Gentrification

[magoldbe]

and whatever the city subsidy is going to be...

so can we start calling ALCO a public housing project?

[pete11]

I'm sorry that folks are feeling attacked by the things that I've said. I'm trying to base my comments on fact. For example, when I say that SBER is a "monopolizing force" in the community, I say so because I know about many of the buildings they have bought. How do I know this? Because I have spoken to my landlord (who sold his building to SBER, not as part of ALCO, but to be redeveloped in another project later on) and to others who work for Armory, the city, CDCs and neighborhood groups, local buisiness owners, and residents.

Also, I have gone to or spoken with people who have attended numerous planning commission meetings as well as a public meeting held by SBER themselves, just last week. I am not making these things up. Maybe you nay-sayers should come to more planning meetings. they're very interesting, and a great way to get involved with your community. you can find out when the next meeting is here:

http://www.providenceri.com/government/planning/cpc/ (note that the chairman, Steve Durkee, is also a principle in the architecture firm working for ALCO)

If you read my words and think that I'm a total wing-nut, then maybe you should think hard about the actions of Struever Bros. and Armory. If it sounds like I'm spouting paranoid delusions, then that's a reflection of just how out of hand this development is becoming.

Magoldbe, You are absolutely right. I believe that without these historic tax credits, this project will NEVER happen. SBER knows the market is changing, so they hastily put together this flawed proposal (IMHO) to see if they can get the last bits of these HTC. I know both Carcieri and Cicilline, have comments on the record saying maybe we should do away from them. A Downcity developer, has said through a lobbyist that projects are at risk without them. Mike McMahon is now leaving the RIEDC (unrelated). When people on this board think public subsidies are o.k. for private residential projects, they should realize that in 1989 (last time Providence went through a condomania) the median sales price for a condo was $105,000 by 1992 it was $36,000. I think for the next 6-12 months R.I. should scrutinize any publicly subsidized residential project , because if past is prelude, some sort of property tax relief will be needed in the next few years. I find some of the comments on this thread distasteful, and hope maybe some civilized discourse will dissuade that. I really hope all those businesses were not displaced in vain.

[Recchia]

Unfortunately I'm too stupid to weigh in on this conversation for the most part, but I sure am learning a lot. Keep it coming people.

[Lone Ranger]

Right on Eltron. I'm totally with you on this. The pricing scheme you outline looks pretty good. Unfortunately, as far as I know, SBER's current offer of "affordable" housing isnt very affordable. See my previous post to that effect.

To be blunt, almost nothing is affordable at $19,000 a year. SBER isn't an evil company ust because they're not catering to that "tax bracket."

just to reiterate: the development itself is not the problem. The problem is that the developments are physically displacing the economic core of olneyville. by "redeveloping" workplaces into livingspaces, a lot of people are losing their livelihoods right now, and as a resident, it is hard to see this as an "improvement". If those mill buildings were empty and SBER wanted to turn them into condo's, I'd be totally psyched. It is the *displacement* and the use of public funds to do so that troubles me.

And if the economic core of Olneyville has produced a community where the median income is $19,000 a year, maybe that economic core needs a little rethinking. Not that I expect you to agree.

[Cotuit]

As a point of fact. ALCO is not actually in Olneyville, it's in the Valley neighborhood. Valley has a median household income of $25,077 not Olneyville's $17,538 (Olneyville's median family income is $19,046, not being an economist, I must confess I don't know what the difference is). The West End has a median household income of $21,556, less than Valley, and Federal Hill's median household income is $18,774, also less than Valley (although the family income on Federal Hill is higher).

Much of the ALCO property is in Ward 15 though, which also covers most of Olneyville, most of the residential areas of Valley are in Ward 12.

The Valley neighborhood had a 44% drop in the non-hispanic white population between 1990 and 2000, only Olneyville and Lower South Providence saw larger declines in non-hispanic white populations. If one were to assume that many (most?) of the new residents of ALCO will be white, the project would actually serve to re-integrate the neighborhood. Citywide, white flight resulted in a 23.4% decline in the non-hispanic white population.

