I watched and commented!
2 Likes
Re: the inclusionary percentages, this came up in the July council meeting – staff memo, minutes:
“Planner Hardin referenced research completed during the equitable development study, pointing out targeting 30 percent AMI would be a significant barrier for projects, causing developers to move forward with market rate housing. He further explained that AMI depth and the duration of affordability should be balanced, pointing out consultants think 50 percent AMI would be aggressive, but utilized… Council Member Cox disagreed.”
Glad to know consultants were behind the number, and it’s not something they just pulled from thin air. Remember that the additional units have to pay for their own cost of construction, and then cross-subsidize their neighbors’ units. 50% AMI rent in Raleigh is <$1000/mo for a 2-bedroom, which doesn’t go far to pay down the $250K+ construction cost for that unit.
What they appear to be going for is a solution that both grants more transit-area density and reaches fewer but very-low-income households – deeper subsidies for fewer but needier families. That’s in contrast to most inclusionary ordinances, which offer a little extra density, but at low/moderate-income prices – shallower subsidies for more but better-off families.
I think it’s a reasonable intent, given that (1) existing densities are very low, (2) moderate-income households are fairly well provided for in Raleigh, down to (3) 60% AMI, where LIHTC production is, and (4) it’s not great to isolate extremely-low-income families in new luxury housing. As for Cox, he’s just looking for a “wokewashing” excuse for knee-jerk NIMBYing density.
IIRC, the HUD definitions:
<120% of area median income=moderate income
<80% AMI=low income/LI
<50% AMI=very low/VLI
<30% AMI=extremely low/ELI
6 Likes
2 Likes
(expand to see the link)
New survey I think? Just got emailed this from GoTriangle about the future commuter rail:
https://goforwardnc.org/commuterrail/ and click on the Survey link.
6 Likes
New survey! New Bern BRT Station Planning Area.
1 Like
Fu$$$$!ing surveys! Nothing gets me more stirred up than endless surveys
2 Likes
You could mute this thread if this is not a topic to your liking. #justsaying
6 Likes
I recommend doing surveys I feel some of my comments have effected policies and designs of projects. Especially the city’s views on bike infrastructure. Remember overall, people in Raleigh and Wake County don’t get too involved in city development or government so your views are amplified by your commitment to comment.
Plus I won $250 gift card from the city for filling out one of the surveys. So there’s that too.
11 Likes
I found something cool, but a bit more meta: City Council’s transit committee is looking into ways to become more efficient so they can make transit projects happen faster.
Click here to see what exactly is different about this proposal.
Click here to see what this new process could mean.
The committee is meeting next Thursday (the 29th) to discuss this newer process. It doesn’t get more “peak red tape” than this, but I’d argue this is one of the easiest ways you can make transit projects start construction in 2 years or less after its feasibility study starts. After all, you’re not building anything to make a change: you’re just making it faster for everyone to have their shit together.
What do you think? Do you think this new design-build process makes sense, and gives us interested citizens enough time to get involved?
4 Likes
The survey need to stop for us to be a productive major city!!!
1 Like
Ok, so I’ve wondered about this for a while since people keep saying this… but why are some of you so against surveys and public feedback? I honestly just want to see how it’s okay for people to not have a say in what happens around the places they live, work, and thrive in.
In y’all’s minds, what is so bad (and good!! to be fair here) about new development projects having to listen to their potential new neighbors?
4 Likes
It’s not that we don’t want you to have a say. But if you look at other major cities even as big as New York. The input is where to put for example transit stations or whatever. And service, or make adjustments to bonds that your tax is gonna be involved. But little aspect as design among others is very irrelevant we listen to where you want things to be but you shouldn’t have control on every little aspect that what slows it up, and please don’t give me that democracy takes that isn’t the great excuse!!!
1 Like
Your comments should be directed to the city and not here. The city has been criticized for not having enough public feedback in projects so this is their current route to obtain that feedback in way that’s as open as they can make it.
It’s also just the way it works when you spend tax payer money. The government is not a business. Some of us get into surveys so let’s keep that on topic where bashing the concept of surveys is off topic in my opinion.
6 Likes
I like the surveys and having a chance to provide my input.
2 Likes
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you. Trying to be civil but I want this city to be a major city, I believe citizens should have said just not on too many little stuff!!! Things need to go forward!!! I think a NIMBY tactic in my opinion.
2 Likes
I’m actually with @Yimbyforlife on this one. I agree that these sorts of comments should mainly go to City Council etc. at the end of the day, since it’s really a local and state policy question. But that is different from saying this topic of conversation is inappropriate for this site.
The idea that public review policies are getting in the way of new development projects is a subtext that I’ve noticed coming up in several threads, organically (example 1; example 2). If this topic keeps coming up, doesn’t it mean it’s relevant and worth talking about?
I can see why this topic of conversation might not be fitting for this particular thread, though. I’m making a new thread for this topic right now, so I’ll update this post with the link when I have it posted.
EDIT: here’s the new thread!
2 Likes
Thank you for standing with me Sista!!!
The city should have a vision & strategy, and engagement about them should definitely happen to make crystal clear that they were developed in conjunction with community input. That said, once the vision & strategy are in place, it’s both cumbersome and chaotic to then survey on every project toward the execution of that strategy.
If there’s a departure from the strategy, then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to re-engage the community at either a hyper local level or a broader district level.
2 Likes
Here’s another set of Wake BRT surveys, along with a virtual open house!
2 Likes