LETTERS

Raising city revenues without more taxes

Posted

To the Editor:

When Warwick needs more money to fund the city budget they can do one of two things. They can raise taxes on the 80,000 citizens that live here or they can increase total-tax-revenue (TTR) without raising taxes-to-taxpayers (TTT).

Here are some examples:

1. Invest in additional rescue vehicles. They make as much fee income as they cost in about a year and a half. After that, it’s all profit that increases total-tax-revenue (TTR) without increasing taxes-to-taxpayers (TTT).

2. Offer a tax rebate to anyone moving into Warwick and buying a house or business. Each new taxpayer increases the number of contributors to the total tax revenue (TTR). Small cost to taxpayers – large increase in TTR.

3. Have a two-year moratorium on building permit fees. This will cost the taxpayers a few hundred dollars and increase total-tax-revenue (TTR) every year forever.

4. Promote our beaches and charge a fee that’s “half what the state beaches charge” Advertised this way Warwick becomes attractive and profitable in two ways. 1. With a small amount of beach revenue and 2. With a large amount from any new resident that moves to Warwick.

5. Increase the money Warwick receives from the Airport. The more they pay, the less Warwick taxpayers will have to. This will add to the total-tax-revenue (TTR) without costing the taxpayers a dime. (P.S. New State Rep Camille Vella-Wilkinson has just introduced legislation to do just that. Way to go Camille Vella-Wilkinson!

6. Settle the teachers’ contract today! Lock yourselves in a room and hammer it out! Do it today and the result will be stability to our school system, which will cause families (taxpayers!) to move into Warwick not out of Warwick. New taxpayers increase total-tax-revenue (TTR) without the need to increase taxes-to-taxpayers (TTT).

7. Audit the School Committee. They are spending more than HALF of every tax dollar. An audit will reduce any waste and uncover funds to add to total-tax-revenue (TTR) WITHOUT raising taxes-to-taxpayers (TTT).

8. Hire a grant writer. Central Falls did. It cost $30,000 a year and has saved the city over $600,000 increasing TTR without a penny increase of TTT.

9. Reduce salaries/benefits of any NEW employees, not the existing ones. This will decrease future TTT. Share the savings with current employees to increase TTR.

There is a big difference between increasing total-tax-revenue (TTR) and increasing taxes-to-taxpayers (TTT). You just read nine ways we can save the taxpayers’ a ton of money and still increase revenue the city needs to run their departments effectively. If you have any additional ideas, and especially if you have any better ones, please comment to the Warwick Beacon online. This is our city. We all have the right to improve it.

Happy summer, everyone.

Rick Corrente

Warwick

Comments

7 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Thecaptain

Here is how we show that the NON-TAXPAYER MAYOR just throws out ideas without substantiation.

1. Invest in additional rescue vehicles.

Answer - Remove the WFD unused sick pay bonus scam. Last year it cost the taxpayers $1,092,421. That's enough for 4 new advanced life support rescues.

2. Offer a tax rebate to anyone moving into Warwick and buying a house or business.

Answer - What line item will this money come from. How much money is in that line item as of today if we implemented your "idea"?

3. Have a two-year moratorium on building permit fees.

Answer - What is the projected loss of revenue. If we have a moratorium on building permit fees how do we keep track of construction for the purpose of required inspections? What are the revenue projections if such a moratorium is imposed?

4. Promote our beaches and charge a fee that’s “half what the state beaches charge”.

Answer - Agree on part 1, we should charge of fee to go to the polluted City Park beach and Connimicut. Part 2 - No one is going to move to Warwick because of the beaches. The beaches are filled primarily with inner city people. Have you been to City Park Beach?? Virtually no one speaks English.

5. Increase the money Warwick receives from the Airport.

Answer - How? The deal has already been done and given away to RIAC by your lover Camille. Also, if you havent been paying attention (which is an easy assumption) Camille's bill PILOT, failed. DUH

6. Settle the teachers’ contract today!

Answer - Teachers are already more than adequately compensated, 90 days sick leave is unrealistic on any planet, reduce the staff, cut the administration costs, get rid of the dead wood.

7. Audit the School Committee.

Answer - AUDIT EVERY FRIGGEN DEPARTMENT AND START WITH THE WFD !!! NO DEPARTMENT AUDIT HAS EVER BEEN PERFORMED.

8. Hire a grant writer.

Answer - no info on which to comment.

