Statement of Sprague Energy, 144 Allens Avenue

On the Waterfront Plan and the Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan

December 1, 2009

Sprague Energy appreciates this opportunity to provide written comments on the Waterfront Plan and the Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan. In general, Sprague believes the Providence Department of Planning and Development should be applauded for the public effort undertaken to gather relevant experiential data through the June 2008 Waterfront Charrette and the September 2008 charrette follow-up session. The Department should also be commended for bringing in impartial subject matter experts from other port communities that are further along than Providence in the development of comprehensive waterfront planning policies. With that said, we believe the latest version of the Waterfront Plan fails to take into account the very testimony made by those same subject matter experts.

More specifically, at the Waterfront Charrette we heard testimony from Baltimore, Maryland and Portland, Maine that residential uses such as condos and hotels should not be allowed along industrial waterfront areas. Both communities have taken proactive steps to stop the growth of incompatible condo and hotel uses along their industrial working waterfronts. In the last year both communities have reaffirmed this commitment. Baltimore recently extended its Maritime Industrial Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD) protected area, and Portland declined a proposed change that would have weakened their working waterfront protection regulations. Both ports have large working waterfront areas that are separate and distinct from their lesser intensity waterfront areas where residential and hotel uses are permitted.

Sprague can reaffirm the importance of separating incompatible waterfront uses from our own experiences. In East Hartford, Connecticut we were recently forced to sell our terminal, the last on a street that once housed 5 terminals. Nearly five year’s ago, Goodwin College was allowed to expand onto this same street through a zoning change from industrial to mixed use. The traffic conflict eventually became a major safety concern. A well-intended City position that first promised peaceful coexistence, eventually became a call for our departure even though the conditions of our operations had never changed. In Quincy, Massachusetts a condo with supporting marina was built adjacent to our terminal. Those pleasure boats now pose a navigation impediment to our ocean going vessels. Additionally, the residents have stated opposition to vessel offloading pumps and tug boats sounding whistles when they dock vessels at night. Those whistles are the way tugs communicate their position and intended direction changes to each other. In addition to past noise complaints, we were also forced to structurally alter a storage tank at considerable expense as residents complained that it hindered their view of the Boston skyline. Despite the fact that this tank and the terminal had been built decades prior to the construction or occupancy of the condominiums, the expectations of the residents could not be ignored. This is a case of residential quality of life complaints directly impacting critically important marine safety measures and our ability to operate our business. These examples clearly show that any zoning which allows for overnight inhabitants will lead to complaints about typical marine industrial operations. Similar examples of conflict can be found via an internet search in Portsmouth, New Hampshire or Portland, Oregon.

Our concerns are also directly reflected in a November 10, 2009 letter from the U.S. Department of Energy, which states that mixed-use zoning may not be appropriate next to industrial oil terminals, such as our facility on Allens Avenue:

“A mixed use commercial district would allow the building of hotels, marinas, and condominiums immediately adjacent to existing oil terminals. This could have a negative impact on the commercial operations of those fuel terminals. Rezoning may result in future restrictions on terminal operations to accommodate residential preferences that could endanger the economic viability of terminals given the differing nature of the established and proposed uses of the areas in question. This could eventually result in the loss of petroleum storage capacity for the region.”

Sprague currently operates 16 terminals throughout the Northeast. Many of our terminals provide other services for manufacturing concerns in or around the port. For example in Newington, New Hampshire we import gypsum rock for a large dry board manufacturing plant a mile down the road. In Searsport, Maine we import kaolin clay for paper manufacturing. In Portland, Maine we are exporting pulp for a new venture that will be making second generation biofuels as a byproduct of a pulp making operation. This venture recently received over $25 million in federal funds to support its efforts. All of these firms are major employers in the local areas. We have experienced industrial growth in almost all port communities over the last dozen years. That same growth has actually been experienced at ProvPort. Unfortunately, similar growth has not happened on Allen’s Avenue. The reason for this lack of growth can be directly attributed to the repeated public efforts to gentrify this industrial area. Since the Narragansett Landing and Providence 2020 plans, the City has been attempting to rezone our area as mixed use residential. This threat of proven incompatible growth makes it impossible for privately funded organizations to risk their capital and make the investments to attract these types of growth opportunities. Again, we heard from ProvPort officials at the charrette that space for additional expansion is very limited at ProvPort. This is evidenced by the need for the Providence Redevelopment Agency to take additional property to support the latest growth initiative. Unfortunately, with the rezoning of Allens Avenue the City will preclude future opportunities for the next round of job creating port initiatives.

Sprague Energy believes that Allens Avenue’s working waterfront can and will experience the same job creating growth that has been seen at ProvPort and in other port cities. To achieve this however, zoning must be put in place to protect Allens Avenue’s marine industrial businesses from incompatible residential and hotel uses. Unfortunately, the current Waterfront Plan does not provide these important protections which have been shown to work in other port communities.

