Comments
Oh-Kaleidoscope t1_isah4l3 wrote
the "NIMBY" phenomenon (not in my backyard) - opposition by residents to proposed developments in their local area; such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away.
[deleted] t1_is8dntd wrote
[removed]
beta_vulgaris t1_is8ilyf wrote
Weird response, but okay.
[deleted] t1_is8isxi wrote
[removed]
beta_vulgaris t1_is8jd4n wrote
Okay.
eastcoastflava13 t1_isbomij wrote
Don't feed the troll, he doesn't even live here. Browsing his post history tells you all you need to know...
beta_vulgaris t1_isc1d64 wrote
Oh, absolutely. I do like to see these weirdos waste their energy though. It’s cute they think they’re doing something!
pvdjay t1_is8jhi0 wrote
So your thesis is:
“dysfunctional government doesn’t work”.
Um okay, thanks for the insight.
[deleted] t1_is8k1ax wrote
[removed]
Thedeepone31 t1_is8qyyf wrote
You're right, the world should just be a free for all with no laws or regulations, surely the good of humanity will lead us to an equitable and safe world.
Personal_Leading t1_isa0e3x wrote
Why do you bother posting in here if you moved from providence to Poland? Do you just like to complain?
[deleted] t1_isacdlt wrote
[removed]
misterpeanutsman t1_isbmn1d wrote
lol you don’t even go here
[deleted] t1_isdmxy1 wrote
[deleted]
pvdjay t1_is8yesm wrote
Gotcha. Anarchy is the solution. Good luck with that.
PM_ME_ASS_SALAD t1_isaecps wrote
Watch out, big brain libertarian over here about to tell us all how painfully mislead we are while communicating through an internet infrastructure developed, built, paid for and maintained by public funding.
dionidium t1_isbcnw6 wrote
I mean, if this is true, then surely it means we should eliminate single-family-only zoning and let people build what they want to without the no-good-very-bad-government getting in their way?
sardaukarma t1_isbzchm wrote
Room temp iq response
ProvBroker t1_is7sw55 wrote
Relax zoning standards and watch all of the housing pop up… Government programs are great and all, but they are hardly addressing the massive housing shortfall that we have here. RI municipalities need to allow more building density by right. Let property owners obtain their own financing to create these new units- The banks will gladly finance these new units privately if the local zoning permitted such development. Local landowners would see increases in property values and/or immediate utility because they will be able to generate income off of the additional units and/or provide space for their own friends and family.
Let people who already own property in the city build housing at their expense. All this program will end up doing is shuffling properties to narrow pools of private developers anyways.
close102 t1_is7z2to wrote
They won’t build affordable housing is the problem. And banks won’t finance affordable housing is the problem.
Rhode Island, and Providence specifically, has seen probably the most amount of large scale apartment complex development in decades. Most of it is unaffordable to the average person (even if there are a few “low income” units included).
ProvBroker t1_is825ln wrote
Any housing is better than no housing. Even luxury or mid-market builds will add to the existing housing supply. Increasing the number of available units is ultimately the only true remedy for a very real housing crisis. The issue deserves stating plainly: We do not have enough houses.
Any increase in supply is going to be meaningful here.
Larger developments will still produce “affordable” units at rates required by the municipality they are developing in.
I am mostly talking about folks who clearly have space for a duplex on their single family lot, or could add a floor and gain a unit or two.
dionidium t1_isbd1m7 wrote
You live your whole life surrounded by the existence of low-end goods marketed to poor people -- McDonald's, Wal-mart, Champion, Dollar Tree, Hyundai -- and then you conclude that we shouldn't let developers build housing because no company would ever make something marketed to the low-end of the market -- there's just no money in it!
How can you square this? You already know that when companies are allowed to produce to abundance that they do indeed try to sell to every market segment. You just have to let them do it!
Of course companies only sell to the high end when there are limits on how much they can produce. You have to let them produce to abundance before they'll start targeting the low end.
If we put caps on how many new cars could be produced next year, the very first thing that would happen is Kia and Hyundai would stop existing, because when you are only allowed to make x number of cars, you're damn sure going to make sure you're getting the most profit out of them. But if you're allowed to make as many cars as you want, then once you've sold a car to all the rich people you still want to sell more cars! That's why every single automaker has both luxury and affordable brands. It's the same company selling to both market segments.
Banana Republic, The Gap, and Old Navy are all the same company! Why do they even have Old Navy when they can sell much more expensive clothes with higher margins to rich people at Banana Republic? Because they want to profit off everybody!
close102 t1_isjaxoy wrote
You’re equating consumable and commodity goods with housing. A low end car could be $20k to buy. A low end condo would still be $150-200k to buy.
As much zoning regulations exist that prevent like a 3 family going into where a 1 family is today, there have been massive amounts of apartment complex development over the past decade throughout Providence, Rhode Island, and Southern MA. Developers are already building to excess and none of it is affordable.