9. Reduce salaries/benefits of any NEW employees, not the existing ones.

Answer - this does nothing to solve the problem of the massive unfunded liabilities that the city has. The increases in salary only compound the problem. Corrente is chasing pennies when dollars are flying out the window.

Oh, one other thing - I continue to ask the self proclaimed fake mayor from what line item will he cut a check for his "buy a house, get a check" plan. Has anyone noticed that he has ignored the request in excess of 20 times??? Speaks volumes.

Saturday, July 15
richardcorrente

Dear Thecaptain (AKA Rob Cote)

Finally, you offer ideas instead of just bashing mine. Thank you.

Here are my answers to your comments.

1. New rescue vehicles have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sick pay, but I am glad to hear you support the idea of having more of them. You and I agree that they will increase revenue for whatever the end result.

2. If we make "large" money with each new taxpayer added to the roles, only a fool would be unable to find the "small" money to fund it, but you already knew that, didn't you Rob.

3. The projected "loss of revenue" would be the up-front revenue lost from the permit fee. (usually between $1,000 and $1,500). You're a smart guy. I'm sure you will agree that the continuous revenue from the added ANNUAL taxes that will be received FOREVER, will make this a great investment, repaying that small up-front loss over and over, year after year. This one is a win-win for the homeowner AND the City. Right again Rob. Aren't I.

4. Thanks for agreeing with me on this one. Maybe there's hope for you yet. Maybe.

5. You and I BOTH asked that question. "How?" Vella-Wilkinson answered it. I guess she is a whole lot smarter than both of us. Her bill was nothing short of brilliant, and Rob, the Airport Agreement "ain't done" as far as I am concerned. You can quit on it if you want but I will keep trying until they become a better neighbor. Camille's bill is a great "next step". Convincing them to complete the sound-reducing improvements they started but didn't finish is another . So Captain Rob; one more time for emphasis,

WAY-TO-GO-CAMILLE-VELLA-WILKINSON!

6. How can you possibly say that. They don't even have a contract!! But I completely agree with your statement of "Cut the administration costs. Get rid of the dead wood." That refers to the School Committee Rob, not the teachers. Right?

7. Great! You agree with me! However, shouldn't we start with the biggest budget? Like the $160,000,000 School Committee budget?

8.Why no comment? Just research Central Falls. You can do that. After all, you graduated from Hendricken. You know. The school with my name in the middle of it.

9. You're right. "This does nothing to SOLVE" today's problems, but have you ever heard of the phrase "take care of tomorrow and today will take care of itself"? No? OK. My plan takes a bad situation and FIRST, it keeps it from becoming WORSE. Then as attrition occurs, the problem will improve itself but I agree, it won't completely solve it. It will just protect the present employees and save money for the taxpayers. Not a bad start though Rob, don't you agree?

Two last thoughts:

1. I am not a "self-proclaimed fake mayor". I'm a self-proclaimed "The Taxpayers Mayor". and

2. Anytime you want to offer a tax-saving idea or a quality-of-life idea I'll listen. So will others. Until then, bashing

me for putting in the time and effort that you refuse to do is, well, unfair in the very least. You did have one good

idea about the car tax revolt. What happened to that? You seem to quit on it. I didn't. Neither did House Speaker

Nick Mattiello.

Happy Summer everyone.

Rick Corrente

The Taxpayers Mayor

Saturday, July 15
CrickeeRaven

Hello again Thecaptain:

Yet again, we meet on a comment board where the fake "mayor" is repeating the outlandish and unrealistic claims that led to his defeat in the election last year, and you are doing your best to show readers the truth behind these dubious ideas.

As you rightly point out, the fake "mayor" identifies no account or budget line item to pay for his imaginary "rebates," and clearly does not have the barest grasp of how revenues work on the municipal level. All of the rest of your points are both true and valid, which can almost never be said for anything the fake "mayor" says.

Honest, taxpaying voters in Warwick should congratulate themselves yet again on rejecting his candidacy, and readers should certainly expect that he will continue embarrassing himself on this site.

Saturday, July 15
Thecaptain

This is getting so tiresome, yet I find myself in the position to once again demonstrate, how little knowledge of virtually any subject matter the fake mayor has to rely upon.

For the record, with exception to beach fees at the polluted City Park, I disagree with you on every point of speculation you have ever put forth. For the record, I have performed exhaustive analysis of the city budget and departmental spending, have spent enormous amount of money on access to public records, and I speak only with documentation on hand to support anything I speak of. Unlike yourself.

For the record again, my 21st request, can you identify the line item that you will utilize to implement your "buy a house, get a check" program from.