Statement of Julie A. Gill, Executive Director/CEO, Oil Heat Institute of Rhode Island

On the Waterfront Plan and the Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan

November 30, 2009

Marine Terminal Capacity in Rhode Island

The State of Rhode Island had 383.4 million gallons of storage in the 1980’s, but some of the “big oil” companies got out of the distribution business, leaving a gap. Terminals closed with no one to operate them, leaving us with just 201.4 million gallons today for all fuels—gasoline, diesel, heating oil, kerosene, biofuels and jet fuel. We now have nearly half the capacity, 47 percent less, than we had 29 years ago despite the fact that our population has grown since that time by 10.6 percent and our fuel needs have grown.

Several years ago, a 40-foot deep, 14.4-mile long channel was dredged into the Port of Providence at a cost of $65 million with the use of federal and state funds, creating a superhighway for commercial shipping. The significance of the dredging by the federal government was due to their understanding of the importance of the port and the businesses that operate there. The economic value of this deep-water channel cannot be lost.

Fewer terminals mean less competition for price and cause long lines for trucks waiting to pick up product during severe weather. Our efforts to get terminals re-opened were stymied at the time by the City of Providence’s newly-announced Three Cities Plan, placing a pall over the area ever since.

The possibility of a marketer making the necessary infrastructure investments, only to have the city take the property by eminent domain, was enough to dissuade them or any other waterfront-dependent business from moving there. The fact that this land is unoccupied today is the city’s own doing. The Supreme Court’s New London decision adversely affects any possibility of investment along the Providence waterfront as long as these mixed-use and eminent domain threats remain. Please learn from their mistakes. Contrary to what you may have heard, there is nowhere that mixed-use industrial and residential have cohabitated peacefully.

US Department of Energy

For a number of years, Rhode Island had the security of knowing that, in the event of a supply failure on the East Coast, the US DOE had a Northeast Petroleum Reserve right here in Providence. Because of the lack of storage here, that reserve was moved to Connecticut. It will be difficult, at best, for Rhode Island and the New England states to our north to receive this fuel when needed.

Not only has there been a dramatic decrease in marine terminals in Rhode Island, the same is true along the entire East Coast, as was mentioned in the DOE letter to Governor
Carcieri. It is a terrible mistake to believe that we could truck in product from a nearby state (See “Transportation and Tanker Ships” below.)

Move to Quonset?

It would cost at least $50 million to dredge a channel at Quonset to allow for tankers to dock there. Since Quonset is not a federal channel, there would be no federal funds available to help pay for the dredging. A recently-concluded study of working waterfronts throughout the state, conducted by a Sea Grant to the Coastal Resources Center at URI, has determined that there is no land available at Quonset for a marine terminal.

Transportation and Tanker Ships

Eight years ago, the RI DOT testified at a hearing that Quonset does not have the transportation infrastructure necessary to support tanker traffic. The question begs to be asked, “Where could a new terminal be placed that has the necessary depth and the transportation infrastructure available?”

It would take 945 10,000-gallon tanker trucks coming in and out of the state to supply the petroleum products from one tanker ship. Heating oil and diesel fuel are combustible products; therefore, there is little chance of fire and no chance of explosion in the event of an accident. There would be an enormous amount of increased tanker traffic containing jet fuel to T. F. Green and an untold increase in gasoline traffic. Catastrophic results could occur in the event of an accident with both jet fuel and gasoline, which are highly explosive. Can we afford to take this risk?

Supply

We have been told that out-of-state suppliers will very likely not be able to supply our needs in Rhode Island even if we could transport the product over the road.

The Future of Heating Oil/Bio-Fuels

The oil industry is committed to improving the environment. At an oil-industry summit in September, 2009, the oil-heating states committed to working towards a cleaner fuel by adding a 2% bio-blend and reducing the sulfur content of heating oil as soon as possible, with increases in the bio-blend amounts as supply and technology permit. Just a 5% blend with heating oil makes heating oil just as clean as natural gas for carbon dioxide emissions. Heating oil does not emit methane (natural gas,) a greenhouse gas that is 72 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide (over a 25-year life.) In order to accomplish our goals of making heating oil and diesel fuel cleaner than ever, we need additional storage tanks to hold the biofuels; therefore, we need an increase, not a decrease in petroleum storage tanks.

Certain persons have stated that we won’t need storage for petroleum products in the near future because we won’t be using these products any longer. These people need to be asked, “What will we use instead?” You can’t attach a pinwheel to the back of a car and hope for a breeze. It is an irresponsible and ill-informed message.

