Investing in people delivers the best return. The Women's Fund helps RIers succeed: Commentary
When faced with an opportunity to make an investment, the main consideration often is whether you're confident it will return more than what is put in. Yet no matter how successful the track record is of a broker or trader, there's never a guarantee that an investment will hit.
But what if you were to consider the gains of investing in the betterment of your fellow Rhode Islanders? What if you were presented with information and data indicating the long-term return on those investments could multiply time and time over?
I am fortunate each day to have a front-row seat to the transformative nature that's realized by investing in programs and services that empower our neighbors. Seeing how these same investments advance our communities is of equal importance, which, in turn, makes our state better and stronger. There truly are incredible people and organizations doing life-changing work in Rhode Island.
Make no mistake, there remains a lack of equity in our state and far too much need among our people. That, however, should not overshadow the lasting change we see by lifting up each other … by investing in each other and in all Rhode Islanders' opportunity for a good life.
Nonprofits around the state, like the Women's Fund of Rhode Island, are working each day to highlight and address the most important issues our communities face. That work, investing in every person, is also an investment in family stability, in education, economic and workforce development, and in overall health and well-being. And more than just being the right thing to do, the long-term return is significant, generational.
We are all interconnected, even more so in a place like Rhode Island. I will always believe, "When one succeeds, we all succeed."
Roshni Darnal is the director of community investments at the United Way of Rhode Island
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Women's Fund of RI creates opportunity for a good life in RI: Commentary
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Real estate pushback to the 'Taylor Swift tax' begins. Will the charge hit everyday cottages?
Star entertainer Taylor Swift would owe Rhode Island around $136,000 in new taxes on her Watch Hill mansion if a new charge to high-end vacation homes proposed in the House version of the state budget passes. And Rhode Island real estate professionals, who successfully defeated a similar tax plan a decade ago, are mobilizing to kill the tax hike again and argue that even if Swift can afford it, she and others in her position shouldn't have to pay. "We're screaming from the top of Jerimoth Hill. ... Do not hurt our housing market right here more than you are," Chris Whitten, president of the Rhode Island Association of Realtors, told The Providence Journal in a June 12 phone interview. "Because who knows what the slippery slope leads to? Let's heal. How about we heal our housing crisis we have here in Rhode Island, which is the worst in the nation by many of the stats that we see." The "Taylor Swift tax," if it passes, would apply to second (or third or fourth) homes with assessed values of more than $1 million, and its proceeds would fund the state's low-income tax credits that help finance affordable housing developments. How much it will raise is murky. Because the tax wouldn't go into effect until July 2026, House budget writers did not have to estimate its financial impact on the 12 months starting this July 1. But real estate brokers and agents, who are even more ticked off about a proposed 61% increase in the conveyance tax on home sales, say soaring property values means the tax on expensive properties will hit more than just pop stars. "Think about that family that has had this Narragansett Beach house in their family for four generations, and the family collectively uses it various weeks throughout the summer, and in the winter it just stays vacant," Whitten said. "They're going to be whacked with this." The Taylor Swift tax, officially called the "non-owner-occupied tax," applies to all residential properties assessed at more than $1 million that do not serve as a primary dwelling. To qualify as a primary residence, an owner has to live there more than half the year, or 183 days. The non-owner-occupied tax rate of $2.50 cents per $500 of value only applies to assessed value above $1 million, so even homes worth exactly $1 million would pay nothing. Properties that are rented − either in traditional long-term leases or short-term through online platforms − would be exempt from the tax as long as, again, they are occupied at least 183 days a year. Beyond the revenue benefit of the tax, House supporters of it point out the potential added benefit of creating an incentive for property owners to make more productive use of their luxury pads. Swift could avoid the tax if, instead of spending a few summer weekends here, she becomes a bona fide 183-day-per-year Rhode Islander. Alternatively, she could rent out the 1904-built, seven-bed, nine-bath estate during the cold winter months. Either option would likely pump some welcome economic activity into Watch Hill during the offseason when the enclave can resemble a ghost town. "You'll have to ask