Mayor Smiley threatens to veto the Comp Plan over future gas stations, and lawyers and lobbyists protect future polluters

"[We] really appreciate you listening and working with us and hope to continue that,” said one lobbyist. "I may have a few [more] tweaks here and there," added a lawyer.

The Empire always strikes back.

Last week, I presented the changes the Providence City Council proposed to the city’s once-in-a-decade Comprehensive Plan that I called “visionary.” quoting Julien Drix, who chairs the city’s Sustainability Commission. I stand by that headline, but I can’t stand by the way the City Council is now caving to pressure from lobbyists and lawyers, walking back the strong language aimed at combatting climate change and improving public health.

The Comp Plan is “the urban planning document that will guide the city’s development for the next decade,” and this year presents a historic, once-in-a-decade opportunity to include language that will help the city combat climate change and improve public health, setting a strong example for cities across the state and the country to follow.

In this piece, I will concentrate on the changes to the Comp Plan related to climate change, specifically the issue of polluting industries in and around the Port of Providence, where communities suffer from the highest child asthma rates in the country. But I will start by talking about related land use issues, such as Providence Mayor Brett Smiley’s promised veto of the plan if the City Council inserts language banning the building of new gas stations in the city, as was proposed by City Councilmember John Goncalves (Ward 1).

“While the Administration is proud to have collaborated with the City Council on their recently introduced amendments and is supportive of efforts to reduce the city’s reliance on fossil fuels, the Mayor would not sign the current plan into law with the amendment introduced last week that would prohibit the construction of any new gas stations within the city,” wrote Josh Estrella, communications person for the Mayor. “The Smiley Administration supported a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would ensure that any new gas stations would be required to incorporate much-needed electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. Without understanding the economic impact on residents and the role this industry has on building out our EV infrastructure, as other communities have done successfully, it is not a responsible 11th-hour decision.”

As Providence resident Alex Diaz-Papkovich noted in his testimony last night, “Gasoline contains a lot of toxic chemicals known as btex, hydrocarbons, benzene, toline, ethyl benzene, and xylene. These are known to cause leukemia and permanent damage to the central nervous system that can also cause a variety of blood cancers like lymphoma and myeloma. Working or living near a gas station is very bad for your health and increases the risk of cancer. Gas stations lower property values because people understand that they don't want to live next to those types of chemicals.

“They hate the traffic that it generates,” continued Diaz-Papkovich. “They're very expensive to clean up once they close down because cities, states, owners, and oil companies always argue about who's responsible for the cleanup. Many lay abandoned for decades as a consequence of contaminating the earth and the water. I'm not sure if people know this, but the whole reason that the EPA banned certain types of underground gas tanks was because of a toxic leak in Rhode Island in 1983 that poisoned the local water supply. Restricting new gas stations is a move that will save lives, heartache, and money and will leave everyone better off.”

Reaction from some councilmembers was quick:

Councilmember Miguel Sanchez (Ward 6)

Councilmember Justin Roias (Ward 4)

Council President Rachel Miller responded earlier today:

“The Comprehensive Plan guides our vision for growth over the next decade. The City and City Councilors have engaged hundreds of residents in thorough conversations, including countless community meetings, four public hearings, and hundreds of letters of testimony. Clear themes emerged around a vision of growth for Providence's working families: housing development, affordability, health and safety, maintaining the character of our neighborhoods, and resiliency in the face of a changing climate. The amended Comp Plan does exactly that.

“To threaten a two-year process—potentially relinquishing our ability to govern our land use to the state—over this issue is irresponsible. There are over 40 gas stations in the city, land which can be used as gas stations in perpetuity. There is no known demand for more. Rhode Island has the highest asthma rates in the country. Last year, Providence rents increased at a higher rate than any other city nationwide. The amended Comp Plan simply says, ‘available land will be prioritized for uses that meet our urgent needs.’ Every square foot should be prioritized for new homes and clean, family-sustaining jobs. That the Mayor would risk the entire plan for the potential of building more gas stations is reckless.”

---

More alarming than the threatened veto was the introduction of new language walking back many of the changes introduced last week that would have prevented the construction of new polluting industries in and around the Port of Providence.

The Council’s Deputy Chief of Staff Aaron Easter Gardner read the changes to the language proposed last week:

“The city may prohibit future industrial uses in the general industrial district M2 that it determines go against the public interest of (a) public health in quality of life in near industry neighborhoods, or (b) realizing fossil fuel emissions reduction goals in response to climate change; and will encourage future industrial uses that promote environmentally just development and a adjust transition for workers currently maintaining fossil fuel dependent infrastructure in industry. Future M2 prohibited industrial uses may include but are not limited to facilities that import, store, process, or distribute fossil fuels; facilities that import, store, manufacture, or distribute flammable, hazardous, or explosive chemicals or waste products; facilities that generate or result in harmful air pollution emissions; facilities that produce high carbon emissions or import and distribute high carbon content products; and facilities that generate water pollution, including both point source and stormwater runoff pollution.

“Additionally, this section shall not apply to publicly owned treatment works.

“Future M2 encouraged industrial uses include, but are not limited to offshore wind development and associated activities; solar electricity generation; battery energy storage facilities; microgrid infrastructure; electric infrastructure for ship to shore plugin power and charging electric zero-emission trucks; food and commercial goods, imports, storage, and distribution that can be run on zero-emission electrical infrastructure; and vocational education facilities to support workforce development for a just transition to a green economy. The same language is added for use in W3 and M2.”

This new language completely undermines efforts to prevent polluting industries in and around the Port and throughout Providence. Note the use of the term “may prohibit” as opposed to, “will prohibit” below. Several people over the last few months have requested the stronger “will prohibit” language.