Even so, not sure why there would be opposition from the city/state to take over land not being used to build more housing. Seems like you’re just really pro private development.
dionidium t1_iskgtag wrote
I believe it should be legal for private parties to purchase private property and build apartments on the land they own, but assuming that were legal I have no problem with the government acquiring land on which to build housing themselves.
The only downside is that it can become a bit of a political football deciding where to put that housing. If the government is going to do it, it would be best if they did it by seamlessly integrating into existing neighborhoods, which sort of seems like what’s in play here, anyway, so I don’t have any big problem with that.
In general, though, I would rather the government simply give money to those who need it. That’s a simpler, more straightforward way to approach the problem.
[deleted] t1_is8crl6 wrote
[removed]
ProvBroker t1_is8eefr wrote
It’s hit or miss, sometimes they love me, sometimes they hate me
rhodyjourno OP t1_is78sir wrote
FROM THE STORY: In the middle of a statewide housing crisis, the city of Providence has a favor to ask: Do you know of any vacant plots of land where affordable housing could be built?
On Thursday morning, Mayor Jorge O. Elorza announced the creation of the Providence Neighborhood Land Bank, a new program funded with $8.5 million of the city’s American Rescue Plan Act funds that will acquire, hold, and transfer underused vacant land throughout the city with the goal of generating new affordable housing.Rhode Islanders can email suggestions of blighted, vacant lots for the Land Bank program to LandBank@providenceri.gov.
The program is designed to reduce barriers to development, such as site control and pre-development costs, to promote the construction of affordable housing. Other cities, like Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans all have land bank programs to spur affordable housing development and develop urban agriculture. But third-party organizations in some cities, such as the Philadelphia Coalition for Affordable Communities, have raised questions over the program’s effectiveness and slow pace of sales after almost a decade of that city’s land bank program.
More details at the link: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/13/metro/providence-announces-new-land-bank-program-aquire-vacant-land-build-affordable-housing/?p1=StaffPage
Carthago_146_BC t1_isaor2b wrote
cue the crying from every side possible
sc00p401 t1_isa4jf3 wrote
So why aren't they doing that with the Superman Building?
AltruisticBowl4 t1_isall28 wrote
AwareFaithlessness68 t1_isa5l0b wrote
The ideas behind this—land trusts that keep affordable housing affordable in perpetuity are important and have been shown to work. The issue is always funding them initially. But if cities support it as a whole then it can be done. You will have powerful interests not in favor, such as the real estate industry, so it is tough. Most people think of housing as a commodity, somewhere to build wealth, which makes it harder to support sustainable/affordable housing. But unless we want to turn into wealthy s***holes with lots of boarded up places too expensive for folks to rent or start businesses then you MUST have a variety of housing for people along all incomes. It’s what makes providence great. I’m the past we have had housing that artists, teachers, new business owners can afford. If you stick to market based models of housing you loose this, and you loose the backbone of your community. No one wants a bunch of 20 y/o working for tech as the only residents of a city.
RandomChurn t1_iselosm wrote
>It’s what makes providence great. In the past we have had housing that artists, teachers, new business owners can afford.
Yes, this is tragic. You know the bumper sticker, "Keep Providence Weird"? Well, we're not.
Microcosm of what's underway, city-wide, is what happened to Thayer St over the past 20 years.
Before: every nook and cranny from basement to 2nd floor being filled with unique, independent shops and restaurants, serving as a mecca for foot traffic and shoppers, and hosting twice-yearly street festivals.
Now: sterile chains, no reason to go there 😣
That's the fate I don't see how we can avoid befalling all of Providence. And as one of those artists who moved here back in the day, I grieve.
Dazzling-Chicken-192 t1_is9i4ak wrote
All lies buying vacant land and property to sell to foreign investors…watch
unidumper t1_is82zc0 wrote
Smells a few millions gonna go missing. This will end up being more housing for non working class. After working in an industry that delt primarily with lower income I have no faith in govt solutions. This will be more brand spanking new apartments for people with no skin in the game.
[deleted] t1_is8cg7b wrote
[removed]
Toast119 t1_is8ks43 wrote
This type of trash comment is exactly what I was expecting to see from your dog whistle up above lol.
unidumper t1_isdo12p wrote
I'm proposing not flushing hard working peoples tax dollars down the work ethically challenged peoples toilet.
beta_vulgaris t1_is7zugw wrote
It would be cool if we could green light this type of infill housing without neighborhood input. I know that sounds bad, but all anyone ever says is “what has worked in other neighborhoods couldn’t possibly work in this particular neighborhood because of these very reasonable reasons specific to this special and unique place” and then nothing ever gets built and property owners sit back and watch their equity increase while people sleep in tents along the Seekonk.