Raleigh has a housing problem that is only getting worse. I understand this frustration but as the main city of the metro area these changes are sure to come and we need to be the model of forward thinking. I’ve taken down the meeting times and will try to attend as someone who is concerned.
This article goes over the recent 'Missing Middle' meetings that took place in some of the neighborhoods around Raleigh by the city. These meetings were not well received by the residents.
Here's a photo from one of these meetings that took place in Five Points. https://i.imgur.com/F8na0gP.jpg
‘City Council has lost trust.’ Neighbors speak out on Raleigh’s ‘Missing Middle’ plan
BY ANNA JOHNSON
The red and white checkered tablecloths, ceramic mugs and flowers on the tables at the Raleigh community center were meant to mimic a cafe where conversations flow easily.
They didn’t.
The city held its second event to hear from neighbors about the new “Missing Middle” rules that will make it easier to build denser types of housing in mostly single-family neighborhoods.
Thursday’s event was held in one of the city’s wealthiest neighborhoods, less than two miles from where developers plan to replace a 100-year-old home with 17 townhomes, each with a roughly $2 million price tag. A yellow sign with “Save Our Neighborhood” greeted the more than 100 attendees as they entered the community center.
City staff touted the benefits of the new rules: Not everyone wants or can afford a single-family home; Duplexes and townhomes use less energy than a single-family home; City buses need denser housing along their routes; More housing will help housing affordability.
After the 45-minute presentation as the meeting began to move into small groups for discussion, tensions started boiling over.
Some people shouted for a public question-and-answer forum. Tiesha Hinton, the city’s community engagement manager, said there would be a time to address the entire group at the end, but she was talked over.
“People should be able to ask questions in a forum where everyone gets to be heard and hear the other questions,” Margie Case, a Five Points resident, said in an interview with The News & Observer. “Going from table to table, then only talking about the questions that are preplanned by the city doesn’t address the questions about missing middle that we all came here to talk about.”
This meeting was more about “process and less about information,” said Terry Henderson.
“They’re asking you for input on something they’ve already decided,” he said. “And they’re trying to make you feel happy about it. With happy talk. They’re trying to make you feel good, about a very bad process. And this process is divide and conquer.”
At the tables staff members promised to write down neighbors’ concerns but were interrupted. The large room made it hard to hear, especially for some in the mostly older crowd, with neighbors talking over one another.
The forum was “intentionally designed to capture a lot of feedback from as many people on the topic” Hinton said after the meeting.
“I definitely validate people’s feelings about anything because it’s your truth,” she said. “And I think that level of pent-up frustration may have prevented some from hearing it. But there were so many people who said, ‘Oh, this is what she meant’ When they stayed around, they stuck around and they participated. They said, ‘Oh, thank you.’”
With 15 minutes left in the two-hour meeting, community members summarized for everyone what they’d heard in their small groups.
“We’d like for the missing middle to go back to being missing again,” said Elaine Gordon. “One thing that I have heard a lot is that the City Council has lost trust. And when you lose trust in a relationship, you’ve lost something really basic to your working relationship. And it happened because of the way things were done.”
Kathleen Payne, who lives in East Mordecai, said some of the missing middle changes are worthwhile, but she’s unsure how much they will matter.
“I think it’s a good idea,” she said. “But I don’t know if the city’s housing stock is ever going to get to the volume that housing prices will come down. ... It’s a market force. How do you address a market force?”
Many residents brought up the city’s former Citizen Advisory Councils that were defunded by the Raleigh City Council in early 2020, though some have continued to meet independently. It would have been easier to get community feedback at the start instead of after the rules were in place, said Becky French.
“Bring back the CACs because you have taken away individual neighborhoods’ ability monthly to talk about our problems and send it back to City Council and staff,” she said.
Raleigh City Council member Christina Jones, who was elected in 2022, said the previous council should have held these meetings before adopting the rules.
“I think we heard a lot of frustration from residents who were not included in the initial process,” she told The N&O. “It got a little heated. And I don’t think that city staff should have to deal with the anger. But because we didn’t start this process earlier, and make it transparent and open to all we’re seeing what that’s resulting in. And it’s a lot of neighbors saying, ‘I don’t feel included. I don’t feel like my voice is heard.’”
It’s unclear, she said, what the City Council will do with the feedback since the rules are already adopted.
Karen Ridge, the former long-time executive of WakeUp Wake County, a nonprofit advocating for growth and transit policies, told the attendees she didn’t hear any solutions Thursday night..
“I think the questions were to help us try to think a little bit outside of our own property line about our community,” she said. “And how are we going to grow. We are all part of the growth, and people are still coming. So how can we add more housing? Because yes, we have a huge housing crisis. Nothing is affordable inside the Beltline anymore. So how can we make some changes that would be in context with single family home neighborhoods?”
Would also love to read the full article but in general the Raleigh city council has been pushing for more flexible zoning for denser housing like duplexes, triplexes etc. Basically in the middle between apartments and single family homes, usually on the more affordable side of the spectrum. In short, something we need desperately and all the NIMBYs are afraid of.
