the Commission
    • The plan must be presented to the General Assembly for regular committee hearings, and must be approved by a vote of the entire General Assembly.
    • The Commission should be completely state funded, and must not be pre-required to adhere to any principles of any state or federal agency or any other organization.
    • The Commission must not be permitted to construe its scope so broadly that it is permitted to rewrite the policies of any state agency or locality or any other organization acting within its own range of authority.
    • Eliminate the requirement for the commission to adhere to prior economic development or any other statewide plan; however the Commission may choose to take these plans into consideration, at its sole discretion.

Defund Grow Smart RI: The state should not provide public funding to any advocacy group that advances a special interest agenda that in any way could be viewed as working against the best interests or individual rights of state or local taxpayers, such as Grow Smart RI, which received over $350,000 from Rhode Island taxpayers in the past five years.

Repeal the Benefit Corporation Law of 2013: The state should not specifically classify or reward businesses that adhere to any special interest agenda by creating a two-tiered tax system or by exempting such businesses from traditional stakeholder accountability.

Amend the statewide Affordable Housing Mandate [42-128-8.1(d)(1)]: Specify that the existing 10% affordable housing mandate that is currently required to be included in the comprehensive plans of each city and town must only consider affordable housing at a municipal-wide level, and never at a census block, neighborhood, or any otherwise defined sub-level, and must never include any other kind of demographic quota or threshold requirement.

  • Cities and towns should be barred from accepting federal grant funds, or any funds, that may require municipalities to adhere to affordable housing quota mandates at anything less than a municipal-wide level.
  • Municipal comprehensive plans, at the municipality’s sole discretion, should have self-authority to determine where future affordable housing units should be developed.
  • Cities and towns should be allowed to consider inclusion all forms of affordable housing in their calculations, regardless of their style, location, or funding sources, as solely determined by locally elected officials (ie, mobile homes and trailer parks). Homes that are affordable should be classified as ‘affordable housing’, without additional specifications.