Report Inappropriate Comments

I don't know if they owned the building or rented it but with taxes of $21,768 (according to Eppraisal) their overhead must have been exorbitant. A similar building in Cranston would be less. A lot less. Therein lies the problem with Warwick as I see it. Warwick keeps losing taxpayers, both residentially and commercially. Warwick keeps raising taxes. Cranston keeps gaining taxpayers, both residentially and commercially. Cranston keeps lowering taxes. Ask any business that has moved from Warwick to Cranston. I have.

And please don't listen to Mark Carruolo (AKA CrickeeRaven) when he points out that the tax rate is higher in Cranston. It is, but that is only one of the three determining factors to taxes. The others are the "assessed value" and the percent-of-assessed-value the cities/towns use to calculate the total tax. All the consumer cares about is that "total tax". And they are lower in Cranston. Much lower. Bottom line.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Rick Corrente

The Taxpayers Mayor