Do You Support a New Veterans Home?
Question 4 on the Nov. 6 election ballot asks residents whether the state should borrow $94 million t build a new facility and renovate the existing one.
Edward Hanrahan has lived at the Rhode Island Veterans Home in Bristol for 8 years. He commends the staff for the service and care he receives, both of which he says are outstanding.
What is not outstanding is the condition of the facility he lives in.
"We're damn glad to be here on the whole; we get excellent care," the World War II veteran and Bronze Star winner said. "But we do need a new home. It's an old building ... problems with the sewers, problems with the pipes, and so many leaks in the roof. Buildings this old ... very few still standing."
The Veterans Home on Metacom Avenue in Bristol was built in 1954 and was last renovated in 1969, according to state Rep. Ray Gallison. He hosted an event at the home last PatrTuesday to rally support for Question 4 on the Nov. 6 ballot, asking residents to borrow $94 million to build a new veterans home.
"It's starting to get old and worn out, and there have been a lot of Band-aids," Gallison said after the rally. "We need a modern facility. This is for our vets."
The new Veterans Home, which would be built on land behind the existing facility, would house 240 permanent residents, including some spouses who don't currently live at the facility, along with dining and recreation areas. The existing facility would be renovated and used for rehabilitation services, allowing residents to get treatment on campus instead of traveling to the veterans hopsital in Providence.
Not all are in favor of borrowing such a sum while the state economy is still struggling to recover from recession. The Provience Journal, for instance, has come out against the bond referendum, citing the project's cost and its impact on a relatively small number of people.
While the number seems high, Gallison pointed out that there are no other large referenda on the ballot this year — even for road projects which have appeared on many recent ballots before the state moved to a pay-as-you-go system — and that the state will receive federal matching funds if the referendum passes, helping defray the costs. Plus, the project benefits those deserving of help later in life.
"We have a moral obligation to get this passed," Gallison said. "People in Rhode Island have always supports veterans."
Gov. Chafee acknowledged the recovering economy, but noted that for the first time in 72 months, all five indicators for uemployment are positive. "We can afford to go out and support Number 4," he said.
So what do you think? Should the state go to bond for $94 million for a new Veterans Home or is this the wrong time to borrow such a sum? Do you plan to vote for Question 4? Tell us in the comments section below.
Bear401
8:55 pm on Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Only if all the politically connected incompetent cronnies who make up the administration/administrators in Veterans Affairs are terminated & replaced & Veteran Affairs is taken out of DHS/DHHS & becomes it's own separate department to prevent DHS/DHHS from skimming $$ from Vets Affairs to fund their pet capitol projects. Ask your local Rep to get you the copies of or the link to the 2007/2008 preliminary & fianl reports from the ivestigation into the administrtion at the RIVH. Except for one ALL of them are not only still very much employed by the state & still in Vets Affairs but also got pay upgrades. Screw up & move up. That should be the state motto.
Gary Morse
11:45 am on Thursday, November 1, 2012
It's hard not to say yes to a worthy initiative. This is about people who served our country and now need our help.
But taxpayers are getting worn out with "we need" initiatives. The problem being that we all know deep down inside that a large percentage of what is being asked for has built-in fat, and the so called financial critical need is only made critical by inefficiencies in any government project (e.g. rigged prevailing wage labor rates)
8 years ago, In 2004, there was "Question 7". Question 7 tugged at our sensibilities because it was about "clean water". How do you say no to clean water? . Question 7 passed by a 67% margin.
The truth is that 1/2 of the funding requirements in Question 7 ($5 million) were so mismanaged, the project never got off the ground and the money never spent. Thank goodness it was not.
The record now shows this was a taxpayer funded boondoggle where the majority of the water rights we would have been funding were controlled by a private club in Mass (the Anawan Club) which contractually could end water draw down rights with only a 12 month notice.
What was Question 7 you ask? 1/2 of the $10 million in Question 7 was for funding of BCWA's Shad Pipeline.
At the time, BCWA's attorney, Sandra Mack, did not show due diligence to reveal that the contract with the Anawan Club allowed them to end water draw down rights with only a 12 month notice.
So much for government oversight.
marina peterson
8:45 am on Monday, November 5, 2012
Portions of Great Article by Harry Staley, Rhode Island Statewide Coaliton:
" Along with two referenda to grant casinos carte blanche, we have five, yes five, bond issue referenda totaling a taxpayer obligation of $307,571,716. Imagine, an increase in debt of this magnitude in the face of record national and state indebtedness, with R.I. setting the pace for most of the other forty-nine states. Can you believe it? Can you afford it? Will you blithely vote to accept your part of that debt?
It's long past time to get real. The beleagured taxpayer, whether individual or business, is maxed out. In unemployment, R.I. ranks with the nation's leaders. Entrepreneurs will not start a business in R.I.; many businesses have left the State; those remaining are fighting for their lives. Yet our political leaders, and their special interest masters, continue to spend, spend and spend, with little or no regard for the welfare of the taxpayer.
The day of reckoning is near, no matter the election result. If R.I taxpayers are to have a future, the State must reverse course. No one, regardless of financial status, will escape the hardship that is sure to come. We can start now by rejecting all seven ballot items. Reject the ballot issues. Vote for those, regardless of party, who will step up to embrace our challenge. Make November 6, 2012, a fitting ending to "the perfect storm". "