by Jane Porter | Jun 25, 2019 | City Council
The City Council has proposed putting an affordable housing bond on the ballot next year. Do you support the bond and do you think that’s enough to address Raleigh’s affordable housing problem?
I do support the bond proposal, it;s a solution to a problem that we are years and decades behind on so we need to take action now. But having bonds every single time we need money for affordable housing is not the answer. By keeping bonds just focused on affordable housing, we take away the aspect of looking at it holistically. Like how are we doing affordable housing with transit, how we are making it sustainable, how are we making the quality of life better for our residents? The bonds make us evaluate our success based off how many houses are built versus how many homes are created, how many people we’ve made better quality of life for. So there are other ways the Council can be looking at addressing housing. We’ve seen things like getting rid of single-family zoning work around different places in the country. We know that comes from the Jim Crowe era and causes inequities that we, as a city, know we can do better on. I got my Masters in Public Administration and I learned about zoning, specifically around [eliminating] single family zoning; that has shown the biggest impact you can have and a very small risk pool. We also need to make sure we are involving the most impacted people in the conversation first, that we are going out and listening to the community and figuring out what can we do to not only build affordable housing but to convert renters to owners, how to go into the community and fix up the houses already there, how do we let people who have been part of these communities forever stay in there and embrace development that reinvests in their own community? i don’t think development and growth is wrong but it is wrong when you’re only developing in areas now because that land is valuable, land that was never valuable before, but now is and you’re pushing people out from there.
Raleigh’s Human Relations Commission recently recommended the city set up a police oversight board with investigative and subpoena powers. Raleigh’s Police Chief has stated she is not in favor of such a board. Does Raleigh need a board for police oversight?
Raleigh needs accountability. Because this is portrayed so highly in national media, we stay away from it here, but us wanting feedback or to improve our police force does not mean we’re against the police force. Everyone respects and honors what our officers do every single day but we also recognize there is no way to do our job better unless we get better. There is no other job in the country that you’re going to be able to move to the next level, you’re going to be able to improve in your career, unless you go through more training, unless you get more resources to help you get to that level. The fact that people want that and want it because we also know it will impact the residents that our officers are serving, is the basic right of a community. The reason people want a police accountability board is not because everyone wants to oversee and micro-manage the police. They don’t trust in the government right now to do that job. So once you build that trust with the residents and you get residents to trust the government, there won’t be a need to push and fight for police accountability anymore because our leaders will be holding people accountable. So people don’t have to be there pushing for that. Unfortunately, trust is not there for all residents and we’ve got to recognize that. It might be there for some residents but at the end of the day, statistics show that these issues exist, especially in low-income and black and brown communities.
John Kane has proposed building a 40 story tower in the Peace Street area downtown. If elected Mayor, would you support the rezoning for that proposal as is, or try to negotiate for inclusion of affordable hosing units?
If you’re going to build a 40 story tower, there better be some affordable housing in there. It just seems simple. It’s pretty clear that developers are also interested in the idea and in providing affordable housing, but would still be allowed to build more dense buildings. What a great tradeoff. Why are we not thinking about that when we are letting developers propose these buildings? We should actively be thinking about that. It takes a leader and a vision and wanting to work in partnerships and some creativity, understanding that the public and private worlds can work together, provide social good and do it with more urgency because we can build a lot more housing than we are building now. What we do now is we go and look at a city—say Seattle—and we continue to look at that city. What we need to do is to look at a lot of cities and, second, recognize whatever model we use here in Raleigh is not going to look like what every other city looks like. We need to create a model that is specific to the city, the needs, the history of the city. I don’t have a silver bullet of what’s going to work whats not and I don’t think any city in the world has figured it out. But what’s cool about it is we have the timing and the people and the resources that can study everybody and figure out a very comprehensive solution that specifically fits the community we have right now.
Does Raleigh have enough density and do we currently have the infrastructure to support more?
I don’t think we are dense enough. There is not a way for us to build out anymore, we need to build up. We do have the infrastructure to support it but at end of the day, it’s about the fact that we need more units, we need more places for people to live and no way you can do that without density, no way you’re going to do that without getting rid of single-family zoning. And we cant be for affordable housing and make the city more transit oriented without increasing density. It is just not possible, it is not possible for any city we’ve seen anywhere in the country. So we’ve really got to embrace that and understand that that doesn’t mean we’re going to start building 40 story complexes in the middle of a neighborhood in Brier Creek. That’s not what that means. It means we can build some taller buildings in downtown and also build a few stories in other places so it doesn’t all just look the same. That also means hey, you may get a grocery store walking distance to where you live now, maybe then you’ll get a transit line on there because there are mixed use areas and businesses. So it opens people up to opportunities.
