News & Information

June 5, 2025 | News

On June 5th of this year, I was proud to cast my vote against the proposed so-called “assault weapons ban.” This bill was an intolerable assault on the Constitution and I acted on behalf of my constituents who made it clear to me what their position on the issue was.

The ongoing debate surrounding gun control in Rhode Island epitomizes a larger national conversation about individual rights, public safety, and governmental authority. Measures by the Rhode Island House of Representatives, notably the recent passage of an “assault weapons” ban, have ignited significant controversy. Critics argue that such legislation is not merely an effort to regulate firearms; rather, it represents an unquestionable infringement upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As articulated by those of us who oppose the bill, the fundamental assertion remains: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That very basic verbiage does not include: “unless the progressive arm of the Rhode Island House of Representatives decides otherwise.”

The crux of the opposition to the legislation lies in the belief that it is not just a tactical response to gun violence but a systematic effort by progressive Democrats to shape citizens’ rights according to their ideological preferences. History serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating how disarming a populace can facilitate governmental overreach. Totalitarian regimes throughout the twentieth century—including the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China—demonstrated that disarming citizens is often a precursor to oppressive control. In this context, the Rhode Island legislation is perceived as a potential step towards eroding individual freedoms and fostering a dependence on government authority for personal protection.

Moreover, the rhetoric surrounding “assault weapons” raises critical questions about terminology and public perception. The legislation defines certain firearms not based on their capabilities—such as fully automatic operation—but rather through cosmetic features that exhibit an intimidating appearance. This distinction is significant as it conflates the aesthetics of a firearm with its functional purpose, thus misrepresenting the actual intent behind their use. Semi-automatic rifles, often labeled as “assault weapons,” frequently operate on par with traditional hunting rifles, yet are demonized due to their association with military design.

Critics also point out inherent inconsistencies within the proposed regulations. The limitation of magazine capacities and the requirement for registration and certification may burden law-abiding citizens while doing little to deter criminal activity. After all, the legislation’s lack of requirements for violent criminals and gang members to register illegally obtained weapons  highlights a fundamental flaw in the approach to firearm regulation. This oversight not only compromises public safety but also paradoxically transforms responsible gun owners into potential criminals for merely possessing certain types of firearms.

To combat this assault on constitutional rights, advocates for gun rights, as well as those who fear the continued erosion of our other constitutional rights,  in Rhode Island are calling for proactive measures. I encourage individuals to engage more actively in the political process—whether through registering as Republicans, running for local office, or volunteering in campaigns that prioritize constitutional rights. In an era where political engagement is increasingly vital, the hope is that by providing logical and thoughtful alternatives, citizens can restore a balance that prioritizes both rights and responsibilities.

 In conclusion, the debate over the proposed “assault weapons” ban in Rhode Island highlights a profound struggle between state authority and individual liberties. As history has shown, the disarmament of citizens can lead to a loss of freedoms, and the current legislative efforts appear to follow a concerning pattern of encroachment on constitutional rights. It is imperative for Rhode Islanders to remain vigilant, actively participating in the political arena to safeguard their freedoms and ensure that legislation reflects the principles of liberty upon which their rights are founded. Simply talking about the problem accomplishes nothing. Hold your legislators accountable.

April 17, 2025 | News

As Rhode Island grapples with affordable housing, a proposed bill from some of Johnston’s state representatives seeks to set different criteria for smaller communities in the state when it comes to providing affordable housing.

In general, the bill introduced by State Representative Deborah Fellela and cosponsored by State Representative Richard Fascia would set lower quotas for multi-family affordable housing projects in smaller communities. The bill was presented to the House Committee on Municipal Government and Housing last Wednesday.

Fellela spoke before the committee regarding her proposal. She emphasized that a “one size fits all” approach to housing does not work for every Rhode Island city and town. She pointed out that large-scale, multi-family projects can have a far greater impact on infrastructure and local services in smaller towns than they would in larger cities.

“Smaller towns will likely have more infrastructure challenges – water and sewer availability or capacity issues – such as the lack of roadways or existing poor road designs,” she said. Fellela also noted the potential strain on schools, police, fire services and public transportation.

Proposal is reaction to 252-unit plan

The bill was prompted by a recent case where the town sought use eminent domain to acquire land that would otherwise be privately developed as a 252-unit low-income housing project. That process has drawn lawsuits in state and federal courts from the property owners in an attempt to halt the seizing of land.

