fishythepete

fishythepete t1_jcjr84y wrote

Meh. When I took my “road test” (a while ago granted) it was literally circle a block with no traffic and parallel park against an empty curb in Arctic. Functionally this doesn’t really seem any different. Much more worried about people who apparently couldn’t be arsed to read the 15 page rules of the road and do shit like hail marying through intersections when traffic lights are out.

15

fishythepete t1_jc1ssx2 wrote

Reply to comment by kbd77 in New electric company by shuckit401

Apples and oranges. The projected rate is the spring / summer rate. You’re still paying winter rates. The projected spring / summer rate by Next Era is more than last years RI Energy spring / summer rate, but less than the projected Spring / Summer rate from RIE. Until rates are filed and final no way to be sure.

9

fishythepete t1_jbu39x1 wrote

This is pretty typical for how large construction firms fail. If you’re slow / no paying vendors you’re way beyond just job borrow. The thing that surprises me the most here is that their surety holder is loaning them money.

Surety companies are not usually in the business of taking on risk, and usually are looking to make sure the surety they’re providing is fully collateralized. If the bond holder defaults they liquidate collateral to pay the bond. The fact that they’re only now identifying assets that could collateralize bonds is concerning, as is the fact that the surety firm is loaning them money. In theory a bond holder’s default shouldn’t financially impact the surety agent, and so there’s no incentive to lend money to an ailing firm that already can’t meet its financial obligations. But if you’ve been lazy or generous with collateral asset valuations, you might suddenly find that you have a bunch of undercollateralized obligations that you might need to pay on. So maybe you loan the construction company money to close a bunch of bonds and leave someone else holding the bag.

Either way, some companies recover, some companies go from “everything’s fine and solvent” to “bankruptcy” in a few days, and there’s a lot in the middle.

5

fishythepete t1_jbrljt7 wrote

>Why is it that all your comments are downvoted? Are you good enough at economics to figure that out?

The fact that you think this is some sort of own is in fact what we would call an “epic self own”.

If you think the popularity of a position has any reasonable relation to whether or not it is correct, then you’ve been asleep since 2016.

11

fishythepete t1_jbri16m wrote

>Youre a landlord lol. Whats your big claim to fame? How much education do you need to be a ri landlord lol

Reading comprehension not your strong point I guess? Hint - “owned” is what we call Past Tense.

How much education do you need to hold really strong opinions on topics you know nothing about? Asking for a friend.

7

fishythepete t1_jbrhswe wrote

Let’s talk about the middle of the curve when it comes to housing. You know what term can almost universally describe it? Used. 10,20, 50 years old. At least that here in New England.

There is next to no economic incentive to build new low cost housing, just like there’s nearly no economic incentive to build new low cost cars. Most consumers would sooner buy a $5,000 used car with AC and power windows than a $5,000 new car with neither.

So it is with housing. New market rate housing (short of those tremendously successful housing projects we flirted with in the 60s / 70s) is always the top of the market. But if it’s never built, then it will never be there in 30 years as a moderate cost housing option.

13

fishythepete t1_jbres9v wrote

>This is not how this functions.

Yes, u/automaton11, That is exactly how this functions.

>Housing price is better represented as a function of objective quality, not of demand. People move, houses dont.

Unironically using the phrase “objective quality” shows just how far you are over your skis here.

>Building high end housing will gentrify an area without elevating struggling classes.

Non sequitur…

>Owners of homes of a given quality level will generally continue to rent to persons of a given income class.

As someone who’s owned several rental properties, that’s not how that works. Landlords seek market clearing rents. They don’t give a fuck about someone’s “income class.”

>Over time this can change, but it changes more slowly than does housing turnover, and because of that, people follow the housing, not the other way around.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, and I’m not convinced you do either.

>100 luxury apartments will bring in 100 rich people from wherever. If rich people move out of houses in RI, they move out of houses that will not immediately be filled by people of lesser means. You have the function backwards.

One of us has it backwards, and it is not me. If you’re under the impression that the creation of new luxury housing is what draws economically mobile people to the area, you are mistaken. People are moving down from Boston every week, happily trading the longer commute for the one day a week they need to be in the office for the lower cost of living. If the Fane Tower isn’t built, they’re still coming, and they’ll take the next best thing on the market.

3

fishythepete t1_jbrc5ny wrote

>“Luxury Apartments” in a skyscraper isn’t going to help the housing problem.

Yes. It is. You know what helps a housing shortage? Housing. In the absence of new high end housing, people coming in from Boston / NY will be competing for the existing high end housing stock. The people they’re competing with go down market, and so on.

>The people affected by the housing problem wouldn’t be able to live here.

No shit. But they won’t be able to afford the place they’re living now either if there isn’t new housing built that absorbs new higher income residents.

16

fishythepete t1_jbqf5st wrote

>I'm absolutely fine with more housing, I just didn't want some wavy Miami skyscraper standing at odds with the entire skyline. It also wasn't exactly affordable housing they were trying to build. The superman building is a better hope there. Heck give it a couple years and the providence place mall is a better hope there. Let's make what we have work for us.

This response perfectly encapsulates the thinking holding Providence and RI in general back.

Sure, there’s a housing crisis pricing people out of the area, but is this solution I don’t need to spend a dime on pretty enough?!

I’m totally ignorant about the economics of this and another unrelated project but I have strong feelings about it and those feelings matter. Also, turning disused malls into residential space is an awesome idea I just had that completely ignores the fact that there are malls that have been dead for decades and if it was even remotely viable it would… exist.

7

fishythepete t1_jbqda51 wrote

Luxury housing is housing. It’s not rocket science. Somebody who would move into the building moves down from Boston. But we don’t build luxury housing. That’s fine - they get a nice place in fox point. The person they beat out for an apartment looks somewhere else. And so on down the line. The people at the top aren’t the ones feeling the pain.

12

fishythepete t1_jbj82ym wrote

Since no one addressed the question re: the bus: other than subway / commuter systems in major cities, in the US public transit systems tend to be used by those who have no other choice for transportation, vs those who have a choice and choose the bus. This is not to say it’s unsafe, but if you take RIPTA you will run into some interesting characters.

I spent about a decade as an expat and it was one of the best experience of my life - whether you’re here for work or something else I hope you enjoy your time. If you get homesick try to find a local expat group - the next best thing to finding your countrymen is commiserating with a group of outsiders on the idiosyncrasies of the place you’ve landed.

5