All are 2000 census figures compiled by ProvPlan

I understand there are companies that are being impacted negatively by this project. I've also heard that SBE&R and the city will be working to help relocate the affected businesses. I know for a fact that the city is very conscious of the possiblity that poeple might take their business out of the city, and I know the city does not want that to happen. I have not heard specifics about what programs are to be offered however. Again, I ecourage affected business owners to take action and contact the city. Calling SBE&R or Armory racist in planning meetings is not going to help your business. And flaming the flames of an us vs. them attitude will do nothing to allow the parties, individuals, developers, and the city to work together.

I wonder how many of the people in Olneyville who earn $19k a year are employed by companies on the ALCO property. How many people total are currently employed on the ALCO property, and how many permanent jobs are projected to be created by the ALCO project. More importantly, how much income is generated for neighborhood residents currently and what would the income generation be projected to be. There's the arguement that many jobs created may be low paying, but I'm not sure how much lower it gets than $19k. There will also be a number of well paying construction jobs generated during the years this project takes to build.

On the topic of public subsidies, I'd like it someone could break this mythical $100million down. What is it? Now first, if SBE&R can get $100million do you think they're not going to go for it? Duh! as far as I can tell, part of it is the state's historic tax credit. Unless we repeal the historic tax credit, they're getting that. Part of it is city funds to go towards rebuilding the riverwalk, including one or more bridges I believe. This seems important to finish the area, and is something that needs to be done regardless of who develops the area or if it is developed at all. Another part is to help subsidize parking garages on the ALCO site. From what I understand that's the part that is far from a slam dunk for ALCO. The city thinks they should be able to park cars on the surface (as odious as surface parking is) while other parts are being completed. Selling/renting the completed sections before the next section develops allows SBE&R to self-fund the garages. This $100million is far from finalized, it's what SBE&R is trying to get, if I thought I could get $100million I'd sure aim for it. It remains to be seen what they end up getting. Very little of it will be in the form of a check payable to SBE&R signed by the RI taxpayers. If you want to call it public housing, also call it public retail, and public office. Which by the way are going to lead to more jobs and more tax revenue for the city and state in the long term. Has no one ever spent money to make money before?

[damus]

If you want to call it public housing, also call it public retail, and public office. Which by the way are going to lead to more jobs and more tax revenue for the city and state in the long term. Has no one ever spent money to make money before?

Yeap... the same can be said for improvements in infrastructure. The Metro in DC is a great example of dense neighborhoods popping up around metro stations, though I did stay at a hotel not too far from the New Carrolton stop and it was pretty much all sprawl there. Though they are not encouraged by UP members, highways also benefit the areas they're built on, economically.

[alobswitt]

"And by the way, calling SBER racist is unproductive and not really true, or at least not provable. The woman in the video was from Armory, hired by SBER to run the residential leasing. Calling Armory racist wouldn't help either. Let's keep our heads together and try to be productive about all this."

Of course it is not provable. Yes, my email may have been inflammatory, but so were this woman's statements.

Whether she represents the voice of Armory or SBER is not the point. These problems are more systemic than SBER and Armory activities. That said, we all know who will end up living at these new digs and who will get pushed out because of said activities. There really is not much debate on this point. But there sure is a pattern.

The debate about trash and graffiti seems pretty irrelevant. If I spent all my time picking up trash and cleaning up graffiti that I see in EVERY SINGLE part of this city, no matter economic background, then I wouldnt have time to throw spurs at your lovely little picnic.

It sure does help the trash and graffiti of downtown to have the BID at it 24 hours of the day and night. How many programs like that exist around the city? I would be interested to know.

I dont think my statements are uninformed, they just dont jive.

A developer whose head foreman has "Its just a fudgeing mill" placard at his desk is not someone I want in my city. Period.

[CtownMikey]

I liked the video. Bring in the positive minded people who will bring new life and money... where is the argument really?

[eltron]

On the topic of public subsidies, I'd like it someone could break this mythical $100million down. What is it? Now first, if SBE&R can get $100million do you think they're not going to go for it? Duh! as far as I can tell, part of it is the state's historic tax credit. Unless we repeal the historic tax credit, they're getting that. Part of it is city funds to go towards rebuilding the riverwalk, including one or more bridges I believe. This seems important to finish the area, and is something that needs to be done regardless of who develops the area or if it is developed at all. Another part is to help subsidize parking garages on the ALCO site. From what I understand that's the part that is far from a slam dunk for ALCO. The city thinks they should be able to park cars on the surface (as odious as surface parking is) while other parts are being completed. Selling/renting the completed sections before the next section develops allows SBE&R to self-fund the garages. This $100million is far from finalized, it's what SBE&R is trying to get, if I thought I could get $100million I'd sure aim for it. It remains to be seen what they end up getting. Very little of it will be in the form of a check payable to SBE&R signed by the RI taxpayers. If you want to call it public housing, also call it public retail, and public office. Which by the way are going to lead to more jobs and more tax revenue for the city and state in the long term. Has no one ever spent money to make money before?

