I don’t think she’s voted against anything yet while others have, but certainly slow rolls to a decision when possible
2 Likes
It just nuts I mean she gets me angry, I’ve backed off Mary Black and Megan Patton a little, but this person obviously doesn’t know the business of developers.
You gotta feel what you feel man…
I’m still holding in the camp remaining hopeful that fact finding and thoroughness will yield some positive outcomes down the road while not significantly holding up any rezonings too much. This one got pushed 4 weeks, I think. Truth is that the questions she’s asking remain : ‘How do we build affordable housing all around the city’ without compromising or constricting ‘organic’ growth…? Supply is one facet but there’s so much more necessary to work through the bubble created by the back log on the other side of the funnel. I’m saying the right acronym is LFPATL : Let’s F’n Pull ALL the Levers
3 Likes
Talked about this on my run (in downtown Cary) tonight with @GucciLittlePenguin. This is what makes me the most frustrated:
Assume these people are catering to their constituents, who firmly believe that every new tall building downtown is expensive and therefore filled with rich transplants moving here. Because this smacks them in the face, they think that if more buildings aren’t approved, people will stop moving here. However, people are moving here for jobs, RTP, schools, taxes, weather, greenways, location, etc. They’re not going to stop because there’s not enough tall buildings. In fact, they probably don’t expect many tall buildings because they think Raleigh is a small city. So, if they’re going to move here anyways, and there’s not enough dense, tall buildings, they’re going to just buy all the single family homes near downtown, and push out the people who are already complaining about being pushed out. I don’t understand why no one has been able to explain this to these people so they understand.
tl:dr less housing means poor people get pushed out, not that rich people will stop coming to a desirable area.
12 Likes
So first, remember that council isn’t approving/denying any buildings here. They are looking at a zoning case which just changes what these lots can be used for. I shouldn’t have to list recent cases that produces nothing while others are building with existing zoning.
I tend to agree with the comments made by Melton and Baldwin. I believe in those market effects that more housing will generate long term benefits.
However, some residents believe that if you want to grant landowners the ability to do more with their property, they need to chip in, provide SOMETHING towards whatever issues the city is facing. (Today, it’s affordable housing) Some voters want council to negotiate with owners in exchange for an approved rezoning.
Look at the stats. Basically all rezonings get approved. Right or wrong, these delays avoid being marked as some who rubber stamps everything and let’s the public engagement play out, which I continue to say is what makes this council work.
9 Likes
The city needs to explain the value proposition to the electorate.
You want to know what the developer is providing? TAX REVENUE!
Gee, I wonder how much more tax revenue a 40 story building provides over a 20 story building? Every tax dollar that a larger building provides means 1 of 2 things or both: 1) Something gets funded that wasn’t previously funded. 2) that building provides revenues that you don’t have to provide.
5 Likes
Exactly. It’s so hard to find that value in these things.
If you really think about the process of these rezonings, they are technical reviews right up until they hit council. After submission, they go to planning commission. As far as Gale Street goes, I watched that one and the discussion was extremely minor. Not saying they were jumping for joy at this but it was just a struggle for anyone to really “debate” it. Passes unanimously.
Then you get to council and, of course, planning staff does a good job of objectively teeing it up. This is where the technicalities end and the emotions come in. Value is different from person to person. I started writing a real weedsy response about value and how we could possibly calculate that but it started to turn into a thesis. Might save that for another day.
As regular citizens who don’t work in planning or don’t even follow it, you either have to believe that a large project in downtown will have market effects or not. I certainly do and would love to see more people on board. Maybe it’s time to start a YIMBY group to get the word out there. 
8 Likes
OK but would we have to call it “Unlivable Raleigh” just for petty, but clear opposition? 
1 Like
There are lots of people that would be behind that, but you have to get somebody to really head it up that has some respect and can be objective, not obsessive YIMBY.
Maybe a DTR CAC???
