The last time there was a rumor of pre-planned riots it was a hoax promoted by right-wing radio host John DePetro.

“Food desert” doesn’t mean “prime location for a grocery store” — often these places are food deserts exactly because they’re tough locations. For instance, dollar stores specifically target these locations and will work to drive out traditional grocery stores by selling cheap non-perishables. In addition, you often have corner stores selling produce and meat directly in neighborhoods (there are multiple on Cranston St., one on Messer, and another on Westminster). With Urban Greens, they’re competing with those corner stores plus at least one dollar store, and a butcher. Meanwhile, I would guess the local market that will basically only shop at a traditional grocery store is fairly small, likely already had an alternative (or might be doing delivery), and is easily poachable by, say, Trader Joe’s.

Yeah, they also have a double chocolate that I think is superior to Death by Chocolate.

I mean, they were banned prior to this being passed in 2016, and the ordinance was passed with the support of people who wanted to own chickens, so I guess I’m skeptical that it’s written more to prevent people from owning chickens.

I’ll be honest, reading this through made me want to get a tape measure out and check out where I could put a chicken coop and figure out how many chickens I could keep.

Sec. 4-37.3. - Maximum chicken hens allowed. The owner of any dwelling may keep or permit to be kept on the lot containing the dwelling, one (1) hen per eight hundred (800) square feet of total lot area, with a maximum of six (6) on any lot, provided that:

(1) No person shall keep any rooster;

(2) All chicken hens must be provided with both a hen house (coop) and a fenced outdoor enclosure, subject to the following provisions: a. The hen house must be covered, predator resistant, and well-ventilated; b. The hen house must provide a minimum of two (2) square feet per chicken; c. The hen house must be kept clean, dry, and sanitary at all times; manure must be composted in enclosed bins; d. The hen house must be located upon a permeable surface that prevents waste run-off; e. The hen house must be located at least twenty (20) feet from any dwelling; f. The fenced outdoor enclosure must adequately contain the chicken hens; g. The fenced outdoor enclosure must be kept clean and sanitary at all times; manure must be composted in enclosed bins; h. The hen house must provide the chicken hens with adequate protection from the elements and inclement weather and provide for the chicken hens good health and prevent any unnecessary or unjustified suffering; and i. The owner of the hen(s) must be a resident of said dwelling.

(3) No hen house (coop) shall be built onto any shared fence;

(4) No chicken hens may be kept or raised within the dwelling.

(5) All chicken hens must be fed subject to the requirements of section 12-118, and feed must be stored securely;

(6) No chicken hen may be slaughtered except subject to the requirements of section 10-104 et seq. and of the zoning ordinance;

(7) All chicken hens are subject to the nuisance provisions set forth in section 4-47, subsections (2) and (3); and

(8) All chicken hens must be confined between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

As used herein, "lot" shall mean one (1) or more parcels of land which are contiguous and are under the same ownership according to the tax assessor's records and which are zoned residential or are residential as a legal nonconforming use pursuant to the zoning ordinance.

They backed off the license change.

Just want to note that there are two constituent services associates who serve the entire council; you won’t really be going through an individual councilor’s office.

> It’s smack in the middle of downtown.

Geographically (maybe), but not socially. Like, it used to be the case that there were more people when it was surrounded by offices and right across from the Fleet/Bank of America offices. But almost all of the buildings around it have tons of vacancies, and it’s centered in a bunch of parking. It’s not a “place” so to speak, it’s just a building out of the way.

Like, if you think about how people flow Downtown, they don’t flow east along Exchange and Weybosset. They mostly flow southwest down Washington and Westminster, south towards PPAC, or north toward the mall and train station. With the CIC and the beer garden and the pedestrian bridge, that’s a new destination.

But the Arcade is just sort of tangential to all of these flows, just a little too out of the way to attract the foot traffic it needs to thrive. That’s not its fault, of course, it’s just the reality after years of Downtown being hollowed out.

It’s possible to imagine a future where it’s the focal point of a journey with some creative placemaking, but I don’t think that’s necessarily what a lot of its neighbors care about.

The Senate wanted it, the Zoning Board didn't approve it, the Council overrode the Zoning Board, and the Senate was so annoyed the General Assembly stripped the City of zoning jurisdiction over the I-195 land.

One problem is that it’s not really near anything interesting. Like, what reason would you have to take a shortcut from Weybosset to Westminster that can’t be solved by just cutting through parking lots.

You can envision a situation where Arcade Street is a public way with shops that pull people out of KP, through the Arcade, with the parking from Weybosset to Dyer replaced by green space, which would connect you to the parks by the river that would take you all the way down to the Van Leesten and the businesses on South Main, but it would take an incredible amount of energy and power to develop something like that.

I was under the impression that it displays owner side lead? Like, I know they replaced the lead lines on my street, but we still have lead in my house, and that’s reflected on this map.