The $100 million is solely the historic tax credit. The project has been announced as $300 million, and the credit is a 30% credit. The calculation gets way more involved than that, but I think it is safe to say assume that this is the bulk of the subsidy in the project. Add in the proposed TIF, and other potential tax breaks, and you are talking some serious public money going into one project.

Now, I am actually an advocate for the project, and I think overall it is going to be a good thing for the city, but I think it is seriously important to get a fair return on the public investment in a project like this, and affordable housing units, ONSITE, are part of this. It is sorely needed, and it would alleviate much of this gentrifying pressure that projects like this put on their host neighborhoods.

A unit of housing at ALCO probably costs about $200k to produce. Tax credits alone bring that down to say $140k per unit. If SBER contributed just $10k per unit of that to an affordable housing trust fund, it would almost equal the ENTIRE amount paid out by the state of Rhode Island last year to help build affordable housing ($6 million to $7.5 million - by comparison, MA spent $75 million, with only 4 times the population). That is some SERIOUS positive impact this project COULD have, rather than the negative that is going around right now. People at the city, state, and corporate level just need to put their heads together and get this worked out now, rather than later when this very big opportunity is long gone...

[Cotuit]

The $100 million is solely the historic tax credit. The project has been announced as $300 million, and the credit is a 30% credit. The calculation gets way more involved than that, but I think it is safe to say assume that this is the bulk of the subsidy in the project. Add in the proposed TIF, and other potential tax breaks, and you are talking some serious public money going into one project.

Thank you. There are a lot of opinions in this discussion and a lot of accusations, but not enough facts. I have no problems with opinions, though they should be derived based on the facts, but I'm not too comfortable with some of the accusations flying about. If we could nail down some more of the facts, I feel we will have the foundation for a much more productive discussion.

Now, I am actually an advocate for the project... but I think it is seriously important to get a fair return on the public investment...

I'm on face value in favor of it too. There are still a lot of questions that need answered and a lot of issues that need to be addressed. I can see with the few facts I have, that we will have a return on the public investment, but I do want to ensure that we maximize those returns, as much as SBE&R wants to maximize their returns.

A unit of housing at ALCO probably costs about $200k to produce...

Again, admitting to not being an economist, I don't know how the numbers all fit together. What I do know is that Providence and Rhode Island as a whole can and should be doing a lot more to maximize the investment in affordable housing. I think we've reached the point where we can start being much more demanding of developers than we've been even in just the last 12 months.

[AriPVD]

I am cautiously entering this fray, but with only three comments:

Providence and all cities in the metro should examine affordable housing together. A collaborative effort is the only way we can get anywhere. Cranston, Central Falls, Pawtucket, etc. are all intimately linked to the Providence economy. We'd be foolish to ignore the realities of the metropolitan unit. If Providence has a genuine housing crisis (I believe it does), we need to understand how housing in abutting communities contributes to the overall need.

My second PERSONAL opinion: affordable housing provisions should not be a tax on a developer; if the government is to supply affordable housing it should be a tax on each and every tax payer. The way we talk about affordable housing makes it sound like an energy windfall tax. What makes you think real estate developers are any more profitable than Citizens Bank or GTech or CVS? Why not tax them as well? I am not advocating this, but I think it's a valid point. It makes little sense to only tax the person (developer) who adds to the housing supply. Also don't forget, it's not simply luxury housing and affordable housing. It is a wide spectrum of housing, the price of which is largely impacted by how much we can build overall.

And finally, what do the critics of SBE&R's project suggest we do with the land? Should it stay as is? Why don't the critics become developers? Unless we overthrow the capitalist system, I think that's the best means to an end...Invest the windfall profits in affordable housing if you want, it's your money!

Attack away!

[Garris]

My second PERSONAL opinion: affordable housing provisions should not be a tax on a developer; if the government is to supply affordable housing it should be a tax on each and every tax payer.

