Hey all. I’m not sure if it was clear but let me remind those that are coming out tomorrow night for the council meeting over the phase 3 rezoning. Let’s meet outside the council chambers, second floor (or top of the stairs) around 7pm.
The meeting starts right at 7pm but I figure they won’t get to the rezoning case until a little after due to all the citizen petitions. The Glenwood South Neighborhood Collaborative wants to share their petition results (very favorable towards the rezoning) and there may be time for others to speak as well. We may just stand in support also, we’ll discuss.
I am not in town for this meeting tomorrow, but strongly feel that this traffic issue needs to be blunted.
Even if this project will increase traffic at this particular location, isn’t that what’s needed to justify investment in rail? Isn’t it intended for us to drive demand at locations that have been identified as both high intensity development nodes and locations for a transit stop on a future transit rail?
It’s madness to stay in a continuous loop of “we can’t have rail because we don’t have the demand/density while stating that we can’t create the demand and have the density because we don’t have the rail service”.
My thoughts are on the lines of, “If this development increases traffic, then let’s deal with that IF it happens.”
Why can’t we work the problems as they arise rather than sit back and do nothing on the fear a problem occurrs? We restripe and change street patterns all the time. Let’s jump on the opportunity and work towards having it all.
I received essentially a copy-and-paste version of part of your reply from Stef. I’m not keen on her as a council member, but I have to give her some respect for responding to emails on a Sunday evening.
If she asks for a traffic impact analysis and details on the affordable housing “contribution” () then I assume that will push the rezoning vote to a later date?
I don’t think one council member can unilaterally prevent a vote on the rezoning on Tuesday, but it’s certainly possible there are enough votes on the council to request a traffic study etc. I hope we get an up and down vote, but who knows.
I am almost sure the “Council of Slow” will delay a vote until the traffic study (and whatever is next) is completed. Hope I’m wrong. And I agree (and mentioned above) that at least she responds. Mine came on Saturday evening and Sunday morning.
I was on that feed trying to “correct” information on that post, too. The sad reality is that many folks have a hard time seeing how they are contributing most to the very problems they lament as our community grows. Hate traffic? Support mixed-use, incremental and scaleable density. The folks complaining the loudest about the impacts of more cars are the same ones driving them everywhere, and driving growth everywhere that cars will be mandatory for all (increasing traffic for all).
I had to give up. I ran out of pills. Beyond the items you point out, they don’t have their facts straight. They thought the 40 story building was at Seaboard, WPU had just bought Seaboard (they just sold it), etc.
And these are the constituents that Stef is reacting to.
Absolutely correct.
My thoughts were more on the line of Stef’s reaching out to her “peps” if you will, and educating them. Possibly through an email, web-page or some other out-reach for her area/constituency?
At the last council meeting where Kane’s people presented on this they said a traffic study wouldn’t be accurate because of the new traffic pattern being created in the area.
I find it admirable that there are people concerned about affordability, but I can’t for the life of me understand a narrative about people being pushed out of town by this project when there wasn’t anybody living on that property for more than a half century. Who is being pushed out by this particular tower? I understand the value of the land will be greatly enhanced by getting it rezoned, and that the city could ask for a contribution toward affordable housing in the city, but I don’t understand why some are Hell bent on it being in the tower itself. As Kane said, and I paraphrase, a contribution toward affordable housing goes a lot further when it’s not presumed to be spent in an expensive tower.
The people concerned about people being pushed out by development need to look at east Raleigh, not Smoky Hollow. This is where people are really losing their homes to gentrification.
Exactly. If it was destroying a whole neighborhhood of housing or apartments it’s a valid case. But when you build something on a empty lot, It’s not displacing anyone. Same can be said for the penmarc site.
Also. While this is not affordable housing. More housing in general means more supply.
) then I assume that will push the rezoning vote to a later date?