Now to your points:

1. New rescue vehicles have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sick pay, but I am glad to hear you support the idea of having more of them.

Response - New rescues have everything to do with "unused sick pay bonuses". The cost of this scam last year was $1,092,421 split between 114 men. This cost will continue to increase. It is abusive, it is so loosely controlled that it is staggering. Every management person has been part of this scheme for years, and there is no end in sight. It is a line item that has been negotiated by the mayor and the union without the input of the taxpayers, with no forethought as to the balloon effect, and implemented into an already bloated budget that has never been controlled. People should not be paid extra for coming to work and not calling out sick. The numbers clearly show that it is a mathematical impossibility that virtually every man on the list is paid the maximum unused sick pay when the department accounted for 1915 sick days, from July 1 to March 22. It is a point in the contract that must be changed and that line item of dollars can be used for better purposes such as purchasing rescues. We cant continue to buy vehicles on the city credit card which is what we are, and have been doing.

Further, I DO NOT agree with you that more rescues will make more money. Where is your data to substantiate that? Just because the rescues that we have currently brought in X amount of dollars, does not mean that doubling the rescues will double the dollars. You are suggesting that doubling the rescues will double the amount of rescue calls. I highly doubt that the illnesses and maladies in the community will double just because the fake mayor throws out more speculation.

2. If we make "large" money with each new taxpayer added to the roles, only a fool would be unable to find the "small" money to fund it.

Response - You must then be the fool as you still have not answered from what line item in the budget you intend to fund this speculative program. You have no data to suggest possible revenue, average revenue, income, etc... Another BS plan without merit. Oh, did I forget to ask from what line item you will be cutting the check? Would it be 35-100? Oh no, that's the fire department sick leave line item that is in direct violation of the city ordinance. I forgot , my mistake.

3. The projected "loss of revenue" would be the up-front revenue lost from the permit fee. (usually between $1,000 and $1,500).

Please substantiate the "fee cost" by producing how many permits have been pulled in the past 1, 3, and 5 years historically. Please substantiate from what line item in the building dept. budget would be effected, and please substantiate the estimated amount of new or existing homes that would be effected, their tax base, and the revenue that would be generated. I am assuming that you are speaking off new construction homes, because if you are speaking of buying an existing house, you have a net zero revenue program as that existing house is already on the tax roles. In fact, in that scenario, "your buy a house get a check" program will have a net negative impact to the tax roles as you will be giving away revenue. If you are speaking of new construction, which is the only way this charlatan plan could produce revenue, how many lots are now available for constructing subdivisions? And for the record, you are wrong AGAIN, and I DO NOT agree with you. Oh, did I ask you from what line item you intend to cut the checks from?

4. Thanks for agreeing with me on this one. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Response - Agreed, the crap hole of a beach called City Park, should have a fee for non-residents. I think the implementation of this idea alone will certainly solve our unfunded pension liabilities that are currently in excess of $800 million.

5. You and I BOTH asked that question. "How?" Vella-Wilkinson answered it.

Response - Vella Wilkinson is a total fiscal failure for the City of Warwick and worse for the state. Her proposal failed. Do you not understand that? Let me remind you that Vella Wilkinson was the primary mechanism that removed the city council's litigation against the FAA and RIAC. Vella Wilkinson was the signatory of the MOU of the new ball fields that were constructed 100 yards away from an active runway. She signed the document on behalf of the taxpayers. Have you read the document?? Of course you haven't. The document states that at any time with 180 days notice, RIAC can cancel the lease to the city and the city must pay for all expenses to return the land back to RIAC in the same condition that it was in previous to the construction. Bet ya didnt know that did ya? She is a disaster. Her ideas border on communistic principals, and she is your idol. My God. Read a book ! Tell us of how you will renegotiate a contract with the federal government. A construction contract no less, where the construction has been completed? You think more sound proofing will make the families whole that have lost their homes and been displaced over theories of speculation? More evidence that you know nothing about the history of this airport expansion. Do you know anything about the mathematical formula of thrust vs weight of a Boeing 737-300? Probably not. Look into it and see how it was an integral part of the mechanism that brought to fruition the airport expansion as I just don't have the time or patience to educate you.

6. How can you possibly say that. They don't even have a contract!!

I guess you have yet too understand that the quality of education in the City of Warwick does not justify 1 penny more in salary. By the way, have you read the legislation about perpetual contracts. I bet you think that is a good idea as well. A contract has a beginning date and an end date. Perpetual contracts are nothing more than a noose around the neck of the management. Lets say that as an example, you entered into a perpetual contract with your mortgage company. That would mean that even though you have been forcibly evicted from the premises at 177 Grand View, you would still have to honor all of the stipulations in the contract. How's that sound Rick??