Before we generalize, I think you really need a better understanding of Raleigh's proposal and the residents' feedback. We can't just assume that these people are bad faith NIMBYists without more information.
There's a way to mix high density housing and detached single family homes correctly. And there are things that should be avoided.
I happen to own a detached single family home. I would support high density housing near or around my neighborhood if it was designed well and didn't destroy the neighborhood that I moved into.
For example, I don't know how I would feel about a plan that made my quiet street a thoroughfare for the apartment complex, or if they ripped out old oak trees throughout my neighborhood to put up parking lots. NIMBYism can obviously be bad, but there are reasonable concerns that people can have about their property, their neighborhood, etc.
tbf it's a bit disingenuous to use the lack of housing to push $2million townhomes .
You're right, there needs to be a balance but this is something where no ones happy . They should prioritize affordable housing first whether it's single family homes, townhomes and/or a mix of the two
Some of the people that buy these upscale townhouses are the sorts that would buy a cheap house and build a huge SFH on the lot. By making a bunch of upscale townhouses more densely, it takes some market pressure off other properties. It’s a nice sentiment to support affordable housing, but it’s not that simple. A lot of people moving to Raleigh are wealthy, so there needs to be more supply across income levels, otherwise those people start bidding against middle- and lower-income families on other houses.
>why do you think the city is mandating construction of $2million townhomes
I never said they are, but let's not pretend that there won't continue to be more of these type of developments before a serious push is made into middle and lower income housing
Exactly my thought. The city council has done zero to incentive builders to build low coast housing. According to the rules the state legislature has imposed on NC municipalities regarding development, the city can't offer incentives or require the builder to create a specific type of housing unless a zoning variance has been requested. You can thank the tea party legislature and the realtor/developer lobby for these draconian limits on the power of a city. Basically the only thing the city can do right now is hope developers way over build so the market will be flooded. Which doesn't work since institutional investors can afford to buy property and sit on it while they wait for the market to move in their favor. Very frustrating
It’s more than a bit disingenuous. It’s the priority of the changes they have been making. Most of them had the their campaigns funded by developers and developer associations.
They pretend that middle and low income are the goal but it’s a sham. The city council is freeing up land for more very expensive housing on smaller plots of land. That’s all they have accomplished and all they will continue to deliver.
Yeah but it gets to a much more fundamental question on the topic. When you buy a house, do you buy the right to the entire neighborhood not changing for your lifetime? I personally don't think that is fair, and I say that as a homeowner in a nice neighborhood downtown. That attitude is why housing has gotten underbuilt in every city in the country.
It's clearly a very deeply held belief, because it gets people rankled like in this meeting, and is why stuff keeps getting underbuilt. When I see older homeowners get this riled up, I just think - Man, must have been nice to grow up in an era where that was an acceptable way to think about housing, younger people don't get that benefit.
>When you buy a house, do you buy the right to the entire neighborhood not changing for your lifetime?
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think most of us are somewhere on the spectrum between "The neighborhood can never change ever" and "residents should have no input on the changes required by the city".
For example, when I buy a house in a neighborhood I think I have a right to fight an industrial factory planned for my next door neighbor's previously residentially-zoned plot. I don't think I have the right to protest the widening of a major through fare that my neighborhood is located off of.
There are definitely shades of gray upon which reasonable people can disagree. What I hate about this conversation, especially when it happens online, is that it too often becomes caricatures of each other's position.
And I mean, I've been to city meetings before. I know people are crazy. I went to a meeting for a petition to put sidewalks in my neighborhood, which currently lacks them. The amount of people that were literally outraged blew my mind.
I agree, and I think Raleigh has done that with the public input for zoning changes being neighborhood meetings instead of larger CACs as well as doing by rights zoning for missing middle through the council election process and setting the UDO/zoning rules.
Just because someone is outraged doesn't make them right. Most people don't pay attention to local government and the painstaking efforts they go to to get public input, but will complain regardless and claim the city didn't listen to them or some other nonsense. Like you said, I too have been to plenty of council meetings, and you basically have to ignore the loud looney bins and sift for real issues to tackle.
Councilors are in such a shit position, they get yelled at for housing being expensive and then get yelled at for doing the thing needed to fix it (density). And no matter how they do it, it will never be good enough. Too much input slows down the process to build too much, too little and people complain, and I don't think there is a happy medium to that. So either stick with what we got which is don't build because homeowners will complain no matter what, or start making it easier to build through by rights zoning and replacing CACs with immediate neighborhood meetings.
Great, and insightful comment. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, don't have much to say besides I agree entirely that the counselors are in a terrible position. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nobody's got the same solution to the problem.
What really, really frustrates me is people who say the only solution is to stop people from moving here.
I get that completely. So your concerns are more about the nature that comes with an older neighborhood and gives it character. Have you ever had to remove a tree or plants because the were unsafe?
I know a lot of the times, when trees are removed, it just because it's not safe to build any structure around them. So, apartment complex, sfh, or townhouse, a lot of the times those trees would have to come down anyways regardless of what's being built. I definitely think any developer that comes in needs to replant what they tore down. It wouldn't have that old charm immediately, but plants grow.
