> I've offered you examples of cities that actually built a lot of luxury housing, and yet other housing there didn't get cheaper

I showed you how population growth outstripped housing growth, and why prices going up still fit my increased demand=higher prices model.

I also provided many academic resources that agree with what I'm saying.

So far, you can't even explain what you think is happening, let alone provide any corroborating evidence. I don't know what else to do to get you to explain your own logic. I asked multiple times, and provided a quote of yourself criticizing the exact behavior you're partaking in now.

> The problem isn't in asking specific questions, it's in asking vague deflective questions like, "What's your solution?"

Is it poor reading comprehension, or a failing memory that is causing you to misquote what I asked? To ask you for the third time, what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow? I am crossing my fingers hoping that you'll actually attempt to explain what you think the housing market will do this time. Third time's the charm...?

>including in Providence itself.

Providence is in the same situation as San Francisco. Supply has dropped in relation to demand, so prices are higher.

2011: 72,600 housing units; 178,000 people

2020: 74,800 housing units; 190,000 people

That's 2,200 new units, and 12,000 new people. More demand, higher prices.

Were you just straight up making stuff up and hoping I wouldn't check, or do you really think that population has nothing to do with housing pricing?

> Give examples where your theory actually worked as claimed.

I gave you studies with data tables, which you immediately demonstrated your unwillingness and/or inability to read and/or understand. You failing to read the thing you asked for is no longer my problem. You are willingly choosing ignorance.

> If you’re so certain that those theories are true, point to the actual U.S. cities that you know they have been proven

Ooo ooo, remember when you said this? "Instead of attempting to deflect attention from your statements by demanding that other people offer theirs, you should be able to respond to critiques of your views. If you’re uncomfortable doing so, that’s probably an indication that your comments were shallow, poorly reasoned, and / or ill-informed."

I am starting to think that I should create a whole GrunkCriticizesGrunk subreddit...

Ooops, you forgot to answer the question I asked! That would look an awful lot like deflection to someone reading your comment.

So let's try again...what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow?

> If you’re so certain that those theories are true, point to the actual U.S. cities that you know they have been proven.

I would like to once again ask you to read my links. I already did what you're requesting. Or are you actively trying to avoid learning, because you value retaining your preconceived notions over anything real?

Let me coax you into learning with this excerpt from here:

> To be clear, this debate is not about whether new housing can reduce housing prices overall. At this point, that idea isn’t really in doubt. There’s good reason to believe that in regions with high housing demand, building more housing can help keep the prices of existing housing down. In their Supply Skepticism paper from 2018, Vicki Been, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Regan offer an excellent introduction to the broader question of how market-rate development affects affordability. Citing numerous individual studies and reviews of dozens more, they conclude that “the preponderance of the evidence shows that restricting supply increases housing prices and that adding supply would help to make housing more affordable.”

which references this study, that has all the real-world data you're looking for.

> The claims about housing “migration chains” don’t make empirical sense, because the housing that people are supposedly migrating up to is still more expensive than the housing they’re in.

You're misunderstanding the concept. One person upgrades to a more expensive place by choice, which then vacates their current, cheaper place for someone else.

> Can you point to a city where predominantly expensive housing was built but housing at all price points got cheaper?

I just did with the links in my previous comment that you evidently didn't read and/or understand.

>They built a lot of expensive housing in San Francisco in the last 20 years, and lower-priced housing didn’t get cheaper, it went up (until the pandemic).

Yep, classic supply and demand.

2011: 375,000 housing units; 816,000 people

2019: 398,000 housing units; 879,000 people

63,000 more people competing for just 23,000 new housing units. Demand growth outstrips supply growth, prices go up. If it was 63,000 more people and 0 new housing units, prices would be even higher.

>Even now housing is still too expensive for most people to move there, and consumes too much of the incomes of people who already do — it’s still not “affordable” and building more expensive housing won’t change that.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? It seems plainly illogical to me, but maybe I am misunderstanding some part of your thought process. What do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow?