CACs (neighborhood meetings) have traditionally been ways for citizens to engage with decisions that will go before the City Council. Do you support CACs or do you think, with a lot of these conversations happening online these days, that CACs have outlasted their usefulness?
There is space for them. How we get citizen engagement and how citizens are engaged in the city does need to be re-looked at. If CACs provide an avenue for people, specifically people who have always been involved in politics, maybe from a different generation than I am, that is completely fine. You keep what you know and you make it better. But there definitely need to be more ways for people to get involved than just attending a meeting at 7 p.m. or trying to go to Council at 1 p.m. while everyone is working. I don’t know if this is the most efficient way to engage citizens but I do know people hold true to the CACs and it is part of a rich history of how work has gotten done in the city. If people are engaged that way, it is one tool we have. It is not our all-go-to tool for citizen engagement. We should have multiple tools in our toolbox making sure we’re getting citizens engaged because you have to engage people in various ways because not everyone is able to engage in the same way to go to those meetings.
Are the current members of the City Council putting forward a strong enough vision for Raleigh’s growth?
Right now, we are building a city for 2020, not 2050. We have a lot of varying issues under our belt the current City Council has tried to solve, tried different methods, tried to put effort into fixing, but at the end of the day, these are problems every city across the country is facing, if not the world. That means you need new leaders, new visions, new people in there that have not traditionally been in those spaces because you need new ideas to fix these problems. So Council needs leadership and vision, specifically vision in a city that’s the second biggest tech hub after Silicon Valley. We are in a prime place to where if we got more visionaries into office, we’d have all the resources and the people to make such an impact in a very fast-paced way that most cities won’t have the opportunity to.
Are the city managers and staff doing a good job implementing the Council’s vision as stated and running the day to day operations of the city?
I can’t completely speak to that, you really have to be working in City Council to know. But honestly, from what I have sensed from events and when I have interacted with staff, we have amazing staff. We have recruited people from all around the country, we have people onboard who have been in Raleigh forever, making amazing programs. I really do think leadership comes from the top. The people are amazing, they have the resources, they have the creativity, they want to do more. The thing that holds them up is Council
Recently, the Council passed a suite of rules regulating Airbnb and electric scooters. Do you support the rules or feel they are too strict?
The Airbnb rule goes into effect in 2020 so I’m hoping when I’m elected, we can switch that real fast. I don’t agree wth either of them. There are ways to build partnerships with people, work with them and compromise. For us, it is just “no, there is no other answer.” There’s no trying to figure out “Alright, there are a good amount of people valuing, making income off of Airbnb, or off charging the Bird scooters.” That conversation has been completely left out, the fact that this is a second paycheck for people, especially for the Bird scooters. People—kids and teens—were making a living off of it and it was a good idea in a place that doesn’t have high chance of upward mobility. On top of that, you make things more expensive. When people visit from out of town, our hotels are very expensive and limited. Airbnb was an option for people to stay in at an affordable price. It was a place for families to stay in and not be forced to get three hotel rooms because they have a big family. When we did Airbnb, we based it off Asheville. We are different from Asheville, we’re not a tourist attraction. We are a place people come for work, to visit, to just enjoy and they should be able to enjoy it in a neighborhood, to really see the history of Raleigh. Where better to do that than in an Airbnb? With the scooters, what’s interesting is now Council has a contract and they’re going to have it with a new scooter company. The difference with that company is you can’t make income off of it. So the company would have to charge the scooters. Basically what they did was got rid of the Bird scooters and then said “We will bring this other company back but you can’t make any money off of it.” Now who is really getting harmed in that picture? Who are we benefitting and who are we harming? We also failed to talk about the environment in this conversation, the fact we are a car city—every day we add 63 people to Wake County, so that means we add just as many cars. Bird scooters take away that carbon. We didn’t think about, not only does it access mobility but we’re in a time where climate change is a very pressing need and Raleigh needs to be thinking about that in every single decision we make.