You can view the lead service location map here, which will (likely) show whether or not your residence has a lead service line. If you do, you should consider investing in a water filter that is rated to filter out lead or possibly think about delivery (if you can afford it/for peace of mind).

That said; lead in the pipes is supposed to be fairly inert if they're not being disturbed (Providence Water warns customers that replacing the lead service line, which is indeed an expense, can cause elevated lead levels in water for months; though, after of course, no more risk of lead), and relatively safe to drink.

Pipe issues aside, the water itself is fine and you shouldn't feel worried about drinking it.

However, if you're experiencing cloudy water with a different taste, you should talk to your apartment management, as there could be something else going on in your apartment's/building's pipes.

Good points. I’m not sure what I was expecting, but given how early he began the transition and his whole emphasis on streets, I guess I was thinking he’d get some hotshot with significant experience in the field from out of state to run DPW. Definitely not this pick.

I guess, but media and his campaign often presented him as the candidate who represented the most significant change from the Elorza administration. Plus, it's not clear to me that the folks who staffed Elorza set Elorza up for the best success. So it's sort of odd to see all these people who were part of Elorza's early days return, while other experienced folks overseeing current projects are being axed.

I will say I find all three of the new appointments highlighted in this release a little head-scratching. You have a lifer in prisons running Public Works, where you'd expect someone who might have background in streets or sewers or construction of some sort; and a military logistician in charge of Public Property instead of someone who knows facilities. Hiring an actor/director for Arts, Culture & Tourism makes intuitive sense, but I also can't see it being that fulfilling to a creative type, when the job is largely about securing funding and managing events.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but it's just not the sort of appointments I expected from him.

Odd. It's a lot of the same folks who have had a hand in running the city at some point in the past eight years. Not as much of a break with Elorza as the campaign made it out to be, in that respect.

• There’s the Rochambeau trail that marks the journey of Rochambeau’s army down the East Coast to Yorktown. Starts in Newport, there’s a marker for a campsite he made on Providence’s East Side. Sure there are other points along it.
• Frenchtown in East Greenwich derives its name from Hugenot refugees that came during the colonial period.
• Aram Pothier (Governor) and Felix Toupin (Lieutenant Governor) were both prominent French Canadian diaspora politicians in early 20th Century RI (both from Woonsocket). They represented opposite sides of the spectrum. During a particular contentious and long debate on the RI Senate floor under Toupin’s leadership, Republicans stink bombed the chamber (Toupin was unaffected as his face was under a wet cloth as he was getting shaved during the incident, and the Journal blamed the incident on Democrats).

I mean, a lot of these are pretty specialized companies most individuals would be unlikely to deal with. Without looking into it, I would hazard some are likely former businesses as well.

The Department of Taxation also names and shames the Top 100 individual income tax delinquents.

This is, in fact, something that occurs more frequently in state legislatures that have enacted term limits. With less experienced legislators, they became more reliant on lobbyists of all types to actually draft legislation, which leads to a lot more corporate legislation.

So, I agree with the first part of your statement (term limits are bad), but your rationale is weak.

First, Congress has defunded its own staff capacity since the Gingrich era, so the ability of Congressional staffers to become a "shadow government" is limited.

Second, you actually want a set of staffers with deep expertise in what they do. Like, that's good for government; experienced people who know how to move bills through committee can greatly enhance a young congressperson's ability to pass legislation. Congress' own decision to weaken this is a massive problem, and it's part of why more and more power has concentrated in the hands of party leadership in Congress, because they have the best staff.

Third, you do not have to worry about a shadow government. The US has two branches full capable of usurping Congressional power all on their own; the President and the Supreme Court. And that's part of what's actually occurred. As Congress gets weaker and less capable of making decisions, more and more policymaking is made by the President (via executive order) or the Court (via decisions). This is a really bad outcome. The Constitution only provides for one deliberative, decision-making body: the United States Congress.

Term limits stand to worsen all the current effects, as they generally have in states that have adopted them. The fear here should not be that some anonymous staffers are running the government from within Congress, it's that the two least-representative and least-transparent branches of government will be setting policy.

Unfortunately, I don't have that number at my fingertips, it might be in their annual report somewhere, but they only claim 733 "homes" "developed or preserved" in 2021. Some of those are certain to be multifamily units.

Okay, lots of little things...

Folks are arguing the State (as in the state government) does build housing. This isn't really true. The State has a Housing Trust Fund that's funded by real estate transfer taxes, but that has had difficulties funding projects. The State provides limited funding for housing production. IIRC, almost all that money goes into RI Housing, a quasi-nongovernmental organization that funds affordable housing construction by Community Development Corporations and other groups. That's the affordable, state-subsidized housing production. Some cities and towns provide support to their Housing Authorities, or Providence has the Providence Redevelopment Agency.