Absolutely. I've always felt it to be very uncapitalist to basically mandate that developers do this alone. If we as as a community feel it is in our collective best interests to support affordable housing, we should all share the burden, just as we do for other public initiatives.

How thrilled would anyone be to essentially give up 10% of their revenue? Would lawyers say, "Great idea!" if we legislated that 10% of their revenues and income next year go towards public defenders? What if 10% of all physician revenue next year were legislated to go towards treating the uninsured? What if 10% of all firefighter incomes were legislated to go towards prevention of devastating brush fires? These are all ideals worthy of public support, but no one group should shoulder that burden alone. Similarly, why should developers alone give 10% of revenue towards affordable housing?

And finally, what do the critics of SBE&R's project suggest we do with the land? Should it stay as is? Why don't the critics become developers?

You just encapsulated my biggest complaint about the so-called "neighborhood associations." They are wonderful at opposing things, but rarely put forward visions for their communities that are anything more than vague platitudes. There are exceptions, of course, but this is too often regrettably the case. While they can serve a tremendous purpose when used well, we should all remember that these are unelected special interest groups that should have no more power or say than any other interest group, UP included...

Unless we overthrow the capitalist system, I think that's the best means to an end...Invest the windfall profits in affordable housing if you want, it's your money!

Again, I always smell a bit of class envy as part of people's complaints. With Armory wanting to develop the K. Gibbs property here in Wayland Square, I heard a lot of opposition here in the neighborhood to the tune of, "Well, I think Armory makes enough money already. Why should they make it in our backyards?"

Well, last I checked, they have the right to try to make money and as long as they're putting together a quality development that could contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood (which I thought they could), what business is it our ours how much they make? If all the people complaining hate the idea of them swooping in and making all that cash, then they (some of significant means) should get together and put together an investor group to do it themselves.

Like others have pointed out, I believe this kind of work is best accomplished by a single developer. And if anyone can point out a group that they would rather have do this than SBE&R, I'm all ears...

- Garris

[runawayjim]

And finally, what do the critics of SBE&R's project suggest we do with the land? Should it stay as is? Why don't the critics become developers? Unless we overthrow the capitalist system, I think that's the best means to an end...Invest the windfall profits in affordable housing if you want, it's your money!

Attack away!

well said.

now onto my whole opinion on the various matters of gentrification...

$19k isn't much to live on. you can barely afford to live on your own with that. if the family or household income is still until $30k, most apartments are unaffordable unless you live in a project or a dump or have no other expenses.

i liked what damus said about all these families with lots of kids and little money. why have kids (or unprotected sex for that matter) if you can't afford them (or the possible outcome of unprotected sex)? the taxpayers bear the burden it creates. some people do work hard to afford it all, but many others don't and live off the system. many more complain that providence is being gentrified and they can no longer afford to live here. the fact of the matter is that providence is being cleaned up. it's looking nice. it's good for the city and the state. while there is a necessity for affordable housing, that affordable housing should not be defined by the extremely low median incomes of these various neighborhoods when a lot of these people aren't working all they can be. there are plenty of jobs to be found. they might be below some, but most pay at least $10 an hour, which at full time does equate to $20k. another job (like on the weekends and nights) can bring in another $5k. most of this work doesn't take much skill or much effort (grocery stores, security jobs, unskilled labor).

the other complaint we're hearing is from the renters. people who should not be complaining because the risk they took by renting blew up. renting is a risk, especially for a business. like ari said, if you really wanted the building, you should've bought it or become a developer yourself.

and back to the discussion about trash... if you live in a neighborhood and the neighborhood wants to get the city to know they what they want, you need to prove that you really truly care about the neighborhood. allowing trash to blow around in teh streets and parks just proves that you don't care. sure, it might be someone else's trash (i picked up a beer bottle out of a yard near my house today), but if you clean it, it shows that you care. i said before... an hour (or even less) per week by each resident of the neighborhood will make a HUGE difference.

something else to think about... there is a lot of residential development going on right now. there's always the very good possibility that it won't take off like the developers had hoped, bringing the prices and rents down again in these very nice apartments and condos. they might not be affordable to the guy making $19k, but to the guy making $30-40k, it could be very affordable.

and finally, no one wants to listen to a zealot, at least not one who doesn't make any sort of level-headed rational arguments, but rather makes arguments based on anger and frustration without considering the other side of the story.