The fact is this—that the new bio-heating industry has the brightest future of all. Blended renewable products that produce clean energy are our future and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas. Natural gas has no renewable blending possibility that we know of. Will we decrease consumption of heating oil? Yes, but it will be replaced with renewable biofuels that also require storage.

Heating Oil Facts, Revenues and Expenses

In 2006, 327 million gallons of #2 heating oil alone came into Rhode Island. Approximately one-half of that, 163 million gallons, was used here, with the rest going to nearby Massachusetts and Connecticut. Annual sales of heating oil in Rhode Island are about $441.5 million, with an estimated payroll of $38 million. These revenues do not include other fuels.

Each tanker brings more than $28 million in taxable revenues to the state, not including fuel taxes and sales taxes. Those revenues would be lost if we had to purchase petroleum products from another state.

The cost to the consumer for every gallon of gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, etc. would increase at least 4 to 5 cents at a time of great economic hardship on the citizens of our state.

Zoning Laws

Wise persons of the past recognized that certain uses do not belong together. Zoning laws were enacted for that very reason, to protect each type of land use. Please avail yourselves of their time-honored wisdom and shut the door on a decision that will surely cause harmful results.

Turning A Working Port Into A Mixed-Use Area Doesn’t Work

Statement of Captain Paul Costabile, Executive Director, Northeast Marine Pilots, Inc.

On the Waterfront Plan and the Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan

November 30, 2009

As a Rhode Islander and former Sea Captain it is discouraging to see that the city of Providence is attempting to redevelop industrial working waterfront areas into mixed-use areas through rezoning and the potential use of condemnation and eminent domain procedures. This amounts to trying to wedge hotels, marinas and condos in amongst working port industries and pretending they are somehow compatible. This is kind of like planning to build an apartment complex next to an airport and disregarding the minor detail of jets landing and taking off. As a Sea Captain for eighteen years and marine pilot for four years I’ve seen these mixed-use attempts in other ports and they don’t work.

In my travels as Captain I remember heading up the Hudson River with a pilot on board and asking him about a new condo development on the New Jersey side facing Manhattan. There was a scrap yard a little to the South of the condo development. He said the scrap yard fought the development saying it was not compatible with the established businesses in the area. The developers insisted that there would be no problem, and there wasn’t until the tenants moved in. They immediately began complaining about the dust from the scrap yard covering their patios.

I also remember when New York began developing South Street Seaport basing it at the old Fulton Fish Market, a working waterfront area with rough charm and a sense of history. Fishing boats had brought their catch to the market for more than a century and a half. Visitors would be able to see this historic and genuine working waterfront area in action. Well, as soon as the condos, shops and restaurants were in place they started complaining about the fish smell and the market had to be moved to the Bronx.

The advantage the New York- New Jersey Port Authority has over Rhode Island is that they have places in their port to relocate waterfront businesses to in order to maintain the jobs and port infrastructure. Rhode Island has no place to move Providence’s working waterfront business to.

Ports need room and industrially zoned areas to survive. It is a nice thought that you could have an eight hundred foot loaded tanker routinely docking alongside a marina and residential complex and the two businesses would live in harmony but it doesn’t work that way. Ships must move day and night. There is noise and bright lights associated with these moves. When a huge cargo ship is being docked it can be noisy as a five thousand horse power tug strains to get the behemoth into its berth. There can be associated whistle signals from the ship and tugs as they communicate while trying to accomplish a maneuver with these giant ships within very close tolerances. It’s not the time to be trying not to wake the neighbors. As these giant ships swing in the channel using their twenty-five foot diameter props turned by twenty thousand horse power engines, the resulting wash from the prop can be significant, to put it mildly. That’s not to mention the wash from the three tug boats. If there is a marina in the vicinity, any small boats at their berths will experience the force of the wash to their detriment. This is not what the prospective waterfront residential tenants have in mind when they look at the glossy brochure advertising the upscale marina and residence. All this is ignored when talking about mixing marinas and port industries. The mixing is the initial stage. The final stage is watching all the industrial businesses close and leave.

Rhode Island has opportunities in the marine industries which we are not taking advantage of. The United States is the world’s largest trading nation. Lower trade barriers, improved transportation and information technology are fueling growth in world trade. In 2008 the U.S. Department of transportation predicted that between 2010 and 2020 the value of freight carried by water will increase by 43 percent domestically and 67 percent internationally. In this time of growth Rhode Island is lucky to have a 40ft deep water navigation channel all the way to Providence. This is a major infrastructure asset for all the people of Rhode Island. Just like the state’s airport or major highway system or rail system, this maritime highway should not be governed by any one town or city.

There are plenty of other places to build condos and hotels in Providence without supplanting this critically important industrial port area. We should be revitalizing the port by working toward capturing some of the predicted growth in the marine transportation industries. Mixed use will not accomplish this. It will only lead to the displacement of industrial working waterfront businesses and the good paying port jobs they provide.