> None of these clowns ever references the actual outcomes of their theories in major U.S. cities

Here you go, let me know if you have any questions: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/affordable-housing-debate/

Or if you want to skip the summary with a host of sources linked to illustrate, here's one particular study anchored in actual data to read:

1. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/

2. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=up_policybriefs

> now 1/3 of the year has little return?

I mean, I guess, but that's not really a sensical way to think of it.

You should take the whole yearly cycle into account to look at ROI. It sounds like OP is still going to come out way ahead for the year.

But if you want to look at it your way, if OP is getting "little return" for Dec-Feb, then they're getting infinite return Mar-Nov.

Of course the decision to install solar depends on a lot of factors - as you said, length of time you expect to stay in the house is definitely a big one - but now more than ever, it has a pretty safe ROI.

> but we know that both gas and electric prices are high right now, not likely to go down any time soon (if ever)

That is not true. Out rates are smoothed over a 3-month period, and we can see real-time gas prices that will legally have to be taken into account with next quarter's rates. Next quarter's gas price will be lower. @ me if it's not.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-natgas-price-plunge-could-limit-this-years-output-growth-2023-01-13/

Ah, okay.

Does your earn rate change with pricing?

I've been learning so much about CT's setup for my dad and haven't been keeping up with RI/RIE.

Does RIE log credits in kWh or $?

What in this story is embarrassing for nk?

>a seasonal outdoor concert venue and generate more income

How do you figure that? Concert ticket sales would need to be $3.5m per year to match the tax revenue. How much would a ticket to a small park concert cost, $20 tops? So we would need 175,000 attendees to break even, even if we ignore all the costs of building and maintaining a concert venue. We're not regularly filling our existing venues, and another one won't really induce more demand will it?

So a concert venue will 1.) Make the city less money, and 2.) Complete will existing arts in the city.

Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

>probably getting away tax free for decades

Why get upset about a guess when you could take a second to learn the actual answer?

https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/providence/fane-tower-slated-to-get-54-million-property-tax-break/

> The high-rise luxury apartment building planned for Dyer Street in Providence would get more than $54 million in property tax breaks over 20 years, according to newly released projections by the tax assessor.

>The Hope Point Tower, often referred to as the Fane tower, would still pay about $69 million in property taxes over the course of their tax stabilization agreement (TSA), compared to $123 million if there was no TSA.

Thank you

The permit is basically your application to get inspected. You're right, plenty of people skip them.

I still don't know enough about this to have an opinion. Why shouldn't it happen? The need for it seems clear, but evidently a bunch of people hate it and I'm not really sure why.

The licensed professional you hire should coordinate the permits, you can ask to make sure they do.

But that's only because they went for the easier taproom license, rather than the harder/expensiver full bar license, right? Or is it actually impossible to serve both brewed and bought drinks in the same location?

>places that don't spend a lot on the decor

So, my house?

>It’s also notable that far sunnier places in the world than RI don’t seem to have embraced the supposed “necessity” of window tinting.

What are you talking about?

Florida allows 28% in the front, 15% in the back (or 6% for SUVs)

California allows 70% on the front, and absolutely anything on the rear.

Arizona allows 33% in the front, anything in the rear.

What sunny place with more restrictive tint laws than RI are you referring to?

>anyone who can't do something for them in return.

You mean like vote to reelect them?

Yeah I think he's talking IQ test results

Yeah makes sense

>Either they are deeply dishonest or complete idiots that don’t have a clue about the very basics of economics

Why not both?

Yeah that's all it does. Takes your total annual (estimated) usage and divides it by 12, so you end up "overpaying" in the summer and "underpaying" in the winter, but it's ultimately the same cost.

https://www.rienergy.com/RI-Home/Bill-Help/Budget-Billing

>Gas company clearly must make money on it or they wouldn't offer it.

Someone on here had said they tried to sign up and there was a surcharge, but I can't seem to find it on any official documents. It might be a program RIE is required to implement by the state, so it's not (directly) a money-making endeavor. But it still does seem of limited use to me.

Wait a minute, did they make the largest croquet field in the world!?