That (aside for how I’m not exactly a Raleigh citizen, lol) is the only reason why I’m personally keeping my mouth shut about this particular issue. But really? It sounds to me like a necessary evil (since any “democratic” institution will usually raise holy hell about being wiped out, no matter how skewed and un-democratic it actually is).
Only if the current City Council can come up with a better alternative.
If I were MAB (or anyone else on that council), I would’ve waited until there was at least a solid proposal for a replacement engagement system.
But this brings us back to the million-dollar question:
What’s a better way to engage the citizens of Raleigh for day-to-day civic problems???
I definitely think that accessibility will be at the forefront of obstacles that will make any system effective. I’ve never been to a CAC meeting, but believe
they should be converted to be a primarily digital platform, even if there’s still some component for people who can/ want to engage in discourse in person. Perhaps it could even take on the form of a forum board. But it needs to be more flexible than a one-night event format that’s more conveniently accessible for more citizens. I personally can’t envision what they could come up with that would be effective enough and not a total waste of funds that isn’t digital.
Well the CAC got at least a few more meeting left and 40 zoning hearings left before there completely disbanded I’m sure the City of Raleigh Council will get it done before then.
Something to keep in mind is that many of the people who did attend CAC meetings were Baby Boomers or older (silent gen?). Many in this group are unlikely to adapt to a digital platform for citizen engagement. Over my years of attendance it became clear that many folks either did not have computers, or if they did they were still trying to figure out email. I know that’s hard to believe in 2020.
I agree that a different approach to citizen engagement is absolutely necessary and that a digital platform has to be a central part of that, but understand that many CAC regulars feel alienated by this change because they don’t feel part of a digital generation.
CACs were also an opportunity for people to hear 911 call reports from police officers and to speak with police officers in person. Information about city services (utilities, leaf collection, park programs, etc.) was also regularly shared at these meetings. Again, I know it’s hard to believe that in 2020 some people were relying on in-person meetings to get this information, but it’s true.
Participating in the rezoning process was only one of many CAC functions but it took on more and more visibility as the number of rezoning requests increased and proposed changes were seen as more drastically departing from the status quo. The NIMBY’s of course showed up and the CAC’s, and their completely unrepresentative votes on rezonings, began to be associated with the NIMBY point of view.
What particularly bothered me was that CAC votes only seemed to carry weight when/if they supported a council member’s opinion on a rezoning. If a CAC vote aligned with the council member’s position, then he/she could point to that vote as a rationale for their position. If the CAC vote was opposite of a council member’s position then he/she could simply ignore it. And of course the CAC votes were always completely unrepresentative.
As a means for information exchange I think CACs were fine. They served that purpose for the people who attended. This is why some people feel betrayed by the sudden abandonment of the program - they’ve had their opportunity for information exchange removed.
As a means for polling the community on decisions that have a real impact on the city’s future CAC’s were completely inadequate.
I hope whatever citizen engagement process replaces the CAC system is able to keep some form of in-person information exchange without tying it to a voting or polling process.
The groups need to be smaller, so that the issues discussed are more relevant rather than something 7 miles away. They would meet closer to home, and they could be more informal, but open to all.
There should be either an email or mailing address sign up so they have a way to contact you. This would be all that’s required, but it needs to be tied to a person’s name since this would be how you keep up with online interaction.
The requirement should be that you’re a resident of the City, ETJ, or own property here to be a part of a group.
You should be able to join whichever groups you want. I live in one CAC, own property in another, work in a 3rd, got to church in a 4th, and much of my free recreation time in a 5th. There shouldn’t be a limit.
Neighborhood groups shouldn’t vote on re-zonings. They should prepare a statement that reflects their opinion. It can be long enough to cover all opinions. There should also be an option for group members to comment online that’s received with equal weight. Staff would report the statements and comments to P&Z and Council for relevant cases.
There should be in person meetings, and a digital format including forums, surveys, and comment/suggestion forms. Again tied to your email address or mailing address, which would become your CACID and go with you from meeting to meeting, neighborhood group to neighborhood group. If you’re not registered you have to give your comments elsewhere.
There should be service opportunities, from a community garden, to participation in the normal public improvement meetings. Maybe cleanup work or planting a tree at Dix (or another park) as that project gets moving along.
There should be community building events. Like branding different summer events at Dix for different neighborhood group. It’s still open to all but maybe the group leader, the neighborhood coordinator, and the councilman could be at the event.
I’m not sure it’s worth all of those resources going out to 18 different meetings each month for the 10 people that show up at each meeting. I understand the challenge of catering to a digital age and people that aren’t well tied in digitally, but I’ve heard the argument that the CAC meetings were useful for the utilities report, police report, etc and I just don’t see how that’s worth it for a dozen people (I’ve been to meetings with less than 10).