[runawayjim]

i wanted to add one more comment... someone mentioned rent controls... from an economical standpoint, they are a horrible idea. they don't give the landlords any reason to care for their properties, but they also allow for ridiculous rent increases after someone moves out (which will happen less often because they'll prefer to stay in their low rent controlled apartment which is set below what the market will handle). it creates a housing shortage as well.

[alobswitt]

What a great discussion. Somehow I missed a lot of the conversation, maybe a glitch when creating a whole new thread for this topic. I apologize if my comments seemed off base, but I think I missed some of the meat of the thread. I was generally disturbed that everyone was welcoming this development with open arms. And it showed. For that I apologize.

If we as as a community feel it is in our collective best interests to support affordable housing, we should all share the burden, just as we do for other public initiatives.

How thrilled would anyone be to essentially give up 10% of their revenue? Similarly, why should developers alone give 10% of revenue towards affordable housing?

Good point. What's the solution? Who else, if not them?

You just encapsulated my biggest complaint about the so-called "neighborhood associations." They are wonderful at opposing things, but rarely put forward visions for their communities that are anything more than vague platitudes. There are exceptions, of course, but this is too often regrettably the case.

Once again, good point. I think what happens many times, not unlike what seems to be happening to the City of Providence, the groups get caught with their pants down. It seems to me that they are, by nature, reactionary. While the speculators and engineers work away at the next project, the public advocates are still working to wrap up the last debate. Once again, I agree, maybe this is their own fault but I truely dont believe that it is an indication of not working hard enough.

As some have indicated in this thread, I believe it is absolutely false that people are looking for handouts or freebies. In fact there are a large number of young people in this city trying to figure it all out. But the way things are, even if you put a room full of building and fire code scholars together, they probably could agree on very little, especially in Providence, where the fabled "live-work' condo reigns. Trust me on this one, the fire department is as confused as the building department as the planning department.

Providence is undergoing a huge transformation and none of the respective "officials" have any plan that fits the reality of the situation. These statements are not grand platitudes, I have sat through many of these meetings and watched both sides of the table stare at each other dumbfounded over section 14.1 and how it cross references, whatever. You get the point.

None of this is easy. There are no quick solutions. Who has the master plan that will solve all the woes of gentrification and large scale development? None of us. But it does seem that the debate has heated up and I do believe that people on all sides are learning a lot from each other. How will they all come together?

Again, I always smell a bit of class envy as part of people's complaints.

Hah! That's hilarious!!

I think some of the numbers being thrown around would make sense, as far as mixed housing levels, but who is going to keep SBER to their word even if the city gets a commitment? As was pointed out at the hearing last thurs, the developers do not always keep their promises and the city doesnt always enforce them.

I think the hard numbers are important, but more importantly, where along in this process does the public gets its voice heard. Is there any formal process to have a point by point debate/concession/compromise session? Even if there is, it is the developers job to develop. Many of the public advocates have other jobs, what would keep them informed and able to create positive proposals that grow from their complaints, without gaining a full time salary. That brings me to my next point.

what do the critics of SBE&R's project suggest we do with the land? Should it stay as is? Why don't the critics become developers? Unless we overthrow the capitalist system, I think that's the best means to an end...Invest the windfall profits in affordable housing if you want, it's your money!

Do I sense a hint of sarcasm? As you may well know, development, real estate management, and the like take an extraordinary amount of time/money. As someone pointed out, the value of time these days is growing. Efficiency is the name of the game, not necessarily innovation or out of the box thinking. I would imagine this is one of SBER's platitudes: efficiency. Get the loans paid off quick!

This being the case, there is not much room for the public debate over these matters. In fact, SBER probably hates coming up against this kind of opposition. It means more meetings, and more opposition, which means more money.

Windfall profits? Yea right, you wish.

I dont pretend to have the solution nor a better proposal. Cities are messy, and as far as I am concerned the more people expressing their opinions the better. I have learned quite a bit from this discussion. A lot more balanced than some of my scumbag artist friends. Thanks.

[KRC]

Attack away!