her," House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi said June 12 when asked if he hoped the tax would encourage Swift to move here full time. "I welcome any and all people who spend more time around Rhode Island. It's a beautiful state, and I love it dearly." Since then-Gov. Gina Raimondo first proposed a tax on luxury vacation "cottages" shortly after her inauguration in 2015, the politics around investment properties, out-of-state buyers and waterfront homes that sit vacant most of the year had not reached the boiling point where it is now. In the last decade, local governments have passed all kinds of ordinances restricting short-term rentals and lawmakers have considered numerous measures to encourage full-time owner-occupants but have largely maintained the status quo. A preamble to the new tax in the budget rails against absentee property owners, calls owning a property you don't live in a "privilege" and suggests that more moves to push homes into year-round occupancy could be ahead. "Non-owner occupied properties sometimes place a greater demand on essential state, city or town services such as police and fire protection than do occupied properties comparably assessed," the budget article says. "The residents of non-owner occupied properties are not vested with a motive to maintain such properties." And, it goes on, "some properties are deliberately left vacant by their owners in the hope that real estate values will increase, thereby enabling the owners to sell these properties at a substantial profit without making any of the necessary repairs or improvements to the property." Is some of that criticism of the high-end market fair? Whitten: "It's tough when people try to paint a broad picture, and it's a much more intricate situation. Just like landlord tenants, everybody's fighting at the State House, but we as Realtors are in the middle on that. We see both sides." The tax rate in Raimondo's 2015 Taylor Swift tax proposal was half that of the current plan, at $2.50 per every $1,000 of value instead of $2.50 per $500 of value. It was estimated to generate $11.8 million in new revenue, but was not included in the House budget that year. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Real estate pushback to RI's proposed 'Taylor Swift tax' begins
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Cutting energy efficiency and renewables is not the answer to R.I.'s rising energy costs
Energy efficiency not only cuts Advertisement Rhode Island's 2024 Advertisement Building out more renewable energy in the state and region slowly but surely divorces our bill from polluting, price-volatile fossil gas, more commonly called natural gas. Right now, New England generates roughly 50 percent of its electricity from gas. That's gas we must purchase from a global market, which means prices can fluctuate wildly because of events outside of our control (like Russia's war on Ukraine). Gas companies want you to think that the solution to these cost issues is to commit billions of our hard-earned dollars into their businesses — because they profit from fracking gas and building pipelines to then ship it into our region. Rhode Island doesn't need more gas. What we do need are renewable alternatives that provide more predictable and stable pricing and to build out our clean energy economy, including battery storage for long-term reliability. As energy costs rise, Rhode Islanders deserve to have confidence that every dollar spent on the energy system is to our benefit. The good news is, there are proposed laws that can help. These bills would help make the state's energy system work for its customers by reigning in utility overspending, deploying modern and efficient technology to get the most out of our existing grid, and making sure community members are involved in making decisions. Advertisement Finally, Unfortunately, there isn't one silver bullet solution to cutting our energy bills. We need to make smart, strategic decisions that help Rhode Islanders cut energy demand and upgrade us to price-stable clean energy that is available right here in our state and region. But gas companies don't want that future for us. They are driven by their profits and not our ability to pay the bills. That's why they are pushing so hard to convince us that chopping programs like energy efficiency — which have provided significant cost savings and other benefits to Rhode Islanders — and relying even more on volatile out-of-state energy sources is the answer. Before brashly believing their disinformation, let us take a more thoughtful approach. One that's driven by what our families and businesses want — not one that parrots the talking points of fossil fuel companies and utilities driven by their bottom line. Rhode Islanders have the right to efficient, modern energy systems that cut bills and pollution — and we won't give up on strategies that help make an affordable, sustainable energy future a reality. Emily Koo is senior policy advocate and Rhode Island Program Director at Acadia Center and Jamie Rhodes is a senior attorney and the Director of Clean Buildings for the Conservation Law Foundation. Advertisement
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Living on a prayer? House budget gets RIPTA almost halfway there in plugging $32.6 million deficit.