There are also HUD funds that pass through the State to RI Housing to distribute as well. Federal funds make up the bulk of money used for housing production.

Unfortunately, the State spends nothing or next to nothing on maintenance, which is ensuring that affordable, subsidized units remain affordable and livable. The result is that aging stock either becomes market rate, or is in poor condition after 30 years or so.

At the other end of the market, the State and municipalities subsidize developments through tax breaks for developers and the such, usually require some proportion of the units be set aside as affordable.

As a definition, "affordable" means the rent is no more than 30% of Area Median Income (AMI), and is often targeted for folks who make between 80% and 130% of AMI.

Deeply-subsidized units are rare. Section 8 vouchers, which are supposed to supplement rent, are difficult to find units for, assuming you get past the years-long waiting lists. Section 8 was more accepted during the Great Recession, when it provided a dependable source of income for landlords. After the Recession, it was far easier to avoid the requirements for Section 8 and find market-rate renters, partly by discriminating against people with vouchers. This is now illegal, but enforcement is difficult (enforcement of most laws pertaining to landlords is difficult, and courts are generally structured in landlords' favor).

This year, the State did pass, thanks in part to the efforts of Reclaim RI and Sen. Megan Kallman (and with the full-throated endorsement from Speaker Shekarchi), a social housing pilot program. This will mark the first time in recent memory, possibly ever, that the State has funded and directed production of housing in such a manner. But it is just a pilot, not a commitment to ongoing production. We'll see how it goes or if Reclaim and other housing orgs can win some bigger concessions next session.

Here's the thing, we have fixed homelessness in the US before. The sort of homelessness we see today is the result of two policies: the elimination of public spending on public housing, and deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. Both of these were done for (some) good reasons; conditions in both could be horrendous, and mental institutions were absolutely horrid. But they were also done for ideological reasons, and the resources to house people in their communities were never provided. Public spending just stopped, and local and state governments were left to jury-rig solutions.

The other aspect is that the State of RI has literally developed a plan to end homelessness. Everyone in the system absolutely knows how to end homelessness, what's required is political will to procure the funding to do it. It's not a question of capitalism, it's a question of action.

Emergency shelter money is limited, and given conditions in shelters, many folks prefer to be outdoors during the warm summer months where they can be comfortable and relatively undisturbed. Why swelter in Harrington Hall with 100 other guys undergoing their own traumas, far from anything else in the state, only to be kicked out at 7 am when you can sleep in a tent with your girlfriend and your dog in a place that’s convenient to you at a time you like?

The shelters understand this as well (it’s also not easy to find good people to staff shelters). And to some extent, the government understands this, so they only release winter shelter money when things get dire (although many advocates will point out this is far too late most years).

Okay, that’s shelters. Why does government not fix the problem of homelessness? Two reasons. First, policymakers are housed while the homeless are notably not. There is a huge power differential here. If you are fighting for your literal survival everyday, you know what you don’t do? Vote. If your address changes repeatedly (though I’ll note “under the X bridge in Y town” is a valid home address for voting in RI, IIRC), then it’s hard to figure out where you should vote, and you may not waste precious data on your phone to look it up. Meanwhile, housed people generally vote much more reliably, and are generally more likely to support policies that criminalize homelessness (like banning panhandling) than solve it (building housing). Indeed, they often mobilize to stop the latter.

You might be surprised to know that >10 years ago the State created a 10-year plan to end homelessness. Guess what? No political support for enacting it.

Second, the whole “homeless system” is fragmented between a bunch of charities, which the government relies on to do the actual work. The State of RI basically acts as a source of funding for many of these charities. But they’re one of many such sources.

These charities are mixed. Some are pretty good, some are awful. There’s a few dozen of them, mostly regionally based. Some of them are genuinely threatened by the idea that we should end homelessness; after all, that’s how they get all of their money. These are the ones that refused to move to the national “Housing First” model until it became clear that all the money out there was demanding they do so.

Such a fragmented system filled with disinterested politicians creates the conditions for this. The myth that homelessness is hard to solve (it’s not, it requires housing: it’s right there in the word “home-less”) is also useful cover. Dishing out a few hundred thousand to charities allows politicians to say they’re “working on it” when they’re not spending the tens of millions required to truly end homelessness in RI.

Finally a word on bike lanes. Housing policy is mostly set by the State, cities could do more for it (housing authorities, zoning reform, etc.), but it’s not their prerogative, as it’s a statewide system. Bike lanes, however, are a municipal issue, since they generally run down municipally-owned streets. Spending money on bike lanes doesn’t preclude spending on housing, any more than sending an officer to arrest someone for panhandling does (a complete waste of resources, since panhandling is protected speech under the First Amendment). Also, many homeless people are also bike riders, so making cycling safer isn’t exactly a problem for them.

If it’s Oop! then extra nostalgia points if you remember that it was on Thayer before it moved to the Mall!