Last Word
In my 28 years in Raleigh, I have met a lot of talented, good people and I really think that the people here in Raleigh are ready to lead Raleigh into the future. But they need people in office who are equitable, they need to be equitably represented, need people who have a vision in mind and are truly part of the community and know Raleigh and can really speak out for others. My platform is focused on mobility, security and happiness and the idea that everyone in the city should have economic opportunities to thrive and do better, to have security and feel safe in their neighborhoods and to feel protected by protectors, to not feel like police might be working with ICE. And then happiness. A lot of countries will gage their communities’ happiness. I read an article recently that stated that America is increasing in happiness inequality. The idea is to have basic shelter, to be able to trust your energy providers, to know the water you’re drinking is clean, to know your government has your well-being at heart and will remove barriers that keep you from pursuing a higher quality of life.
by Jane Porter | Jun 25, 2019 | Buzz, City Council, July/August 2019, Top Reads
This story has been updated to include answers from mayoral candidates George Knott and Justin Sutton. Follow the links below for the full interviews with Knott and Sutton and check back for interviews with other mayoral candidates who file before the July 19 deadline.
Filing for Raleigh’s October 8 municipal elections opens this month and six candidates so far have filed to run for mayor. Former City Council member Mary-Ann Baldwin, community organizer and state worker Zainab Baloch, attorney Charles Francis, former County Commissioner Caroline Sullivan, musician George Knott and attorney Justin Sutton share their thoughts on affordable housing, police accountability, managing growth and the City Council’s long term vision.
Follow the links for the full interviews with Baldwin, Baloch, Francis, Sullivan, Sutton and Knott.
Affordable Housing
Baldwin: “We need policy changes, planning and leadership. We have to stop treating developers like the enemy and figure out incentives and how we can work in partnership with them.”
We asked if candidates support the City Council’s proposal to put an affordable housing bond on the ballot next year. They do, but say more is needed.
Supports ADUs (aka backyard cottages or granny flats), cottage courts and tiny homes; reducing minimum lot sizes and parking requirements, using publicly owned excess property for housing, building along transit corridors, partnering with developers for land swaps and eliminating single family zoning (city laws dictating building only homes designed for a single family).
Baloch: “We need to make sure we’re involving the most impacted people in the conversation first. We need to listen and figure out how to build more affordable housing, convert renters to owners, fix up housing we already have, let people who have been in their communities stay and embrace development that reinvests in the community.”
Supports building along transit corridors, eliminating single family zoning.
Francis: “We need to immediately set up a task force of developers interested in building affordable housing, bankers, bond attorneys, tax attorneys, activists, and come up with five to 10 things, right away, that will have immediate impact.”
Supports using bond money to subsidize developers to include affordable units, focusing on increasing homeownership, and programs where buyers who can afford to own, for instance, get assistance saving up for a down payment. Proposes expanding tax credits for developments that increase density in areas where forecasted—“but it needs to be density with diversity, not just for high-income people.” Proposes changing the city’s site plan review process for larger projects; instead of city staff reviewing site plans, reviews should go directly to the city’s Planning Commission and then to the City Council for public input.
Sullivan: “You’ve got traditional affordable housing, voucher programs, Section 8, city housing; supportive housing for individuals with mental health and substance abuse disorders; veteran housing; workforce housing; housing for young people just starting out; senior housing. Different groups of people need safe, affordable housing and you’ve got different funding and capital streams for them. We have to figure out how best to coordinate and deploy all of those strategies.”
Supports convening a stakeholder group to develop strategies to address affordable housing. Says partnering with private developers and nonprofits to build new stock, continuing programs to help keep people in their homes, mortgage assistance and assistance for first-time buyers will be key.
Knott: Supports incentivizing/requiring developers to include affordable housing units in new projects. (Currently, state law prohibits municipalities from requiring developers to include affordable housing). Supports adding affordable housing downtown through zoning/permitting initiatives.
“A bond is what you do when you have a onetime project that requires capital and the way our city is working and runs now, we absolutely need to do that. But a better answer would be, let’s not make affordable housing a bond issue. Let’s roll it into the budget and fund it every single budget year and we should have been doing that for the last 20 years.”
Sutton: “With any proposed affordable housing development, we need to ensure access to public services, education, healthcare facilities, recreational resources, transportation, and job opportunities.”
Says a bond referendum on affordable housing is not a sustainable model for residents. Supports expanding existing housing programs, rental vouchers, subsidies, housing rehabilitation and Council allocating more funding to homebuyer assistance programs for first time low-income buyers.
Police Accountability
We asked if candidates support a police oversight board with investigative and subpoena powers (it would need authorization from state lawmakers).
