CRANSTON

Phenix Avenue proposal a bad fit

[Editor’s not: The following letter concerns a proposal by EA Fish Associates, a Braintree, Mass., developer, to build a 198-unit complex of apartments and condominiums on a 15-acre site on Phenix Avenue, near Natick Avenue, in Cranston. The developer has said that at least a quarter of the units would be targeted for low- and moderate-income people.]

As I write this, there is a groundswell of opposition to the current proposed development.

There are four primary reasons this project is not appropriate for our city:

Traffic — this is already a congested area. Not only is the traffic study flawed in many ways, the projected number of cars that potentially could consume this site is well beyond what the developer is suggesting.

Impact on safety services — It is well known that Cranston needs an additional rescue and fire truck to keep up with the existing population to maintain response time. It doesn’t take a degree in advanced planning to realize the impact of another 500 to 750 residents in a concentrated area. Did anyone mention the increased need for police?

Impact on our schools — It is insulting to hear a developer and his hired “experts” blatantly attempt to deceive the public into believing that only eight students would be attending Cranston schools from this development — unless of course they would be willing to pay for the expense of any amount over eight for the next 40 years. Our schools are crowded to the point that the sixth-graders are no longer in middle school and the high schools are near their maximum in spite of recent additions and renovations. The elementary schools now have one or two fewer classrooms for special-ed and art due to the sixth-grade remaining.

Net tax gain — The proposed gain in property taxes is minuscule in proportion to the tax base as a whole.

I have repeatedly informed my constituents that this is a valuable development site. It is unrealistic to assume that it will remain “as is.” My idea for a type of use for this property would be to attract a private developer to construct an assisted-care/ nursing facility on this site. This type of development would solve many of the concerns of the community.

I wish the planning director, economic development director and Planning Commission would consider my alternative as a genuine attempt to solve a potential issue detrimental to the citizens of Cranston, while at the same time showing a positive approach to development in our city. The need for this type of elder-care facility certainly exists.

The residents of Cranston deserve more than short-sighted planning. We employ our planners to have a vision for our city. I wish to make certain that vision takes the well-being of our citizens into consideration, first and foremost.

Anthony Lupino

Councilman, citywide

Council must OK schools settlement

On Tuesday of last week I was disappointed to witness both the rejection of the Caruolo settlement by the City Council — and dismayed by the absence from that meeting of three of the nine council members. It is appalling that the three failed to attend such an important meeting given the ramifications for the city’s financial health.

If settlement of such a matter doesn’t qualify as an emergency and compelling reason to be present, then those absent members should reconsider why they want to remain on the City Council.

I agree with the efforts to resolve the Caruolo dispute and minimize the costs to the city’s taxpayers. Not only would a settlement avoid needless legal expenses, it would restore some sense of reasonableness to the 2008-09 budget for the schools while forcing both the city and the schools to find additional cost savings in both the current and future years.

As a concerned citizen and parent having followed these debates, I would like to correct several criticisms leveled at the School Committee during the last few City Council meetings.

First, the school officials have the legal right and responsibility to pursue a Caruolo action they believe they are being underfunded by the city. The School Committee put the city on notice in July 2007 that it would run a multimillion-dollar deficit and that its corrective action plan would be to seek additional funds from the city.

These notices were sent each month to the city’s finance director and the City Council’s internal auditor. That the district ran a deficit in 2007-08 should come as no surprise to anyone on the council, especially after the budget adopted by Mayor Michael T. Napolitano and the City Council in 2007 gave the schools little additional funds.

Furthermore, both the mayor and the City Council could have forced the issue at any time over the last 12 months by requiring the schools to bring their budget into line with the city appropriation when it would have been easier to cut costs and reduce expense.

Instead, the mayor and the City Council decided to ignore the issue, hoping it would go away. The poor budget adopted by the mayor and the City Council in 2007 coupled with the willful blindness to the looming school deficit over the last year puts the blame for the school deficit at least partly on the shoulders of the mayor and the City Council.

If members of the City Council wanted a different outcome, they should have acted last year when the opportunity to cut costs was available instead of waiting until the end of the fiscal year went the money was already spent.

Second, to blame the School Committee for expensive union contracts does not relieve City Council members from the responsibility of voting on the settlement or from proposing an alternate solution should they choose to reject it.

Although the teachers contract adopted by a majority of the School Committee in the fall of 2005 was unaffordable for the city and fiscally irresponsible, the contract is valid and the costs incurred under the contract must be paid.

I hope in the future we can negotiate fiscally responsible contacts that bring the benefits of all public employees, both for the city and for the schools, in line with the private sector. However, this does not change the fact that under the circumstances, this is a reasonable settlement and should be approved. To point a finger and criticize the School Committee at this late date sidesteps the real issue: How do we address the city’s fiscal problems?

Unless the City Council can propose an alternate settlement or provide reasoned arguments (not complaints) to support a continuance of the lawsuit, they must vote for settlement.

Another special session of the City Council has been convened for tonight at 8 to reconsider the settlement proposal.

Citizens of Cranston, please call your City Council representatives and urge them all to be present at this meeting and reconsider their positions. As elected officials, they have a responsibility to you as constituents and the city to be present at this meeting and vote. Having less than a full council at the special session last week and considering the gravity of the situation, there can be no excuse for them to miss another, including those who attended the first.

Steven Bloom

Cranston