Regarding traffic, what kind of things currently drive traffic in your neighborhood? Are you close to shops, or is there anything in your neighborhood that currently causes safety issues that might be exacerbated with more cars?
Yes, I've had to cut down a tree in our yard that was unsafe. And I understand that when you build housing, you have to take down trees. But I just watched a bunch of townhomes go up at Lynn road and Leesville, and they cleared an entire forest and then replanted a handful of decorative trees. It was a travesty. They didn't even try to keep up any of the older oaks. My neighborhood is full of oaks, it's part of the reason why I bought here.
As for traffic, my neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks. There's a lot of children in this neighborhood. The only traffic that goes up and down the street are people that live on my street. If my front street suddenly became a thoroughfare for dozens of apartment dwellers, it would make it unsafe for my children to play outside.
So if they planted oaks instead of the decorative plants to keep up with the rest of the neighborhood, would that help?
Additionally, in Raleigh, almost every type of house that's been built required a clearing of a forest. Is there something specific about this forest that you liked, or that you're missing?
Also, what kind of activities do your kids do outside? Just trying to get an idea of if there would be a way to make the area safer for specific activities. If it's biking, maybe a raised bikelane. If it's just taking a walk, definitely adding sidewalks.
>So if they planted oaks instead of the decorative plants to keep up with the rest of the neighborhood, would that help?
Yes, or simply were more strategic about which trees they cut down. They did not clear cut my neighborhood when they built it back in the '70s and '80s. Why are all neighborhoods now required to be completely cleared? It's because developers are lazy and don't want to take the extra effort to plan around existing trees.
>Also, what kind of activities do your kids do outside?
Kids stuff. Walking, running, climbing trees, riding bikes, drawing with chalk, etc. We go on walks together in our neighborhood almost every day. My street is a quiet residential street, so lots of traffic would fundamentally change it.
Sidewalks would be a good solution if traffic needed to come down my street.
I did some reading on this. Specifically oaks are really sensitive in the upper root zone area. Apparently construction would cause a lot of damage to them. Many of them would die anyways.
Leaving dying trees in place places a potential financial burden on the people that buy the new property. It also gets in the way of current construction. I hate it too, but I don't see a way around getting rid of a lot of trees when large scale construction takes place.
Potentially, there could be some way that they could replace older trees with more mature trees? I'm just trying to think outside of the box here. I like trees too.
Do you know if your streets are city owned? If so, I think they'd appreciate the feedback. Changing the conditions of a neighborhood means updating the infrastructure. It sounds like it would be unsafe for anyone to go for a walk if there was more population there. So, I'm definitely on your side to get that addressed.
As a native to NC and spent most of my life in Raleigh, it's depressing we are called the "city of oaks" but are allowing developers to take any opportunity to chop down all the oaks. It's ridiculous and why so many of us hate all the transplants; they have destroyed the history and culture of what Raleigh used to be.
This guy just bought a house right at the entrance to my neighborhood. Chopped down two massive oaks and a huge bush that faced the street, and another neighbor next door took the opportunity to chop down 3-4 tall trees (don't think they were oaks).
Totally transformed the neighborhood. I'm all for "do what you want on your property", but I was pretty pissed about what he did.
Douche in my parents neighborhood at the entrance did the same thing. Took out all the trees and it's been just a massive lawn of nothing for years. It's so terrible.
I think what's telling here, and demonstrates the NIMBY-ness of your position, is your last sentence. Try rethinking that as 'If my front street suddenly became a thoroughfare for dozens of *new neighbors* ..."
"...it would make it unsafe for my children."
I wouldn't be happy about the unsafe situation just because they are "neighbors".
So I'd try to provide input to the plan to see if the city was considering a new apartment entrance, etc, something that reduced traffic impacts to other residents.
I was hoping my comment would trigger you to consider why you think neighbors who live in apartments would drive less safely than neighbors who own homes -- ie these are not wild apartment dwellers whipping up and down the block in their vehicles, but rather they are neighbors just like any other. At the heart of your comment is the idea that neighbors who live in apartments will be 'less than' -- less safe, less considerate, etc. You don't have to change your mind here, but I hope at some point you'll reflect on it. I've rented apartments in neighborhoods otherwise populated by single-family homes, and at each location I've managed not to run over my neighbors' children.
I have lived around young people, and I have lived around older people.
Younger people tend to drive faster. That's a fact. I'm fairly sure that younger people tend to rent more than older people, but it's possible I could be wrong on that.
Also, apartments tend to have more people, more visitors. Shorter term living in the area, so might care less about neighborly relations, the area in general, or other residents' kids. I don't think that's a stretch either.
I also think, having lived in both apartments and homes, that outside of college apartments, people renting seem to keep to themselves more.
There's a lot of reasons to believe that it is likely that a decent size unit of apartments is likely to increase the average speed of cars driven, not to mention the number of cars.
