Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bulk of the money is coming from the state and city.
5% of the units will be for people making 80% of the median state income.
5% will be for folks making up to the median.
10% will be allotted for up to 120% of median income, ie, to people who are "comfortable".
That leaves 80% of apts held for rich people, financed by people who can't afford to live there, and further driving up the going rental rate in the city.
This is never going to happen, and shouldn't happen. If this is the only way, tear it down. Or the owner should renovate and rent out floors as finances allow. Maybe some floors just have to stay dark for awhile. We shouldn't be footing the bill for them to soak people. Your average voter will not be allowed to live there.
The bulk of the money is coming from the state and city.
5% of the units will be for people making 80% of the median state income.
5% will be for folks making up to the median.
10% will be allotted for up to 120% of median income, ie, to people who are "comfortable".
That leaves 80% of apts held for rich people, financed by people who can't afford to live there, and further driving up the going rental rate in the city.
This is never going to happen, and shouldn't happen. If this is the only way, tear it down. Or the owner should renovate and rent out floors as finances allow. We shouldn't be footing the bill for them to soak people. Your average voter will not be allowed to live there.
The city has a housing shortage. More units will be beneficial to all.
Many also put a high priority on historic preservation, especially considering what a key landmark and feature of the skyline it is. Would you rather they tear it down and build a Jersey Mikes?
The bulk of the money is coming from the state and city.
5% of the units will be for people making 80% of the median state income.
5% will be for folks making up to the median.
10% will be allotted for up to 120% of median income, ie, to people who are "comfortable".
That leaves 80% of apts held for rich people, financed by people who can't afford to live there, and further driving up the going rental rate in the city.
This is never going to happen, and shouldn't happen. If this is the only way, tear it down. Or the owner should renovate and rent out floors as finances allow. Maybe some floors just have to stay dark for awhile. We shouldn't be footing the bill for them to soak people. Your average voter will not be allowed to live there.
I'm not sure I see your points. That it provides affordable housing is a key component in the financing (where much of the funding is coming from). That rich people may be renting on the upper floors is another part of the proposed funding. Those views won't come cheap. This is an expensive project & the money has to come from everywhere. It's THE signature building in the city's otherwise unremarkable skyline. Call me shallow, but I think that's important to Providence's image. And, it is one of the most significant historic commercial buildings in New England. To let it fall apart or be demolished is unthinkable. My only request is they force the developer to light the beacon up immediately.
The city has a housing shortage. More units will be beneficial to all.
Many also put a high priority on historic preservation, especially considering what a key landmark and feature of the skyline it is. Would you rather they tear it down and build a Jersey Mikes?
No. If someone thinks they can make a go of it, let them try. No corporate welfare. No tax credits. You know as well as I do that Providence is broke. You're going to raise the taxes of the average worker, whse pay has already been reduced by inflation, to give money to rich developers to make apts for rich folk?
There's no reason they need to renovate and rent all 28 floors at once. Otherwise condemn it and raze it. I'm done with people who think it's fine to use public money on apts 80% of the public can't afford. People aren't crying for more expensive apts; it's just the opposite.
How about reversing those percentages and making 80% of those apts available to median income people?
Reserve the upper floors for the luxury apartments. Obviously if these developers were footing the bill themselves, they're free to charge whatever abominable rates they want, but I won't pretend they're helping Providence. Funny, it's all about capitalism when they're charging the highest dollar with no mercy, but they have no problem with a little socialism to get there.
I'm not sure I see your points. That it provides affordable housing is a key component in the financing (where much of the funding is coming from). That rich people may be renting on the upper floors is another part of the proposed funding. Those views won't come cheap. This is an expensive project & the money has to come from everywhere. It's THE signature building in the city's otherwise unremarkable skyline. Call me shallow, but I think that's important to Providence's image. And, it is one of the most significant historic commercial buildings in New England. To let it fall apart or be demolished is unthinkable. My only request is they force the developer to light the beacon up immediately.
I don't know what to say if you call 5% affordable housing a 'key' component. 90% of these apartments are reserved for over the median income, and 80% for over 120% of the median.
I don't know what to say if you call 5% affordable housing a 'key' component. 90% of these apartments are reserved for over the median income, and 80% for over 120% of the median.
Affordable housing is a key component for the tons of $$$$ it brings to the project. Without that development money, both state & federal, this project would be dead in the water. Full stop. Affordable housing isn't just available as a subsidy for the very poor & working poor. On a federal basis, it's a subsidy for families up to 120% of median income in areas of high housing costs.
The economically depressed state of Rhode Island isn't holding anybody's idea of a strong hand in this thing. The building in question has been shuttered and vacant for 9 years. 9 years.
Affordable housing is a key component for the tons of $$$$ it brings to the project. Without that development money, both state & federal, this project would be dead in the water. Full stop. Affordable housing isn't just available as a subsidy for the very poor & working poor. On a federal basis, it's a subsidy for families up to 120% of median income in areas of high housing costs.
Yes, it's bringing in tons of money to the project but it's not helping the average person. Again, read the facts. 90% of these apartments will be priced out of the reach of over half of the population. They're being set aside for people who make over 74k, which is 120% of the median. Likely much, much more since these are unregulated. People who make a median salary will have only have access to 5% of the apartments. A person who makes average money is rapidly running out of options in this state. I'm not even talking about poor; you are now undesirable if you're middle class. But they'll take our tax money and give it to people far better off than us, and give them a tax credit, to boot. It's 38 Studios all over again.
If Providence has money to give away, they should fix the drinking water lead contamination problem first. How many years have they been saying they were going to replace the pipes? Or the schools?
I'm not sure why anyone considers this good news. The bulk of the money is coming from the state and city. 5% of the units will be for people making 80% of the median state income. 5% will be for folks making up to the median. 10% will be allotted for up to 120% of median income, ie, to people who are "comfortable". That leaves 80% of apts held for rich people, financed by people who can't afford to live there, and further driving up the going rental rate in the city. This is never going to happen, and shouldn't happen. If this is the only way, tear it down. Or the owner should renovate and rent out floors as finances allow. Maybe some floors just have to stay dark for awhile. We shouldn't be footing the bill for them to soak people. Your average voter will not be allowed to live there.
I'm confident they are putting the best financing package together with the ultimate goal of getting the building finally restored & useful. Your idea of incremental rehab is not a viable option. This isn't a 3 family on Smith Hill. We'll just have to agree to disagree. My hope is this plan goes full steam ahead.
There's no reason they need to renovate and rent all 28 floors at once. Otherwise condemn it and raze it. I'm done with people who think it's fine to use public money on apts 80% of the public can't afford. People aren't crying for more expensive apts; it's just the opposite.
Can I ask you how much you think the building's demolition will cost, and who you think will be paying for that???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