Baldwin: “We need to do a better job of communicating with all different groups within the city. Community policing is really important so people can get to know each other and work together to do good.”
Does not support petitioning the General Assembly to set up a board with subpoena powers.
Baloch: “People want a police accountability board not because they want to micromanage the police; they don’t trust the government to do that job. Once you build that trust with all residents, there won’t be a need to fight for police accountability anymore. Unfortunately, that trust is not there for all residents and we’ve got to recognize that.”
Francis: Supports looking at paying officers more; expanding the number of officers on the police force to keep pace with growth; enacting an on-at-all-times body camera policy; expanding officer training in interactions with people with mental health issues.
“If there is a citizen review task force, the people on it need to undergo extensive training. They need to understand daily realities for officers, that it’s rare for something to go sideways and for there to be an allegation of excessive force.”
Sullivan: “There needs to be increased engagement and people need to feel heard. We have to look at safety in a bigger way. What can law enforcement do to engage communities? Police need to establish relationships before there are crises. And we need to continue intervention training for officers. Only 386 officers out of 800 have been trained in crisis intervention.”
Knott: Supports a police oversight board with subpoena power as a “first step to give citizens more accountability and transparency.”
“You can have an entire police force of, it doesn’t matter if they’re white or black police officers, if they have done all the racial training in the world, it’s not a white-black thing. It’s a police-citizen thing. The police are in power, they hold it over the poor people. And the problem is, until we figure out how to get around that, no police accountability board will ever work.”
Sutton: Supports a community oversight board “to foster strategic and collaborative partnerships between RPD and key neighborhood stakeholders.”
“We need increased community engagement to ensure our safety needs are being met along with programs that focus on public safety education. I also believe there is a need for criminal justice reform through comprehensive officer training programs. However, we are currently hampered by budget cuts which may delay implementation along with a backlog of public safety equipment needs.”
A 40 Story Building on Peace Street
Developer John Kane wants to rezone an area of Peace Street to build a 40 story tower. We asked candidates if they would support the proposal as is or negotiate for affordable housing.
Baldwin: “That’s my neighborhood and I would love to look out at that every day. [Neighbors] are supportive and have been waiting for development in this area of downtown for a long time. It is totally underutilized, underdeveloped and underresourced.”
Supports proposal because it is on a Bus Rapid Transit line and next to a cycle track; says city should be more creative with incentives rather than “beating developers over the head” with tradeoffs for affordable housing.
Baloch: “It’s pretty clear developers are interested in providing affordable housing and if they can still build dense buildings…what a great tradeoff.”
Francis: “In general, downtown should have more density. You can’t expect the developer to pay the cost of affordable housing—there’s a difference between the rent generated by market housing and affordable housing. It’s a social problem, so society has to contribute to the cost of funding it. Developers are open to [including affordable housing], it’s just a question of how we pay for it.”
Sullivan: “Density where it makes sense is needed. That’s a very dense part of downtown already. It is zoned to be dense and the improvements on Peace Street and Capital Boulevard will help that. It is becoming what we want in a dense neighborhood, walkable, with grocery stores.”
Knott: Says the tower is a bad idea due to infrastructure constraints but acknowledges that more housing is needed.
“There is a very real over-exertion of the infrastructure on the street all by itself. I’m not even talking about sewer or water. I believe we are in an enormous [real estate] bubble. And if it pops, it’s going to be really messy downtown. Like all these high-rises three quarters empty? Whoa, could you imagine.”
Sutton:Does not support proposal as is but would consider an “affordable housing cost share project” with willing developers and public input.
Density and Infrastructure
We asked if Raleigh is dense enough and if it has the infrastructure to support more density.
Baldwin: “We do have the infrastructure but the way to get more is to look at mobility choices. If people bike, walk or take the bus to work, it alleviates traffic and you need less parking. We don’t have enough density and the core is where density belongs.”
Baloch: “There is no way to build out anymore, we need to build up. We do have the infrastructure to support density but we need more units and more transit options. There’s no way you can do that without density.”
Francis: “There should be greater density downtown, ideally like a wedding cake approach where the tallest buildings are on Fayetteville Street and step down to 20, 15 stories as you go onto the streets off of that. We don’t have the infrastructure to support density, so in building taller buildings, we’re going to have to improve infrastructure.”
Sullivan: “There is not enough stock in general and infrastructure is going to continue to be a challenge. But we are going to have more robust transit options, which will help as we grow.”