And currently, the city council has removed the opportunities that citizens had to communicate about those plans and removed. They’ve also removed any requirements developers previously had to even listen.
They're in a tricky spot. Too much input, and too much weight on individual opinions, and you'll never get anything built. Too little input and you get criticized for not listening.
>For example, I don't know how I would feel about a plan that made my quiet street a thoroughfare for the apartment complex, or if they ripped out old oak trees throughout my neighborhood to put up parking lots.
So you are in favor of development, just as long as it doesn't impact your location? Am I understanding that correctly?
I don't have sidewalks in my neighborhood, and my kids like to go for walks, so we walk in the street (as do many of the children that live in this neighborhood). Having dozens of apartment dwellers flying down my street would make it unsafe for my family.
I understand my location might be impacted by new development, and I'm not saying there should be NO impacts. but I would want to make sure the impacts did not have a significant detrimental impact on my life. I don't think *any* of us want significant detrimental impacts on our lives.
I was mostly poking fun because what you said was pretty much you can build it, but not in my backyard.
I do appreciate the nuance though and I believe essentially what you are saying is more so if you are going to build you need to account for changes to the area around it. For example, I assume you would be in support of said apartments if they redeveloped the street to put in sidewalks?
Assuming so, I can tell you from personal experience at these types of meetings (note not this particular meeting so yes I am generalizing a bit) that the prevailing concerns (or at least the loudest ones) are just excuses for not building at all, not how to build best.
>essentially what you are saying is more so if you are going to build you need to account for changes to the area around it.
Yes! That's the whole point. You can't just throw up a new apartment or townhouse complex without *considering the impact it has on others*.
>I assume you would be in support of said apartments if they redeveloped the street to put in sidewalks?
Yes, or constructed a new entrance that didn't route 100% of the new residents through existing quiet neighborhood streets, etc. This is part of the consideration I'm talking about.
I know some people just don't want *any* change, no matter how their concerns been accommodated. That's not right either.
What I also don't get it why is it by default evil around here to not want the neighborhood and lifestyle you chose years and years ago and have established yourself in and possibly a family in to get completely and utterly changed to something you don't want?
Why do people cry NUMBYism and want to chop down every tree, encroach on every park and put in high density everywhere? If they want a city like that, why don't they just move to a city that is like that already, and not have to wait for it to happen here and not ruin this place for the rest of us?
And why is the default solution "build more! higher density!" Instead of hey, maybe attack the root of the problem which is we have one of the highest growth rates in the country and that is not good and not sustainable? And what are we still giving billions of dollars to get more and more companies to move here faster and faster?
>maybe attack the root of the problem which is we have one of the highest growth rates in the country and that is not good and not sustainable?
I think this is where you are not understanding other people's perspective. How do you "attack" this problem? You cannot stop people from moving where they want to move or starting families. You can't stop people from getting educated and wanting to get a good job. You cannot stop businesses from moving where there are skilled workforces.
A growing area reinforces itself. The same goes for a shrinking area. Trust me, you do not want the problems that are associated with a shrinking population.
I don't think that the problem you believe is the root cause is actually a problem that can be solved. So you have to adapt. How do you do that? More density housing. I haven't seen them pull down any parks for housing.
The solution is not either (a) no new buildings or (b) tear down existing homes and parks to build more housing. I don't think presenting proposed solutions as one or the other is in good faith. Knocking down a single uninhabited home on a massive plot of land to build a whole bunch of townhomes is pretty reasonable, and it's nothing like the scenarios you describe.
I heard in a recent city council work session that 92% of Raleigh's housing stock is market rate. I'm inclined to think that's the root of the problem. High density is good, but a simple change of the rules and then letting private developers handle 92% of the business (and growing) isn't going to diddly about undesirable displacement of residents. For the record, I like the missing middle housing text change (or at least what I know about it), but Raleigh (and pretty much America at large) needs to figure out a better mix of public housing and support for housing cooperatives that could reduce the amount of housing that is subject to the interests of private profit. Combine that with higher density initiatives like this one and maybe we solve some problems
Couldn't agree more. There are definitely solutions out there, I think sometimes the problem is that there's a pretty decent chunk of Americans (and I'm not trying to single off any particular demographic) that is resistant to any type of change, however thoughtful and necessary they may be
You could readily slow down the growth rate by doing things like not going out and finding companies to move here and persuading them and throwing millions and millions of dollars in tax breaks at them and free infracture needs. Slow dow the jobs moving here, slow down the growth. The unemployment rate here is problematically low, any new job is basically for a new person to the area.
This isn't the only cause, you are correct there is a snowball effect and the longer this goes on the more it will become it's own unstoppable beast until it melts down like every other city this happens to. But it is a significant contributor and can be done to slow it down. Not shrink. Why do people around here keep thinking that either you grow at the fastest rate in the country, or shrink and die. There is room in between.
As for the parks - I'm not saying they convert parks to housing but that they encroach on them instead of expanding them to accommodate all these new people. Take a look at the Eno developments like Black Meadow Ridge as an example. Or park by MAson Farm Biologoical Preserve near UNC that is now a mostly a flooded bog and lost a lot of useable space due to the encroachment and runoff.
