Providence residents pack State House hearing to oppose bill to go above tax levy cap
Some people waited two hours to speak at Tuesday night's meeting of the Rhode Island House Committee on Municipal Government and Housing. Some people couldn't wait and left before they had their chance.
Rep. Stephen Casey, the Woonsocket Democrat and committee chair, shuffled the six sign-up sheets in his hands, each page filled with the names of Providence residents who wanted to testify at a hearing on a bill that would raise the the city's levy, or total collected tax revenue, above the statewide 4% cap in fiscal year 2026. The hearing room and overflow area were packed with about 100 people.
As the meeting stretched past 7 p.m., Casey opted for speed over procedure, and told people to leave the microphones on when they came up to testify.
Smiley puts faith in General Assembly in unveiling $624.1M fiscal 2026 budget
'Don't anybody touch anything. Just get up there and talk,' he said.
Providence residents had a lot to say about the bill sponsored by Rep. Rebecca Kislak, and three other Democratic reps in the city: Scott Slater, Edith Ajello and Nathan Biah. The bill's 27-word amendment to the state's municipal tax law would authorize the capital city to hike its levy on owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied residential properties, commercial properties, tangible properties, and natural growth, or the increase in value of properties over time.
Kislak's bill would allow Providence to go up to 8% more than last year. Mayor Brett Smiley is proposing a 7.5% increase, announced April 16 in his proposed fiscal 2026 budget.
The impact would hit property owners depending on the kind of home they own and if they live there. The average tax bill for owners who live in their single-family homes or condominium units would go up 4%. But the increase would be 16% for homes with two to five families, whether owner-occupied or not.
'We think that this is, in fact, an extraordinary ask,' Smiley told lawmakers. 'But it's because there are extraordinary circumstances. The last time the city of Providence was at the State House to ask for this was over 15 years ago during the 2008 financial crisis.'
The budgeting maneuver is meant to cushion city finances for fiscal year 2026 against an expensive settlement with the state education department to resolve past underfunding of Providence public schools. But compliance with that November 2024 settlement, which accounts for $11 million in the upcoming fiscal year's budget and additional investments in subsequent fiscal years, depends on state lawmakers' approval.
'There are a lot of reasons that Providence has this need to increase the levy,' Kislak said in her introduction of the bill, citing the agreement with the Rhode Island Department of Education as 'the most immediate.'
'We will be fixing…30 years of underfunding of our schools in just three years,' Kislak said. 'We should do it. It's painful, and it's so important to the city.'
Without the General Assembly's approval, Smiley has said his budget will need to return to the Providence City Council and substantial revisions made. The council is still engaged in the budgeting process with a final version emerging in June. Ahead of Kislak's April 2 introduction of the bill, the council voted to affirm up to an 8% increase.
Democratic Rep. David Morales of Providence — a 26-year-old lawmaker who's floated the idea of running for mayor himself one day — wondered why no Plan B was in place.
'Has your administration prepared an alternative budget in the case that the committee does not move forward with this levy proposal?' Morales asked Smiley.
'No, we have not,' the mayor replied.
We will be fixing…30 years of underfunding of our schools in just three years. We should do it. It's painful, and it's so important to the city.
– Rep. Rebecca Kislak, a Providence Democrat and sponsor of the bill authorizing the capital city to exceed state tax levy cap
Morales also asked Smiley if he would stay for the entirety of the hearing, 'because we have dozens of working people across the city of Providence that are here to share their perspective,' Morales said.
Smiley replied: 'I appreciate that. I'll stay as long as I can.'
In a phone interview Thursday, Morales said Smiley left before residents had their turn to testify but encountered residents outside the committee hearing room. A WPRI-12 report on Tuesday confirmed that Smiley spent time talking to residents for some time in the State House rotunda, explaining his budget in detail.
'Mayor (and also in a different spot I) stayed for hours talking to people in the hallway,' Kislak said via text message Wednesday. 'We should pass this bill plus additional revenue bills that will give the city council and mayor additional flexibility in their budget negotiations.'
Some of the additional revenue bills Kislak previously mentioned include taxes on parking lots and Airbnbs.
