[Summit] SPAM-LOW: Re: Political stuff: ballot questions

[Art Norwalk]

This does a good job of explaining the issue.

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20161018/math-behind-27m-bond-issue-for-veterans-home-on-november-ballot

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Ethan Gyles <ethangy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone recall seeing any press on the Question 3 Veterans Home budget
> overruns mentioned in the Voter Information Handbook (see below)? Don't get
> me wrong -- veterans get a raw deal in their care and deserve better -- but
> the justification here is vague. Why wasn't the initial $33.5M plus federal
> funding enough? An additional $27M because of inflation since 2012 (which
> has been low) and a change in "federal guidelines"?. I'll be a default yes
> vote failing more info, but I'd like to see a bit more explanation and be
> confident this isn't turning into a funding black hole. The only articles I
> could find were regarding the original groundbreaking.
>
> *"These bonds will allow the State to complete a new Veterans Home that is
> already under construction and to borrow less money than the $94 million
> voters previously approved for the new Veterans Home in 2012. While voters
> originally authorized $94 million to be spent on the new Veterans Home, the
> state received federal funding and only ended up needing to borrow $33.5
> million for the project.*
>
> *Now the State needs to authorize an additional $27 million to complete
> the new Veterans Home project. The additional cost is a result of inflation
> in materials and labor since 2012. More significantly, the change in the
> federal guidelines for reimbursement of state veterans home construction
> has added more costly requirements for building the new Veterans Home. If
> this $27 million is authorized and added to the previous $33.5 million
> borrowed, the state would borrow a total of $60.5 million for the new
> Veteran’s Home."*
>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Kate Sanders <katesndrs at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Aaron and all who have added to this discussion!
>>
>> One more point: I am struggling with Question 4 (higher education). On
>> the one hand, I am a huge fan of CCRI, RIC, and URI, and the $25.5 million
>> for the engineering building is probably sorely needed.
>>
>> On the other hand, the Question also authorizes $20 million for a purpose
>> that is so vague that it will be impossible to tell whether the money was
>> properly spent or not: "building an innovation campus that supports
>> cutting-edge research into products, services and businesses that will
>> build Rhode Island’s economy."
>>
>> This is essentially giving a blank check for $20 million to do anything
>> as long as it's arguably intended to build the economy, and justifying it
>> by including the word "innovation". Which is uncomfortably similar to the
>> arguments for 38Studios (minus the baseball glamor).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Kate
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Summit mailing list
>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20161024/e5b2287b/attachment.htm>