Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqe0rg wrote

Reply to comment by relbatnrut in Fane Tower project in Providence is dead by Ph886

Without dramatically increasing the amount of housing as fast as we can, there's no such thing as affordable housing.

16

relbatnrut t1_jbqh6bc wrote

Housing is affordable if the rent is low, hope that helps

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqk0kl wrote

The rent won't be low when there are more people competing for housing than there is available housing. Demand exceeds supply by a wide margin now and it's only getting worse.

There is no solution that isn't built on adding as many units as possible. We're beggars, not choosers.

14

ec_2000 t1_jbqlbkk wrote

This is true. Unfortunately, the whole process was a mixture of proposal and draft. I think there’s space for community input but we need to get rid of all the barriers for development and investment in the area. At the very least they should try to attract new out of state business to the area with incentives. RI’s economic indicators are so bad😭.

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jbqmze1 wrote

It's worth noting that the Fane project went through years of review and changes because of community input. Hell, it was originally going to be 3 buildings. I think the last design change was in the last year.

3

FunLife64 t1_jbswzxc wrote

What people fail to see in this topic is that RI doesn’t have good jobs. You can only make barebones construction so cheap. So maybe if people in this state had better job opportunities they’d also make more money!

3

total_life_forever t1_jbtrzwz wrote

The unavoidable problem is that any large business is going to want tax breaks and other perks that really make their coming here not a big coup for state and local governments. The hypermobility of capital has created a race to the bottom in this regard - the only way to compete with other locales for "job creation" is to give up damn near every benefit in favor of wooing the corporation. At that point you're pinning all your hopes on trickle down economics (good jobs will be created, and they'll have higher wages!) but even that is misleading because corporations routinely depress wages and conduct mass layoffs. RI doesn't have good jobs, and barring a wave of change addressing the inherent flaws in capitalism, it's mostly going to stay that way.

1

FunLife64 t1_jbtwvz5 wrote

Giving tax breaks to companies is a standard practice to attract businesses - every single state does this.

There are certainly better “deals” than others.

But again - stomping feet and doing nothing to maintain perfect ideals is leaving Rhode Island behind.

It goes with this project too. We need housing!!! But actually it’s too tall and I don’t love the design and it will block me from taking pictures of the Superman Building. So I’ll complain anywhere I can to try to sabotage the project.

It’s just not a helpful mentality. Same with the example I mentioned above - people were against bringing a sub-10 story building company HQ to an undeveloped plot of land….cause of traffic concerns.

There’s a loud subset of population here that is literally against any development that’s not exactly what THEY want.

2

relbatnrut t1_jbqoemv wrote

Developers develop when it's profitable. It's profitable right now to develop luxury housing because owners can be sure that they will make a shitload of money in rent. It's not as profitable to develop affordable housing, since the rent recouped is far lower.

Yes, we should build. And one of the arguments for building is that rich people will stop occupying otherwise affordable housing and move into luxury developments. But there are only so many rich people, and at a certain point, building luxury housing will no longer be profitable and the filtering effect will diminish. Without that incentive, developers will have to accept a far lower profit and build housing for normal people, and it's not clear that they will do so.

That's why we need a public developer unmoored from the profit motive. It's also why we should fight to make sure larger allocations of affordable housing are included in luxury developments, because that's a unit you know will be affordable, as opposed to a theoretical unit that might open up because a rich person moves into a luxury development.

3