New at Garden City

Posted

Comments

6 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
justanidiot

restaurents leaving warwick in droves and opening in cranston in droves. thanks master mayer for driving out jobs

Monday, December 10, 2018
CrickeeRaven

Justanidiot, as sure as he will reply to your comment, it's a certainty that the two-time election reject will claim that this new restaurant in Cranston is a direct result of that city's lower taxes -- which, in fact, don't exist.

He will also ignore all of the recent developments in Warwick as if they didn't happen, and of course there's always a chance that he'll repeat his already long-disproven claim about how Warwick's business sector has changed over the last few years.

Thanks for your efforts to draw him out so he can again show his utter lack of restraint in making a humiliating spectacle of himself. I'm sure they won't be wasted.

Monday, December 10, 2018
richard corrente

You're right again Justanidiot,

Restaurants ARE leaving Warwick. Restaurants ARE opening in Cranston. Why? MUCH lower taxes. Sometimes less than half. The solution? "Cut Taxes - Cut Spending". But you already knew that didn't you old friend.

Merry Christmas Justanidiot.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Rick Corrente

The Taxpayers Mayor

Tuesday, December 11, 2018
CrickeeRaven

Justanidiot, this is getting so predictable.

I said the double election reject would falsely claim that lower taxes led this new restaurant to open in Cranston -- and he did.

I said the lower taxed in Cranston don't exist -- and they don't.

Warwick's commercial tax rate is lower than Cranston's: $30.36 vs. $34.41.

He also compounds his lie with an unsourced, unsupported claim that taxes in Cranston are "sometimes less than half" than in Warwick.

The only way that would happen is if the Cranston property were assessed at half the value as a Warwick property. Otherwise, it would be illogical and dishonest to compare differently-assessed properties in the two cities.

As we know, it is not at all out of character for the double election reject with the make-believe title to repeat his lies and make dishonest comparisons, providing further evidence that we and our honest, taxpaying neighbors were 100% correct to reject his candidacy twice.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018
CrickeeRaven

Honest, taxpaying readers will not be fooled by the two-time election reject.

"The tax rate is only one of the three items that determine the bottom line..."

This is a lie, and an attempt to fool readers. Any property's taxes can be easily determined by multiplying the assessed value by the tax rate and dividing by 1,000. Cranston and Warwick tax properties at 100% of assessed value. There is no mystery about this.

"Compare this OR ANY restaurant in Cranston to a similar one in Warwick and the Warwick one has MUCH more taxes... I recently compared the HoneyDew Donut Shop on Reservoir Ave in Cranston to the now closing "Square Donut Shop" on Airport Rd."

As proven in a prior comment, those two properties are not "similar," because the one in Cranston is assessed at less than half of the value of the one in Warwick:

http://warwickonline.com/stories/another-restaurant-to-close-4corners-to-cease-operations-before-christmas,138637?#comments

"The location in Cranston is better, larger and has a higher traffic rating..."

These are not factors in determining how a property is taxed. The two-time election reject is introducing useless information that does nothing to prove whatever point he is trying to make.

"You should do an honest comparison. I have."

This is a lie. An "honest comparison" would be between two properties with the same assessment. When that is done, the taxes in Warwick, due to its lower tax rate, are less than in Cranston.

I join my honest, taxpaying neighbors in celebrating the winter holidays, happy in the knowledge that it is so easy to disprove the two-time election reject and show why we were 100% justified in rejecting his candidacy twice.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018
CrickeeRaven

As it so typical for him, instead of providing the barest amount of proof for his statements, the two-time election reject just adds more lies.

"[R]eaders understand that the "assessed value" is often tampered with by dishonest political insiders."

This is a lie. Warwick's property assessments are conducted by an independent agency and are, in no way, provided to elected officials before they are published.

The two-time election reject's complete ignorance of city operations and delusional beliefs once again crumble in the face of reality.

Honest, taxpaying, intelligent readers know better, and we showed the two-time election loser that we know better than to trust anything he says when we overwhelmingly rejected his candidacy twice.

Thursday, December 13, 2018