Recent comments in /f/providence

cowperthwaite t1_jaowi1p wrote

Last session, East Providence asked the state to unlink speed cameras from school zones.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22069606-jan21_20cc-1-1#document/p7

By my last count, East Providence only has five speed camera locations.

>East Providence speed camera locations

>3070 Pawtucket Ave. at St. Mary Academy Bay View

>2680 Pawtucket Ave. at Kent Heights School

>179 Forbes St. at Riverside Middle School

>42 Bishop Ave. at St. Margaret School

>2000 Pawtucket Ave. at East Providence High School

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/2022/06/29/ri-cities-turn-off-speed-cameras-summer-school-out/7723028001/

5

SilverFocus7893 t1_jaotkal wrote

35 mph at 3:57 pm…. With no school in sight….no real Tickets in 20 years…You clearly are an absolute savage with no regard for the safety of others...

It’s a money grab… They take a concept that at face value makes sense… don’t speed in a school zone…and then bend the crap out of it to make more $.

10

Brodyftw00 t1_jaosf1r wrote

Typically, if laws are placed against landlords, there will be fewer people renting their house and fewer rentals available. Less rentals available means increased rent prices. There is a reason rent control has failed in most places that have implemented them.

Yes, many of these items mentioned on the post are one-sided. There are many landlords who rent out the other side of their house to help cover the cost. There is no protection against rising costs on the landlords side. Increased cost of repairs, utilities, and taxes happen all the time. Landlords should be held to a standard to provide habitable residents, which the law currently requires.

Also, under the sinario you mentioned, it doesn't make sense that the landlord couldn't increase the rent. If the market rate increases, why can't the landlord charge a market price, like every other service like grocery stores? If the price declines, should we hold tenants to a higher rent? No! Rents also change during different times of the year. Typically, apartments rent for more in the spring/summer than the winter. Locking a landlord into 1 price is not logical.

I'm saying the laws should be reciprocal, so if the tenant needs to provide a 30-day notice to leave, the landlord should provide a 30-day notice. This is how the law is currently set up. Kinda like labor laws.

−5

NinjaSant4 t1_jaoqi1b wrote

Leases aren't used in many rental cases. If a property has a price increase in January and someone moves out in June you can't then increase the rent again for the next tenant until the following January.

One sided? You mean giving tenants protections against landlords deciding to raise rent within 30 days and if you don't agree you need to be out by then?

It'll pass and the fact that you are shilling for landlords says a lot about you.

3

Brodyftw00 t1_jaopwdp wrote

The 120-day notice seems very odd. It should be reciprocal, and tenants also need to give 120 days' notice before vacating. This seems very one-sided, and I can't image it passing. I also don't really understand that the rent increase can only be once a year. If the tenant is on a lease, the landlord can't raise their rent.

−2

LearnByDoing t1_jaokx6u wrote

Those speed cameras are enough to make me reconsider what business I visit in EP. And I would damm sure never live anywhere near one. EP muni government should be ashamed of themselves for a disgusting money grab.

27

easedownripley t1_jaoi2oq wrote

Likely hedging their bets. GM was fighting against fossil fuel and pollution legislation when they were producing their first electric cars in the 90s. If the regulations went through, they'd be ready. As soon as their lobbying killed the legislation, they had all the electric cars crushed.

2