PawSox watchdogs - including David Norton - are keeping a close eye on the General Assembly, after Friday's fallout.
After the Rhode Island General Assembly stopped abruptly Friday night amidst the budget impass -- and failure to approve a Fiscal Year 2018 budget -- community leader David Norton with the group "Organizing for Pawtucket" sent the following letter on Monday to state leaders.
Honorable William J. Conley, Jr.
Chairperson
Senate Finance Committee
State House
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Dear Chairperson Conley:
Now that Governor Gina A. Raimondo has given her approval to the recently updated Pawtucket stadium proposal, and you have committed to scheduling multiple hearings of the Senate Finance Committee in the fall, our group, Keep PawSox at McCoy & No Taxpayer Money for Billionaire Owners, which obviously remains opposed to the plan, thought it appropriate to reach out to you.
Our members appreciate your openness and willingness to give the public an opportunity to be heard on this issue. As you are well aware, the updated proposal doesn’t reduce taxpayer obligations one cent and only puts the City of Pawtucket’s valuable state aid at further risk.
Furthermore, with the recent disclosure on a major media outlet by Pawtucket Mayor Donald R. Grebien that Pawtucket needs ‘different donors, charitable donations and those type of things’ to make the deal ‘viable’ makes us wonder how in the world Governor Raimondo endorsed this plan as a ‘good deal?’
As a resident of Pawtucket and former candidate for the House of Representatives, the aid issue is particularly concerning, disturbing, and ill conceived, I believe.
Our group will be organizing (group meetings, petitions, etc.) and raising money over the summer months, and I expect an overwhelming number of our members will want to testify at the fall hearings. I expect the same vigorous effort that was waged against the Providence plan.
We welcome your pledge to hold the hearings in the fall. I wish to emphasize how important it is that this promise be kept. We are aware of way too many instances where hearings have been held at times when it was virtually impossible for the maximum amount of citizens to attend. We trust Mayor Grebien will do the same with any meetings he might schedule.
Frankly, any hearing scheduled in the months of July and August would be considered by our group as a mechanism to depress turnout and keep public opposition to a minimum.
This is issue will surely impact the 2018 election cycle. We look forward to a constructive dialogue where all points of view will be heard and given equal weight.
Our state leaders owe it to the taxpayers to independently evaluate the city/team study that is the basis for the financing structure. Additionally, there are lawsuits relating to toxins and other pollutants on the Apex property, and an eminent domain appeal must be expected.
It is our hope that the hearings will be meaningful and not just a perfunctory exercise where the insiders will prevail and hardworking, honest Rhode Islanders will once again be left holding the bag and paying the bills, just like 38 Studios and the convention center deals.
Thank you very much for your time, and I can be reached at [email protected] or 508-977-7559.
Enjoy the summer.
Sincerely,
David Norton
Related Slideshow: 7 Things to Know About the Newest PawSox Public Financing Scheme - June
The backdrop of the entire discussion of the financing for a PawSox stadium is the 2018 election. According to private polling, the majority of Rhode Islanders believe that the owners of the PawSox should pay for their own stadium.
How hard will Governor Gina Raimondo and Speaker Nick Mattiello push for a new controversial stadium? They both won by the thinnest of margins - Raimondo won the Governorship with just 40 percent of the vote and Mattiello won re-election on paper ballots by a margin of just 85 votes.
URI economist and author of the Lardaro Report warns:
"While there might not be direct risk to RI, there is indirect risk: If the deal collapses and Pawtucket absorbs the entire loss, their credit rating would definitely fall, and in a worst case scenario, they might flirt with possible bankruptcy. RI could never just allow them to fall.
At any rate, our state's credit rating would clearly be negatively affected."
There is little difference between the May proposal negotiated between RI Commerce, the City of Pawtucket, and the PawSox ownership and the legislation introduced in the RI State Senate on Tuesday by Pawtucket State Senator William Conley.
Ultimately, Rhode Island taxpayers will be on the hook if this deal goes sour.
In May, Rhode Island business leader Angus Davis, who heads Upserve, talked about his company's growth and spoke out about the billionaire group of Pawtucket Red Sox owners who are asking for $38 million to build a new park.
"If you have a good business, you have investors to back it," said Davis, who began his career by selling his company TellMe to Microsoft - for a reported $800 million. "And by the way, the people behind this team know a thing or two about business, about speaking with investors, and so on."
In a wide-ranging interview, Davis took to task the approach of the PawSox ownership - in light of the state's bourgeoning fiscal needs.
"I get that someone, whether with stadiums or public infrastructure investments, can spur development and economic growth, I get all that," said Davis. "OK, fine. How about, 'We'll build the ballpark -- we need the city or state to come in and give us a highway off-ramp or something like that,' so it's easier to get people to and from."
"That's a little more understandable than, 'Hey, 'I'd like to leverage the taxpayers balance sheet so I can borrow money at 3%," said Davis. "To me? Come on."
It did not take long for the old band of opponents of public financing to the stadium to mobilize - literally just hours after the new legislation was announced.
.
Calling the latest Pawtucket Red Sox legislative effort -- which is expected to see a fall session for legislators to consider -- "insane," community organizer and Pawtucket resident David Norton appeared on GoLocal LIVE on Tuesday.
"People in Rhode Island, and Pawtucket, are upset regarding collective billionaires getting tax money. [Last night], Facebook and social media started to light up," aid Norton. "We fought this fight two years ago, we thought we won it, we kind of fought it this year, we thought we won it."
"It's upsetting to Rhode Islanders and people of Pawtucket," said Norton.
"We did a poll on the "you know you're from Pawtucket " Facebook page -- the sample size was 200 -- 160 or so were dead set against the PawSox getting $15 million from the City of Pawtucket."
Millions in Environmental Contamination Costs, Who Pays?
In May, GoLocal exclsuively reported that the owners of the Apex site in Pawtucket and the previous owners are battling in Superior Court over indemnification provisions from more than $6.4 million in environmental clean-up costs tied to the land being eyed for the new PawSox Stadium. Both lead and aresnic contaminate the site according to the suits.
The two parties include Andrew Gates of Apex Development Company who purchased the property for $24 million and a number of members of the prominent Fain family, who previously had ownership interest in the property.
Gates’ entity purchased the property in December of 1998 according to city tax records and the property is now assessed at just under $4.3 million — a drop of nearly $20 million in value.
Legal Battle
According to state records, Gates is the managing partner in Zargo, LLC, which filed the action in December of 2016.
In the Zargo, LLC complaint against the Fain group (the previous owners), Zargo asserts in the fact section of their action that, ”Zargo and entities have become aware of liabilities, title issues, environmental conditions and safety issues (among other things), which include but are not limited to hazardous/toxic substances (including but not limited to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, and lead), toxic materials, and underground waste oil tanks on the Real Estate (collectively, the 'Claims'), all of which are covered by the Agreement’s indemnity provisions.”