Statement of Joel Cohen - Promet Marine, 242 Allens Avenue

On the Waterfront Plan and the Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan

November 20, 2009

Just when we thought the Providence Planning Department was moving towards a reasonable compromise position with their Waterfront Plan, a bomb has been dropped on us in the form of the Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan ordinance introduced by Councilman Luis Aponte on November 5th. This vastly overbroad redevelopment plan would designate both Allens Avenue and ProvPort as blighted, substandard, and subject to condemnation or eminent domain taking by the Providence Redevelopment Agency (PRA).

What bothers me is why did the Planning Department go through so much trouble hosting the waterfront charrette, charrette follow-up meeting, and drafting a Waterfront Plan, if the real intention all along has been to use this new ordinance to seize any Allens Avenue property the City wants for “redevelopment” via eminent domain? This ordinance reveals the City’s true plans for Allens Avenue – the revival of the ill advised Sasaki Providence 2020 Plan that says industry doesn’t matter, we can put you out of business any time we want, any time we think we have a better use for your property than you’re making of it, any time over the next 40 years.

In Tidewater Realty LLC vs. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations et al., the Rhode Island Supreme Court specifically found that Allens Avenue and our property were neither blighted nor substandard. To quote from the decision:

“The record is devoid of any document reflecting a finding that the property is blighted or substandard. Indeed, there is no dispute that Promet operates a profitable business at that location . . .”

“Based upon the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the Shipyard is a blighted area; moreover, no legislative body has found that the property is in a blighted or substandard area, as the statute requires. Therefore, in our opinion, the PRA exceeded its statutory authority when it took title to the property for the purposes set forth in City Council Resolution No. 280.”

In April 2008, just one month after the City lost its case in Supreme Court, Thomas Deller acting as the Executive Director of the PRA, hired the Maguire Group to study “blight” on Allens Avenue. In August 2008, the PRA expanded the scope of the study to include ProvPort and surrounding properties. Presumably the point of this study and redevelopment plan are to “fix” the PRA’s previous mistakes by simply declaring all of Allens Ave and the port area as blighted. Incredibly, neither the Maguire Group nor the PRA ever bothered to contact Promet or any other Allens Avenue business to inquire about the status of their business, number of employees, wages paid, taxes paid, or property conditions. Instead, the plan simply declares us all as blighted based on a superficial study of the area using outdated and incorrect information.

Northern Allens Avenue area businesses provide more annual real estate taxes to the city, $1.5 million, than does ProvPort, which is in a large measure owned by the City and therefore not taxable real estate. We have at least as many jobs, and while underutilized properties do exist on Allens Avenue – the Shepherd property and Verizon repair facility — they are occupied and pay substantial taxes. The foreclosed residential areas listed in the redevelopment plan ordinance all exist west of I-95, completely outside of the targeted area.

The Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan ordinance is a declaration of war by the PRA on Allens Avenue. It will destroy both old and future business investment in order to favor the City’s dream of residential development in an industrial zone. Why invest in a business when a 40 year PRA cloud will hang over your property? Haven’t they learned from the eminent domain debacle surrounding the Kelo case in New London, CT? All New London now has to show for eminent domaining a residential neighborhood is a 90 acre empty lot.

ProvPort, alone, should be the focus of this redevelopment plan. Its pollution problems are clearly defined because of long term scrap and other commodity operations, sewage disposal, a Providence city dump filling in the river, and the legacy of the former Walsh Kaiser Shipyard. ProvPort’s problems are isolated and should be treated as such. By lumping Allens Avenue together with ProvPort, the impending opposition and controversy will put the City’s bid for federal funds at risk. Allens Avenue is not blighted property. By tying us to the necessary upgrades at ProvPort, the City will risk jeopardizing port growth, not just on Allens Avenue but at the City owned port area. I cannot think of a more ill advised policy.

Sadly, I believe the real motive behind including all of Allens Avenue in this redevelopment plan is to rescue Dock Conley (Providence Piers), as revealed in the minutes of the July 16, 2009 meeting of the PRA:

“Mr. Deller also reminded the Agency members that at some point around 2004/2005, the PRA had attempted to purchase the property on Allens Avenue, now known as Providence Piers. At that time, Mr. Patrick Conley purchased the property before the Agency was able to act upon it. Now, Mr. Conley has approached the Agency to see if we are interested in acquiring the property at this time. An analysis of the property and its value is ongoing and dependent upon the outcome of the analysis, the property acquisition may be included in the proposed redevelopment plan for Allens Avenue.”

