Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SwimmerNos OP t1_it677wy wrote

I for one have to say this is the most ridiculous proposal I have read. To treat the student population as anything less than standard citizens is down right discriminatory. The fact that this is sweeping across Brown, RISD, PVD College, and Johnson and Wales is going to have severe and adverse effects on students who already struggle to find affordable housing while trying to pay for school. The council woman says this is help with the housing stock problems but this creates no new dwellings, this only displaces a whole demographic who rely on this housing due to proximity to their respective colleges and universities.

In all honesty to make a proposal of this nature is downright negligent and ignoring the real problem at hand which is rent control.

89

fishythepete t1_it6yuuw wrote

This doesn’t displace students. It would be far more likely to displace locals as students demand more units housing.

>In all honesty to make a proposal of this nature is downright negligent and ignoring the real problem at hand which is rent control.

Providence doesn’t have rent control?

34

Ristray t1_it756kw wrote

Rhode Island itself doesn't have rent control.

22

SwimmerNos OP t1_it7gelk wrote

Nope. A new landlord acquired the apartment my partner and I rented. This man didn't even live in PVD and owned 4 other apartments around the city. In the first year he increased the rent by 47% without making any improvements and also replaced our shared laundry and drying machines with machines that weren't only older smaller but also increased the prices.

13

fishythepete t1_it8ll4u wrote

No, I’m saying rent control cannot be the problem, because it doesn’t exist.

If you think lack of rent control is the problem, you need to take a minute and understand that rent control and limits on occupant numbers are solutions in the same vein - ie they’re not.

−2

MyStackRunnethOver t1_it76zoh wrote

>which is rent control.

Which is insufficient housing

15

AbigailFlippinfloppn t1_it7al6a wrote

Stop saying that. There are more vacant homes than homeless people!

−7

MyStackRunnethOver t1_it7qdoy wrote

Homeless people are not the only ones demanding housing. So are all the people who would like to live in Providence but can’t afford to, the people living in Providence with parents and roommates who would like to but can’t afford to move out, and families who would like to move into a bigger place, but can’t afford to upsize

The rental vacancy rate in RI overall in 2021 was 2.8%. That’s likely lower in Providence itself. A healthy rate is usually ~5%, below which rents tend to rise. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RIRVAC

All of the classes above benefit from cheaper, more available housing. The way to make housing cheaper is to build more of it

7

AbigailFlippinfloppn t1_it7tcpf wrote

Or ban rent seeking, ownership of a non primary residence (second/vacation homes), and corporate ownership of residences🤷‍♂️

Ya know, actually change things?

1

MyStackRunnethOver t1_it8nuzp wrote

I don't disagree that reforming property ownership would make it so that investors (of various sizes) can't take advantage of housing scarcity to earn obscene rents.

However, even doing that still doesn't solve the problem of housing supply-demand mismatch. When housing construction lags population growth for decades there is going to be scarcity no matter what - and that lag in construction is thanks to decades of local, state, and federal support for discriminatory zoning and inefficient property tax policies, fueled by racism and classism.

The landlords are just riding the wave which our governments and zoning boards have prepared for them by attempting to freeze our cities in 1965.

With a sub-5% vacancy rate, if prices fall by half overnight, everyone who currently can't afford a home just won't be able to find a home. The good news is that fixing the supply side lowers prices, takes away those massive rents, and along with them the incentive for rental conversions and speculative purchases.

2

RandomChurn t1_it6sjh1 wrote

This was talked about years ago. No way will it pass.

3

jacobwojo t1_it73y9h wrote

They did a similar thing in Narragansett with URI. Making a “no more then 3 unrelated per house” rule. Although I think it recently turned over in court so it no longer applies.

12

relbatnrut t1_it8jv15 wrote

>In all honesty to make a proposal of this nature is downright negligent and ignoring the real problem at hand which is rent control.

I hope you mean lack of rent control

1