By ETHAN HARTLEY -- It's official now - there will be no more free parking at Warwick beaches this upcoming summer.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
It’s official now – there will be no more free parking at Warwick beaches this upcoming summer. The Warwick City Council voted unanimously on Monday night for a second passage to amend Chapter 18, Section 8 of the city ordinances, which will reinstate parking fees for the first time in the city since the 90s.
After being originally proposed in August, the ordinance bounced around inside City Hall for a few months before this final version passed, with a couple amendments lessening costs that were originally proposed. The prices are as follows:
Season passes:
$20 per car for Warwick residents / $40 per car for nonresidents
$10 and $20 respectively for senior residents and nonresidents
Individual tickets (per car, per visit):
$5 for Warwick residents / $10 for nonresidents
$3 and $6 respectively for senior residents and nonresidents
Buses carrying loads of beach goers will be charged $30 per visit.
The fees will apply to Warwick public recreational facilities - specifically to Conimicut Point, Oakland Beach and City Park. They do not apply to Rocky Point (which is partially state-owned) or Goddard Memorial Park (which is state owned and operated).
“This is not a new issue, at least since I’ve been on the council. It’s been talked about for years and I know some members of the public have cleaned beaches themselves,” said Ward 9 councilman and chair of the ordinance committee Steve Merolla. “So any money we can raise to help maintain the beautification process of our beaches I think is what we’re hearing the public wants. That’s what we’re trying to implement.”
Merolla answered skeptical questions from Warwick resident Don Johnson about how much public input was sought prior to the passage of the ordinance change.
“We’ve heard from the public, we’ve discussed it with our constituents and I think the amount we’re charging for people is fair and reasonable because that amount is hopefully going to make a difference in the quality,” Merolla answered.
The council responded quickly to an assertion that the fees were “another tax” on the citizenry.
“A tax, by definition, is uniformly applied to every resident of the city of Warwick. This is a use fee for the beach,” Merolla said. “It’s not a tax.”
Council president Joseph Solomon took it a step further, saying that the fees will actually help unshoulder some of the burden that the everyday taxpayer have had to carry by paying for the city’s cleanup efforts of the beaches, which some on the council publicly claimed are consistently full of waste and debris.
“Right now the taxpayers of the city of Warwick have borne 100 percent of the costs of maintaining these facilities,” Solomon said. “What we’re asking for by the implementation of these fees is assistance from people who also utilize these facilities to contribute to the cost of maintaining, upkeep and upgrade to these facilities.”
“It’s not an appealing place to go when you have dog waste and feces all over the beach, trash all over the beach,” Merolla said. “If I had a choice between going to that beach and someplace else that doesn’t have hypodermic needles or other things on the beach – then that’s not a business generator.”
The council further argued that the change to the ordinance had universal support from multiple city departments, including DPW and the parks department, as well as Mayor Scott Avedisian, and that Warwick is perhaps the only Rhode Island community that has not implemented beach parking fees.
“I think we may be, if not one of the last, probably the last community to implement a fee of this nature,” Solomon said. “If you go to beaches in other cities and towns, you’re going to pay a fee to go to the beaches in those cities and towns.”
“Why should we be the only free beach?” asked councilwoman Donna Travis, whose Ward 6 encompasses Oakland Beach.
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
blorjr
Will there be a rebate for the days that you can't swim due to the filthy water.
Thursday, December 21, 2017 Report this
JohnStark
I fully endorse User Fees for public spaces. As long as property taxes are reduced by 50% and User Fees are simultaneously imposed for use of public schools.
Thursday, December 21, 2017 Report this
Justanidiot
blorjr -- no because it is a beach fee. If you don't shut up about swimming, the city will toss on a swimming fee -- $30 for the season, $5 for an all day pass, or $1 for everytime you dip your toe in the water.
Hey mister mayer, think we can balance da budget wit fees like dat?
Friday, December 22, 2017 Report this
richardcorrente
Dear Justanidiot, blorjr, and John Stark,
I actually support these beach fees. It shows the rest of Rhode Island that our beaches have value. And having a cost-factor that's about half of the south county beaches, gives Warwick a competitive edge as well. We need to promote our beaches to the rest of R.I. (Maybe some of that money will go to that). Most of our surrounding towns/cities do not have salt-water beaches. Warwick has four beautiful beaches that should be attracting many more in-R.I.-tourists than they presently are. Tourists become new homeowners, bringing in new taxes, reducing taxes on the rest of us, and they will also increase our student population. Having beach fees will attract these new visitors due to the "perceived value" that the beach fees suggest. The added visitors will also be a welcome benefit to our Warwick businesses.
As far as the net revenue generated after paying expenses of collecting the fees, I don't think it will be much, but if the beach-fee program entices just one new homebuyer to move into Warwick, the residual income from that one new taxpayer will make it all worth the effort. While we're at it, I believe that "Welcome to Warwick" signs and some Christmas ornaments at City Hall would go a long way in attracting new residents. It's shameful that we don't have either. Drive through east Greenwich and there are 10,000 lights. Drive past Warwick City Hall and there isn't one! No Christmas ornaments at all. (They are all in storage.) That delivers a "Go away" message when we need to attract new residents to replace some of the 5,800 taxpayers that moved out of Warwick in the last ten years (according to the U.S. Census). My critics will say that the Census isn't right but they have no answer when you ask them to explain how our student population crashed from 17,000 to less than 9,000. As far as the beach passes, Veterans should go for free. Everyone else, including ALL politicians, should pay as stated above.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Rick Corrente
The Taxpayers Mayor
Friday, December 22, 2017 Report this
wwkvoter
I have a question. Does Corrente really still think he is the mayor?