Josh Estrella, a spokesperson for the mayor, said in a statement Wednesday, 'Mayor Smiley has been attending community meetings in every ward of Providence collecting feedback from neighbors and explaining the critical importance of this legislation and he was glad to have stayed at the State House last night to answer every question community members had.'
Morales was disappointed in Smiley's showing before the committee, he said. 'I think he was dismissive…He opted to talk about the complex formula as to how one's property taxes are calculated, which I think was an easy cop-out from actually answering any questions.'
Many people testifying Tuesday were addressing lawmakers for the first time, Morales said, and some spoke through Spanish interpreters. Residents worried about tax hikes being passed to renters, making apartments unaffordable and ultimately leading to displacement.
Charles Pinning, a landlord and part-time writing professor at the University of Rhode Island, explained how the levy hike would affect his tenants: 'These people who have spoken, 'Oh, yeah, when I rent the apartment, I will pass it on to them.' They're absolutely correct.'
Providence residents viewed the committee as an important blockade against the tax hike's passage, arguing that the City Council will likely approve the measure. But the House committee emphasized its role is to merely allow the levy hike to happen. The venue for resisting the hike itself, they suggested, was at City Council hearings instead.
Casey, the chair, at times told public testimonies to stay on track, and not stray into discussions of the city's housing market or general critiques of Smiley. He told one man his testimony's content was better suited to a Facebook post.
'This bill has been held for further study,' Casey said. 'Everybody needs to relax. We're not going to vote on it today.'
Fixed-income homeowners, including senior citizens, said a 25% additional property tax exemption for senior citizens under Smiley's budget was insufficient. Sandra Lee, a low-income senior citizen and 25-year resident of the Mount Hope neighborhood, said her property assessment went up 100% in the most recent valuation, and her lot 521%.
'I own a little home there, and I own a little speck of green,' Lee said. 'My right to quiet enjoyment is being threatened, and I don't know what to do. I feel completely powerless.'
The bill was held for further study, as is standard practice on an initial hearing. Based on conversations with his colleagues before and after Tuesday's hearing, Morales thinks the committee vote will not be unanimous.
Morales said Thursday he was proud of the people in his city who showed up to be heard, and hoped his fellow committee members were listening closely.
'I hope that they recognize that these stories of hardships are going to become reality if we're not conscientious about our own decisions when we vote on this,' Morales said.
At the hearing, Rep. José Batstia of Providence told fellow Democrat Smiley that he understands how the city has been wedged between a multimillion dollar rock and the hard place of a tax increase. But he said he would not support the levy hike, because he thinks the city is not doing enough to extract money from the city's wealthy nonprofits like Brown University.
Smiley, in part, agreed. Nearly half of the city's property is tax-exempt, he said, adding the city is 'burdened with a hugely disproportionate share of the tax-exempt properties in Rhode Island: the colleges, the hospitals, government, churches and certain nonprofits.'
'It is, I know, very popular, and certainly the size of their endowment makes it eye- popping. But it is not just Brown,' Smiley said.
Morales thinks the city has not explored all its options, citing industrial, waterfront properties on the city's south side. 'They can certainly afford to pay more in their taxes,' Morales said, an alternative to what he described as the overly broad taxation in Smiley's strategy, in which 'owner-occupied, multifamily homes…are going to feel the brunt of this increase.'
Meanwhile the budgeting process chugs along on the city side. In an email Thursday, Marc Boyd, a City Council spokesperson, said individual councilors have been holding community meetings over the past month with residents in their respective wards to hear concerns about 'revaluations, property taxes, the levy overall, and the budget process broadly.'
'Now that the mayor has proposed his budget, the Finance Committee will review, vet, and, if necessary, amend the mayor's proposal as part of the normal budget process which, as usual, will include public hearings, the first of which is scheduled for May 6th,' Boyd said.
