Ditto here.
To hit everyone in the feels, I’m going to say that transit supported infill housing prevents deforestation and chemical pollution in the bambi countryside of Clayton and Lillington.
To play their game, someone should show lots of pictures of the 540 deforestation
Ironically, there are lots of voices out there that support suburban sprawl because they BELIEVE that it’s more ecological to have far flung development scattered among nature preserves that just so happen to abut THEIR neighborhoods.
That’s a good tact. I figure there’s those like your ideas or others like Leo will talk about how the BRT will depend on the TOD.
One angle I plan to put in is that East Raleigh desperately needs a shot in the arm of Investment and new development. Severely. We are constantly getting the leftovers and scraps and don’t get any of the nice stuff that Midtown, Downtown, Village District, etc get. If anyone’s spent any decent amount of time east of WakeMed, y’all know this side of town is downright depressing. We desperately need new shopping, residential, food, etc options out here, instead of the dilapidated rat-infested Tower Shopping center and budget motels fill with mold & drug dealers.
Now…how I fit that in the one or two mintues they give to speak? We’ll see. LOL
A lot of people agree with this point. The twist here is that, and more so for East Raleigh, is that all this new stuff can’t be seen as something that further gentrifies and pushes out low-income people. Politically, think of a way to frame that argument in a way that benefits existing residents as well.
I’m not sure I’ve cracked that one quite yet but open to thoughts on it.
Let’s try and organize a bit for those that want to speak. I think this week, if you can’t make it out to the Jan 30 TOD meeting, please get your emails in to council. If you want to do a little more, or just stay even more engaged on the topic, please fill in this quick form below. I hope to see more of you urbanists real soon on this topic.
There is one (1) large rental apartment complex on this corridor (Milburnie Gardens) and it’s already city-owned.
(Edit: reviewed and there’s a second apartment complex, the one on Calumet Dr.)
That is the entire point of Transit Oriented Development – to allow more people to be along the route.
Again, why do people cling to “we must NEGOTIATE” as something that applies only this one industry of real estate development? We as a society have even largely moved on from “negotiating” for used car prices (and are drifting towards that for houses, e.g., “guaranteed offer!”).
If we don’t get TOD overlay, and I know this would be costly and painful, I’d consider pulling the plug on BRT in this corridor. Start again with somewhere that the BRT can activate TOD in a corridor where there isn’t resistance to change. What is the point of putting in a public transit system in a corridor that won’t support the density required to make it pay off?
Or, at the very least, make TOD a requirement for the city to activate a bus stop in the corridor. If there isn’t density to enable/feed it at certain station(s) along the way, then scrap those stations and pass them by. Only invest in stations that will provide the ridership necessary to make our public investment in the system pay off.
If we cannot make this corridor work with enough ridership, this line will be the only line ever built. The taxpayers will never allow us to expand the system if this first line, in an area that supposedly has the most need for transit options, fails. We cannot afford to have this fail or we will never see future investment in expanding the BRT or any potential rail system in the near future.
Throw rocks at me in reply if you want, but we CANNOT afford for this system to fail on its first implementation, and without TOD at station locations, it will assuredly fail.
Yup. Let New Bern remain a shithole indefinitely, if that’s really what neighbors want. Malicious compliance.
I don’t think there are many people like this out there. More like people who claim to support ecological sustainability but the solutions they will consider must meet the following criteria:
Somehow they believe that in such a world, they will be entitled to keep everything they have, and enjoy the eternal fruits of appreciation - while those who have less can just be satisfied with what they have, and newcomers looking for better opportunities should simply evaporate into the ether and disappear.
I have been to numerous public meetings in different cities where citizens protested new suburban development with the virtue signal of being good to the environment: resulting in people calling for nature preserves, parks, etc. as the solution.
One major point that often gets overlooked in discussions about housing is who’s really getting displaced. Sure, there’s a lot of talk about renters and homeowners being pushed out. But what about the kids who grew up here? Many can’t even afford to come back after they grow up.
Displacement isn’t just happening to current residents; it’s already affecting the next generation. By building denser, we’re actually creating opportunities for those kids to stay or return. This is something that groups like Livable Raleigh seem to miss. It feels like there’s a prevailing ‘got mine’ attitude, ignoring the fact that the very fabric of our community—the future generations—wants to stay here too.
No, we actually want it. (Or at the worst, ambivalent, as many of my neighbors are.) I really hope that the city council realizes most of the LR group’s loudest critics of this don’t even live here. They’re in big cushy ITB million dollar homes.
I got a friend in Oakwood who told me several of his neighbors are in LR and trying to get him to join them against the TOD and he point-blank told them where to go. “We’re almost two miles outside the boundary, WTF are y’all going on about”, was the gist of it. Sigh.
I can make the case that without BRT the inevitable future of the New Bern corridor is rapidly creeping SFH gentrification that will certainly displace the current communities.
Getting close to last call. A show of in-person support will go a long way. Let me know if you have any questions.
Planning on it! Will actually be my first public comment
Cool. So what happens when it snows or there is heavy rain?
I don’t know, but we know what happens to busses when it snows.
I’ll be there Tuesday. I’d love to give a voice of support, but I don’t know exactly what to speak on. I filled out the form regardless.
Some ideas for public comments:
Would you rather see new suburbs destroy more forest/farm land or see empty parking lots be replaced with housing and small retail spaces? You can’t be an “environmentalist”, affordable housing advocate or local business advocate and be against TOD zoning.
Why is it that many people who have homes in Raleigh, don’t want anyone else to have the same opportunity? Fighting against TOD and housing developments causes more homeless individuals to be on the street corner.
People travel to Europe and elsewhere and ask themselves why Raleigh doesn’t have nice corner stores within walking distance but then get home and fight against city leaders trying to achieve just that.
Not having TOD will be the reason why BRT ridership numbers will be low and housing is unaffordable in the future for your children, their friends, and teachers. Will those of you who are against this rezoning be able to tell them that you supported them not being able to live in Raleigh?
Everyone deserves the right to a home and every entrepreneur deserves the right to own a business, if you agreed with this, you’d support TOD zoning.
People seem to wonder why there aren’t any small coffee shops or bakeries in their neighborhood, this is why! There seems to be a lot of people in here that don’t want to see new local businesses.
Unless you want large and expensive grocery stores to be your only option, I’d support TOD zoning. And unless you want your college kid to live with you for 10 more years after they graduate, I’d support TOD zoning.
