That was one of the very few buildings to come down in the last 12 years I’ve lived here that I was actually unhappy about.
I don’t get the issue with the Masonic Lodge building. I’m all for removing statues from government property, but they wanted to tear down a house because it was owned by a racist? That seems like something that could be applied to most old homes. I don’t really care since I never really saw the place, but it just seems dumb. If it’s beyond reasonable repair, then fine. Still don’t see why people expect the mayor to “save” privately owned buildings. That’s not within her power even if she wanted to.
Eveytime a house gets town down in our neighborhood, and replaced by a McMasion, MAB and the council somehow gets blamed on nextdoor. Like they are rubber stamping all these tear downs.
Also, historic designation doesn’t protect anything perpetually from being torn down. There may be more but I remember that the RHDC has the right to apply a 365 day delay on any proposed teardown in a historic district. They use this to try and work with the owner or move a house to a new site.
Unified Development Code section 10.2.15.E.1 provides that “An application for a
certificate of appropriateness authorizing the demolition or destruction of a building,
structure or site within any Historic Overlay District…may not be denied…. However,
the authorization date of such a certificate may be delayed for a period of up to 365 days
from the date of issuance…. If the Commission finds that the building, structure or site
has no particular significance or value toward maintaining the character of the Historic
Overlay District or Historic Landmark, it shall waive all or part of such period and
authorize earlier demolition or removal.”
I searched and pulled this from a plan to teardown a house in Glenwood-Brooklyn. pdf here.
I like this part coming straight from the owner that wants to tear it down.
I ask that, given the time that I have already spend on this process, the hardship of a mortgage on uninhabitable space, storage costs and lack of utility of my personal property, lost rent, and other continued expenses, that you waive the 365-day waiting period and allow the immediate demolition of this house so I that I may move forward and restore my life.
Based on their website their major gripe is the removal of CACs, so they can go kick rocks. Why anyone would want to make government function more like a Parks and Rec-style hearing is beyond me.
I will absolutely get on a soapbox about this stuff but you can’t really pin the NIMBY sentiments entirely on the right or left. Anti-development sentiment exists all over the political spectrum, even though it contradicts large swaths of each orthodoxy.
Are you a Republican? You should support property rights and growth! You should dislike regulations!
Yes, this is correct. Unless the property is of statewide historic significance, certificates of appropriateness (necessary for making changes to historic properties) can’t be denied for demolition. The most they can do is delay the inevitable.
The study group has compiled a final report, and will be presenting their findings at the afternoon session of the city council meeting on Tues., Sept. 7 starting at 1 p.m.
The group decided unanimously on 6 recommendations for the council:
Transition from 2-year to 4-year terms
Adopt staggered terms — district city council members are elected on one side of the cycle, and the mayor and all at-large City council members are elected on the other side of the cycle
Increase compensation for the mayor + city council members — total compensation for the mayor would be increased from $27,550 to $45,911 and total compensation for city councilors would increase from $19,725 to $37,249
Move elections to even years — their data showed this would spur greater voter turnout
Have staff to develop a voter engagement program — could include a voter resource guide online or a Twitter account to reach people through social media
The city council should add 1 district seat to increase its size from 8 to 9
I can already see how this will go over with the livable Raleigh folks. The term increases and pay increases give them even more fodder for recall MAB petition.
I agree with staggering the terms and changing them to 4 years.
I agree with all of it. The salary currently means only the rich or retired can realistically be on the City Council, or people with very flexible jobs or rich spouses. Melton made this point recently, and I hadn’t thought about it before.
Politically, it looks like they want to hold on to power another year, then double their terms, get huge raises, build an expensive fancy office building for themselves, and got rid of the CACs that hold them accountable to the public. I understand and agree with their actual reasons, but as you say, I see this being fodder for all the people who want to blame them for everything they don’t like about 21st century Raleigh.
If someone was willing to run for a seat and campaign on supporting that pay raise etc. from a social justice angle, I feel like that would be a great way to sap voters away from the anti-MAB narrative without playing into the image of a corrupt power grab.
…I would be willing to take one for the team and do that. But alas, I don’t live in Raleigh and don’t exactly have the time to do this sort of thing
Think of all the really decent people there are probably out there that could be good for our city but they have full time jobs (like 98% of us) and can’t even consider being on council. I’m 100% there with you @GucciLittlePig and I’m fairly certain we’ve talked about this before. The salary bumps don’t really change the consideration or type of people that can still run. Either have a SUPER supportive job, come from money, SUPER supportive spouse or retired.
But 37k is technically a living wage? Maybe someone could work part time and be okay.
Wait, do you even work anymore? Maybe you should run! I’d vote for you, and wouldn’t even tell anyone about your history of graffiti… I mean “watermarks”
The City (Mayor and council) are providing an opportunity to give a public comment regarding the extended terms and increased salary during their Oct 12th session. You can sign up below to voice your opinion.