Your last statement is what bothered me the most (not your actual statement but what you’re representing). In my opinion, unless a CAC vote reaches some minimum % of the region it represents, how do you even take it seriously? Some might have been upset that the CAC vote didn’t impact the City Council’s decision. My take is that I would be shocked if a 0.09% representation of the CAC had any impact whatsoever on City Council’s vote.
I think we’re essentially on the same side saying the same thing. Don’t agree with how it was handled, but looking forward to a more inclusive system.
Completely agree. If 50% of the respondents are complaining about shadows, toss out the window. If it’s about traffic, consider a study. If it’s about AH, ask for a contribution to our yet to be approved AH bond. Etc.
A vote doesn’t explain why you do or don’t want something.
All I can say is that this council better have an excellent and operational replacement for the CACs this year or the narrative that this council is silencing voices will only expand. They took a bold move; now they better deliver or they’re screwed.
They totally put the pressure on themselves when they didn’t have to. A miscalculation.
Silencing the obnoxious complainers is not possible. They will find a way to be heard no matter what. It would have been better to leave the CACs in place so they can have their forum. Now it is possible that they will show up at City Council meetings en masse instead and be even more disruptive.
What should have been done was to provide an alternate, open, probably online method of public engagement for development review that was more convenient, less intimidating, and less subject to mob rule and groupthink.
Totally agree. I have a vision that in 12 months (hopefully less) we have a system that we can brag about and maybe even refer to “remember when we had in-person CAC meetings” that hardly anybody went to? That would help dampen the damage that has been created from this seemingly knee-jerk action without replacement. Damage control now is action and effective inclusion and execution on the new system.
Clearly something online needs to be the foundation of the next iteration, and engagement is going to need a new way to be measured instead of butts-in-seats at CAC meetings. The council could start by enabling comments on their YouTube channel and have a digital analysis team put together to cull all of the types of digital feedback that they receive across all of their platforms. Then, they will likely need to prove that their re-imagined in-person methodologies are an improvement to the former CAC program.
Knight is asking for feedback. I gave him some. Give him yours …
This week, the City Council moved to improve civic engagement for all the residents of Raleigh. Here’s why and how.
The number one thing I heard from Raleigh residents while I campaigned for city council was the need for better civic engagement. I heard concerns about sprawl, affordable housing, and transportation, with many residents saying they wanted better ways to make their voices heard about these issues. This week, we passed four motions that set a baseline for how we’ll go about creating better civic engagement for everyone. This process is long overdue and we’ve taken the hard first step of putting changes in motion.
Some people are upset that Citizen Advisory Councils (CACs) will cease to exist in their current form. The reality is that most residents don’t participate in or even know about CACs, with 91% of citizens in the last city survey saying they had never or rarely attended a CAC meeting. While it might be difficult for some in the short-term, eliminating them now frees us to build something more innovative and inclusive.
We plan to move quickly in the next few months to put in place better ways for residents to engage with their city government, and that includes input from those who have been active in CACs. We want the best ideas for how to structure civic engagement tools and that will require all of us working together.
Please email me your ideas atdavid.knight@raleighnc.gov. I look forward to working together to build a better future for Raleigh through better civic engagement.
We’re not the only city looking to reinvent our public engagement process:
“Some cities have begun to overhaul their systems for taking public feedback: Pittsburgh is one that has instituted a participatory budgeting process, to provide more grassroots input on city spending, and Seattle broke up its Neighborhood District Councils in 2016, which were seen as dominated by activist homeowners, replacing them with a Community Involvement Commission and Seattle Renters Commission, aiming to get more diverse voices engaged in local planning decisions.”
As a young professional who is civically engaged I had never heard of CACs until this issue flared up. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of retirees, and this whole thing sounds ridiculous. I doubt the people in my local CAC represent a platform that aligns with my values and concerns
If you want to continue with your club, you can and should-without city resources. $12000 and 12 city staff members? If CAC members want to continue pushing their agenda, go for it. I’m looking forward to a new, more open platform of civic engagement that doesn’t smack of NIMBYisms and property value fixation.
It’s definitely important that they do a good job rolling out the replacement for CACs, but if they do, this is going to be triply a win for the council. You get rid of a terrible system, replace with one that actually adds value, and to top off it, the NIMBYs contest the 2021 election on a platform of “This city council got rid of the CACs you never cared about and replaced with this new thing that you like! How dare they!”
I mean, still got execute, but they’ve set themselves up to have their political opposition spend the whole cycle running on a losing political issue.
Livable Raleigh (which I believe Stef Mendell is behind) is promoting using NextDoor as a means for communication for the city.
Why wouldn’t the City use NextDoor to help promote CACs before shutting them down because of a perception that there wasn’t enough awareness of them? CAC leadership had asked for support for decades from the City, got virtually nothing, and then got blamed for not being visible enough.