Knott: Does not think Raleigh has the infrastructure to support more density.
“That’s my No. 1 biggest concern. We have an amazing infrastructure for a town that’s half our size.”
Sutton: “There are limitations to growth. Increased density will only strain our infrastructure and city resources (i.e. public utilities, public safety response, roadways, etc.)…If anything, we will need to place greater emphasis on city infrastructure and asset management programs to streamline business and public safety operations in the most densely populated areas of the city.”
Council’s Vision for Growth
We asked if current City Council members put forth a strong long-term vision for growth.
Baldwin: “They don’t have a vision. The vision is ‘We want things to stay the way they are.’ Raleigh is going to grow whether people like it or not and I don’t want to end up like Seattle with two-hour commutes, where the average price of a home is inching up to a million dollars.”
Baloch: “We’re building a city for 2020, not for 2050. We need new leaders, new visions, new people who have not traditionally been in those spaces with new ideas to fix problems. Raleigh is the biggest tech hub after Silicon Valley. We’re in a prime place where, with more visionaries, we have the resources and people to make an impact.”
Francis: “People are frustrated when they look at the Council now because they see a lack of leadership and lack of a leader. That’s what’s needed, someone who can define what there is consensus about, be bold and do something conclusive to move us forward. Mayor Meeker was good at that when he was in office and that’s what we need again.”
Sullivan: “There’s room for improvement. There need to be more discussions about growth in general, where we’ll be in five, 10, 20 years, how we manage growth and how, in the process, everyone’s voice is heard. I fear if we don’t make decisions on where we want to be in the future, it will be difficult to handle the growth as it comes.”
Knott:“They’re putting forward the wrong vision for Raleigh’s growth. I’m a proponent of organic growth, I’m not a proponent of artificially driven growth. We pay millions of dollars for economic development and we give tax credits where companies don’t pay taxes for years at a time. The ramifications of that are absolutely killing our city.”
Sutton:“Our needs are constantly changing…we will need to reassess the appropriateness of specific projects in order to allocate taxpayer dollars to the greatest areas of need… We need responsible and effective budgeting strategies to address the true long-term vision for Raleigh’s progressive growth.”
Management and Staffing
We asked if Raleigh’s city managers and staffers are doing a good job implementing the Council’s vision as stated and in running the city day to day.
Baldwin: “We have one of the best staffs in the country, really smart people working for us. A major problem is that the Council has engaged in a war with staff. Staffers are belittled, shamed and attacked. That is totally inappropriate behavior. The problem is the City Council is interfering in staff’s work. We need to look at our code of conduct and call people out or set up policies that say what isn’t allowed, to stop the bad behavior.”
Baloch: “From my sense of city events and interactions, we have an amazing staff. We’ve recruited people from all over the country and we have people onboard who have been in Raleigh forever, doing amazing programs. Leadership comes from the top. The people have the resources, the creativity, and they want to do more, but what holds them up is Council.”
Francis: “There have been instances where Council defers too much to the staff and cedes too much policy making authority. The job of the staff should be to execute and implement policy adopted by the Council, not make policy themselves. With the council-manager form of government we have and a part-time City Council, it can be easier to just go along with the staff recommendation. I intend to push back on that because there have been too many instances where staff has been allowed to make policy.”
Sullivan: “We have a strong city manager and the staff does a good job. It’s important for elected officials to be able to give staff a strong vision of where the city should be going, and guidance so they can execute what needs to be done every day. But there are a lot of talented people and they do a good job serving the community.”
Knott:“I have so much respect for the professionals, the staff and city manger, they’re professionals. And politicians are at best amateurs and at worst, politicians. I have the utmost respect for professionals, and that includes the staff of the city and the city planners.”
Sutton: “There must be a dynamic shift in how we do business in this city, how we govern as a collective body, and how we effectively manage city resources for long term sustainability and growth.”
Follow the links for the full interviews with Francis, Baloch, Sullivan, Knott, Sutton and Baldwin.
by Jane Porter | Mar 29, 2019 | April 2019, Buzz
She’s Running!
In the weeks since Mayor Nancy McFarlane announced she wouldn’t seek a fifth term—and Charles Francis, her 2017 opponent confirmed he would run for the top seat again this year—all eyes were on Mary Ann Baldwin. She didn’t disappoint.