Fellela’s legislation would create a more involved local approval process before a large or “substantial” multi-family affordable-housing project could be approved in a smaller community. Her bill describes substantial projects as any with more than 60 units and defines smaller communities in Rhode Island as having a population of fewer than 35,000 residents.

For example, the bill would mandate that developers seeking to build these multi-family housing projects participate in a pre-approval conference. Before the pre-approval conference, developers would be required to submit documentation that could include a project description, unit numbers, and a conceptual site plan.

According to Fellela, the bill would also ensure that developers proposing substantial multi-family housing projects could not fast-track their applications through a single comprehensive permit as they are currently able to do, regardless of the size of the community.

“This proposal strengthens local community control by allowing a more thorough vetting of the application,” she explained.

Bill supported by Fascia, Polisena

Representative Richard Fascia cosigned the bill because it aims to balance affordable housing needs with the unique characteristics of each community. He stressed the importance of adapting housing solutions to the unique needs of each municipality.

“What’s right for Providence or Pawtucket may not be right for Burrillville or Exeter,” he said. “Local communities know what’s best for local communities.”

Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr. expressed his support for the bill but suggested modifications.

Speaking before the House committee, Polisena contended that high-density developments do not fit the character or needs of small communities like Johnston. Referring to the proposed 252-unit low-income apartment complex, the mayor highlighted several concerns, including the impact on the town’s resources.

He said that such a project would add about 80 new students at a cost of $1.85 million and require a new rescue truck costing around $1 million. He has proposed taking the land for this site by eminent domain to build a municipal campus including new fire and police headquarters and a new Town Hall.

“Maybe communities like East Greenwich, Barrington, Jamestown and Portsmouth… have the wealth for modest annual property tax increases for large affordable development complexes, but … these proposals are happening in blue-collar, working-class communities like Johnston,” he said.

Polisena said he would rather see a tiered approach instead of a one-size-fits-all model. For example, the amount of affordable housing required in a community should be related to its population.

Current Rhode Island law mandates that each municipality have at least 10% of its housing stock in affordable housing.

Polisena acknowledges the importance of affordable housing, but he emphasized that in Johnston, this would mean prioritizing single-family homes over large multi-unit complexes.

“Working off of this legislation allows us to do just that while still allowing communities to individually address their housing needs as they see fit,” he said.

Now the debate begins

Although the bill was just introduced, it is clear it will face debate and opposition.

In a public session, representatives took issue with bill as proposed. Perhaps the bluntest assessment of the bill came from Rep. David Morales (Providence).

“I’ll just start by saying that this is a creative way to keep poor people out of certain communities,” he said, before listing multiple issues he believed were in the bill.

Rep. June Speakman (Bristol, Warren) addressed the panel and suggested the removal of  “low to moderate income” in the bill’s wording addressing 60 units, so that it includes development of all types of multifamily homes, regardless of pricing.

“Bringing this bill forward, it does undo much of what we have done in the past four years of the speaker’s legislation, and I gather that’s your intent, which is very controversial legislation.  We’ve worked very hard on it,” she said. “I hear all the time that it is insensitive to the needs of smaller communities. I hear that all the time, I live in Warren and I hear it, but I disagree.”

As the bill’s cosponsor, Fascia maintained that the bill ensures that affordable-housing projects are ‘consistent with local needs’ while also maintaining public safety and supporting infrastructure capacity. He said it also aimed to prevent the stigmatization of low-income developments. He added that the legislation promotes fairness by requiring that both subsidized and unsubsidized housing projects follow the same zoning and land-use regulations.

Fascia concluded that the bill represents a thoughtful, balanced approach to addressing the state’s affordable housing crisis, recognizing the need for new developments while preserving the quality of life for existing residents.

Representative Raymond Hull (North Providence, Providence) saw it in a different light, saying the bill reminded him of “snob zoning” – land-use regulations used to discriminate against certain types of residential uses.

“I understand what you’re trying to do for your town, but what [Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi] has done at the cost of this session and previous sessions is to open up housing for people throughout the state,” said Hull. “As I look at some of the fine notes in the bill … those things are designed to keep people out.”

Original story published in the Johnston SunRise on April 10, 2025

March 27, 2025 | News

Freshman Rhode Island House Representative Richard Fascia (District 42 – Johnston/Cranston) introduced his first piece of legislation (H 5925), a bill that would establish a 300-foot buffer zone around schools for registered Level 3 sex offenders. This is consistent with other such sex offender statutes. 