Public transit advocates fear service cuts may be inevitable with the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority still facing a significant deficit in the Rhode Island House's proposed fiscal 2026 budget. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current) Motorists were already facing a penny increase in the tax they pay for every gallon of gasoline on July 1, 2025. But now they face the possibility of paying more in order to cut the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority's (RIPTA) looming budget deficit. Under the House of Representative's version of the fiscal 2026 budget released late Tuesday night, the state's gas tax — now slated to rise from 37 cents per gallon to 38 cents on July 1 — would rise by another two cents to 40 cents, with that bump directed toward the RIPTA. The move would generate $8.7 million for the cash-strapped agency according to a summary of the proposed House budget. The House's budget also ups RIPTA's share of Highway Maintenance Account funding by $5.9 million, plugging the agency's budget gap by nearly $15 million. Revenue for the fund comes from vehicle registration fees. The total of $14.6 million helps to plug a $32.6 million deficit the agency faced in the governor's budget released in January. RIPTA CEO Christopher Durand expressed gratitude to House lawmakers for recognizing the urgent need to find more revenue for the agency in a statement Wednesday. 'The agency has long needed a consistent funding stream to allow us to better support getting Rhode Islanders to work, school and healthcare,' Durand said. 'The last time the agency saw a permanent change in its funding structure was over ten years ago.' But the remaining $18 million gap could mean RIPTA may have to lay off drivers and reduce or eliminate bus routes. Durand said the agency's staff is still analyzing the full impact that the new budget gap could have on RIPTA's services. Rhode Island's gas tax is the highest among New England states, according to January 2025 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Motorists who buy gas in Vermont now pay 32 cents per gallon while the tax is 30 cents in Maine, 27 cents in Massachusetts, 25 cents in Connecticut and 24 cents in New Hampshire. But there are no complaints about the increased tax from AAA Northeast, which puts out weekly updates on the average cost of gas in Rhode Island. As of Monday, Rhode Island drivers paid an average of $2.97 per gallon. 'AAA Northeast generally supports gas taxes that help fund and improve broader transportation infrastructure, from roads and bridges to mass transit,' spokesperson Mark Schieldrop said in an emailed statement. 'Funding for public transportation can lead to increased use and ultimately, less traffic congestion for drivers.' The gas tax on every gallon of motor fuel purchased in Rhode Island is adjusted every two years based on inflation to comply with a 2014 law. John Flaherty, a senior adviser for GrowSmart RI, called the nearly $15 million revenue infusion 'a step in the right direction,' but still worries it's not enough to keep RIPTA's operations at existing levels. 'Until we commit to building a system that's going to work for more people in this state, we're going to continue to deal with this issue,' Flaherty said in an interview. 'It seems inevitable that there will be some service cuts.' Providence Streets Coalition Board President Liza Burkin estimates RIPTA could see 160 layoffs and significant service cuts, including paratransit service for riders with disabilities. But House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters Tuesday night that the paratransit program will remain untouched and that he did not see other service cuts as inevitable. Shekarchi pointed to an overdue efficiency study lawmakers mandated in the fiscal 2025 budget as a way the agency can save costs on staff, operations and equipment. 'I think they need to look at everything,' Shekarchi said. RIPTA's board of directors commissioned WSP to do the efficiency study on March 27 at a cost of $412,346. The study is being completed in three phases. An initial 19-page memo from Canadian-headquartered engineering consulting firm WSP was thin on details in comparing RIPTA with five peer agencies across the country. It did point to an agency's pursuit of 'universal access agreements,' defined as partnerships where employers pay an annual fee to cover their workers' fares to commute. RIPTA entered such an agreement with Amazon and through partially subsidized fares for Omni Providence Hotel employees. In a 20-page draft report issued May 30, WSP recommended investing in routes that are already high performing, potentially eliminating underperforming routes, and expanding commuter programs. Low scoring routes in the report include the 88 bus, which travels in the morning and afternoon from Simmons Village in Cranston to the Walmart off Plainfield Pike; Route 69, which connects the University of Rhode Island to the Port of Galilee; and the 59X express route in North Smithfield and Lincoln. But transit advocates want all routes to be maintained, arguing that low ridership routes often provide a vital service for the state's most vulnerable residents. They add that RIPTA is already an efficient agency. 'I have no confidence that another efficiency study is going to reveal some big savings that's going to enable us to get on with building a system that gets more people where they're going in a reasonable amount of time,' Flaherty said. Zack Mezera, Rhode Island organizer for the Working Families Party, expressed concern that lawmakers chose to raise the gas tax instead of enacting a higher income tax on Rhode Islanders earning over $625,000 a year. 'Throughout this session, Rhode Islanders have been at the State House week after week, imploring state leaders to increase revenue by having the 1% pay their fair share this year, because we can't afford to let the losses pile up,' Mezera said. The House released its proposed budget on the same evening the Rhode Island Senate unanimously confirmed Bernard Georges to join RIPTA's board of directors. Georges told Rhode Island Current he was aware of the agency's financial woes, but still needs to get up to speed. 'I need to give myself a full insight about the operations of the organization,' he said. Rhode Island Department of Transportation Director Peter Alviti Jr., the chair of RIPTA's board of directors, said the eight-member panel will be meeting on how the agency can move forward on whatever final budget is provided. 'As the Speaker said, our decisions will be informed by the efficiency study,' Alviti said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