What a waste of tax payer time and money the PRA and the Planning Department have made these last 10 years with all their waterfront studies; ignoring the charrette results, and finally advocating direct PRA seizure of the entire Port of Providence. They have spent millions on irrelevant experts — Sasaki, Maguire, Ninigret Partners – all to reach a predetermined conclusion that Allens Avenue should be redeveloped with condos, hotels, and marinas.

The entire planning process has now been corrupted by the Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan ordinance. Who can trust anything that comes out of the Providence Planning Department or the PRA?

With that in mind, I object to merging the M-2 and W-3 zoning into a new mixed use zone, which in effect asks industry to give up their rights and protections based upon the weak reassurances of the Planning Department, and completely unenforceable deed restrictions. I object to the Waterfront Plan’s continued insistence on hotels and residences, uses that are simply incompatible in a working heavy industrial neighborhood.

The Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan ordinance has destroyed all confidence in anything the City of Providence Planning Department now proposes or promises as “protections” for the area’s long established and successful working waterfront and heavy industrial businesses.

November 17, 2009

The Honorable Mayor David N. Cicilline
Providence City Hall
25 Dorrance Street
Providence, RI 02903

Re: Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan

Dear Mayor Cicilline:

We the undersigned property and business owners demand to be immediately removed from the Allens Avenue & Port Redevelopment Plan commissioned by the Providence Redevelopment Agency (PRA), and recently introduced as an ordinance before the Providence City Council. While this plan was commissioned by the PRA, it was never acted on by the Agency or made available to the public before it was introduced as a Council ordinance.

The stated purpose of this plan is to declare all of the properties along Allens Avenue, the Port, and Harborside sub-areas as “blighted and substandard,” thus allowing the PRA to use its broad powers of condemnation and eminent domain. This plan would be in effect for 40 years, and at any point during this time period the PRA could begin condemnation / eminent domain procedures against any properties within the approximately 590 acre redevelopment plan area.

This redevelopment plan and the possible use of eminent domain are simply unacceptable. The plan is an affront to basic private property rights and an insult to successful area businesses and institutions that collectively employ thousands of people and are responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in total economic impact. We are not “blighted and substandard,” and we will not accept this designation which is based on a superficial study of the area and contains unsubstantiated findings and baseless conclusions.

This redevelopment plan also threatens future job growth in the Allens Avenue and port area. Facing the threat of eminent domain for the next 40 years, no area businesses will have the incentive to invest in their properties to expand operations and grow jobs.

Finally, if the real intent of this ordinance is to only aid the expansion of ProvPort onto adjacent properties, then the redevelopment plan should be rewritten and the map redrawn to narrowly focus on ProvPort and these specific projects. The powers of condemnation and eminent domain should only be used as a last resort and in extremely narrow circumstances. This plan will threaten property owners and business in a 590 acre area for 40 years. There is simply no need for this incredibly overbroad plan if the real intent is to acquire properties within and immediately adjacent to the ProvPort area.

For these reasons, we again demand to be removed from this extremely overbroad redevelopment plan.

Sincerely,

John Everson, President
Narragansett Improvement
223 Allens Avenue

John Stiller, Regional Director
PSC
275 Allens Avenue

David Broomfield, Owner
I. Broomfield & Son, Inc.
Lehigh Metals Corporation
14 Lehigh Street

Stephen Broomfield, President
J Broomfield & Sons
473 Allens Avenue

David Cohen, President
Tidewater Terminal Inc.
Promet Marine Services Co.
Tidewater Realty LLC
232 - 242 - 284 Allens Avenue

Burton S. Russell, Vice President, Operations
Sprague Energy Corporation
144 Allens Avenue

Mark L. Russell, Director of Real Estate
Cumberland Farms
383 Allens Avenue

Edward Sciaba, General Manager
Rhode Island Recycled Metals
434 Allens Avenue

Andre A. Langlais, President
Multi State Electric Co.
36 Oxford Street

Anthony M. Coletta
Dads Realty LLC
283 Allens Avenue

The Island Institute’s Working Waterfront newspaper has an excellent November edition editorial in support of the Keep America’s Waterfronts Working Act of 2009, which is based on a successful model that has helped preserve working waterfront land in Maine:

As Maine’s working waterfront came under increasing pressure of residential development, advocates for water-dependent industries advanced an idea.

The concept was simple: use state bond money, combined with private funds, to permanently preserve waterfront land used for commercial fishing.

Dozens of groups persuaded voters to approve this new concept by a margin of 66 to 34 percent in the 2005 election.

The program is working. Since 2006, Maine’s Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program has saved 19 properties with a fair-market value of $17 million, using $5 million in state bond money. These 19 properties support almost 1,000 fishing-related jobs, which generate $40 million annually in income. This program has saved working waterfronts all along the coast, from Scarborough to Beals Island.

If it works in Maine, why not take this concept nationwide?