7. Great! You agree with me! However, shouldn't we start with the biggest budget?

Response - I stated that the City needs to audit every department. Are you aware that by charter the city has no financial management interest in the school department? Maybe you'll change that too. For the record, I disagree with virtually everything that you have ever said. Even when it comes to fishing and boating.

8.Why no comment?

No comment means no comment. The issue is not relevant enough to justify my time.

9. You're right. "This does nothing to SOLVE" today's problems, but have you ever heard of the phrase "take care of tomorrow and today will take care of itself"?

Response - Your logic is so utterly stupid that any attempt to educate you would be a waste of time and text.

Summation:

1. I am not a "self-proclaimed fake mayor". I'm a self-proclaimed "The Taxpayers Mayor"

You represent no-one (other than yourself of course, pro-se), in numerous civil lawsuits that were instituted for failure to pay bills. Just as you failed to pay your taxes and mortgage. You do not represent people who live up to the obligations that they sign on to. You should be ashamed of yourself as a mortgage broker whose excuse for foreclosure and tax sale is that you entered into a predatory loan.

I bought my house in 2004 when the market was at its highest. The house was not worth what I paid for it but you buy a house when you need a house. Instead of defaulting on the mortgage when the market crashed, you know what I did? I walked into the bank and paid off the mortgage thereby eliminating any loss due to interest on a mortgage. That's right, paid it off in 5 years. By the way, I still continue to pay my property taxes, unlike yourself. You should be ashamed.

Now I need to go boating.

Sunday, July 16
CrickeeRaven

Another excellent job dismantling the fake "mayor," Thecaptain. Your efforts to prove him, yet again, to lack the slightest understanding of city finances are admirable.

You will no doubt recall his frequent claims of "serving" taxpayers in the city. Perhaps you agree that the $40,000 he wasted on his losing run and the time he spends pathetically defending his fraudulent claims on this site would have been better spent actually helping people in the city; volunteering at local nonprofits or establishing a scholarship funds at the local YMCA for low-income children, perhaps.

Instead, he repeats already-disproven claims, bullies other commenters, and gives himself a title he did not earn and does not deserve.

I look forward to joining you and thousands of honest, taxpaying voters in rejecting his candidacy again next November.

Sunday, July 16
richardcorrente

Dear CrickeeRaven,

Answering your attacks is almost fun.

You say that I "wasted $40,000" on a "losing run". That is your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Here is how I feel about it.

I spent over 700 days in a row and over $40,000 of my own money getting my "Cut Taxes - Cut Spending" movement into the hearts of the "80,000 taxpayers that are paying the tab". AND IT WORKED!!

Ever since the election, where I received 13,278 votes, more than any other opponent of Mayor Avedisian, everyone has been talking about my "Cut Taxes - Cut Spending" platform, so much so, that when the budget came around this spring, all nine members of the City Council had heard it loud and clear from their constituents and they stopped the mayor from adding 29 amendments that would increase taxes. Even Mayor Avedisian refused to veto it because he called himself "a political realist".

Saving hundreds of thousands of dollars for 80,000 taxpayers is not what I would call "a losing run", but you can call it anything you want. You say my time should be better spent "helping people". Isn't that what I just did?

And you call me a bully but aren't you the one who is being a bully? I have never once attacked you. I only defend myself when you attack me. I even asked for your permission to call you "CR".

You really need to get a life CrickeeRaven.

In the menatime, Happy Summer.

Happy Summer everyone.

Rick Corrente

The Taxpayers Mayor

Wednesday, July 19
CrickeeRaven

The pathetic behavior of the fake "mayor" continues, and in one sense, he is actually serving the honest, taxpaying voters of Warwick: He is showing his true personality to them, which includes delusional claims of influencing the budget decisions in the city, when literally none of the city council members mentioned him as a factor in their votes.

"You really need to get a life," says the failed candidate who spent the second-highest amount of any losing opponent against the current mayor, lost a home to tax delinquency, claimed poverty in a child support case, and has continually tried to mislead readers of this site through his frequent comments.

I look forward to joining the many thousands of honest, taxpaying voters in Warwick in rejecting his candidacy next November, and fully expect he will continue to embarrass himself in his future comments.

Wednesday, July 19