Attack what? You bring up some great points I think everyone should consider. Affordable housing is an issue, but how much a government entity should help on that topic and what obligations a developer should have regarding meeting those goals are tricky questions that need to be balanced fairly. Sure SBER is getting $100 million in tax incentives to develop the property, but they are also cobbling together over $200 million of their own to finish the project. Their really does need to be a balance here somewhere. There will always be winners and losers in these types of developments, but you have to look at what the overall impact in the community and city at large will be to judge it fairly. I think this project brings an overall positive impact for the city and Olneyville. Olneyville needs to insure it gets the best deal possible from it. It is their neighborhood afterall.

[basachs]

And finally, what do the critics of SBE&R's project suggest we do with the land? Should it stay as is?

Attack away!

This is exactly what I said three pages back or so. I am not sure what people in the neighborhood want for ALCO. I am assuming that the wish is for it to be renovated, and the business' invited back to go into their newly renovated space with minimal rent increases? I dont think that is a feasible idea, but since nothing with regards to relocation of these business' is set in stone, there are possiblities still correct? Or am I off base here?

To get back to the issue of Rising Sun, Magoldbe posted a lot about the economic core. I would think the economic core of Rising Sun actually got stronger with the new incarnation. Abaqus, ICON Cafe and Kite Architecture alone makes this a stronger core, and there is still office space to be leased. Same with Eagle Sq. These two projects strengthened the economic core from what it was. The cultural core? Thats a different story and I think a lot of that resentment is clouding the current debate.

[Cotuit]

Somehow I missed a lot of the conversation, maybe a glitch when creating a whole new thread for this topic.

There were two seperate, related discussions taking place in two different threads. I split them off and combined them into this one. If you were in one you missed the other, part of the reason I split it off.

[Garris]

Great post alobswitt...

[Regarding paying for affordable housing]

Good point. What's the solution? Who else, if not them?

Well, as Ari pointed out, the solution is probably for all of us to pay for it collectively.

Making the developers pay seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot. Again, as a correlate, do we make the Dunk pay 10% of their new development costs towards renovating sports fields around the city? Do we make Women and Infant's Hospital pay 10% of their new building costs towards efforts to prevent teen pregnancy? Do we make G-Tech pay 10% of their building's costs towards gambling rehab for addicts?

There are instances where I believe people with something "at stake" should pay focally increased taxes (for example, parents of kids in the schools should probably be taxed for a budget for school items above and beyond the delivery of basic education services... For new sports uniforms, after school programs and the like). But I don't think the very people driving our development should be doing it...

[About neighborhood associations]

It seems to me that they are, by nature, reactionary... Once again, I agree, maybe this is their own fault but I truely dont believe that it is an indication of not working hard enough.

Good point about them being reactionary. There's no laziness, especially for people volunteering their time. They work quite hard indeed. I think these groups really, collectively, have no idea what they really want. There are usually 4-6 people who run these groups, and each one of them, to say nothing else about the extended membership, often have completely different views on where to go, even if they can all agree that they don't like change, which itself is usually the glue that sticks these groups together.

It's these reactionary, anti-change aspects of such groups that I believe make them poorly situationed to have any role in the current phase of Providence development, which is progressive future planning...

...who is going to keep SBER to their word even if the city gets a commitment? As was pointed out at the hearing last thurs, the developers do not always keep their promises and the city doesnt always enforce them.

...where along in this process does the public gets its voice heard. Is there any formal process to have a point by point debate/concession/compromise session?

On the first point, that's all the city's job, and we have to hold our elected officials accountable on this.

On the second point, there are many opportunities for the public to make its voice heard to our elected officials in our republic. But, in the end, it's not a direct democracy, the neighborhood groups have no formal role, and as long as developers are staying within the rules our elected officials have set out for them, they have a right to develop.

- Garris

[Cotuit]

On the second point, there are many opportunities for the public to make its voice heard to our elected officials in our republic.

I would say in this state access to government and government officials is beyond compare. People don't realize how responsive politicians can be. Get 5 people together and you're pretty much guaranteed your city councilor or state rep or senator will sit down with you and listen to you.

I think there are two constituents that have a strong case to make to civic leaders, and I say starting with your city councilor is the best place. The people whose businesses are being displaced. They should get their city councilor on their side and use them as an advocate to make sure that any programs that are developed to help relocate them, work well and give the most benefit. The other group is affordable housing advocates. I do agree that affordable housing shouldn't be simply a direct tax on developers, but I don't have a problem with it being part of the give and take trade-offs that the city and developers make to get what they each want. I think ALCO makes a good launch pad for a wider discussion about affordable housing in the city and state, if only the people advocating for affordable housing can be even tempered and non-reactionary. If they can't, they won't be listened to.