First District Congresswoman Chellie Pingree believes this program which is working so well in Maine, it can help waterfronts around the country, so she introduced the “Keep America’s Waterfronts Working Act of 2009″ in the U.S House of Representatives (bill H.R. 2548).

Pingree, who is from North Haven, knows first-hand that the heart and soul of many coastal communities is the working waterfront.

When waterfronts become dominated by expensive private homes and condos, then fishing boats, boatbuilders and marinas disappear. “These businesses, once the backbone of our coastal communities have moved or gone out of business entirely,” Pingree testified during a hearing on the bill before a Natural Resources subcommittee on October 20. “The conversion of working waterfronts to the mistakenly called ‘higher and better’ residential uses, displaces fishermen and others, who depend on working waterfronts, causing economic and cultural devastation to the coastal community.”

As far as Pingree is concerned, we are not doing enough to help working waterfronts, and it is time for the federal government to help out.

The Providence Working Waterfront Alliance strongly supports policy efforts like Maine’s Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program and the Keep America’s Waterfronts Working Act of 2009.

Patrick T. Conley’s “Journal, city fumble ‘wilting waterfront’” (Sept. 30) Providence Journal letter to the editor contains a number of factually incorrect and misleading statements.

First, no adult entertainment establishment has ever been a member of the Providence Working Waterfront Alliance, nor has any such establishment ever contributed one cent to our efforts to preserve a vital marine-industrial neighborhood.

Second, Mr. Conley’s claim that “no new marine industrial business has been created on the waterfront since 1974” is incorrect.  J. Goodison Company is a full-service marine repair contractor which employs 19 people.  J. Goodison has partnered with Promet Marine for the past three years, and primarily operates from Promet’s pier. As a federal HUBZone contractor, J. Goodison has helped attract numerous Coast Guard repair contracts, and has hired and trained many employees from economically depressed areas of Providence.

Finally, it is a serious stretch to argue that Promet, a water-dependent marine repair shipyard is somehow not in compliance with the city’s W-3, Port/Maritime Industrial zoning. To quote from the definition of the W-3 district: “This zone is intended to promote the Port of Providence and related maritime industrial and commercial uses within the areas of Providence’s waterfront; to protect the waterfront as a resource for water-dependent industrial uses; and to facilitate the renewed use of a vital waterfront.”

Unlike Mr. Conley, the Providence Working Waterfront Alliance is committed to protecting and promoting our waterfront as a resource for water-dependent industrial businesses and the good paying blue collar jobs they provide.

The Providence Working Waterfront Alliance

On September 24th, the Obama Administration’s Ocean Policy Task Force, charged with developing a national ocean policy framework, visited Providence to hear about coastal issues affecting New England.  At a kick-off press conference held at India Point Park, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco recognized Providence’s “thriving working waterfront.”

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco

Later in the day, the Task Force held a public hearing at the Rhode Island Convention Center which was attended by more than 250 people.  Providence Working Waterfront Alliance member Elizabeth Hernberg of Sprague Energy testified before the Task Force about the critical need to maintain waterways like Providence’s recently dredged 40ft federal channel:

My name is Elizabeth Hernberg and I am with Sprague Energy Corp. Sprague is an energy supplier based in Portsmouth, NH and serves the New England market with a variety of distillates, residual fuels, bio fuels and other. We own and operate nearly 8 million barrels petroleum storage in 17 terminals on the East Coast for direct and indirect supply of home heating oil, commercial and industrial uses.

My message today relates to the life-line that the water provides Sprague not only for Providence, but also the rest of our terminal network. As you may know, this region lacks refining assets as well as pipelines, and therefore the only avenue for petroleum product supply is either over land or by sea. The vast majority of our product comes by vessel, as is the case with most of our regional industry.

In Providence, we are fortunate to have a natural asset on the waterfront with a very deep draft. This has been preserved, as the Army Core of Engineers invested tens of millions of dollars to dredge this area five or so years ago. Sprague spent about $1 million more to dredge our own berth providing over 35 ft draft.

In your discussions on Ocean Policy, please keep this unique feature of New England, and Providence, and its heavy reliance on marine vessels to supply the petroleum needs of this region in mind.

The Providence Working Waterfront Alliance would like to thank the Ocean Policy Task Force for visiting Providence to hear about issues affecting our ports and working waterfronts.

Today’s Providence Journal has a very strong editorial arguing for maintaining and investing in Providence’s Allens Ave working waterfront:

Last month, Patrick Conley threw in the towel on plans to develop a hotel/condo/marina project on Allens Avenue, and that is good news. The people of Rhode Island need Providence’s waterfront for other things than hotels and deluxe condos. Our leaders should be pushing for the full development of all of the state’s ports, encouraging marine-based industry, trade and the creation of high-paying jobs.

