It seems that Jim Skeffington and his cohorts in the PawSox ownership team are suffering from a bit of buyer's remorse this week. Despite Skeffington et al.'s massive contributions to Gina Raimondo's gubernatorial campaign, it apparently wasn't enough to get the governor to fall for SkeffCo.'s first outrageous offer hook, line, and sinker.

In a delicious twist, Governor Gina Raimondo issued the following statement on Monday.

I've worked on a few political campaigns, and I can tell you this: the wording of this statement is the political equivalent of, "You've gotta be f***ing kidding me?!? If I want a second term as governor, I can't even begin to entertain the idea of this deal as even the most remote possibility." To add insult to SkeffCo's injury, Raimondo issued this statement IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PITCH to the I-195 Redevelopment Commission!

While this statement offers a bit of hope, again the language is crafted in a very particular way. I find it disturbing that Gina's "commitment" is to, "...working with Mayor Elorza, the Speaker, and the Senate President," with no mention of the will of the people, which from my vantage point ranges from "No" to "Jumping Jesus in a Jam Jar! No effing way!"

It seems that SkeffCo's campaign contributions in the last election cycle didn't buy them the influence that they thought it did. More interestingly, Skeffington's Law firm, Edwards, Angell, Palmer &Dodge, prior to being swallowed up by international law firm Locke Lord, contributed over $13,000 dollars to then-treasurer now- governor Gina Raimondo. Caveat emptor!

First, let me thank everyone who came out to yesterdays protest prior to the I-195 Redevelopment Commission Meeting. I was truly inspiring to see so many folks from such a wide swath of the political spectrum get activated and involved. Let's remember, though, this fight is far from over. We at The Coalition reissue our callto the people of Rhode Island to stay engaged in this process.

I would also be remiss if I didn't thank my co-host, Pat Ford - better known to many as "Pat from Cumberland" or the PO Taxpayer- for the yeoman's work that he did in organizing yesterday's protest and many of the speakers that attended.

Now, on to the presentation by Skeffington et al.

First, let me tell you what this blog post WON'T be. This will not be a regurgitation of SkeffCo's delusional, overly optimistic framing of this taxpayer funded quagmire. You can get that from any number of other "news" outlets here in the Biggest Little. This will also not be a repeating of the imaginary numbers put forth by SkeffCo at yesterdays meeting. Again, there are plenty of other sources if you want to get a look inside Jim Skeffington's imagination.

The project's architects are truly gifted. The plans and renderings presented at the meeting were impressive, and included quite a bit of public space. Public amenities like a  riverwalk, a small ballfield for local kids to use, and a concourse that the architects kept referring to as "a place for farmers' markets." It  looked nice, but by the fourth or fifth time I heard "farmers' market" I knew that they were just pandering to Rhode Island's bustling local food scene.

Of particular interest to Providence residents were the results of a traffic study performed by SkeffCo. Not surprisingly, they assured that there would be negligible impact to traffic and parking around the stadium, which drew a hearty guffaw from the citizens gathered in the meeting. The SkeffCo consultant said that their study found that the traffic congestion would be, "no worse than it already is..." I'm sure that is of little comfort to the businesses and residents in the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed stadium site. In a touch of delicious irony, Skeffington, Lucchino, and their band of consultants were driven into Providence. It's really easy to be oblivious to traffic and parking when you're not in the drivers seat and you get dropped off at the front door of your destination while your driver finds a parking spot.

Needless to say, SkeffCo continued to promote a vision of the park that would be an amenity to Providence. At  one point, Skeffington said that the new stadium would be a source of "civic pride." I can agree with the amenity factor, but when phrases like "economic catalyst", "economic engine" and "spurring development of biotech" start to be bandied about, I have to balk. I have read too many research papers on the subject of subsidised sports stadiums in the past few weeks to buy into the new stadium as an effective economic driver. On that note, here's your homework.

There was a glimmer  of hope in the presentation, and it came from members of the I-195 Commission itself. It seemed that they were asking all the right questions. I would go so far as to say that many members weren't buying what SkeffCo was selling. Questions about the cost of relocating utilities, the Cloudcuckooland traffic study, and building a stadium in a flood zone that is susceptible to damage from hurricanes fell from more than a few commission members mouths. I have to give a shout out to the Providence Journal's Kate Bramson, whose follow-up in todays paper focuses on the commissions decidedly pointed questions to SkeffCo. Well done, Kate.

I did manage to  sneak into the post-meeting press conference with commission head honcho Joe Azrack and RI Commerce Sec. Stefan Pryor. Below you'll find the audio of the questions that I had for them, and their "answers." Pay special attention to the third question... and the uncomfortable pause before the response. Priceless.

Imagine my surprise when I read today's follow-up in the Providence Journal regarding Jim Skeffington's stadium  proposal, and the now open meeting being held between team owners and the I-195 Redevelopment Commission. While most news outlets reported that the meeting was opened due to a request by the team owners, I happen to know that the I-195 Commission received quite a bit of public push-back on the closed-door, executive session.

In today's Journal story by Kate Bramson, Skeffington is quoted as saying, "We're certainly willing to have discussions with them, but as a private company, our financial information is confidential," our financial capabilities," he continues, "They know our proposal, but we'd be happy to put it in writing."

I read this about a half-dozen times before the absurdity of the statement really sunk in. They'd be "happy" to put it in writing? There hasn't been a hard copy of the proposal submitted to the I-195 Commission already?

