Adding some bushes/mini trees between the sidewalk and the parking lot there might’ve been a first effort to make it work in response to the complaint.
1 Like
This is definitely speculation but I’m sure this was just a communication issue, plain and simple. Going forward, just notify all properties, residents, and businesses within 150 feet of a future installation.
What I’m guessing took place is that the staffers behind it looked at who was generating the most trash (restaurants) and worked with only them towards the new solution. That got the right results, which is why it should be considered a success. The mechanics of the new system were working well.
The context was clearly off here so take it as a learning lesson. I’d like to see them moved near the DGX as The Edison, along Blount, trashes the sidewalk considerably. Pilot it there and just move on. My fear is that this experience cripples the city’s initiative to try anything new, which I already feel is pretty weak.
10 Likes
The real problem is that no business is going to want them in front of their place of business. So Raleigh will have to find dead places with no current activity of business like empty lots, parking garages, or back side of businesses. Even when they seemingly find a perfect spot, one business can call them out in such a way that it immediately forces them to stop the program. Good luck with moving forward with this now.
1 Like
It’s a parking lot facing a blank wall. It’s not like they stuck a dumpster in front of their doorway on MLK Day. I get so sick of everything having a race card played.
4 Likes
While it was poor judgement from the city not to at least mention this to all surrounding businesses before going forward, they also don’t necessarily have to - nor did they have to quickly backpedal and remove them after one complaint from one such business. Call it eminent domain, call it whatever you want; if it benefits the city as a whole, and is located on city property (i.e. the SIDEWALK), it is the city that is in control. What an absolute waste of money and time. I agree with you 100% on considering their feedback as part of the trial, and to potentially reconsider when the trial period is over
4 Likes
It’s clear the city didn’t do their due diligence and should have consulted with more businesses before installing the moloks. I think they know they screwed up and that’s why they acted so hastily to remove them.
1 Like
Yes, exactly! And how is putting one small group’s alleged interest over the interests of all other parties fair or reasonable?
How is only seeking input from one group fair or reasonable ?
Good point. But are we talking about poor communication in adding in the first place…?
Or are we talking about poor communication in regards to…we’re sorry, and here is our plan going forward?
Or both…? 
It sounds like there was no communication.
It’s a block with a bunch of restaurants that makes it a good location for a pilot program. How does the fact that it’s a black owned bank make it any different than if it was a white owned bank? Treating people differently because of their race is racism. The fact that no mind was paid to the race of the bank owner shows pure intentions. If there’s other issues with the location, such as blocking traffic or it not being useful for the businesses it is intended for, then that’s a fair point to be addressed at the end of the pilot program. That’s not what I’ve been hearing tho. It sounds like someone threw down a race card and the City is worried about bad optics, which is pretty lame compared to standing their ground and explaining the benefits and thought process of the location. I’m not trying to start an argument about this, I’m just very frustrated with the way this city responds to small groups of complainers at the expense of the larger population.
1 Like
Yes because once again you are ignorant of history. The reason it makes a difference is because the city has a history of ignoring marginalized voices. The fact the bank wasn’t at least consulted in the installation when I’m assuming businesses across the street and down the block were, probably led to feelings of history repeating itself.
Had the city just done the slightest of reaching out to all businesses within a certain radius of the installation they may have avoided getting egg on their face.
2 Likes
Just a question: isn’t the street and that sidewalk the cities property? Why exactly do they need to speak with any store owner if they want to start a pilot program?
1 Like
It is their property but it also means it belongs to everyone so in a way, everyone should have a say.
4 Likes
Calling it eminent domain might not have gone over any better considering the recent history of eminent domain being used to demolish black neighborhoods for infrastructure projects and/or urban renewal.
I’m not arguing against the moloks, or their placement, or the idea that the bank is creating a fuss over nothing. I agree with all of the above… in terms of the sheer impact of the trashcans, it’s much ado about nothing. I think Leo is spot-on in that the real issue is communication.
These discussions are rarely about who has the right to do what. Does a developer have to consider the desires of a community it builds in, if they own the property? No. Community engagement is simply good practice. It’s about a gesture of goodwill, awareness, and disrupting a history of explicit racism that neither cares for nor even acknowledges the views of a certain part of our population.
4 Likes
When this all went down initially there were FOIA(or whatever the state equivalent is) requests made to see who made the complaints. I would love to see requests on the initial outreach the city made. I still believe the city should have tried to assuage the complaints of the bank by adding additional screening or something else and maybe they did. But here’s hoping the city finds another location and moves forward smartly reaching out to potential neighbors and setting expectations. They don’t need give these parties veto power but just a chance to be heard.
And they should turn the existing moloks into a parklet with hopes of restoring them at a future date.
1 Like
I had the same experience outside the West condos Monday night. I’m glad I’m not disabled because the sidewalk was impassable. Trying to think of catchy slogans for that area… Where there’s Smoky Hollow, there’s a (dumpster) fire?
2 Likes
Good point - I guess what I meant by my statement is that, like any public works project, there will be complaints. But a detriment to the few that is still a benefit for the many should not be hindered by the few, as the city government works for us all. If one business has an issue with something that 99% of the rest of the city approves, that business should not dictate the fate of a positive public works project. Especially since their claims were literally exactly what this project was intended to address (rats, smell, etc). If the true underlying intention of their complaints were simply “we weren’t consulted by the city first so GTFOH” - that is simply petty and sets a rocky precedent.
1 Like
I think if the city consulted or reached out to surrounding businesses and failed to reach out to the bank, this really isn’t setting a rocky precedent.