The five-term Councilor stepped away from her at-large seat in 2017, citing a desire to make a difference outside the system and work to cultivate future leaders. But those close to her know that Baldwin has considered running for mayor in the past and also know that, at a time when the council is deeply divided on issues of growth, Baldwin feels a sense of urgency in repositioning the city on what she believes is the right path for its future. And for many of McFarlane’s (many) proponents, sad to see the mayor go, “the notorious MAB” looks like a good replacement.
Baldwin, the executive director for the Holt Brothers Foundation, is unapologetically pro-development in contrast to members of the current council majority who favor “slow” or “smart” growth. Baldwin has been at odds with recent council decisions and non-decisions, including its reluctance to move on allowing accessory dwelling units, its seeming wariness of allowing for density and its perceived over-regulation of new industries and technology, including short term rentals like Airbnb and electric scooters. Baldwin will likely align herself with a group of young, progressive candidates running for district and at large seats who share her frustrations with the current council—a smart strategy as the city’s population, and voting majority, is skewing ever younger and more diverse.
But there are those who feel the council is in need of a “reset” and—given Baldwin’s past council experience and less than warm relationships with some current members who could hang on to their seats this fall—make the argument that the city needs someone new at its helm.
It’s a matter of game theory. Baldwin knows she has a lot of support in Raleigh but her path to the mayor’s seat won’t be easy, or pretty. She has thick skin but this municipal election likely won’t look like anything Raleigh’s seen for a while. “Safe” seats will be credibly contested. Mud will be slung. The one certainty is that, come 2020, the city will have a new mayor in place.
Let the games begin.
We’re very far away from knowing who Raleigh’s next mayor will be but that’s never stopped us from speculating before! With three confirmed candidates and a bunch of would-be candidates on the record as not running, the field is still wide open in this horse race. Here are the jockeys whose names have been thrown around and their odds based on what we know so far. The frontrunners are clear, the dark horses here for a reason. The best way for your horse to win? Take it to the polls in October.
Charles Francis 3/2
Francis, an attorney, announced first and therefore starts out head and shoulders above everyone else. His message of change and platform focused on aggressively addressing the city’s systemic problems brought him within about 6,000 votes against McFarlane in 2017 (though he lost by a wider margin in the runoff). We’re willing to bet Francis will hang on to most of his supporters from last time. Plus, there’s no popular Mayor McFarlane to contend with this year…
Mary Ann Baldwin 2/1
Which brings us to MAB. Like the mayor, Baldwin has her share of ardent supporters who could tip a race in her favor and her platform aligns with McFarlane’s. If it comes down to Baldwin vs. Francis, it will hinge on what kind of change voters want: if they want the city to go in a whole new direction, they’ll vote for Francis. If they want a more forceful version of McFarlane, they’ll vote for Baldwin. What if they’re happy with the way things are going but want to see a council reset?
Caroline Sullivan 3/1
Then, they’ll vote for Caroline Sullivan. Said to be McFarlane’s pick, the former Wake Commissioner was drawn out of her district in 2016 and now works in Gov. Cooper’s office. She would bring a fresh but still progressive perspective, relevant experience and the distance needed to help minimize the infighting that has hamstrung the council recently. How will the race between Sullivan and Baldwin shake out? How will their supporters split? And where will that leave Francis?
Sig Hutchinson 8/1
He hasn’t said no, and he may feel he can effect more change in key areas like parks and affordable housing as mayor rather than as a Wake Commissioner. But Hutchinson won re-election in the fall and the timing just doesn’t seem right somehow. Maybe we’ll see him run for mayor in 2021?
Bonner Gaylord 12/1
Before losing his District E seat to Stef Mendell in 2017, many believed Bonner Gaylord would succeed McFarlane. But since he’s been off the council, the North Hills operations director has shown little interest in returning. Though well-funded and well connected, few think Gaylord has the appetite to return to a council that could continue to be bitterly divided. Honestly, who can blame him?
Paul Fitts 16/1
Paul Fitts here is actually just a stand-in for whichever Republican the local GOP persuades to run in the ostensibly nonpartisan race—because, well, there’s always someone. Your run-of-the-mill Raleigh voter cares more about transit and affordable housing over curbing city spending these days, so Fitts, or whoever the candidate will be, is very much the underdog. But, as we all know, crazier things have happened.
