A job is required first, for most people, to provide some stability, after which they can start pursuing education or training part-time. Doesn't sound like the OP is in the full-time undergrad group

Your understanding of basic economic principles is laughably bad, but actually not so funny because I share the same city with you

The unique position was having moved from CT recently so I could directly compare utility rates and CoL. Good reading comprehension skills bud. If you think pvd is dangerous, you are clearly inexperienced in the world. Go for a stroll in Hartford or Newark and tell me with a straight face afterwards that Providence is bad

Right, because the rents they were paying elsewhere are magically going to go down because they found somewhere else to live /s

Lol wut?

I don’t think we value the same kind of change. I want progressive development to create solvency that enables the city to focus on humanitarian efforts. You can’t start at the bottom and work upwards, that’s not how the world works.

Unfortunately, those with the least to contribute at least in terms of job creation and revenue are the last to reap the benefits. It’s capitalism at work. I’m of the mindset you promote and develop a sound economic policy and you invest in entitlement with the reward of successful policy. There’s plenty of sections of the city and of Pawtucket and surrounding areas that would be perfect areas for affordable housing. Waterfront property minutes to downtown of the State Capital should literally never even be considered for such a project.

. . . . . .

But... what was the message though?

So you can't profit off of mid-level housing with storefronts? Look at what they did right across the river with trader Joe's and housing. You don't need a skyscraper to generate money.

Well I agree the seaport needed some revitalization, all they did was put up luxury housing and a bunch of glass buildings. Let's raise the price of almost everything in the area, it's a neighborhood for the affluent and Rich and a place for us people who don't have a lot of money to go spend what we have. There are other ways to boost the economy, to add affordable housing, to even make an area look nice. And so many ways the Boston seaport has had negative impacts on the city, what if they made a bunch of mid-level housing over there like in Europe? Banned cars on the road over there? It'd be a beautiful walkable place and you'd be able to create community. The seaport sucks and I'd hate to see that happen to Providence

Developers need profit incentives. Housing doesn’t just happen, no matter how hard people wish.

And I love how you think you're "in a unique position to set some things straight."

2 months living in Providence.

>You get downvoted because you come off as a basement dwelling fear monger. You post exclusively about crime in a relatively low population subreddit, which makes pvd look dangerous. It is not.

https://www.reddit.com/r/providence/comments/11el39z/moving_to_providence/jahb303/?context=3

You've been here for all of 2 months, and you think it's safe to walk alone at night in Mt Hope.

It's naive people like you that we end up reading about in the news.

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.

Bullshit. They could build mid level housing if they actually want more housing and make it affordable instead of putting a skyscraper with a few reasonably priced units.

I’m all for vetting dog owners, I’ll toss you an upvote for that alone. I also agree, all dogs can bite but some do more damage than others. My 90lb classic American bully COULD do more damage than say a chihuahua, but that chihuahua is 5xs more likely to bite. Now you think those chihuahua bites are reported? Or when the neighbors golden retriever gets too excited and nips the neighbors kid. You can’t demonize a whole breed because of the capability. I can promise you with over 10 years of owning and breeding they lack the desire.

So you don't think change is achievable in the political progress? You don't believe in democracy? Because the solution is sitting right there.

Your self-defeating (and kinda smug) attitude is a major obstacle in attaining this.

I don’t live in the world of make believe and utopia. In a perfect world a lot of things happen. In reality affordable housing doesn’t draw anything that historically leads to economic growth and prosperity.

If I want hypotheticals I’ll take a philosophy class. Business deals in what is it. Reality is reality regardless of what something should be. Affordable housing units can be a part of a broader initiative. The city is guilty of lacking forward planning.

Yeah the people talking as if Fane Tower was going to house offices for GE or something make me laugh.

Your take is missing the corresponding, accompanying fact that, countrywide, corporations and billionaires should be properly taxed to address precisely this kind of situation.

It's really a glaring thing to omit. We know what the solution should be, it's just unpopular amongst political donors.

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.

You get downvoted because you come off as a basement dwelling fear monger. You post exclusively about crime in a relatively low population subreddit, which makes pvd look dangerous. It is not.

Sorry, I didn't really describe the situation in great detail. That rottie was thrashing around on the ground with the puppy, snapping at it everywhere, snapping at the mom and kid when they tried to intervene. The image that stuck out in my head when I wrote this was the rottie chomping on the puppy's tail and the puppy jumped in the air with the whites of it's eyes showing, screaming. Never heard a dog scream before.

When the little kid was punching the rottie to try and get it off the pup the rottie like, ass-slammed the kid and he fell backwards. The dogs were running circles around both people and the kid was definitely in the middle of it, can't tell if kid got but or not but that rottie didn't give a hoot who was in its path and that's terrifying.

A kid, probably only 4-5 years old being smack in the middle of a dog attack counts as almost being killed in my opinion. The rottie was bigger than the child and definitely mowed the kid over a few times.

I will happily look at statistics of other breeds and still find that rotties and pitties literally have a disproportionate amount of fatal bites, more than all other breeds combined.

Sure, any dog can bite. But not every dog does it at the same rate. People love to argue it's how they're raised, but I just feel like if that's the case, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to raise those dogs. Maybe those breeds should be banned or require a special license to own, like you must attend dog training classes and dog passes a temperament test or something.

Besides the argument of nature vs. nurture is easily swayed towards nature when you see how a breed with no training will still perform its bred traits. A point dog will point without learning, an Australian Shepard will try and herd its owners without prompt. Breeds are known to be high energy, low energy, have specific behaviors you must train out of them. Not every dog is the same.

I don't hate pitties or rotties, but I strongly believe they shouldn't be family dogs around kids. How many kids gotta get disproportionately mauled before people stop going the "tHeYrE jUsT mIsUnDeRsToOd PiBbLeS"? Or "tHeY wErE nAnNy DoGs?" They were also bred to be fighting dogs for years. And they kill more people than any other breed. Like it's literally a fact.

Because everyone has a smartphone and can use https://www.ripta.com/schedules/ or their app instead

Why the fuck is it that the more dangerous the breed the less likely it is to be leashed? I'm noticing a correlation there of a lack of concern about how their decisions may affect other people and other dogs