This email link I just received from Livable Raleigh is next level. I’ve said this before, but the argument Livable Raleigh is presenting, although misleading, is more organized and louder than any opposing argument supporting the rezoning. This is very likely to get denied. Just look at this picture they are using to scare people into thinking it will look like :
First paragraph:
" learn how you can help stop the city-sponsored urban renewal of New Bern Avenue. Stand up for Raleigh’s Black history and for revitalizing existing neighborhoods and businesses along the New Bern Avenue Bus Rapid Transit line rather than forcing them out."
Sad how wealthy white homeowners have weaponized 1960’s urban renewal and black neighborhood destruction for their own purposes of fighting change in the city which would actually make the city more livable for all residents in the long run…
I’m tired of them using black people as a scapegoat we need a better way of countering there misleading information. I’m in Florida but one thing you could point out is how many folks that are anti this rezoning are black or white. Carmen Cauthers is a plant for them from the “good trouba” civil rights generation, until we get some black folks like myself to be a cut through the noise and give the facts well lose this argument.
It’s been a pervasive problem. Every time you see someone coming out against the zoning, it’s not someone from the area getting rezoned. It’s someone from “Historic Oakwood”. Really wish that the City Council would call attention to that. We need to be listening to the people actually impacted, not the people using this area as a legal buffer to their neighborhood.
This was mentioned on Tuesday city council meeting: if TOD on New Bern is voted down than that can cause a situation where Raleigh will lose out on future USDOT funding for transit projects. As USDOT expects the city to demonstrate that the funds the city receives are used to promote transit which includes working towards densifying around transit.
You can tell from the questions asked that Christina Jones already knows she’s going to vote no and is looking for an excuse. Patton and Harrison will probably vote no too. I’m guessing it will come down to Black.
The future of transit in Raleigh is not looking good.
It sure sounds like we have to pivot and use TOD to sprawl the city instead of improve it, or we have to invest in transit only in already wealthy areas. Let’s see how those would go down.
You can blame me unfortunately, I regret it often. What was presented as progressive forward thinking development strategy, was actually disguised as woke virtue signaling.
When the council’s voting is dictated based off their reelection considerations or appeasing those who they believe got them into office, instead of the voting for the greater good of the city, we are doomed.
Liveable Raleigh has the racial sympathy angle, this wins almost every time unfortunately because people are afraid to voice even the slightest bit of opposition to that argument in fear of being called racist. When in reality a lot of those positions are counterintuitive to helping people in the first place.
Let’s not confuse asking hard questions with wanting to get all the facts. I appreciate Jones’s, Patton’s, and Harrison’s thoroughness here since they are coming at this thing, something in the making for years, kind of at the last stage. I think they’ll approach this from every angle.
It’s clear that some people are going to be negatively impacted and in my mind, I ask myself, “Does approving this TOD lead to less, the same, or more people being negatively impacted?” Unfortunately, we don’t have a crystal ball so as long as your thought process is well-researched and thought through then I’ll respect anyone’s take on this.
I’m in the “this will negatively impact less people” camp as it’ll take development pressure off the neighborhoods 1/2 to 2-3 miles away from the New Bern corridor. At least, that’s what I think will happen.
In addition, there are more benefits as well.
I’m also not sure comparing this to urban renewal is exactly fair so Councilor Black’s comment makes me think she has some homework to do. At least according to my reading, comparing TOD to urban renewal really shows ones naivety on the topic.
On the contrary, let’s focus on the positive because there’s a lot. This is an opportunity to build a robust system that serves the entire City, especially an underserved, historically disenfranchised area.
We can facilitate affordable housing, build transit to reduce our community’s climate impact and reduce air pollution in East Raleigh, improve access to healthcare, and create a blueprint for inclusive, deliberate growth.