A different version of this story appears in Raleigh Magazine’s April issue. It has been updated online to reflect recent campaign announcements.
by Mary-Ann Baldwin | Feb 4, 2019 | Buzz, February 2019
The Raleigh City Council is known for taking its time making decisions, but there’s a lot of talk in the community about the need to move forward on issues such as housing, infrastructure, innovation and big thinking. People are watching and waiting. Here are some thoughts on the five things the City Council must do in 2019:
1. Approve the Dix Park Master Plan.
After a two-year planning process, the master plan for the park has been unveiled. More than 73,000 people have participated in public meetings and events, and more than 14,000 comments have been generated on the online tool, Neighborland.
Michael Van Valkenburg Associates in New York, a nationally recognized parks planner, was hired to create a space unique to Raleigh, building consensus on a multi-generational plan and a way to pay for it. But before the plan was released, controversy ensued.
The Council has a history of asking for public input and then ignoring it. This is a legacy moment. The big question is: Will the Council honor a two-year public process that involved tens of thousands of participants, leadership from national experts and hundreds of thousands of dollars?
2. Housing Affordability and Supply.
During a Raleigh Chamber of Commerce Inter-city Visit to Seattle last April (attended by all council members), elected officials and experts told us to act with urgency on housing. To avoid their plight (the average price of a home in Seattle is $820,000), they urged us to encourage accessory dwelling units, and upzone property along transit corridors to create density and supply. In Minneapolis, officials just made it easier to build “missing middle” housing throughout the city—townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, quads and ADUs.
Raleigh, however, punted on missing middle housing, sending the discussion from the Healthy Neighborhoods Committee to staff. And the Planning Commission took an unprecedented step, voting against a City Council-initiated overlay district governing ADUs, which would make them just about impossible to build.
ADUs already exist in some of Raleigh’s most desirable neighborhoods (Councilor Russ Stephenson has three on his property) as do missing middle housing options. It’s time to stop talking about affordability. The Council must get serious about increasing housing supply and helping our residents build equity. It’s not an either/or answer. City Council needs to act on all of the above.
3. Transit and Mobility.
Transit is closely tied to housing. When I was first elected to the Raleigh City Council 11 years ago, people were vocal about sprawl. Now we have residents and Councilors opposed to density. You can’t have it both ways. A great case in point is Hillsborough Street. After a multi-year citizen engagement process, consensus formed around five-story zoning on Hillsborough Street, one of the city’s most active transit areas. Guess what? The Council opted to limit density to three stories.
The Council is already behind on upzoning potential Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, moving forward on protected bike lanes and connecting land use and transit to build healthy, walkable communities. None of this is easy. But our residents deserve to know how this Council will move forward to address these critical sustainability concerns.
4. Innovation and Big Ideas.
The City’s Vision Statement once started with these words: “We are a 21st century city of innovation…” What happened? Last year, Raleigh took some of the most aggressive steps against scooter companies in the country, charging $300 per scooter (most cities charge $50 to $100) and limiting each company to 500. Simply put, scooters are giving young people, women and people of color greater accessibility to downtown. That’s what mobility options are supposed to do. Sure, the Council should create rules (for example, don’t ride on the sidewalks in the central downtown core) and enforce them. But why stifle a last-mile mobility choice?
The same can be said for short-term rentals like Airbnb. This has been debated ad nauseum for four years. It appears that the Council is getting ready to initiate a home stay ordinance that would prohibit someone from renting their full house and requiring them to be home if they rent out a room. This, despite the fact that complaints are minimal—and the Council ignored the recommendations made by a Short-Term Rental Task Force. What’s up with the over regulation? It’s time to embrace new ideas and move our city forward.
5. Adhere to the Council’s Code of Ethics.
This is City Government 101. Yet some Council members can’t resist attacking staff at public forums, contacting them directly with instructions or insulting them at Council meetings. We have a Code of Ethics to prevent this from happening. Why is this important?
First, the role of City Council is that of a Board of Directors. Members set policy; they don’t manage staff. The City Manager actually runs the City. This has worked well in North Carolina for years. It ensures that government is professionally managed and not politically managed. Second, how would you like it if your boss’s bosses attacked you in public? Wouldn’t that impact your ability to do your job?
The City of Raleigh has an incredibly talented staff. The Council needs to let them do their jobs and respect and encourage them—not criticize or intimidate them. Some Council members need to re-read the Code of Ethics and follow it.