Boyd added that on Saturday, May 3, several Spanish-speaking councilors will be hosting a Latino Town Hall to discuss the same issues with Spanish-speaking residents. English translation will be available, and the event runs from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Providence Career and Technical Academy on Fricker Street.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom's redistricting move isn't pretty. California GOP leaders are uglier
King Gavin is at it again! That's the cry coming from Republicans across California as Newsom pushes the state Legislature to approve a November special election like none this state has ever seen. Voters would have the chance to approve a congressional map drawn by Democrats hoping to wipe out GOP-held seats and counter Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Trump-driven redistricting. The president 'doesn't play by a different set of rules — he doesn't believe in the rules,' the governor told a roaring crowd packed with Democratic heavyweights last week at the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. 'And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. ... We have got to meet fire with fire.' California Republicans are responding to this the way a kid reacts if you take away their Pikachu. 'An absolutely ridiculous gerrymander!' whined Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents the state's rural northeast corner, on social media. Under the Democratic plan, his district would swing all the way down to ultra-liberal Marin County. The California Republican Party deemed the new maps a 'MASTERCLASS IN CORRUPTION' (Trumpian caps in the original). National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said 'Newscum' was giving 'a giant middle finger to every Californian.' Intelligent minds can disagree on whether countering an extreme political move with an extreme political move is the right thing. The new maps would supersede the ones devised just four years ago by an independent redistricting commission established to keep politics out of the process, which typically occurs once a decade after the latest census. Good government types, from the League of Women Voters to Charles Munger Jr. — the billionaire who bankrolled the 2010 proposition that created independent redistricting for California congressional races — have criticized Newsom's so-called Election Rigging Response Act. So has former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fierce Trump critic who posted a photo of himself on social media working out in a T-shirt that read, 'F*** the Politicians / Terminate Gerrymandering.' I'm not fully convinced that Newsom's plan is the MAGA killer he thinks it is. If the economy somehow rebounds next year, Republicans would most likely keep Congress anyway, and Newsom would have upended California politics for nothing. I also don't discount the moderate streak in California voters that pops up from time to time to quash what seem like liberal gimmes, like the failed attempt via ballot measure to repeal affirmative action in 2020 and the passage last year of Proposition 36, which increased penalties for theft and drug crimes. Nearly two-thirds of California voters want to keep redistricting away from the Legislature, according to a POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll released last week. If Californians reject Newsom's plan, that would torpedo his presidential ambitions and leave egg on the face of state Democratic leaders for years, if not a generation. For now, though, I'm going to enjoy all the tears that California Republicans are shedding. As they face the prospect of even fewer congressional seats than the paltry nine they now hold, they suddenly care about rescuing American democracy? Where were they during Trump's fusillade of lawsuits and threats against California? When he sent the National Guard and Marines to occupy parts of Los Angeles this summer after protests against his deportation deluge? When his underlings spew hate about the Golden State on Fox News and social media? Now they care about political decency? What about when LaMalfa and fellow California GOP House members Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa — whose seats the Newsom maps would also eliminate — voted against certifying Joe Biden's 2020 victory? When the state Republican Party backed a ridiculous recall against Newsom that cost taxpayers $200 million? Or when the Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted to pass Trump's Big Bloated Bill, even though it's expected to gut healthcare and food programs for millions of Californians in red counties? Or even when Trump first pushed Abbott to pursue the very gerrymandering Newsom is now emulating? We're supposed to believe them when they proclaim Newsom is a pompadoured potentate who threatens all Californians, just because he wants to redo congressional maps? Pot, meet black hole. If these GOPers had even an iota of decency or genuine care for the Golden State, they would back a bill by one of their own that I actually support. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose seat is also targeted for elimination by the Newsom maps, wants to ban all mid-decade congressional redistricting. He stated via a press release that this would 'stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.' That's an effort that any believer in liberty can and should back. But Kiley's bill has no co-sponsors so far. And Kevin: Why can't you say that your man Trump created this fiasco in the first place? We live in scary times for our democracy. If you don't believe it, consider that a bunch of masked Border Patrol agents just happened to show up outside the Japanese American National Museum — situated on a historic site where citizens of Japanese ancestry boarded buses to incarceration camps during World War II — at the same time Newsom was delivering his redistricting remarks. Sector Chief Gregory Bovino was there, migra cameramen documenting his every smirk, including when he told a reporter that his agents were there to make 'Los Angeles a safer place, since we won't have politicians that'll do that, we do that ourselves.' The show of force was so obviously an authoritarian flex that Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to know who authorized what and why. Meanwhile, referring to Trump, he described the action on X as 'an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea.' Newsom is not everyone's cup of horchata, myself included. Whether you support it or not, watching him rip up the California Constitution's redistricting section and assuring us it's OK, because he's the one doing it, is discomfiting. But you know what's worse? Trump anything. And even worse? The California GOP leaders who have loudly cheered him on, damn the consequences to the state they supposedly love. History will castigate their cultish devotion to Trump far worse than any of Newsom's attempts to counter that scourge.


Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: DuSable Lake Shore Drive has become unsafe. Let's do something about it.
On a lengthy list of bills Gov. JB Pritzker signed into law Friday was a measure authored by state Sen. Sara Feigenholtz to address what has become one of the true hazards of life in Chicago: driving on DuSable Lake Shore Drive. The law will have the Urban Transportation Center at the University of Illinois Chicago do a study on whether cameras using artificial intelligence technology can make DuSable Lake Shore Drive safer. In an April 4 statement, Feigenholtz, a Democrat representing a North Side district, said, 'The high number of crashes due to dangerous and distracted patterns demands urgent action. We need research-driven solutions that improve safety outcomes without imposing overly punitive measures.' AI cameras are being deployed on expressways in this country and abroad to identify unsafe practices such as failing to wear a seatbelt and texting while driving, as well as speeding. Some jurisdictions are studying how the technology can be used. Others outside the U.S. are going so far as to allow the cameras to generate evidence for ticketing drivers. In this country, some states are using the technology to give police patrolling the roads a heads-up on drivers coming their way who are breaking laws on distracted driving and speeding. Fierce debates are occurring already, as you might imagine, around privacy. We share those misgivings. But without a doubt, something must be done about driving behavior on DuSable Lake Shore Drive. Anyone who's been on the drive in recent months — really any time since the pandemic — routinely encounters reckless driving. Speeds at 90 mph or more are a common sight. Hazardous lane changing occurs regularly. In our experience, the issue is worse on the southern stretch of the drive, perhaps because it is more lightly traveled than North DuSable Lake Shore Drive, which abuts more densely populated neighborhoods. But both ends of the iconic roadway currently aren't safe enough for law-abiding drivers to use. On South DuSable Lake Shore Drive, it used to be that regular patrolling by the Chicago Police Department kept drivers from channeling their inner Mario Andretti. CPD patrols these days are an infrequent sight, and predictably the speed demons feel liberated. We see nothing wrong with studying the use of AI-enabled cameras on DuSable Lake Shore Drive. In the future, there may even be an argument for speed cameras on the drive given their proliferation on far less dangerous city streets where increasingly they are more a source of revenue for a revenue-starved city government than anything else. But in the meantime, how about returning to a tried-and-true method of keeping DuSable Lake Shore Drive safer? That is, regular patrolling by CPD. We understand police resources are stretched, and we sympathize with arguments that cops need to be focused mainly on violent crime. But people are dying on DuSable Lake Shore Drive as well, and we'd argue that a few regular patrols armed with that trusty old-school technology — the radar gun — are well justified by the future lives that can be saved.


Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
R.I. expecting competitive race for lieutenant governor
Advertisement While attention has focused on whether Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Former state Senator Cynthia Coyne has already A number of other people are considering jumping into the race, including Providence City Council member Advertisement Joe Fleming, a veteran pollster and analyst for WPRI, said the latest polling and fundraising numbers indicate Matos 'could have a serious problem.' He said he's surprised she does not have more campaign cash at this point, 'knowing she would face serious competition.' Fleming said her high disapproval numbers likely reflect publicity about the 'I would think candidates are looking at that race seriously, believing she is a target,' he said. But her polling numbers among Democrats show 'that in a primary, she may not be quite as weak as people might think,' Fleming said. 'In a multi-candidate race, she is in a much better position, but she needs to raise money to get her message out.' Katie Langford Sonder, who crafted the Salve poll as associate director and fellow at the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, said the latest poll showed lower approval ratings for most of Rhode Island's top elected Democrats, not just Matos. She said Democratic voters are looking for stronger responses to what they consider an 'onslaught of bad news' from the Trump administration. But Sonder said Matos' support among Democratic voters 'is actually very good' when compared to other top officials such as McKee, who had a minus-2 net approval rating among Democrats compared to her plus-23 net rating. Republicans have sharply