Special tax deals for politically connected developers are a big part of Providence’s fiscal problems. The $18 million TSA for the Edge College Hill 2.0 luxury housing development that the Council is considering tonight is just another example of how these deals keep getting crazier and crazier. When we have such a crisis of affordable housing, why do we need to subsidize high-end housing in an already wealthy, overwhelmingly white, neighborhood?
Also, and I think this does matter, the design is really awful.
Shlock development does undermine our city. Because of the pedestrian-focused elements, I don’t think this design is quite bad enough that the project should be opposed on principle, but it is a valid concern.
I understand why many reform advocates like DARE push for compromise concessions, but I personally feel like we need to go further and just say no.
Even with a few affordable units, this project would still not deserve this insane level of public subsidies. Subsidies should go directly towards building affordable housing. We can achieve inclusionary zoning by direct ordinance, not as a compromise attached to public subsidy. This is not a radical position. Quite conservative towns in our state (like, say, Lincoln) have inclusionary zoning ordinances on the books.
Can we please ask a favor?
Funding for our reporting relies entirely on the generosity of readers like you. Our independence is how we are able to write stories that hold RI state and local government officials accountable. All of our stories are free and available to everyone right here at UpriseRI.com. But your support is essential to keeping Steve on the beat, covering the costs of reporting many stories in a single day. If you are able to, please support Uprise RI. Every contribution, big or small is so valuable to us. You provide the motivation and financial support to keep doing what we do. Thank you.
TSAs for luxury housing are just not a good idea. I don’t even think they’re a good idea for affordable housing–TIFs are just a much more efficient way to do the subsidies, and using the TSA model wastes public money.
The key of a TIF is that the upfront investment allows a focus on public infrastructure, placemaking, historical preservation, and environmental cleanup. These kind of expenditures are upfront and require some sort of TIF model. Even when the cash is given in direct subsidies (which is only a good idea when there’s something we should be subsidizing, like affordable housing or renewable energy), the upfront cash is more useful. When it’s allowed, developers often sell TSA-style credits at far less than face value on the markets.
This is why I will be introducing legislation to ban all TSAs from our state. Time for us to build a culture of real economic development at the municipal level, built around the TIF model that has worked so much better in other states.