This was posted on ND from one of the petition organizers. Doesn’t sound like they are going to make it.
10 Likes
File this under “NO SHIT”
5 Likes
Even if I was in the camp of the recall, this was my biggest beef against this effort.
10 Likes
Black people i so ashamed to be black. My people are lost, we’re just very disappointed at the President, disappointed at him not meeting his promises, were disappointed at America. But some of our shit is internal and blacks keep fighting it.
New email from Livable Raleigh. Apparently there’s a survey out on Council districts and terms?
David Cox, PhD has added his proposal to expand the number of district representatives and eliminate the two at-large seats:
An Alternative Plan that Puts Voters First
by District B Councilor David Cox
The Future of Raleigh City Council
Hello Everyone,
Recently the City of Raleigh began a poll regarding the future
structure and compensation of City Council. The poll asks five
questions. Before I present these questions, I want to first offer my
own opinion about the future of Raleigh City Council.Raleigh is a big city. The latest census shows that 467,000 people now
live in Raleigh. Currently, Raleigh City Council consists of five
district Council Members, two Council Members elected at-large, and
the Mayor for a total of eight. Each District Council Member
represents more than 90,000 citizens. Thus, each district is as large
as a small city. And each district covers a large geographic area.
Raleigh’s total geographic area is 144 square miles. Each District
covers nearly 29 square miles. Despite the City’s growth both in
geographic area and population, the Raleigh City Council has remained
unchanged for 50 years.Now is a good time to consider change and I propose that the City of Raleigh
should double the number of District Council Members from five to ten
and eliminate the two at-large Council Members. Doing so would
increase the Council from eight members to eleven. Moreover, this
change will greatly improve representation on Council and give even
more people the opportunity to serve.I first ran for City Council in 2015. Running for Council can be a
daunting prospect. When running for Council you want to meet people to
tell them your story and explain why they should vote for you. I have
been extremely fortunate to have had a number of volunteers who
contributed countless hours knocking on doors in the extreme heat of
the summer months. And I have been fortunate to raise enough money to
pay the printing and postage to send mailers throughout my district.But these expenses and the large population and geographic area are a
significant barrier to conducting an election campaign. Because of
these barriers most very qualified individuals never consider running
for public office. These barriers are a disservice to the citizens of
Raleigh because the field of candidates becomes limited to those with
deep pockets and wealthy contributors. It really is a fluke when
someone can run an effective grassroots campaign and actually win in
the City of Raleigh.We can level the playing field a lot by increasing the number of
District Members from five to ten. Doing so will result in Districts
that are both half the size geographically and half the population.
Each District would have about 45,000 citizens or about 19,000
households. Smaller Districts eliminate barriers and make mounting
an effective campaign much easier thus opening the door to greater
participation.Moreover, with more Districts, there is better representation. Rather
than the Council being dominated as it has been historically by individuals
who live inside the beltline, more districts will ensure that
representatives are elected from all quarters of the City.More Districts also eliminate any argument for changing from two-year
terms to four-year terms. It is being argued now that it is too
difficult to run a campaign every two years. I argue that small
Districts make it much easier to run a campaign. Thus, any “practical”
need for four-year terms is eliminated. Moreover, two-year terms give
the People the opportunity to change Council and provide a check and
balance on elected officials – something very much needed in today’s
world.And isn’t that the purpose of democracy? To ensure that people are
heard and are truly represented in the important decisions that affect
their day-to-day lives. And that those elected are held accountable
through regular elections.Let me now return to the City of Raleigh’s poll about changing City
Council. Unfortunately, that poll does not consider the points that I
just presented. Instead, the poll presents far more limited choices.Should City Council transition from two-year to four-year terms?
Should City Council increase its size to nine by adding one district seat?
Should City Council increase its size to nine by adding an At-Large member?
There is no option in this poll for adding more than one District
Member. Moreover, it asks if an at-large member should be added. In my
opinion, another at-large member would not increase representation or
participation on Council. Instead, it will result in a Council that is
dominated by the few who have the connections to wealthy donors to get
elected.Today you can make your voice heard by answering this poll. I ask that you consider responding as follows:
Answer DISAGREE on changing from two-year to four-year terms.
Answer DISAGREE on adding an At-Large member.
Answer AGREE on adding one district seat.