3 Likes
I nominate Leo…
(or Gavin)
3 Likes
If we want to engage Jane, we might try the District D neighborhood alliance - hey, downtown is a neighborhood right? Per Jane’s website:
District D Neighborhood Alliance meeting – 12/17/22. This group is newly formed and meets in person once/month on the 3rd Saturday at 9:30 am at the Thomas Crowder Woodland Center. Meeting structure is informal with the intent to provide a forum for open conversation on issues relevant to District D. Pop in to say hello and provide insights from your neighborhood. This is an opportunity for neighbors to help neighbors. I answer questions as directed but rely on the knowledge of those who show up to also share resources and insights.
(I tried to add myself to the alliance’s listserv but I don’t think the listserv is functioning.)
If the above is correct the next meeting would be May 20. I’d be interested in attending and advocating for a more favorable treatment of proposed development, though to Leo’s point ultimately the council is approving most of these, so the discussion needs to be more about making the most of the development opportunities we have (as opposed to scaling them back).
3 Likes
I’ll second the ‘YIMBY’ advocacy group - I think a lot of people would be interested. RaleighForward led by Eric Braun may be a good potential group as well - I know he’s hoping to put a few more things in place beyond the newsletter. Maybe something like Discord for real time communication. I think he would appreciate anyone reaching out and offering ideas or help.
4 Likes
I’ve been thinking about this for some time now. I’m so on board. There needs to be some organized presence to counter Livable Raleigh – and particularly, IMO, their apparent sway within the Wake County Dem Party; seems like whoever is endorsed by WCDP will win, and I’m slightly afraid of a greater NIMBY presence next go around.
But I think that some outreach, education & respectable YIMBY discourse could go a long way.
As an aside, I’ve also been contemplating the idea of starting an Urbanists club at NCSU while I’m still a student. Maybe could do some sort of partnership with ITRE.
8 Likes
The District D neighborhood alliance meetings have been around for a long time. They are old school in more ways than one. Might not be the best initial venue for a more YIMBY-leaning group that is trying to be heard.
1 Like
Right now, it’s a parking lot. Who gets to live there? Nobody.
Beyond that, the question is still absurd on its face. Not even the USSR, where housing was built by a government spending its own money on its own citizens, allocated the newest, nicest, shiniest houses to their neediest residents.
Council wouldn’t be all “who gets to DINE downtown” when a fancy new restaurant applies for a liquor license, or “who gets to EAT downtown” when only fancy grocery stores open. Yet somehow it’s only ever new apartments that gets “FOR WHOMST” screamed about it, because it’s only new apartments that require zoning changes to get built.
I had some other thoughts on organizing over in this thread:
I’ve bought copies of Jenny Schuetz’s book for the council, and will go out to get copies of the latest Mother Jones as well.
9 Likes
Yes…McKibben does a good job summing up the disparate pieces that people get hung up on and outlining what we should all be thinking…
2 Likes
Eric is doing a great job via Raleigh Forward but it’s more middle of the road and fact checking/truth vs Livable Raleigh’s emotional NIMBY messaging. He’s not trying to stir the pot necessarily. I think this initiative needs to almost be opposite Livable Raleigh vs middle.
4 Likes
WakeUP Wake County is probably the closest thing we have to one currently. Their four core emphases, per the website, are “Transportation, Land Use, Housing, and Climate Change.” I know they do some good work and are pretty active in the bike advocacy realm in particular (@RaleighBikeLady is on staff). They just don’t have the same resources or sway that Livable Raleigh does (or maybe they’re just less vocal). If we’re wanting to get involved in an effort that already exists and has some structure in place, they’d be it.
Conversely, if we’re wanting something that’s more explicitly Raleigh, YIMBY, or both, then a new group might be more ideal. That said, it might be wise to not include YIMBY in the name; that would likely pigeon-hole the group out the gate in the minds of some.
2 Likes
I would join but I am starting my podcast I love to be YIMBY podcaster reach it to a better audience. But yes let’s start this.
Ok, then it’s done.
@dtraleigh Leo, you may have stepped away for a minute but you were nominated as President of the new “Tell me you’re YIMBY without saying you’re YIMBY” group to represent those of us actual progressives that want our city to grow smart and for all of those that live in our limits with density and affordability and the earth in mind. Not just livable Raleigh, but Highly Desirable Raleigh (HDR)!
6 Likes