Later in the article, Skeffington says, "I know you and other people are eager to have these answers. "You don't negotiate these in public. You sit down with the people who are the parties of interest here, and in our case, it's us and the state and the leaders of the state government."

Bramson writes:

There is a serious flaw in Skeffington's logic here. While we may be compared to 'shareholders' in the deal, there is one huge difference between the shareholders of a corporation and the public at large. If shareholders don't like the direction in which their investment is headed, THEY CAN DUMP THEIR STOCK IN THE COMPANY! If this deal goes through, in any fashion, we, the people of Rhode Island, will be saddled with a bad investment with no conceivable way out of it. Moreover, he literally says that's the way we've always done it. I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty damn sick of the way we've always done it. 

I've been criticized over the last couple of weeks for 'caricaturizing' Mr. Skeffington, and while I agree that the level of discourse needs to be raised in Rhode Island, I also believe that Skeffington et al. have done a damn fine job of turning themselves into caricatures.

Lets' not forget, Skeffington will benefit doubly from this ill-conceived deal. The law firm at which he is employed is the contracted legal counsel for the I-195 Redevelopment Commission, and while Skeffington has recused himself as the go-to legal beagle for the commission, I doubt that he will recuse himself from the profits his law firm will cull from their lucrative contract with the I-195ers.

As one internet commenter put it, regarding the art of negotiation, "If the first offer is 'We want everything' the only way to  get a fair deal is if the first counter-offer is 'You get nothing.'

The term "unmitigated gall" comes to mind...

Just when you thought that you couldn't be more insulted, Jim Skeffington and his co-owners of the Pawtucket Red Sox have now scheduled a CLOSED DOOR MEETING with the I-195 Redevelopment Commission. The commission agenda, filed on April 20, claims that the meeting will not be accessible to the public-at-large, pursuant to Rhode Island's seemingly inaptly named 'Open Meetings Law.'

In case you haven't noticed, Rhode Islanders are nearly unanimous in their opposition to Skeffington's proposal to lay out 120 million taxpayer dollars to build a new stadium on the reclaimed I-195 land in Providence. In addition to the $120 million in state funds, Skeffington and his cronies are seeking a 100 percent property tax abatement from the capital city over the next thirty years.

Given the overwhelming, and overwhelmingly vocal, opposition to this proposal, did Skeffington et al.  and the I-195 Commission think that a closed door meeting would IMPROVE the public's view of this economic sinkhole? Do they think that Rhode Islanders are so ignorant as to not be aware of Skeffington's past dealings with the state, and his "business model" of lining his own pockets with OUR money? Or have they concluded that we've all succumbed to economic Stockholm Syndrome and we have begun to identify with our financial captors?
 
On the meeting agenda is a presentation by Skeffington's group regarding "Acquisition and Development of District Property." I say Skeffington needs a presentation on the "Acquisition and Development of a sense of decency and ethical business practices."

The meeting is to be held on Monday, April, 27 at 4 pm at the offices of the RI Commerce Corporation, formerly know as the RI Economic Development Corporation, but I don't think the new name was the industrial strength turd polish that our state's "leaders" thought it would be. The extremely foul taste of the 38 Studios debacle is still in our collective mouths, as well it should be. I, for one, will be there in protest. I hope many of you will join me. Commerce Corp. offices are located at 315 Iron Horse Way in Providence, or as Rhode Islanders put it, where the old locomotive works used to be. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If these underhanded tax giveaways continue in the city of Providence, we might as well change the name of the state to 'Providence and Plantations,' because the rest of the state will be sold into economic slavery to the capital city. 

In the wake of the passage of a RFRA in Indiana, one little pizzeria has become the focus of international attention. The response from the left to the Indiana pizzeria that claimed that they would not cater a same-sex marriage was swift and fierce, and with good reason. The response on the right has revolved around the so-called leftist "intolerance" of the religious beliefs of these business owners. Once again, the religious right displays a bad case of "nose blindness" when it comes to their own ever-growing mountain of dung.

First, let's get the simple thing out of the way, and clarify my point.

It seems to me that the intolerance in this situation was certainly not born on the left. It began with the pizzeria owners "unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or  behaviors that differ from their own." That is literally the textbook definition of intolerance. The typical binary thinker on the right who screams "intolerance" at this point seems to lack even the tiniest sense of irony. 

The way I see it, the outrage from the left  has absolutely nothing to do with religion; it has to do with discriminatory business practices. The right would have you believe that this is part of a fictitious "war on Christianity," but I'm sure there are plenty of real, "Love thy Neighbor" Christians out there that find this businesses assertions to be reprehensible, and moreover, completely antithetical to the teachings of Christ. And talk about a slippery slope. If you give businesses the right to deny service to a particular group of people based on their religious beliefs, what's next? Discriminatory hiring practices can't be far behind. 

Let's face it, there are some weird religions out there. Some of them are actually borne  of racism. (See: Christian Identity) Would it be OK for a business owner who belonged to this movement deny service to a black person? An hispanic person? A jewish person? In fairness, though,  the Christian Identity cave-dwellers would  be more likely to kill these people than to deny them service, but you see the point. Even the Mormon church has a distinctly racist vein running through it. Brigham Young, successor to Joseph Smith- founder of the Mormon church stated in Volume 10 of his Journal of Discourses:

I'll end this post with one of my favorite verses from the Bible. One that speaks to hypocrisy, which the religious right has displayed in spades over these RFRA laws. 

Matthew 7, Verses 4 and 5

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."