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.
Those articles are a couple of years old -- things have improved significantly since then in terms of the unemployment rate (which is what those articles are about). Current statistics show that Rhode Island is tied with four other states for the 10th-highest unemployment rate -- not good, but also an impressive improvement from being dead last so recently.
I saw a really good economic statistic about Rhode Island a week or two ago. Apparently we're the No. 1 state in the country for percentage of jobs in the tech sector. Considering that's where so much growth is, that's a really excellent position to be in.
One of the job sectors does not make a thriving economy. RI is one of the highest cost of living states in the country. That is only one factor that goes into an economy and more tech jobs is a good thing. IF they can attract skilled workers and pay them well above the average salary. The avg. salary in RI is only $58,000/year. Average Joe workers (unless he/they have a huge nest egg) do not retire to RI. If you're sitting back enjoying la vida loca, you're most likely in the $100,000/yr. wage bracket and own a home worth around $450K and up, and paying $8,000/yr. real estate taxes, or higher, in Providence's safe attractive areas. Elorza can't do much to abate the problems of the average worker, homeowner, or tenant in the city.
One of the job sectors does not make a thriving economy. RI is one of the highest cost of living states in the country. That is only one factor that goes into an economy and more tech jobs is a good thing. IF they can attract skilled workers and pay them well above the average salary. The avg. salary in RI is only $58,000/year. Average Joe workers (unless he/they have a huge nest egg) do not retire to RI. If you're sitting back enjoying la vida loca, you're most likely in the $100,000/yr. wage bracket and own a home worth around $450K and up, and paying $8,000/yr. real estate taxes, or higher, in Providence's safe attractive areas. Elorza can't do much to abate the problems of the average worker, homeowner, or tenant in the city.
RI's average salary is relatively high- though averages don't mean a great deal- if I average my salary with Donald Trump I'm doing fabulously.
I wonder why the housing market has done so well this year. House prices are up in every city including Providence and availability is low. I guess we're like any other desirable area in the country.
I imagine a lot of people will continue to retire to warmer, cheaper, places as they always have done however. One of my neighbors did recently, but most of the people I know don't leave.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,857 posts, read 2,734,618 times
Reputation: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
[Elorza] put paid parking meters on Thayer St and in other locations much to the dismay of the businesses there (also no public vote or input).
I want to follow up on this point as it relates to the mayor. While I think the parking meters probably do hurt local business, which is probably just another impediment to success for our local businesses (particularly in the age of amazon!), I also have a problem with the way the meters were sited. Why choose Thayer Street, Wickenden St, and Atwells Ave, but not Broadway, Cranston St., and Broad St.? It's a disgusting combination of favortism and money grabbing.
Mayor Elorza campaigned on a promise of "One Providence", that he would work to unite the city; not only is Providence still divided, but his policies actually contribute to that division. To me, that betrays his promise as being an empty one.
I want to follow up on this point as it relates to the mayor. While I think the parking meters probably do hurt local business, which is probably just another impediment to success for our local businesses (particularly in the age of amazon!), I also have a problem with the way the meters were sited. Why choose Thayer Street, Wickenden St, and Atwells Ave, but not Broadway, Cranston St., and Broad St.? It's a disgusting combination of favortism and money grabbing.
When I think of major retail streets outside of downtown, the first three I think of are Atwells, Thayer and Wickenden. Broadway is No. 4, but it's not at the level of the first three.
Broad Street may be on the level of the top three in terms of retail density, but it caters primarily to a lower-income clientele, which is why I don't think of it first. I like the idea that people who can afford meters less aren't being targeted.
I know Thayer Street businesses have been vocal about the meters hurting, but I don't have an easier time finding a spot there now than I did before the meters.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,857 posts, read 2,734,618 times
Reputation: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by boulevardofdef
When I think of major retail streets outside of downtown, the first three I think of are Atwells, Thayer and Wickenden. Broadway is No. 4, but it's not at the level of the first three.
Broad Street may be on the level of the top three in terms of retail density, but it caters primarily to a lower-income clientele, which is why I don't think of it first. I like the idea that people who can afford meters less aren't being targeted.
My post was a bit too terse, but then I am sure it is obvious that I tend to be too verbose, so I had aimed to moderate that. I understand that Thayer, Wickenden, and Atwells are the major business districts after downtown for, if I may be forgiven for applying a generalization to you, somebody from East Greenwich, though I would forecast the same for someone from Pawtuxet Village, Barrington or the East Side. BTW, as far as popular business districts in Providence go, I would add in Hope Street in Hope Village right along side Broadway; both are bustling. Believe it or not, Broad Street is bustling too, though it admittedly serves a different clientele and probably not you, though perhaps you have had occasion to go there. Cranston Street doesn’t have the same bustle exactly…
I tend to agree with your suggestion that, in essence, parking meters amount to a regressive tax. And I respect and share your do-gooder instincts. On the other hand, placing meters in one part of town, say one with mid to higher end shops, but not in another part of town, say with mid to lower end shops, will act like another filtration layer to keep those who are less affluent out of the tonier neighborhoods, now won’t it? Oh, the unintended(?) consequences…
Want to advocate for One Providence, for a city in which we are all in it together? Don’t place stark barriers between neighborhoods and needlessly foment divisions. Apply consistent policies throughout the city to engender an environment of fairness, and communicate that standards matter in all neighborhoods. If demand for on-street parking is lower in the Broadway, Broad, and Cranston Street business districts as massnative71 suggests, then channel your inner Adam Smith and adjust the rate accordingly, but still charge something. After all, back when the new group of meters got rolled out, we were sold this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Projo
Donald Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles and the author of “The High Cost of Free Parking,” said free curbside parking can cause drivers to engage in counterproductive behavior.”