The model that other groups are proposing makes an equitable, inclusive future for Raleigh less likely. Driving City investment from downtown to single-family focused areas like Wakefield would shift City resources away from underserved areas toward more affluent areas. Growth is going to happen, and rather than freezing our City in place in a way that already underserved this community to the benefit of others, we can use this moment to shape growth that benefits and celebrates this community.
Agree with all of this. I think that Councilors Harrison and Patton should absolutely not be written off as “no” votes and are committed to the City’s vision for BRT (which inculdes transit supportive development).
I also think there’s been a very narrow focus on the rezoning case alone, while in reality the principals of equitable development around transit require both land use/zoning changes and significant policy/funding to mitigate displacement for existing LMI residents. A lot of that is already happening but additional dedicated funding in this year’s budget needs to be part of the “package deal” that is the station-area-plan implementation.
EDIT: And Mary Black’s talk about “urban renewal” is just parroting the talking points coming from Liveable Raleigh and Octavia Rainey.
It’s belittling to the memory of the past to compare anything we’re doing now to what happened under urban renewal. “I was once in a canoe that tipped over… it was JUST like surviving the Titanic!!!”
That’s exactly what’s in the ETOD report they commissioned. But these public officials would rather pass the buck and blame Other People with populist slogans than take charge and do something. Doing something means doing real things that will sometimes go wrong, whereas doing nothing means you can always be for a perfect fantasy.
I haven’t watched the January 2nd council meeting, but I received this information from Liveable Raleigh. What exactly was denied regarding the Station Area Planning? This is from their email:
“CP-7-22 and Z-92-22 – New Bern Station Area Planning – much discussion about Planning Commission denial, including discussions of recommendations they discussed BEFORE voting for denial. Public hearing scheduled for January 30. Staff and some council members don’t seem to understand that density will not result in affordability unless specific conditions are included”
If your question is about “station area planning” in general. It was kind of confusing because everyone is thinking of this as TOD in general. But they voted on applying a TOD zoning plan around the stations and New Bern, so it’s being called station area planning. You should go watch the planning commission video on the vote because it gives you the real story of what happened.
My take is that there was a combo of some commissioners who are generally against TOD. They don’t really like the idea and want to have developers make all the requests (to try and extract things from them) vs proactively planning for growth around transit. Then some who voted against it are more focused around displacement, and want something (seemed like there was a hard time describing what they actually wanted, it was more what they don’t want) that would guarantee no displacement would happen. This is my interpretation from watching the meeting.
Something that stood out to me after watching that discussion and vote was that it didn’t seem like there was a concrete list of what could change people from a no to a yes vote. Hard to work with that.
I put Livable Raleigh in the don’t really like the concept of TOD camp. They see any increases in density as a give away to developers. So they would only be in favor of a TOD that was extremely restrictive to the point where a developer would not use it. The TOD plans have an incentive for developers to add affordable housing for hight increases, but Livable Raleigh would like for that to be a requirement for any density or height increase. That’s why they describe it the way they did.
In the past the Livable Raleigh folks argued against ADUs and Duplexes city wide saying they would not be near transit. Now they don’t want to plan growth around transit. My guess is they just want all new buildings to go through a rezoning and make changes based on what neighbors don’t like about the plans. It is more like they want the security of being able to stop anything they don’t want over any other kind of goals. I sat through a 3 hour meeting once about what to allow in the ADU overlays (that no one used) and this was the impression the Livable Raleigh city councilors at the time left on me.
Higher density zoning already has increased middle-income housing choices ITB; new duplex units are selling at prices below comparable teardown houses.
So these are people who want to make deals, not plans. So why are they on the planning commission? And why do they assume that deals are necessarily superior to plans – do they haggle over prices at the supermarket?
James, interested in your thoughts as to how those camps break down amount members of council. My sense is that Jones and Black are hard “nos” while Harrison and Patton are in the “we need reassurances that this won’t displace anyone” but I could be wrong. In any case, would be helpful for us to remind council that the City has other tools in its toolbox (spelled out in the station area plan under consideration) to help prevent displacement in this corridor.