Now the people who are being wing-nuttie with cries of cultural genocide, and spouting reverese racism and reverse classism making proclamations that people of a certain shade of white and certain tax bracket don't make a community... Those people should go home, they aren't helping anything, and they are hurting the people who have legitimate reasons to be concerned about this project. And Cathleen Crowley from the Journal should just go work for FAUXNews and let someone who can actually report on all sides of a story write for the Journal. Enough with the sensationalism already.

[Dan]

I do agree that affordable housing shouldn't be simply a direct tax on developers, but I don't have a problem with it being part of the give and take trade-offs that the city and developers make to get what they each want.

$19,000 a year to work with and now a higher tax bill to support affordable housing?! I just can't bear any more tax increases from this city. If I was ready for that I would have bought a house in West Warwick, where you need a 4X4 to drive down the street without the wheels falling off. I think SBER can shoulder most of the burden in exchange for the $100,000,000 we, the state and city are handing them in exchange for the cleanup of this industrial complex which has incredible potential. Hey, read my lips...

Now the people who are being wing-nuttie with cries of cultural genocide, and spouting reverese racism and reverse classism making proclamations that people of a certain shade of white and certain tax bracket don't make a community...

I decided to delete every idea I came up with for my response in the interest of political correctness.

But, I am Scottish-Irish and I moved from Warwick (look up the racial profile of that city) and invested in property here and I believe, though poor, I've still made a significant contribution to this neighborhood (Lower Mount Pleasant, Olneyville, Valley - all very similar socioeconomic areas). Others shouldn't be discouraged from doing the same, no matter whether they make 20k or 200k.

[eltron]

I think ALCO makes a good launch pad for a wider discussion about affordable housing in the city and state, if only the people advocating for affordable housing can be even tempered and non-reactionary. If they can't, they won't be listened to.

Am I even-tempered and non-reactionary?

Hope so.

Good post, Cotuit.

[Cotuit]

Am I even-tempered and non-reactionary?

Usually.

You can generally be counted on to bring facts to a discussion to go along with your opinions. Something which is much appreciated.

[HartfordTycoon]

I do agree that affordable housing shouldn't be simply a direct tax on developers, but I don't have a problem with it being part of the give and take trade-offs that the city and developers make to get what they each want.

$19,000 a year to work with and now a higher tax bill to support affordable housing?! I just can't bear any more tax increases from this city. If I was ready for that I would have bought a house in West Warwick, where you need a 4X4 to drive down the street without the wheels falling off. I think SBER can shoulder most of the burden in exchange for the $100,000,000 we, the state and city are handing them in exchange for the cleanup of this industrial complex which has incredible potential. Hey, read my lips...

Now the people who are being wing-nuttie with cries of cultural genocide, and spouting reverese racism and reverse classism making proclamations that people of a certain shade of white and certain tax bracket don't make a community...

I decided to delete every idea I came up with for my response in the interest of political correctness.

But, I am Scottish-Irish and I moved from Warwick (look up the racial profile of that city) and invested in property here and I believe, though poor, I've still made a significant contribution to this neighborhood (Lower Mount Pleasant, Olneyville, Valley - all very similar socioeconomic areas). Others shouldn't be discouraged from doing the same, no matter whether they make 20k or 200k.

I don't think it's really the race issue that concerns people. If every new white face to move to PVD was in your boat, nobody would bat an eye. They are concerned about being priced out of their home by the wealthy which is a real phenomenon going on all over America in cities being revitalized. I think both sides of this debate need to stop villifying the other and somehow work to make something work. On the other hand, if someone wanted to by the house next door to me, but not until I moved out because they think they are too good to live next to me, I would be kind of insulted.

[Cotuit]

I don't think it's really the race issue that concerns people.

The race issue that concerns me is that we seem to have a lot of white people at odds with each other over what is best for a neighborhood that is majority minority (as the enitre city is if I'm not mistaken). A lot of white people crying foul over the possibility of a change of demographics in an area. Has anyone attempted to give a voice to the non-white, immigrant, and low-income people they claim to represent?

There I said it.