Providence Place is getting rid of mallrats. Make way for the tumbleweeds.
It's a crackdown on harmless, timeless fun in the name of shoring up public safety because the mall's deadbeat former owners cut back on security at the same time that they were defaulting on their loans to private lenders.
Advertisement
The ban on kids is the brainchild of John Dorsey, one of the mall's court-appointed receivers, who says he wants to 'get the public's confidence back' in the mall.
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'The theory behind it is: If nothing changes, nothing changes,' Dorsey told me over the phone this week.
I think Dorsey is the
It's true that the mall has had a handful of high-profile criminal incidents involving young people, including a group of teenagers who
It's also true that Dorsey's primary objective is to spruce up the mall – both aesthetically and financially – just enough to find a buyer later this year, and potential suitors will probably be seeking a per-assault discount.
But hanging out in the mall has been a rite of passage for teenagers for generations, the place where you're supposed to have your first big date, first kiss, or first tiny bit of freedom from nagging parents or cranky teachers.
You borrow money from your parents to buy sneakers that are too expensive, hop over to Dave & Busters for a sweaty round of Skee-Ball, and then sneak into R-rated movies.
Advertisement
This is what kids are supposed to do.
They
are
the target audience.
'We've had quite a bit of feedback that some visitors don't feel safe,' Dorsey said.
Well, the kinds of people who complain about teenagers in the mall are the same people who say they never go into Providence at all because of the crime.
You want a safer mall?
Dorsey said there's a series of safety improvements
coming, including a full audit of security, controlled access to the skybridge, more guards, and upgrades to the mall's camera system.
All reasonable ideas that will hopefully produce the outcome Dorsey and the rest of mall leadership is seeking. But they don't generate the headlines the mall wants.
What's shortsighted about banning teenagers from the mall is it's going to leave a long-lasting bad taste in their mouths. The mall is desperate for more foot traffic because most people prefer to shop online these days. Young people are the only ones left who still enjoy the social experience of the mall.
Tim Howes, a business professor at Johnson & Wales University, said Providence Place seems to be taking a '
'They're making the decision that 16-year-olds are not worth as much as older customers,' Howes said.
Dorsey assured me that the mall isn't going to have a heavy hand with this policy. It would be ironic to start banning 14-year-olds the same month that they
Advertisement
'It's not static, we're not stuck with this program,' he said. 'We're going to be auditing ourselves and trying to figure out if we're accomplishing our goals.'
Howes said the mall's strategy could pay off, but there are potential pitfalls to watch for, like racial profiling of teenagers or driving away potential visitors who don't agree with the policy. The bigger challenge for the mall, he said, is the potential of losing another anchor tenant, like the Apple store.
'They need to find a way to rebuild the magic that was the Providence Place Mall,' Howes said.
Instead, they're trading mallrats for tumbleweeds.
Dan McGowan can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Speaker Johnson says House won't vote on Epstein resolution before recess
The House will not vote on a resolution calling for the release of some documents related to Jeffrey Epstein before the August recess, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced on Monday, despite growing GOP outcry over the Trump administration's handling of the case. The news came after the House Rules Committee advanced the measure last week, and as the lower chamber prepares to break for the weeks-long August recess on Thursday. Asked if the House will vote on the resolution before leaving Washington, Johnson told reporters: 'No.' The Speaker said he wants to leave time for the administration to act on the matter before moving ahead with congressional action. Last week, President Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to request that the grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case be unsealed. Trump has tried to downplay the matter, urging Republicans to drop the issue. 'Here's what I would say about the Epstein files: There is no daylight between the House Republicans, the House, and the president on maximum transparency,' Johnson said in the Capitol on Monday. 'He has said that he wants all the credible files related to Epstein to be released. He's asked the attorney general to request the grand jury files of the court. All of that is in process right now.' 'My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing and if further Congressional action is necessary or appropriate, then we'll look at that,' he added. 'But I don't think we're at that point right now because we agree with the president.' Johnson's announcement came less than one week after Republicans on the House Rules Committee advanced a non-binding resolution calling for the release of some information related to the case involving Epstein, a convicted sex offender. It specifically directs Bondi to publicize 'all credible' documents, communications and metadata related to the investigations of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking, but allows her to make exemptions. The panel advanced the resolution after GOP lawmakers on the committee voted down a similar measure earlier in the week that was spearheaded by Democrats. Republicans on the panel took heat from the MAGA base after opposing the measure, which prompted the vote on the GOP-crafted legislation last week. Asked last week if he would stage a vote on the legislation Johnson stopped short of making any commitments, suggesting the purpose was to give Republicans on the panel political cover. 'The Republicans on the Rules Committee, most of them that were present, voted against Democrat amendments to try to hijack that. That was the right thing for them,' Johnson said last week. 'They were wrongfully tarred and feathered by people who did not understand what was happening and said that they were covering up for they were in favor of concealing Epstein files. It's simply not true.' 'So the resolution that was advanced tonight in the Rules Committee was for them to go on record and say no, of course, we're for transparency, of course,' he continued. 'Every single one of the Republicans on the Rules Committee are for transparency and for releasing the files, just as the president of the United States is, and they wanted that to make crystal clear. Make it crystal clear. I think their vote tonight did.' Still, there is deep frustration among some Republicans over the administration's handling of the case. Trump campaigned on releasing the files and many people now in his Cabinet helped amplify theories about what was in them. Underscoring that sentiment, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has teamed up with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) on a resolution to release the files in the case. The pair is vowing to start a discharge petition for the legislation in an attempt to force it to the floor. The resolution already has at least 10 GOP co-sponsors. Johnson on Monday downplayed the effort. 'Discharge petitions are never a good idea in the House,' he told reporters on Monday. 'It is a tool of the minority party, not the majority. The majority party has stated its position, and it is mine and it is the president's, that we want maximum disclosure. So the rest of it is a political game that Democrats are playing and I hope Republicans won't go into that.' Other rank-and-file Republicans — including some of the president's closest allies — have expressed their displeasure with how the administration has approached the situation. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), one of the president's top supporters on Capitol Hill, aired an ominous message Monday morning. 'If you tell the base of people, who support you, of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail, and rich powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every enemy of The People. If not. The base will turn and there's no going back. Dangling bits of red meat no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and will accept nothing else,' she wrote on X.
