Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lovecraft_401 t1_iuy6ocy wrote

The school system is atrocious, cost of living has skyrocketed, there’s a housing crisis, property taxes are crazy high, and the police force hasn’t been reigned in at all. Just to name a few things.

12

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_iuy6zzg wrote

Weird to blame elorza for all that to me but not super surprised from Providence residents.

22

Proof-Variation7005 t1_iuy7qq3 wrote

The police force one would absolutely fall on him. Property taxes are a direct result of the city having to overcompensate for TSAs for private developers and Brown skullfucking the city on property taxes. Those 2 things force the city to push that burden onto everyone else.

Some of these problems are much bigger than Providence and not easily solved but I think a lot of residents think his priorities were out of whack because instead of trying to do stuff about him, he was dreaming up "Let's just make ourselves into Austin" or the Great Streets stuff.

27

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_iuy84wu wrote

I agree on the police things and dirt bikes, I hear he wouldn't let police intervene which I thought wasn't the best idea. I've found his great streets to be awesome for our little, car obsessed city. But, it seems get people get mad over all that so that may explain some of it.

10

Proof-Variation7005 t1_iuya6ev wrote

He's blamed for the "don't chase" policy but the Police Department put it in place in 2014 internally before he took office. He wasn't really clamoring to change it either. But, a couple city councilors were awfully vocal about allowing pursuits right before police pursued a group of ATVs and put one of them into a coma. There's been less popularized incidents where these "we're chasing you but not really" have led to pedestrians being injured by ATVs too.

That one is hard to win. He and the police did a fairly good job encouraging people to dime out their neighbors. But the city also had the embarrassing episode where a bunch of seized bikes and ATVs were stolen out of a city-owned garage about 5 years ago.

8

Dinosquid t1_iv53b64 wrote

Not to mention the “don’t chase” policy is because when people get injured in those chases they sue the city (see: Baltimore, Philly), which brings our taxes up even higher.

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_iv5yvbj wrote

The financial factor is there but I care way more about people not getting hurt or killed than relatively paltry sums of money covered by insurance.

2

Dinosquid t1_iv6cjpl wrote

I just want to sue the city, but Elorza refuses to chase me!!

3

big_whistler t1_iuyas13 wrote

Moved from Boston to Prov this year. Love the ability to actually park in this state. People use cars everywhere, but here it isn’t overly burdenful to do so.

Walkable streets arent so easy to enjoy in Boston where you cant park and the T is always on fire

5

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_iuybpx8 wrote

> Walkable streets arent so easy to enjoy in Boston where you cant park

I'm confused, how do you cater to a large number of large vehicles (most people drive these) and have a walkable city? As a local, half our city is parking lots and anytime we even strip a little for more walkability, greenspace, biking, everyone opposes it. Can't even cross the streets usually because cars are so damn big and you can't see.

Walkability != ample parking

20

big_whistler t1_iuyfm0x wrote

In Providence I can drive to somewhere, park, and walk around. In Boston, I can’t park anywhere without getting shafted, so the broken train lines are the only option to get to stuff that isn’t near home.

Be glad you have parking lots instead of parking tickets. Brookline MA has very few public parking lots, and those are metered, and the streets have 2 hour parking at all times, even overnight.

−1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_iv0szex wrote

Providence is such a small city I rarely ever see a need to drive 🤷 I also don't see a need to have half our city be a concrete lot at the expense of everything else.

4

WickedDog310 t1_iv1ugdl wrote

You don't need to drive in Providence, but many of us need to drive to get into Providence. Once you're in the neighborhood you want to be in, you're fine, but you have to be able to get downtown, or whatever neighborhood you want. It's a catch 22, you can't have a great walkable city without infrastructure changes and increases in RIPTA, but you won't get those things until you have the userbase to necessitate it, and that population won't come if it's not convenient. As a capitol city, it gets a substantial number of out of towners, they have to get to the city some how, and RIPTA isn't convenient. I live in Riverside and work in Providence, it takes me 25-20 minutes to drive to work everyday, but would take 1:35 on RIPTA. I don't want to see Providence paved over, but I have to be able to conveniently get into the city, so that I can enjoy it. I want better RIPTA service so I can take RIPTA home from a night out in Providence. Right now, the last bus from KP leaves at 10:30, that's barely dinner, no show, no dancing.

0

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_iv1vfj2 wrote

I'm not sure how many "out of towners" come into the city and our state and whether that means we should even accommodate them. I've heard similar people in your position as arguments against more sidewalks and bike lanes, ie, "I have to commute by car from X town in RI and RIPTA sucks."

To me, that brings up two issues: Should we accommodate, especially in such a small, dense city, to cars? And why aren't we understanding that this infrastructure reduces car use among everyone? Let's be real, most people drive in Providence even if the destination is down the block because it's dangerous otherwise. I'm also not sure it's the responsibility of such a city to accommodate out of towners.

2

WickedDog310 t1_iv25as9 wrote

You'd be surprised at the number of people who don't live in Providence who visit every weekend. My friend is from Brockton, not a transplant, actually from Brockton, and she drives out here 2-3 times a week. She goes out in Providence more than I do.

You say "should we choose to accommodate cars", like Providence hasn't been doing that for 50 years. The reason the walkable city mentality is having trouble is because pvd has prioritized cars for 2? 3? generations, no one remembers when Providence had street cars, and you could take a street car to Cresent Park or Rocky Point. Now we're having to pull back that infrastructure in favor of pedestrian infrastructure. People don't like what they perceive as a step backward. People aren't understanding that infrastructure reduces car use among everyone because they don't want to. They either can't see 5 moves ahead to understand that, or they feel entitled to be able to take their cars everywhere because the US is such a car-centric country, and our rugged individualism views public transit as less than.

I don't think most people drive in Providence because it's dangerous to walk. I'd argue there are more car windows broken and cars ransacked every night than there are muggings. Compare Providence to the next most populated city country wide, Knoxville? And you'll see Rhode Island has significantly less crime. Providence isn't a dangerous city if you look at 2021's crime report and look at what's considered street crime (robberies and assaults), there were a total of 2,409 offenses all year. This averages out to 6.6 crimes a night. If WaterFire brings in an average of 40k people, let's assume there are 10k people who are going out on a normal Friday night and triple the average crime rate because there's more crime on a Friday night than a Tuesday night. That's one crime for every 5,000 people out. And yes, I know street crime is under-reported, and that's not even taking into account that most reported crime is committed by people known to the victim and not strangers. But seriously, can we stop saying Providence is dangerous? It's a bullshit excuse people from the suburbs use to say I'm uncomfortable if there are people of color in my vicinity.

You can choose not to accommodate people who don't live outside providence, but most of the Providence economy is service industry, and if you take the patrons away, Providence will be right back where it was in the 70's and 80's.

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_iv2tbmw wrote

>You can choose not to accommodate people who don't live outside providence,

You literally wrote a whole thesis proving we shouldn't. It's either Providence is a big parking lot for outside traffic or that it invests in other infrastructure.

0

WickedDog310 t1_iv2tjt8 wrote

Exactly, Providence shouldn't. It can choose to, but it would be bad for the city it would be bad for the state. I didn't argue saying it was a good option. I just said it was an option and I warned what would happen if it was taken.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_iuyb49f wrote

How can you possibly know whether the T is on fire when the next train is 20+ minutes from the station, sir!

5

big_whistler t1_iuyf3lw wrote

When Ive already been there half an hour I start to suspect

3

lovecraft_401 t1_iuy7nha wrote

Weird or not, he’s been the mayor for eight year and the city hasn’t gotten much better under his watch. “The buck stops here” sort of thing.

13