The temptation to cash in on waterfront real estate for quick property-tax bucks is hard for cities to resist, but there are far-thinking leaders around the country who recognize how important ports are to their constituents’ economic prospects. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for example, recently reversed course on turning the Brooklyn piers into high-priced residential real estate. He also supported the construction of a multi-billion dollar freight tunnel under New York Harbor to ease congestion on the city’s stressed rail infrastructure. Virginia and South Carolina, meanwhile, are moving aggressively to reap money and jobs when the economy turns around and bigger ships start moving through the widened Panama Canal to the East Coast.

Rhode Island has precious little industrial-zoned waterfront left. Condos in theory might turn a profit for developers there, as along the East Providence waterfront, where much of the region’s heating oil is brought in. But, as Mr. Conley was perhaps forced to conclude, the market cannot support much more fancy condo development for the foreseeable future. It is becoming ever clearer that a key to strengthening Rhode Island’s economy lies in developing the ports.

Mr. Conley’s sobering realization may have yet to penetrate City Hall, where he hopes to find a buyer of his five-acre property. Mayor Cicilline is still promoting a mixed-use commercial and residential zoning scheme around Conley’s property. This makes little sense, given the vital need to revive Rhode Island’s economy and protect the high-paying jobs along Allens Avenue. Moreover, the state’s taxpayers (who help prop up Providence through state aid) should not be expected to back ventures into iffy real-estate deals or obtaining property by eminent domain at the cost of good jobs and state tax revenue.

Providence, like New York, should be nurturing its working waterfront, recognizing that blue-collar jobs are precious commodities in today’s economy.

The Rhode Island General Assembly’s Port Development Commission has issued an interim report which notes:

Historically, Rhode Island was a leading maritime and trading center for the nation but over the past 5 or more decades, the State has fallen well behind others along the Atlantic coast. Despite a few bright spots and successes, many of the jobs and numerous other economic advantages and benefits associated with trade and maritime transportation have gravitated elsewhere. Yet the State’s geographic location, its coastal water resources and its land transportation connections and assets should enable Rhode Island both to resume its proper place in waterborne transportation and to regain the attendant economic and environmental benefits.

Several Providence Working Waterfront Alliance members including Providence Steamboat, Sprague Energy, and Promet Marine have testified before the commission, and we look forward to continuing to work with the commission to bring increased economic development opportunities to our ports and working waterfronts.

On Thursday, September 24th, the Obama Administration’s Ocean Energy Task Force, which is creating a new national ocean policy framework, will be holding a public meeting at the RI Convention Center from 4:00-7:00pm.  Task force members and a panel of local experts will be discussing:

• ocean governance
• tribes
• fisheries/aquaculture
• recreational uses
• hazard resilience/climate change
• research/science
• ecosystem management/restoration
• ocean energy

The task force will also be taking public comments.  This is a great opportunity to show your support for Rhode Island’s working waterfronts as well as other issues of importance to our marine economy.  If you are unable to attend in person, you can submit written comments via the Task Force’s website.

Please attend the hearing to ensure that our national ocean policy recognizes the critical importance of maintaining our region’s ports and working waterfronts.

Providence Working Waterfront Alliance
info@providenceworkingwaterfront.org

–

Obama Administration Officials to Hold Ocean Policy Task Force Public Meeting
in Providence, RI, on September 24, 2009

PROVIDENCE, RI – Obama Administration officials will hold their third regional Ocean Policy Task Force Public Meeting in Providence, Rhode Island on September 24, 2009. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, led by White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, consists of senior-level officials from Administration agencies, departments, and offices.

The Task Force is charged with developing a recommendation for a national policy that ensures protection, maintenance, and restoration of oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes. It will also recommend a framework for improved stewardship, and effective coastal and marine spatial planning. The public is encouraged to attend and an opportunity for public comment will be provided.

Who: Chair Nancy Sutley, White House Council on Environmental Quality
Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Vice Admiral David P. Pekoske, Vice Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard
Dr. Dora Hughes, Counselor for Science & Public Health, Department of Health and Human Services
Associate Deputy Secretary Laura Davis, Department of Interior

What: Ocean Policy Task Force Public Meeting

When: Thursday, September 24, 4:00-7:00 p.m.

Where: Rhode Island Convention Center
Ballrooms D & E
One Sabin Street
Providence, RI 02903

According to the Providence Journal, a City Council appointed commission has concluded that the city’s new animal shelter should not be built along the main road leading into the Port of Providence because “it would be too stressful an environment for the animals.”

But the council’s animal shelter commission argues that the new site poses a safety hazard for the animals, since it is in a flood zone and in a heavily industrialized area.

The high volume of truck traffic on the road where the shelter would be located, as well as two rail lines nearby, would contribute to a stressful environment for the animals, commission members say.