Merry Christmas everyone.
Friday, December 22, 2017 Report this
CrickeeRaven
Hello again WwkVoter:
The fake "mayor" has admitted in the past that he invented the title. He also has claimed that it was because he "serves" the taxpayers. As a frequent reader, I am sure you've seen what he has served: lies, distractions, and pandering.
Consider his prior comments on this page: He says he wants to cut taxes, but agrees to imposing parking fees at local beaches -- and then claims that this will attract new home buyers. [Contrary to his description, the fees are for parking at the beaches. Anyone walking to the beach will still get in for free.]
Increasing fees to use a community's resources is not attractive to prospective taxpayers. Nor is having a candidate who continuously humiliates himself on internet comment boards.
The rest of his comment about holiday decorations and the recent population decline in Warwick [which he still manages to mangle by claiming that all 5,800 residents were taxpayers] is just more delusional ranting from someone from whom it has become routine.
Merry Christmas, Wwkvoter, and to all the honest, taxpaying voters in the city who will thoroughly defeat the fake "mayor" again next November.
Saturday, December 23, 2017 Report this
wwkvoter
Raven, you made me realize that walk-ins not being charged may lead to outsider parking surges in and off of Asylum, which could get crazy.
Saturday, December 23, 2017 Report this
CrickeeRaven
A very valid observation, WwkVoter. It seems that the city council controlled unanimously by the fake "mayor's" party shares his total lack of foresight or consideration of possible consequences of their actions and statements. These new parking fees are a blatant attempt to raise revenue when their plan for a 99-percent tax collection rate inevitably fails, just as their plan to withhold funding to the school department for the new teachers contract has left them scrambling to figure out how to pay $4 million in additional costs.
You may remember when parking fees were first imposed, about 20 years ago. Prior to the fees, Conimicut was a clean and well-maintained beach. After they were put in place and a gate installed, the quality of the entire area degraded, with trash strewn everywhere along the park and waterfront.
Because of the parking fees, visitors get the impression that the city will clean up their mess, and as a result are more careless about where they throw their refuse. Perhaps the city council will understand this after next summer, when they are asked to increase the public works budget to pay for more beach cleanup and find that the parking fees are nowhere enough to offset those costs.
That lack of foresight seems to be a common theme with the fake "mayor's" party, in other words, and he again proves his own complicity in this behavior with his pathetic statement about how the city needs to "replace some of the 5,800 taxpayers that moved out of Warwick in the last ten years (according to the U.S. Census). My critics will say that the Census isn't right but they have no answer when you ask them to explain how our student population crashed from 17,000 to less than 9,000."
First, no one has ever disputed the reduction in population in the city, nor has anyone ever questioned the U.S. Census data about this. What the fake "mayor" is attempting to do, again, is conflate two separate issues. In this case, he is whining about being proven a liar about the changes in Warwick's business sector. As I am sure you recall, the fake "mayor" compared data from the census and the R.I. Secretary of State's office [which use different definitions of what a "business" is] and drew a dishonest conclusion. Again, no one ever questioned the Census data, only the way the fake "mayor" tried to manipulate it.
And it was a local news website that proved him wrong, not imaginary "critics" that the fake "mayor" has invented to make himself look like a victim: https://warwickpost.com/numbers-game-corrente-claims-of-lost-businesses-dont-add-up/
The fake "mayor's" practice of making statements without considering their consequences, one he clearly shares with his party's nine city councilors, is not new. Nor, as he continues to make clear, will he be able to restrain himself from doing it over and over again, which will lead to his inevitable defeat again next November.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017 Report this
Kammy
I don't believe that access to a beach with a small fee is a real selling point to potential home buyers in Warwick considering we are the "Ocean State". Finding beaches in RI isn't exactly difficult. Potential buyers look for great schools, reasonable taxes, homes holding their value, safety, great neighborhoods, jobs, transportation, quality of community, etc.
I am not a fan of the parking fees since the taxpayers are already paying for the upkeep of the beaches. I can easily go to Goddard Park and park for free (which is probably what I will do) instead of dealing with the insane traffic that surrounds Oakland Beach and pay for the privilege. A parking fee does not fix the bacteria problem so the likelihood of having many "non-beach" days each season is guaranteed. Also, outside of Oakland Beach, there are no real amenities at the other Warwick locations. The most popular South County Beaches offer more than just sand and water.
Higher standards are to be expected if we are not only paying to maintain the beaches but also paying to park and use "our" beaches. If conditions remain the same then you have no business asking us for more money.
Wednesday, December 27, 2017 Report this
CrickeeRaven
Hello again Kammy:
You raise a very important point, that people are being asked to pay for use of public areas without getting better amenities. I recall visiting Conimicut this past summer and finding the one restroom facility a mess, and then locked after 6 p.m. When people visit these areas and pay to park, they will expect a certain level of cleanliness and access.
Also, a locked gate is an open invitation to vandalism and graffiti, which will require even more effort by the city to patrol and maintain these public areas. Going by the comments reported in this article, city councilors are clearly not anticipating these consequences; whatever income Councilman Merolla expects, it's highly doubtful that the revenue will actually cover the increased expenses.
Thursday, December 28, 2017 Report this