Mary-Ann Baldwin is Executive Director of the Holt Brothers Foundation and co-founder of Innovate Raleigh, a nonprofit that supports the city’s budding entrepreneurs. A 30-year resident of Raleigh, Baldwin served on the City Council for five terms before retiring in 2017.
by Jane Porter | Mar 12, 2018 | Buzz, March 2018
IN SEVEN DECADES —since the city adopted the council/manager form of municipal government in 1947—Raleigh has never seen a woman of color serve on its city council. Last summer, Zainab Baloch, running for an at-large seat in a crowded field of candidates, sought to be its first. If she had won, Baloch, 26, would have been the youngest person ever elected to the city’s highest governing board. She also would have been the council’s first Muslim member. “We need more diverse representation in government, whether it’s age, race, gender— it’s just not adding up,” Baloch says of her decision to run. “I saw on a federal level a lack of representation but once I started looking at Raleigh’s demographics, I was like ‘whoa.’ Our city council is definitely not representative at all.”
Friends convinced Baloch to jump in the race a few weeks before filing opened, and she had two months to campaign and get her name out. She spoke with local political fixtures who became mentors, including former state treasurer and onetime council member Janet Cowell, and Yvonne Holley, a state representative from a district in southeast Raleigh. Mostly, Baloch says, she and her team learned how to campaign as they went along; in the end, she came away with 11 percent of the vote.
Baloch was born in Raleigh, the first of six children to parents who immigrated to North Carolina from Pakistan 35 years ago. During college at NC State, the “diehard Wolfpack fan” and psychology major worked for the city, as a summer camp and after-school director at Optimist Community Center and then as a regional coordinator for various youth programs around Raleigh. That experience was Baloch’s first taste of how government works and it partly inspired her to pursue a master’s degree in public administration at UNC-Chapel Hill, which she’ll complete this summer, while working for the state’s Division of Mental Health. More broadly, though, the work opened Baloch’s eyes to the inequity that still persists in an otherwise progressive—and economically thriving—growing city. “I saw discrepancies within the youth programs throughout the city, the differences in programs and resources and community centers,” she says. Baloch cites studies that show cities in North Carolina, including Raleigh, have low upward mobility rates as compared to cities in other regions in the U.S. “If you’re a poor kid in Queens, New York or Oakland, California or Washington D.C., you have a better chance of getting out of poverty than if you’re one in Raleigh.”
Baloch says the city has a role in allocating resources to— and promoting economic development in—its communities more equitably, but that factors like ensuring access to public transportation, as well as to educational and physical and mental health facilities through zoning initiatives, play a part too. “If you’re not mobile, there’s not much you can do, especially if your community doesn’t have the resources,” Baloch says. “We really have to think when we’re planning about how we’re bringing equity into the equation, not just looking at it afterward, but realizing that equity goes into every single department.” To help tackle problems of inequity, physical, social and economic mobility and others that Raleigh faces, including its lack of affordable housing, Baloch joined the board of WakeUp Wake County. The education and advocacy nonprofit has been a staunch proponent of expanding public transportation, environmentally and economically sustainable development and high-quality public education since 2006.
Baloch calls affordable housing “the million dollar question” and says WakeUp Wake County is a valuable tool for bringing different affordable housing stakeholders—citizens, public servants, developers, elected officials and others—to the same table to have a conversation.
“We need to stop this whole stigma of, if you want affordable housing then you’re against growth, or if you want balanced development, you’re anti-development,” she says. “We’re going to have to work with developers on more affordable housing options, and we need to come up with more creative and innovative ways to tackle it. It’s not just Raleigh, it’s a national crisis.”
Creativity and innovation are where, Baloch says, better representation in government is key. It will be the younger generation that offers fresh ideas for addressing persistent problems, so it’s
crucial for the city, and others, to actively engage young people to get them to serve and to convince them that their service can effect change. Baloch envisions a partnership between the city and representatives from area colleges and universities, as well as young professionals, dedicated to working on policies geared at issues that most affect them.
“Half my battle in running for council was telling people what council does,” Baloch says. “You have to change an entire culture, but making an active effort to get people involved is the first step. Millennials are the most civic-oriented group, and we should take advantage of that. We need to realize that them being in or a part of government is the same as wanting to do better for the world.” For her part, Baloch says her interest is still in local government and that a seat on the city council is still her goal— only this time around, she has two years instead of two months to prepare for a run for office. “We got almost 11,000 supporters and after the election, I got to meet with so many different people,” she says.“What we did wasn’t a small deal; it was a big deal, and we need to build on it. Creating something, building on it, getting a lot of young people involved…I’ve already started the process, so I’m going to have to keep going.”