Fascia noted that a void was created by the Supreme Court last year when they struck down a previously established 1000-foot buffer as discriminatory for Level 3 sex offenders, but offered no alternative, thus creating a void in the law. This proposed bill will establish a 300-foot radius around schools, consistent with existing statutes that address Level 1 and 2 sex offenders, thus offering greater protection to Rhode Island children and their communities.

Offenders would not be able to establish residency within the zone or otherwise be within it. Violation of the new zone would be a felony.

“We cannot offer our children enough protection from these monsters,” said Fascia, a retired Providence Police Officer and security professional. “I look forward to this important bill passing through committee and moving to the House floor for a final vote.”

Fascia has contacted the Attorney General’s Office for input and support, and the bill was referred to the House Judiciary.

Originally published in Johnston SunRise 3/20/2025

To learn more about the three levels of sex crimes for which offenders must register and periodically report their whereabouts to law enforcement, visit the Screen and Reveal website.

February 18, 2025 | News

February 21, 2025 | News

Richard Fascia wasn’t looking to set any records when he decided last year to run as a Republican for State Representative in District 42.

A former Providence police officer who said his parents raised him  with a strong sense of right and wrong, Fascia said he was motivated by a  desire to serve his community.  He also knew that it was hard to field GOP candidates for the ballot and he didn’t like the thought of an unchallenged seat.

“I think people deserve a choice,” he said, of the decision that  landed him on the ballot facing Democrat Kelsey K. Coletta in a town where only about 16-percent of the voters are registered as Republicans.

And on election night, Fascia did make history. He won the District  42 (Johnston, Cranston) seat by about 60 votes, making him the first Republican to represent the district in more than 80 years.

Because of redistricting over the decades, it’s hard to say  definitely, but according to records compiled by the House Minority  Office, the last Republican to hold the District 42 seat was Raymond S. Eastwood. A World War I veteran, Eastwood held the seat from 1939 to 1940.

“I was the most surprised son of a gun on election night,” Fascia,  68, recalls with a smile. “I am so honored and humbled to represent the voters – this is a job I will ‘interview’ for every single day I am in office.”

So, how did he do it?

Having grown up in the Eagle Square section of Providence in a family that was very active in the Democratic party, Fascia said he went old school. He knocked on doors, kissed babies, shook every hand, and “went to the opening of an envelope.”

Fascia said he also worked hard to help voters get to know him –  including his love of serving as police officer for 20 years, his time  on the Johnston’s Zoning Board, and his commitment to public service.

On his campaign website, he listed one of his proudest accomplishments as helping to lead opposition 55-panel solar farm in the Windsor section of town — a project that he said was completely “out of place” for its proposed location.

Fascia, who retired from the Providence police with the rank of  sergeant, is currently the Human Resource Manage for USENTRA Security in Warwick. After leaving the police, he held a number of jobs including working for the Providence Housing Authority as a fraud investigator, and later for Crossroads Rhode Island where, according to official State House biography, he was Director of Safety and Security for ten years.

Married for 42 years to his wife, Elizabeth, the couple of have two  children and four grandchildren. Family has always been central in his life, he said, and to this day he still credits his parents with  teaching him strong moral values, but even more importantly, the  importance of “being compassionate to people.”

“I think that doing good for others was instilled in me,” he said,  adding that he likes to think his parents would be proud of his new role at the State House. “Let’s just say that after the election, I visited the cemetery and had a long talk with them,” he said.

Fascia campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility, family  values, transparency and accountability to voters. His campaign website describes him as conservative on some issues including opposing “WOKE ideology, benefits for illegal aliens and gender reassignment for children.”

He has been appointed to serve on three House standing committees: Education, Municipal Government and Housing,​ and Labor.

A Johnston resident for 26 years, Fascia said he wants the town – and the northwest parts of Cranston he represents – to continue to be good places to live.

And despite the fact that he can, at times, still have the serious  demeanor of a former police sergeant, he says he doesn’t actually take himself too seriously.

“What do I do in my spare time?” he queries after being asked the  question. “I’m old,” he says. “I have the obligatory tomato garden in  my backyard. I really like being out there enjoying the sunshine.”

“My hope,” he said, “is to make sure that the Johnston and Cranston voters I represent have a voice at the statehouse that echoes their feelings – not someone else’s political agenda.”

Read the article on the Johnston Sun Rise site.

Source: Johnston Sun Rise  Posted Thursday, February 20, 2025  By Barbara Polichetti