CNBC
3 days ago
- CNBC
Epstein files: House Speaker Johnson wants 'maximum transparency'
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Friday that he and House Republicans want "maximum transparency" on notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and called for more information to be made public. "Everybody wants the Epstein files, which is the real documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and anybody associated with that. We want the American people to see it," Johnson said on CNBC's "Squawk Box." The speaker also insisted that President Donald Trump shares this view. "What I believe in is maximum transparency, and so does President Trump," said Johnson. The comments came after the Wall Street Journal revealed the existence on Thursday of an album of what it called "bawdy" letters compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The album reportedly included a letter from Trump that bore his signature and a drawing of a naked woman. Johnson said he discussed the report with Trump on Friday morning before appearing on CNBC. "The president and I talked about that ridiculous allegation this morning. He said it's patently absurd, he's never drawn such a picture, he's never thought of drawing such a picture," the speaker said. "He's so frustrated by it, and he's going to wind up, I think, suing some of the media outlets that have put all this out there because [the White House] informed them that it was totally contrived," Johnson added. Yet just as the White House mounted a full-scale messaging campaign to discredit the Journal's reporting, Trump also bowed to some of the pressure he is under from Republicans to reveal more about the case against Epstein. Late Thursday evening, Trump announced that he has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to release "any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval" on Epstein. Grand jury transcripts are generally kept tightly sealed under federal judicial rules, however, raising questions about why Trump's order to Bondi was limited to these records and not evidence uncovered during the investigation. Johnson told CNBC the rules about grand jury testimony are intended to protect the identities of innocent victims, and to guard against the airing of "bogus allegations that would be made against people that can't be authenticated." Aside from records that would be "held back from a court of law," said Johnson, "I say put it out there, and I think the president believes the same." The remarks underscore the dilemma that Johnson and Republicans in Congress face as they seek to satisfy their base's demands and suspicions about Epstein, without crossing a president who insists the theories are a hoax perpetuated by Democrats. The wealthy financier died by suicide in 2019, shortly after he was arrested on federal charges of child sex trafficking. The circumstances of Epstein's death and his connections in life to wealthy and powerful men — some of whom allegedly abused young women on Epstein's properties — have fueled conspiracy theories about what the Justice Department might have uncovered during their years long investigation of him. Democrats have seized on the discord within the pro-Trump ranks, putting forth legislation that would force the DOJ to release the Epstein files. Some Republicans in Congress have sided with those efforts. The Republican-led House Rules Committee voted Thursday night to advance a resolution calling on the DOJ to release Epstein-related information. Democrats slammed the measure as toothless, since it would not require the DOJ to comply. On Friday morning, Trump wrote, "If there was a 'smoking gun' on Epstein, why didn't the Dems, who controlled the 'files' for four years, and had Garland and Comey in charge, use it? BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING!!!"
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
HSBC executive's fraud conviction voided by US appeals court
By Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Thursday voided the 2017 fraud conviction of a former HSBC executive who spent two years in prison for "front-running" a British oil and gas exploration company's $3.5 billion currency trade. In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Mark Johnson's conviction was tainted because the Supreme Court in an unrelated case later repudiated a fraud theory that underlay it. The appeals court also expressed "grave doubt" Johnson could have been convicted under an alternative theory that he defrauded HSBC client Cairn Energy, now known as Capricorn Energy. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Brooklyn declined to comment. "We are delighted that justice has finally been achieved for Mark Johnson," his lawyer Alexandra Shapiro said in a statement. "Mr. Johnson carried out the Cairn transaction consistent with industry practice and in violation of no law or rule." Johnson, a British father of six in his late 50s, had been the head of HSBC's global foreign exchange cash trading desk. He was the first banker tried in the United States on currency rigging charges, following global probes into the multitrillion-dollar per day currency market. According to prosecutors, Cairn had retained Johnson and another former HSBC executive in 2011 to convert $3.5 billion into British pounds sterling as it prepared to sell an Indian subsidiary. Prosecutors said the executives quietly bought pounds for HSBC's own accounts before completing Edinburgh-based Cairn's trade, reaping a profit of about $7 million, court papers show. A jury convicted Johnson of wire fraud and conspiracy after a four-week trial. The appeals court upheld the conviction in 2019. But on Thursday, the appeals court said a 2023 Supreme Court ruling, Ciminelli v U.S., meant Johnson could not be convicted of denying Cairn a right to control its assets by reneging on a promise not to ramp up the pound's price. Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi also said evidence that Johnson breached duties to Cairn by misappropriating its confidential information for his own benefit was "weak," and it was unlikely a jury would convict Johnson on that basis alone. "We find ourselves--at the very least--in 'virtual equipoise' as to whether any jury, presented only with the misappropriation theory, would convict Johnson," Calabresi wrote. "That is more than enough to leave us with grave doubt." The appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who oversaw the trial. The case is Johnson v. U.S., 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1221.