Insider lobbyists had it changed back to “may prohibit” within a few days.

Note also the list of prohibited industries. The language added to the plan last week was pulled from environmental justice legislation introduced in the Rhode Island General Assembly. It is specific and meaningful. The new language above is filled with holes big enough for lawyers and lobbyists to drive diesel oil-burning chemical-laden trucks through.

It formerly read:

“Clean, sustainable, and resilient economic development should be prioritized. The city will prohibit future industrial uses in the General Industrial District… that it determines goes against the public interest of (a) public health and quality of life in near-industry neighborhoods or (b) realizing fossil fuel emissions reduction goals in response to climate change. These uses include an electric power plants or electric generating facilities that produce electricity by combusting any fossil fuel, biomass, or solid waste; waste storage facilities; toxic material storage facilities; fossil fuel storage facilities, gas stations which sell gas only at retail level for use in automobiles and sites that store fossil fuels that are used exclusively for transporting goods or other items into the Port of Providence or out of the Port of Providence; fossil fuel production facilities; fossil fuel refineries; chemical manufacturing facilities; chemical storage facilities; scrap metal storage facilities; scrap metal processing facilities; scrap metal recycling facilities; wood recycling facilities; cement, concrete, or asphalt storage facilities; cement, concrete, or asphalt processing facilities; cement, concrete, or asphalt production facilities; incinerators, including, but not limited to, medical waste incinerators, resource recovery incinerators; or sludge combustion incinerators; resource recovery facilities, advanced recycling facilities, or anerobic digesting facilities; combustors; transfer stations or other solid waste facilities; landfills, including, but not limited to, a landfill that accepts ash, construction debris, demolition debris, or solid waste; a pyrolysis or gasification facilities; auto salvage operation and/or facilities; ethylene oxide manufacturing and/or storage facilities; and road salt storage and processing facilities.”

Industry insiders, lawyers, and lobbyists were on hand to thank the City Council for weakening the Comp Plan.

James McCauley, Deputy Director of the Narragansett Bay Commission, who operates the wastewater treatment plant at Fields Point in the Port, said that he, “felt as though the potential prohibitions that were put in the comprehensive plan would critically impede us from doing our job.” As a result, the prohibitions were amended to no longer apply to publicly owned treatment works.

Lobbyist Christopher Hunter, on behalf of the Providence Working Waterfront Alliance, was there to thank the council for “listening to the concerns of several of the terminals in the port and other businesses like the Narragansett Bay Commission, [about] some of the unintended consequences of the previous language.

“We still have some concerns,” added Hunter, “but again, [we] really appreciate you listening and working with us and hope to continue that.”

Land-use attorney Joelle Rocha, from the law firm of Duffy and Sweeney, also complimented the City Council for getting back in line with polluting industries in and around the Port.

“I want to thank the council for really listening to our perspective, which is what this process is about, and finding some middle ground,” said Attorney Rocha. “We are still digesting tonight's proposed amendments. I may have a few tweaks here and there that get us both to the same goal, but we appreciate the dialogue and look forward to the next step, the zoning process to that continued dialogue as well.”

Richard Stang, an attorney from the Conservation Law Foundation, was stark in his condemnation of the changes, calling them “mud.”

“I want to commend everyone here because last week you put changes to this plan that we're truly transformational. They prohibited 24 specific uses and made it very, very clear. You took to heart the voices and the demands of the residents in the environmental justice zones around Allen's Avenue, and you said, we're going to do something about it. I applaud you for that.

“I'm back this week [because] things have changed. I want to make clear what last week's changes did not do. They did not shut down businesses, they did not get rid of jobs, and they certainly did not stop economic development. What it did do was provide crystal clarity going forward as to what would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed. What we have today is mud.

“I'll use an example. ‘Facilities that generate a result in harmful air pollution emissions.’

“I can walk onto any of those properties in Allens Avenue and light up a welder and I've just violated this provision. Obviously, we're not going to shut that down because you need welding for the green transition jobs. You need that. Do we need more asphalt plants? Do we need more Rhode Island Recycled Metals? What this does now is open the door to the people that were just here thanking you, to bring the lawyers, bring the experts, bring the money, and fight any change And they will win like they have over and over and over again. That's the end result of this. Just so everyone's clear, that is the end result.”

I was the last person from the public to speak:

“I knew last week when you introduced the changes to the Comprehensive Plan that it was a big swing for the fences. And I suspected some things might change. I'm a little surprised by how much change there has been.

“I have two grandkids, a two-year-old, and a baby. Lily and Isaac. I sometimes call Lily 'Furiosa' because I feel like she's going to grow up in that Mad Max world and I want her to be the toughest she can be because it's not looking good for us. I saw in the package of public comments the piranha-like bites from the industry lobbyists and lawyers trying to undermine the Plan as you were putting it together.

“On the way in, I ran into a bike lobbyist who told me that the idea of banning gas stations faces a possible veto. The mayor's office hasn't confirmed that. [Since making this public comment, the Mayor's office has confirmed this. See above.]

“This plan won't affect existing businesses. As Richard Stang from the CLF said, they're grandfathered in. The concern of the lobbyists and lawyers is about the future of polluting industries, the kind we don't want anymore. They're not concerned about what's here. They're looking at their future and what they can lobby for and do.

“Here's the thing, I care about all kids, not just the ones who are related to me. The Mayor might not. These lobbyists and lawyers, certainly don't, I listen to them all the time at the State House and they don't give ... anything for the future. They just care about money, now. But I need the City Council to care, and I need you to act on the environmental aspects of this.... You need to act on this and you need to be strong. If you need people to support you, I will tell people to come out here and they will support you. But you need to be strong and do the right thing. That's all I have to say.”

You can watch the City Council Ordinance Committee hearing here: