In the new urbanists’ utopia, we’d all live in densely developed, tree-lined communities where we could walk to work, to school and to the grocery store, enjoy dinner or a movie, and let our children play outside, knowing a whole community is there to protect them.
In reality, of course, such places are rare these days. Cities come closer than the suburbs, but for the most part, rich and poor are isolated from each other, office buildings are gigantic fortresses, and business, entertainment and residential districts occupy separate spaces.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
Not too long ago, Providence was like that as well. Remember the way downtown used to clear out at 5 p.m., leaving only the homeless and the patrons of the few bars and restaurants? And yet for four days this month, our city was treated as a showpiece for new urbanism.
We have much to be proud of. Providence is alive again, day and night, weekdays and on weekends. There’s plenty more to do still, but in the city and across the state, new urbanist-inspired projects are helping create more livable communities.
It’s all very progressive and good for the environment, but as developers who’ve embraced new urbanist principles have discovered, it’s also good business.
There’s a big market – in Rhode Island and across the country – for mixed-use, compact developments, real neighborhoods, and distinctive places. A great part of New England’s appeal is that historically, that’s what this region has been about.
New urbanists have proven that it pays to do better; you can make a lot of money doing the right thing – and we’ll all be a bit happier and healthier for it.
General Assembly is wrong on referenda
Rhode Island’s Legislature has an ugly way of trying to run the state, stepping all over the governor if he happens to put up any resistance.
Such is the case with an absurd piece of legislation approved by both the House and the Senate last month – and promptly vetoed by Gov. Donald L. Carcieri – that would take away the governor’s right to place non-binding referenda on the ballot.
There’s no question that those referenda can be pretty irritating to legislators. Former Gov. Lincoln C. Almond stuck it to casino proponents years ago, for example, by presenting the issue to the voters, who made their opposition clear.
This election, Carcieri would like to ask voters whether they’d like two constitutional amendments: one to limit annual government spending growth, another to implement voter initiative. Neither proposal sits well with legislative leaders.
As of press time, the House had voted to override Carcieri’s veto; the Senate hadn’t yet. If they respect democracy, senators will let the veto stand.