While the last option doesn’t get us where we truly need to be, for
the purposes of this poll, it is, in my opinion, the best answer.The remaining two questions on the poll concern compensation for the
members and the mayor. I offer no opinion on those questions.To participate in the City of Raleigh’s poll, please visit this website: https://engage.raleighnc.gov/Q5453
Please pass this email on to others in your community.
Thank you,
David Cox, PhD
Member, Raleigh City Council, District B
Honestly I think he raises some good points about the difficulty of running campaigns for so few seats. But I’m not sure how I feel about his suggestion to eliminate the at-large seats. What are your thoughts?
The at-large members of the council are its two best members, policy-wise, so obviously I’m a hard no on eliminating their seats.
Also, I can’t help but notice that the comments on that form have been swarmed by the Livable Raleigh crowd, so I’m going to take the results of the poll with a grain of salt.
9 Likes
I disagree on 2 year terms vs 4 year terms. He addresses the minute change that a smaller district means less effort running a campaign but I really don’t think there would be any difference. It might cost less (less signs/mailers) but I don’t think a candidate is going to spend less time. 4 year terms are needed so an elected council member can be effective at their agenda. I think all voters want that.
And I guess I just don’t understand his “argument” against at-large seats. I think that’s a Cox agenda thing and not a “good for the voters” thing.
10 Likes
He has his opinions and they’re not evolving all that much about the ‘state of things’ in Raleigh.
I don’t agree with much of his ‘let’s slow this all down and analyze the crap out of all development’ approach but for damn sure much of his district loves it.
I do think increasing district focused council members makes sense, don’t agree with scrapping the at-large members and certainly don’t see the argument for how 2 year terms makes anything easier - moving to 4 years would seem to limit the % of time you need to spend campaigning dont’cha think?
It’d seem that we’d get better representation for the area on the whole if we increased district councilors by 2, kept the 2 at large (brings council size to 11 including mayor), everyone gets 4 year cycle to serve BUT to keep out any stagnation, stagger the vote on council seats in some way so half the council is on the ballot every two years. 5 seats plus mayor up in 2024, other 5 seats up in 2026, 5 seats and mayor in 2028 and so forth.
3 Likes
I like that concept but then you get half the seats that are on presidential election years and half that aren’t.
Agreed but kinda feel like the push-pull of the rolling council would be the better outcome in the end…?
Of course, it likely won’t happen anyway so it’s just postulating.
1 Like
2 Likes
Mayor Pro Tem Nicole Stewart has decided not to run for re-election next year. I will certainly miss her being on council. She has fought for so much good during her council tenure (more housing availability and environmental concerns mainly). Excited to see who the new candidates appear for the second city council at large seat!
1 Like
OH NO!!!
I hope this means she’s considering something bigger and not walking away from her influence and contributions to the city. Nicole is fantastic and I love the fresh perspective she brought to the city council. This is very surprising. 
12 Likes
Yeah this is very sad. I wonder what she’s doing next. She and Melton are by far my favorite 2 people on the council.
10 Likes
Possible game changer if a viable replacement is not met.
2 Likes
I nominate @dtraleigh and @OakCityDylan. They’ll have to fight it out in a primary though.
8 Likes
That’s too bad. I hope she has further plans for public life.
1 Like
Maybe she’ll just run for mayor. I’d be fine with that.
5 Likes
Just what I was gonna say, I would fill in her bubble for Mayor in a HEARTBEAT.
5 Likes
Livable Raleigh is officially calling off its recall campaign:
Two major unexpected developments – the impact of the Omicron variant as well as the delay of primary elections from March to May – have led Livable Raleigh to make the difficult decision to suspend our effort to recall Mayor Baldwin.
The health and safety of the community and of our volunteers is our highest priority and the recent spike in Covid cases makes it virtually impossible to continue to collect petition signatures in a safe manner, especially during the cold winter months. If the archaic local recall rules allowed us to gather signatures online, this would be a different story, but the requirement to witness signatures in person is just not feasible during yet another spike in Covid cases.
In addition, with the primaries moving from March to May, we believe it does not make sense to hold a recall vote in May, just six months ahead of the November election, and we do not want to burden taxpayers with the expense of an additional election if we were to request one earlier than the May primary.
https://mailchi.mp/livableraleigh.com/introducing-lr-4237909?e=904de4508f
12 Likes