Ok, so for better or worse, We the People of Providence are in the behavior modification business; do we want to foster behavioral change in one part of our population, or all of it?
Are we One Providence, or not?
If we are in a pitched battle against our financial demons, fighting to move our city forward, if we are to coalesce our disparate cultures into one united citizenry, the best way to do that is through shared sacrifice. It doesn’t mean the shares need be meted out in equal measure, but it is important that everyone is expected to contribute in some way, that everyone has skin in the game. To expect nothing of people is the ultimate insult to their character.
Ok, so for better or worse, We the People of Providence are in the behavior modification business; do we want to foster behavioral change in one part of our population, or all of it?
Are we One Providence, or not?
If we are in a pitched battle against our financial demons, fighting to move our city forward, if we are to coalesce our disparate cultures into one united citizenry, the best way to do that is through shared sacrifice. It doesn’t mean the shares need be meted out in equal measure, but it is important that everyone is expected to contribute in some way, that everyone has skin in the game. To expect nothing of people is the ultimate insult to their character.
An interesting and idealistic way of looking at things, but, getting back to reality, I'm not at all convinced that elected government should be in the behavior modification business. "We the people" are generally at their mercy in the real world.
And of course we are not "one Providence", this is a country of haves and have nots divided along many lines. And, I think most people would also say that our property & excise taxes are already "shared sacrifice" enough.
As far as parking meters go, obviously they are just a tax and revenue raising scheme as are overtime parking tickets. The beauty of it is, we don't even get a say so on how much we are charged. Taxation w/o representation.
As far as parking meters go, obviously they are just a tax and revenue raising scheme as are overtime parking tickets. The beauty of it is, we don't even get a say so on how much we are charged. Taxation w/o representation.
Of course you have a say on how much you're charged, don't leave your car on Thayer, Wickenden, or Atwells. They're fine neighborhoods for walking around, so park a block away where there are a lot of spots. If you're staying a couple hours on Atwells, say, presumably you're getting dinner and paying a lot more than the $3 in parking fees anyway.
And the hyperbole of taxation without representation is a bit much, since nobody is obligating you to patronize those areas and they were instituted by, you know, elected representatives.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,857 posts, read 2,734,618 times
Reputation: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
An interesting and idealistic way of looking at things, but, getting back to reality, I'm not at all convinced that elected government should be in the behavior modification business. "We the people" are generally at their mercy in the real world.
And of course we are not "one Providence", this is a country of haves and have nots divided along many lines. And, I think most people would also say that our property & excise taxes are already "shared sacrifice" enough.
As far as parking meters go, obviously they are just a tax and revenue raising scheme as are overtime parking tickets. The beauty of it is, we don't even get a say so on how much we are charged. Taxation w/o representation.
Wait, what? Maybe we each have our own tenuous grip on reality. Behavior modification has long been one of the primary functions of government, with a panoply of carrots and sticks at their disposal. Are you against that? Gee, you never struck me as an anarchist. Cool!
I never said whether I thought the parking meters were good or bad (answer: both); my primary gripe is the inequity inherent in the policy as implemented by the administration, which pits neighborhoods against each other and is diametrically opposed to the Mayor's One Providence campaign pledge. While it has little to do with the subject of the Mayor's performance review, I will note that one beauty of Parking Meters is they capture some sort of use fee/tax from non-citizens, i.e. people who don't reside in the city (and some who do!), which is generally a small price to pay for the privilege of parking on our roadways and lots. I wonder what fraction of a vote a visiting RISD parent from Des Moines should have when they feed the meter on a night they take their child out to a celebratory dinner?
The Mayor clearly puts some stock in building sorely-needed esprit de corps, aka One Providence; he wears his orange P lapel pin--logo of Providence--around town and insists city employees do the same. While some think it is goofy, I like it. We don't have enough pride in our delightful yet flawed little city. And perhaps I am more than a bit naive to imagine that he honestly thought to put forth an ideal of One Providence. I plainly accept that at face value as a goal of his. Since he set that as a goal, are his policies helping us achieve that goal?
Look, you can call it idealism if you like, but ideals are destinations we set for ourselves, and without having them in mind we have very little chance of achieving them. Providence is of a size that each of us has the ability to influence our elected officials, to move our policy closer to those destinations. I believe that is among the reasons you post here, and I count that reason among mine as well.
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.
), which is generally a small price to pay for the privilege of parking on our roadways and lots. I wonder what fraction of a vote a visiting RISD parent from Des Moines should have when they feed the meter on a night they take their child out to a celebratory dinner? 