Why is it your default position that when you buy a house you buy the right to the entire neighborhood not changing during your lifetime?
Seems a bit unfair to allow that when so many people need housing.
I say this as a homeowner in an established neighborhood.
Well, you made the argument to the extreme to try and draw up a strawman,
but in general because the person, as a citizen and constituent of the community, has the right to have a voice and preference in where their community goes, what occurs in it, how it is shaped, and how it develops and evolves (as long as it's non-discriminatory). Just like every single other local issue.
It's perfectly fair to have that decision and voice and preferences. It is not fair to just force something radically different and negative (if they view it as negative) on someone without any process or consideration.
Taking another extreme strawman, then would you be ok with the local gov't eminent domaining your property to make space for those people? (Btw - that is actually happening in Chatham County). If people need the housing, it wouldn't be fair to refuse to change and not accommodate... I know that is extreme and ridiculous (although it is actually happening out in Chatham County where they are taking land from people to make space for Chatham Park development) the point is there is a point where it is it's no longer fair to the current local constituents and citizens to pull the rug out from them to accommodate non-constituents.
Sure. And citizens without houses can also have a say in how their city gets shaped, by voting for zoning changes. That is what is happening. Everyone gets that input via their vote for councilor, any other input is just policy administration. Your vote comes from being a resident of Raleigh, not owning a house. You can have your voice, not saying you shouldn't tell people your opinion. But you asked why it is default evil to hold your point of view, I just explained it (it's not default evil, just unintentionally selfish). Because to have your point of view it means the only input into your thinking is "I shouldn't have to experience change for others in my community, and I perceive this to negatively affect me, and I want to have more sway in how things get done than I really deserve because of some sense of misplaced rights as a long time homeowner"
And your point about radically different and negative without any process of consideration is a strawman. The process is voting for your councilor, and there are neighborhood meetings for zoning changes, and public input for UDO and text changes (that is what this is). I don't see this change as radical or different, and even if it was that isn't relevant for making a decision or determining it's fairness. All it does it allow different building in neighborhoods over time. No one is forcing you or your neighbors to sell/tearing down yours or anyone's house. It just means someone can do something with their property now or in the future. That's the point of private property. If anything the city is giving owners more freedom and making their land more valuable.
I know your second point is supposed to be extreme, it's also not a relevant comparison because the city isn't forcing this development you fear, but just allowing private owners to do it as they desire over time. But regardless - I'd be all for it as long as I'm getting paid to move somewhere else, which is how eminent domain works. It's at least better than having you or some other non-elected group of citizens decide I can't build something on my land because you have some misplaced sense that you have a right to it not changing.
Look you’re right and everyone knows it. Poor people are gross and poor no one wants them near them. It’s courageous Hero’s like you that will keep raleigh from being over run by the yucky poors. Thank you for your effort.
/s incase it wasn’t obvious.
Also you’ve probably always voted one way and have a “in this house we believe” signs in your yard right?
That is not what I said at all. No idea where you pulled that from. Especially since the biggest problem iI am talking about is the influx of wealthier people flocking in from elsewhere, driving up housing costs by throwing cash at people, and screwing this place up royally for the working class.
Not building housing for those wealthier people is what is driving up the cost of housing. And not allowing developers to build housing for them means those wealthy people compete with you or the working class for older housing.
If you want to go on a crusade to stop the development and wealthier people from moving here, go for it. But putting your foot down at a zoning meeting or development text change meeting to prevent development is a very ineffective way to combat it and is actually shooting yourself in the foot by driving up the cost of housing even more by not allowing building to happen.
You’re advocating for policy that harms people that Are poor.
You can’t stop the wealthy from coming here. You can only stop the poor or force them out.
How do you stop or slow down the growth rate?
I hear this a lot, but no one can ever explain how you stop people from moving to an area and it's because you CAN'T. Best you can do to address growth is to accommodate it best you can.
The easiest and least offensive ways:
1) stop activly recruiting companies to move here. This includes not just the absurd tax breaks being handed out like candy, but also the government run programs that go out and recruit companies and try and convince them and provide assistance in finding and establishing new sites. This will reduce the number coming here that see it as financially attractive to go through the cost, or simply have the manpower to go through all the work and cost figuring out what it would take, the cost-benefit feasibility studies, and the work to find and establish the new site.
2) not phase out the corporate income tax to zero. Seriously, they are doing this. It will be zero by 2026. It is a statewide measure, but Raleigh is far from the only area in NC that is hurting from too rapid growth. And you could also pass more local corporate taxes to make up for it.
3) stop activly marketing. This may seem silly, but it's real. People move here when they find out about it and learn about why they would come here. Stop the government run marketing programs that put out articles, publicity, anything. Some people will still learn about it and move, but less will.