different views, with just 7 percent approving of Matos' job performance and 76 disapproving (for a minus-70 net approval). And 13 percent of unaffiliated voters approve of the job she's doing, while 57 percent disapprove (for a minus-44 net approval). Advertisement Here's a closer look at the two candidates in the race: Sabina Matos , 51, a Providence Democrat, moved to the US from the Dominican Republic in 1994 and graduated from Rhode Island College. She was elected to the Providence City Council in 2010 and became Providence's first Latina City Council president. In 2021, When asked to name two specific accomplishments, Matos said she advocated for providing Matos' campaign account contains $14,611. Cindy Coyne , 63, a Barrington Democrat, was born in Pawtucket and attended the University of Rhode Island on an athletic scholarship for swimming. She was among the first women to graduate from the State Police Training Academy and served as a State Trooper for more than 20 years, becoming a lieutenant. Advertisement Former state Senator Cynthia "Cindy" Coyne, a Barrington Democrat, is running for lieutenant governor. Handout Coyne served as a Barrington Town Council member from 2010 to 2014. And she served in the Senate from 2015 to 2023 after becoming the first Democrat to win the seat representing Barrington in more than 100 years. She chaired the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. In citing two accomplishments, Coyne noted she championed a law that now bans ' Campaign funds: $60,713. Here's a brief look at those who said they're considering entering the race: Sue AnderBois , 42, a Providence Democrat, was elected to the Providence City Council in 2024, representing Ward 3. She created and chairs the task force working to make North Main Street safer. She works as the Northeast division director of climate and energy at The Nature Conservancy. She was the state director of food strategy, or 'food czar,' under former Governor Gina M. Raimondo. Providence City Council member Sue AnderBois. Handout AnderBois said the lieutenant governor's post would offer the opportunity to have a larger impact on key issues such as climate change, transit, and high energy costs. Campaign funds: $19,445 Lou DiPalma , 64, a Middletown Democrat, was elected to the Senate in 2008 and now chairs Senate Finance Committee. He sponsored legislation that Advertisement Senate Finance Committee Chairman Louis P. DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat. Handout DiPalma said she is 'leaning toward' running for reelection to the Senate but 'still exploring the possibility' of running for lieutenant governor. Campaign funds: $113,907 Stephen Casey , 56, a Woonsocket Democrat, has represented House District 50 after being elected in 2012, and chairs the House Municipal Government and Housing Committee. He has been a Woonsocket firefighter for 20 years. He ran for the First Congressional District seat in 2023, finishing fifth in the Democratic primary, just behind Matos. Rhode Island state Representative Stephen M. Casey, a Woonsocket Democrat. Handout When asked about the lieutenant governor's race, Casey said, 'I would certainly consider it and keep all my options open.' Campaign funds: $17,134. Maria Rivera , 48, a Central Falls Democrat, Central Falls Mayor Maria Rivera. Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff Rivera said she has not ruled out running for lieutenant governor. 'It is still a possibility,' Campaign funds: $54,982. Kenneth J. Hopkins , 70, a Cranston Republican, Advertisement Cranston Mayor Kenneth J. Hopkins Handout Hopkins said he is 'keeping all options open at this point,' including the lieutenant governor's post. Campaign funds: $11,130. Aaron Guckian , 49, of East Greenwich, ran for lieutenant governor in 2022 and now works as executive director of the Rhode Island Dental Association. He previously worked as a development officer for the Rhode Island Foundation, and as special assistant to former Republican Governor Donald L. Carcieri. Aaron Guckian, a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Rhode Island in 2022. Handout Guckian said he is considering running for governor, lieutenant governor, or treasurer. He noted he won the cities of Warwick and Cranston in the 2022 race against Matos. 'I am definitely looking at running again,' he said. Campaign funds: $2,176. Bill Bartholomew , 41, of Providence, is a Bill Bartholomew, podcaster and radio host. Handout Bartholomew said he would run as a Democrat. He said he has not taken any formal steps to launch his campaign. But, he said, 'I'm definitely still considering it.' Campaign funds: None reported. Attorney General Peter F. Neronha and Pawtucket Mayor Donald R. Grebien have been mentioned as possible candidates, but they both said they are not planning to run for lieutenant governor. Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at