Report Inappropriate Comments

richard corrente, you clearly don't read anything very closely.

loumar and I both made the same point, that charging this nonprofit would force it to close -- meaning the city would get nothing and would have to pay for upkeep, utilities, and insurance.

That's a net cost to the city that the city is not paying now.

You're the one trying to cover that up by talking about the taxpayers.

I don't know which taxpayers you talk to, but no one I know supports spending more money when the city doesn't have it, and no one I know supports charging the WCA anything beyond what it already pays to use the building.

Name one independent, non-city run nonprofit in Warwick that pays more than a $3,000 a year rent to the city.

To be honest, I don't really expect that you'll answer that, and will instead make more of the same stupid accusations that got several of your past comments deleted.