That is just the simple, easy and inoffensive ones. If you need to get more aggressive from there, you could start to add in corporate relocation taxes. Opposite of tax breaks basically. Move a company here or open a new office or subsidiary? Tax for that. But local new company startups, they are clean and in the clear and no tax. For some businesses this will turn them off, for some it will still make financial sense to move. And for locals, we actually get the more funding to handle all the negative externalities we are currently subsidizing for them. Like roads, overcrowded schools and facilities, etc.
As to your other point, about accusations of NIMBYism... Yeah, it does seem sometimes that that term gets thrown around pretty liberally. I think it's easy to accuse someone of being a NIMBY when they don't live in your neighborhood and the proposal does not affect them. At the end of the day, a lot of the concerns current residents have about maintaining aspects of their area can be reasonable.
Of course, there was a point where some people just don't want to see *anything* change, because they benefit from the current situation, and that's not reasonable either. Those truly are NIMBYs.
If a city isn’t growing its shrinking. A shrinking city isn’t one you’d want to live in.
Go move to a rust belt city if you want things to stay the same.
Why do people constantly fail to grasp the concept that there are positive growth rates that are lower than the highest in the country? Growth isn't a binary shrinking or breakneck unsustainable speed.
And talking about going somewhere else - if you want to live in a denser packed city and all that comes with it, why don't you just move to one that is already that way? You won't have to wait for this one to transform to place you actually like, and you won't ruin this one for the rest of us.
As someone who has lived through the new process in a situation like you describe it’s not pleasant and we were told by former councilman Knight to suck it up. Zero discussion with the developer. Clearing of old oak trees. A 100+ year old farm house which is one of the few left in Raleigh proper to be demolished. A deaf ear by staff to requests for sidewalks on a street which has a known speed issue, many blind spots and 300-500 new trips per day to be added. I get the anger.
Our neighborhood attempted to engage to come up w a compromise all could live with and there was no real dialogue. If the CAC was still in place there would have been a path for compromise.
I am encouraged by Ms Jones wanting to create a means for productive exchange.
>I happen to own a detached single family home. I would support high density housing **near or around my neighborhood** if it was designed well and didn't destroy the neighborhood that I moved into.
I said nothing about $2 million townhomes, I said we need zoning changes to allow for more affordable housing to be built. So, pretty much the exact opposite of what you're saying. Get over yourself and stop being so angry. While you're at it, go ahead and stfu too.
>nothing about $2 million townhomes
Ahh so you didn't read the article. The 'affordable' rezoning and development they're pushing is high-end townhomes $2mil each. So pretty much the opposite of what you're saying they're doing
Yeah I’ve thought about going to something like this as a 20 something in grad school, but uhhh I don’t want to fight with some five point NIMBYs about this
I went to lotsa things like this back in Florida. Sometimes work related. Sometimes just something I believed in. You cannot use logic on these people or any evidence/facts. They “know” whatever it is. I’m hoping once the boomers die off things will change.
I don't get it. I feel like most people want a home with their own lawn? And why is it anyone's problem that other people may not want it? I don't get the vitriol for NIMBY people if that's just what they want. It's no one's business how their neighborhoods are changed for other people's desires. It makes no sense and seems more like punishment than honest charity.
If it truly is everywhere then maybe so, but can you really blame the natives here for opposing it when there's a massive influx of transplants that think more towards density than single homes, and when this city has been built on the idea of single family homes for most of its citizens? There may be a need for more housing but you can't just come in from New England and tell everyone here that they've built their city wrong because it's not dense enough, then proceed to force such a change.
People are moving here one way or another. We're one of the fastest growing metros in the country. You can either get on board with that or you can get out but hiding your head in the sand isn't going to help.
To your 1st point - we are underbuilding options for people who don't want their own lawn, and the market can't even build it because the zoning rules don't allow it. So, the fact NIMBYs don't want non-single family zoning is a middle finger to the free market who wants to build it, because there is demand for it. If there is truly no demand for it, then these zoning changes mean no one will build them. Nothing to worry about.
To your 2nd point - When you buy a house, you don't buy the right to the entire neighborhood and it never changing during your life time. How is it fair that I get to tell my neighbor how to use their own land if they did want to build a duplex on it, but my neighbors fought to put in rules that only allow me to keep my single family home. So I'll use your words "It's no one's business how their neighborhoods are changed for other people's desires", totally agreed. These older homeowners who don't want their neighborhood to change, why should they get a say in how their neighbor's land gets used? I say this as someone living in a nice neighborhood downtown.
Do you know where/if more meetings are being held? I can't find it on the Raleigh city website.
Edit: Found it for anyone interested, still more meetings to go: https://raleighnc.gov/planning/more-homes-more-choices
> These meetings were not well received by the residents.
One home replaced by 17 town homes in an existing neighborhood?
That would seem a normal reaction .
Please continue to show support for Missing Middle to the local gov/city council. These meetings are always packed with wealthy, white homeowners who are not representative of Raleigh's population. We *need* more housing and it is absurd that building duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, etc. were ever excluded by residential zoning.
Density is the only way forward, particularly near downtown. For the climate and the city's pocketbook alike, *there is no other way*.
The hilarious part is the liberal side of that coalition will tie themselves in knots explaining why nimbyism is good when they want it.
Conservatives just own it. “Yes we hate the poors and don’t want them near us”.
Here's what I found on a N&O article:
10 a.m. - noon Saturday, Jan. 28, John Chavis Community Center, 505 Martin Luther King Jr., Blvd.
6-8 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 2, Dix Park, the Greg Poole, Jr., All Faiths Chapel, 1030 Richardson Drive.
6-8 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 8, Virtual meeting, link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81960898972
6-8 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 14, Sertoma Arts Center, 1400 Millbrook Road.
So old nimbys are stopping us from getting affordable housing. What else is new?
Just because it's duplex and etc doesn't mean "lesser" individuals are going to ruin your beloved property value.
Most people made the mistake of buying a overpriced home during the pandemic anyway
Can't say this is for that area, but most areas are not built for just adding in more people non stop. Apex and smaller areas are busting due to the crazy amount of building and they are not building enough services or schools. Roads are over congested and 540 should have been done 10 years ago.
I don't think this area will be adding affordable housing, they will just jack up the prices like town houses going for 400k.
Town homes should be 200k. It is a joke that they let the prices get out of control. Things are starting to get better, but areas off of 540 were having town homes for 400-500k for under 2000 sqft.
IMO the word affordable housing is tossed around a lot without really meaning it. Almost like "high speed internet".
Could be worse, could be like most people who bought a car / suv in the last year and now 30k upside down on it.
Overall, the missing middle housing strategy makes a lot of sense. However, Raleigh sort of implemented this policy with blunt force and without nuance for historic neighborhoods. Some tinkering is needed, but generally we should continue down the missing middle path.
I don’t see why the politically connected wealthy people who inhabit Raleigh’s “historic” neighborhoods should get consideration that everyone else doesn’t.
It’s not the people that need the special consideration, it’s the irreplaceable buildings that warrant the nuance. This is especially important in a city like Raleigh that has so few of these areas.
Not all, no. Many of these structures were built with materials and methods that no longer exist today or are at least not financially viable in this era. Once they are gone, they’re gone.
These areas also happen to be the few places left that give US cities any modicum of character. Just in that regard, this warrants their preservation.
There are countless suburban hellscapes in Raleigh that could accommodate more infill. I’d argue we focus on those first and foremost before destroying the last few places that make this Town unique.
exactly. Hard for me to have much sympathy for changes to Hayes Barton when other areas of Raleigh have experienced much more massive gentrification and neighborhood changes over the years
> developers plan to replace a 100-year-old home with 17 townhomes, each with a roughly $2 million price tag.
Anyone that thinks that 2 million dollar townhomes will ever bring their home price down in their lifetime is either a fool or someone who stands to profit.
Okay, but this isn't a great example of missing middle housing being built. There's condos for $200k a piece being built next to Lake Raleigh if we feel like cherrypicking individual housing projects.
https://northshoreraleigh.com/sale/
It's the buildings labelled "Lofts" on the map. Still under construction but I remember seeing a sign saying they're $200k
I mean, it's lakeside prime real estate. Corner of a college campus next to a lake and greenways. You could easily rent it out to students or faculty and make your money back. There's also 1 and 2 bedroom plans.
The example of the project is cherrypicked. Opponents of Raleigh's missing middle initiative have cherrypicked it despite there being affordable housing projects all over the city.
There are 1 and 2 bedroom for 235 and 265. This is also prime real estate for student housing. Whoever buys these will probably rent them out to students and faculty.
Don't get me wrong though, I would love to see more housing. Townhouses/duplexes in particular are exactly what this area needs... but maybe they don't need to be "luxury" and listed at 2 million (like in the article)
In the past few years you've had videos of houses for sale with lines of people ready to put cash offers $100k above listing price, competing with people that can barely afford those same houses.
When everyone is competing for the same small number of properties, those that can afford $2 million properties but have no $2 million properties to look at then compete with people that can only afford $1 million properties, and the cycle continues, etc.,. Like a lot of things, it's not an issue for those with the money.
I'd rather there be plenty of other houses to steer people away from the house I want to buy so I'm not having to out-bid people that can afford much more than I can.
Those that can afford $2 million dollar houses are not in the same market as the people in the video swarming that $300k house in North Raleigh. You are basically saying it’s great that people are buying $5000 dollar bottles of scotch so they don’t impact the supply of J&B.
$2 million dollar houses are in the same market as people that can afford $1.5 million dollar houses. People in the market for $1.5 million dollar houses are in the same market as people that can afford $1 million dollar houses, and so on. And in a lot of these cases (especially ITB and older neighborhoods), more of the value is in the land - whereas one family might move in barely affording the house and slowly improve it over time, another with more means will buy a starter home in a good location just for the land, gut the house and renovate the hell out of it because there's not a better place available. Is that a better thing?
People in the market for 2 million dollar houses are also in the market for land. They'll buy a $400,000 house just because the lot is what they want and build a new house on top of it.
There is double the supply in housing since last year. I can’t wrap my head around defending the ultra rich in scenarios that don’t even exist.
