Recent comments in /f/providence

mostly_moths OP t1_isbqlbf wrote

Reply to comment by canibringmydog in Ginger le Geis / Rose Seigel / "Providence Luxury Rentals" fraud? by mostly_moths

Yeah I just looked it up and you're right, pet rent is legal (I don't know why the broker told me that? All of this is so crazy).

I think I will try to consult a lawyer, and possibly take it to small claims court--I looked over the contract again and I don't think she was in a position to cash that check, even within the stipulations of her own shady contract. Thanks to you (and everyone else) for the encouragement!

10

Proof-Variation7005 t1_isbnsdc wrote

Reply to comment by relbatnrut in A five-story, 41-unit apartment building will be coming to Providence's West End by cowperthwaite

The problem with relying on something like gaining steam in progressive platforms is that it misses the part where progressives are a pretty goddamn small percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't call their share insignificant, but I'd definitely use the phrase "extremely outnumbered"

1

relbatnrut t1_isbjtdz wrote

Reply to comment by Proof-Variation7005 in A five-story, 41-unit apartment building will be coming to Providence's West End by cowperthwaite

The idea of preemptively rejecting the best solution is unappealing to me. Many of the most beneficial things our government has done were called crazy and unrealistic before they were implemented. Public libraries, the FLSA, Social Security, Medicare...

Expanding public housing wasn't even a subject of conversation 20 years ago. Now it's a common plank in progressive platforms. I wouldn't be so quick to give up.

1

dionidium t1_isbd1m7 wrote

Reply to comment by close102 in Providence announces new program to acquire vacant land to build affordable housing by rhodyjourno

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!

4