Report Inappropriate Comments

While all of the other commenters on this page are making valid points, leave it to the two-time election reject to add another set of false and delusional statements.

"I don't know if they owned the building or rented it but with taxes of $21,768..."

First, whatever "Eppraisal" is, it is not the official city tax assessor website.

This is: http://gis.vgsi.com/warwickri/Search.aspx

Entering 63 Airport Road provides the following information:

The building was purchased in August, 2001 by Beef Hearth Inc., which still owns the property.

Its property valuation in 2017 was $717,000.

Multiplying $717,000 by the city's commercial tax rate of $30.36 and dividing by $1,000 equals $21,768.23 --which is the exact method used by the website he cites.

"A similar building in Cranston would be less. A lot less."

This is a flat-out lie -- and this is how one knows it is a lie:

Using that formula and multiplying the same assessed value [the meaning of "a similar building"] by Cranston's commercial tax rate of $34.41 and dividing by $1,000 equals $24,671.97, meaning taxes in Cranston would be $2,903.74 more -- not less.

Here is the source for that information: http://www.municipalfinance.ri.gov/documents/data/taxrates/2017-Tax-Rates-12-31-16-FINAL.pdf

Cranston taxes commercial property at 100 percent of assessed value. The document linked above proves that, since there would be a footnote indicating otherwise, but there is not.

As a result, the method above is an accurate and factually honest way to compare commercial taxes in Warwick and Cranston.

The two-time election reject's desperate attempt to fool readers has thus, once again, failed.

"Mark Carruolo (AKA CrickeeRaven)"

This is also a lie. The two-time election reject should end his cowardly behavior on this website and contact Mr. Carruolo directly. If he already had, the two-time election reject would be able to say so, directly.

Since he has not directly and plainly said that he has contacted Mr. Carruolo [which would prove his accusation to be as false as his other statements on this page], readers may conclude that the two-time election reject has not, and is simply engaging in more juvenile and disgraceful behavior.

"All the consumer cares about is that "total tax". And they are lower in Cranston. Much lower. Bottom line."

As proven above, this is a lie. Similarly assessed commercial properties in Warwick pay lower taxes than in Cranston.

The only "bottom line" is that the two-time election reject has been caught, yet again, in making false and misleading statements and failing to provide the barest shred of data to support anything he says.

Honest, taxpaying voters will celebrate their winter holidays, happy to know that we kept the two-time election reject out of office yet again in 2018 by overwhelmingly rejecting his candidacy.