“I don’t think that anyone would argue that this is a utopia,” said State Veterinarian Scott N. Marshall, who is a member of the council commission. “It’s not a place you’d want to visit.”

E.J. Finocchio, president of the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and another commission member, was even blunter: “You couldn’t find a worse site than what is being proposed. It’s just no place to have an animal shelter.”

There’s plenty of 24 hour truck traffic and loud noise all along the Allens Ave. industrial working waterfront, most of which is also in a flood zone.  While the City Council’s commission doesn’t think the area is fit for animals, the Providence Planning Department is still pushing zoning changes that would allow for a hotel directly in-between an oil terminal, an asphalt plant, and a marine repair shipyard.

Apparently city officials believe that hotel guests will never complain about the loud noises, bright lights, and truck traffic that is typical in the marine-industrial neighborhood?  Not fit for the animals but no problem for hotel guests?

This ABC 6 News story is a clear illustration of why residential condos/apartments and industrial uses don’t mix.  For years CAPCO Steel has been parking their steel beam trailers along Harris Ave in what is a primarily light industrial neighborhood.

View Larger Map

Residents of the street’s only condo/apartment development, The 903, complained that the trailers were unsightly. Not surprisingly resident complaints won out over a long established industrial business which has even partnered with the city to train steel workers.

If condos or hotels are allowed in the middle of Providence’s industrial working waterfront on Allens Ave, similar complaints are guaranteed.   Future residents surely wont want to hear the rumble of fuel oil trucks, see the glare from a welding torch, or smell hot asphalt being made.

Put simply, mixed-use does not mean locating residential/hotel uses directly next to heavy industrial uses.  It’s a recipe for complaints, and industrial uses almost always end up on the losing end.

Today’s Providence Journal has an excellent editorial noting how New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has changed course from once supposing waterfront condos to now pushing for the expansion of Brooklyn’s working waterfront and good blue collar jobs:

Nothing like a recession to inject a little realism into people’s thinking. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has reversed course on opposition to a $7 billion freight-rail tunnel under New York Harbor connecting Brooklyn and New Jersey. Not long ago, when New York financial-services industry was booming and the city coffers were flush, Mr. Bloomberg opposed the tunnel, and most other efforts to develop what remains of the city’s working waterfront. In those days, “condo to the max” was the rule. Water views command the highest rents.

Now many of those masters of the universe are gone, or are lying low. High-end condominiums are going begging and New York City is, like many other municipal and state governments, looking for replacement cash. Suddenly, gritty port activities don’t look so bad, in part, perhaps, because they aren’t so gritty.

Recently, the mayor went to the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal to announce a $165 million plan to revitalize the many under-used industrial buildings, with the aim of modernizing them to attract new industrial tenants. He hopes to boost blue-collar jobs in the city. What a change from the mania for loft-condo conversions of yore.

These initiatives indicate that New York’s famous economic-development instincts are still sharp. They will position the city to remain one of the world’s great ports.

New York is fortunate. Even though much of the waterfront near Manhattan has been rezoned as residential, there is still some left in the city, mostly in Brooklyn. Other cities aren’t so plentifully endowed with waterfront. They rezone it for condos and restaurants at their peril. A longshoreman makes a lot more than a bus boy or a maid.

Providence city officials should follow Mayor Bloomberg’s example and abandon plans for waterfront condos and hotels in the Port of Providence, and instead promote the expansion of marine-industrial businesses and the good blue collar jobs they provide.

WRNI political analyst Scott MacKay has a great On Politics Blog post about the need to protect Rhode Island’s working waterfronts as a state-wide resource:

Marine businesses that use the bay to repair boats, ship heating oil or unload fish are concerned about being gentrified out of their perches on the bay front by those who favor residential or recreational uses.

Legislation is pending before the state Senate that is designed to protect the state’s working waterfront, particularly the Port of Providence. At a hearing last week at the State House, boat repair, shipping and commercial fishing industry representatives told senators they need protection from the pressure for condominium and commercial development along the coast.

David Cohen of Pro Met Marine, a boat year owner was emphatic, telling senators that there is no way that the condominium crowd can co-exist peacefully with marine industries that make noise 24 hours a day.

What inevitably happens, Cohen says, is that folks in the condominiums get tired of the noise from the boat yards. The condo folks complain to politicians. And they get their way because they organize and vote.

Marine businesses must be on the water. The federal government paid $65 million to dredge the Providence channel to a depth of 40 feet to accommodate shipping. Hotels, condos and restaurants don’t have to be directly on the water.

The city of Providence is against the measure to protect marine businesses because officials fear they will lose control of their waterfront zoning to the state. A good point, but the city’s waterfront is a state resource, much like Green Airport. Do we really want the Warwick City Council to control the airport. Don’t hold your breath waiting for runway improvements.