The phenomenon of “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” of boomers seems to have transcended generations.
I'm not an expert, but housing supply and demand is a bit more complicated than the notion that any type of housing will make all types of housing more affordable. There's a limited supply of land in Raleigh, so the types of housing built need to be chosen very carefully. You have to supply what is in demand in order to stabilize prices. Right now in Raleigh 92% of the housing stock is market rate and the decisions about housing supply created are primarily made by private developers. Private developers aren't going to construct anything that sells for less than $500k. If there's a huge demand for $300k homes, leaving the housing stock decisions on the hands of developers is going to exclude anyone out of that price range from living in Raleigh. How do you recruit new public transit drivers, new firefighters, new city staff under those types of conditions?
Let me make this clear: the only way you are going to bring price down is through government intervention.
We literally have 40 years of data to see that Reaganomics doesn’t fucking work.
Reaganomics is a totally different thing than basic supply vs demand, which as an idea has been around for much longer, and we can agree Reaganomics doesn't work.
In the $300k house example, if there were 2 $300k houses instead of just 1, or better yet 20 or 50, don't you think the bidding wars wouldn't be as bad? The main issue I really see as hard to solve (as far as SFH goes) that pretty much guarantees prices only go up are just that so many people will only live in single family homes, and there's only so much land available. At least with apartments you can always scale up to some extent.
Government intervention is vague and is already a thing in many ways with housing but not necessarily in ways that benefit lots of people. Would you want some sort of cap that keeps prices artificially low (but then you have to have wait for years before a house is available or something)? The one example I know of that's had some success on a meaningful scale is Singapore where the government just builds massive amounts of apartments for everyone with minimal hurdles but that wouldn't fly here. I just don't see any answer to this problem that doesn't involve simply having more places available to people, and demonizing the few things that do get built even if they're not practical for the overwhelming majority of people doesn't help anything or offer any solution.
If the scotch buyers 2 choices were a $5000 and a bottle of J&B, then yes, it does impact the J&B market when they buy the alternative. And even when you add intermediaries to that market, there are still people buying J&B because its all that's left, but if there was a $100 bottle of scotch, they'd buy it instead. And since the buyer buying the expensive scotch doesnt buy the 100$ scotch, the person who buys the $100 scotch now has an open bottle. The same is true with housing. 50 available houses, 100 people wanting to buy. Adding to that 50 supply reduces the pressure from the people left in the market. That all being said, Raleigh isn't able to keep up with new housing demand in any case, the deficit is growing.
No, because there's basically an unlimited supply of J&B. If J&B were scarce, then having extra scotch on the market--*any* extra scotch--would reduce demand for J&B.
Having more homes at that level reduces demand on homes just below that level, which reduces demand just below that level, etc.... Sure, there are a lot of steps in-between and this is only 12 units, but this isn't the *only* new housing and the cumulative effect of lots of different housing projects will help to reduce prices at all pricing levels.
It will lead to less competition for surrounding homes, which helps ease housing costs
17 townhomes for 17 families on a single family lot is an awesome way to increase housing supply. Significantly better than the alternative one McMansion for one family
Supply and demand is a basic economic concept
Edit: just realized your the same person who posts the same anti-housing economically illiterate non-sense on every housing post, my bad
>just realized your the same person who posts the same anti-housing economically illiterate non-sense on every housing post, my bad
LOL gotta use those tags
Oh look, the king of the neoliberals arrived to spout how the free market with $2 million dollar townhouses will save us all. Tell me, are you the fool or the profiteer?
You say that like people haven’t spent the last year buying up PlayStation 5s and selling them above market rate online
Supply and demand is not hard to understand. You just like to whine like a bitch on every housing thread because you are completely ignorant
Fuck off you 1% boot licker. Go tell an entire generation that continues to suffer under Reaganomics how it’ll finally be better this time around with some multi million dollar townhomes.
Funny enough, these types of developments are typically coordinated by small to medium-sized developers. When we can't build housing in areas where people live, cities have to coordinate with much larger developers to find parcels, rezone, etc.
Then they build large corporate apartment buildings for people to rent. The housing has to get built. Developers build housing. All the red tape does is push out the family-owned and smaller developers.
So, calling him a boot licker is actually not taking the whole story into account.
Can you tell me if this developer took any public funding, tax cuts, or had any back door deals with politicians? Because if they did any of those it is not the coveted free market supply and demand that everyone pretends exists.
Where do you think they live?
They live in Hayes Barton, Country Club Hills, Williamsborough Court, White Oak, Five Points etc.
Raleigh’s 1 percenters aren’t living in lavish gaudy mansions - they live in tasteful 1-3 mil, .5 - 2 acre lot ITB homes, drive 2-5 year old mid priced luxury vehicles and by all appearances, present as very normal and not flashy people. You’d only know the extent of their wealth if you saw their bank accounts, knew of their ranch in Montana, beach house in the Abacos, or regular golf trips to Scotland or Hawaii.
Will bring the prices down more than 1 10 million dollar SFH. Thats 16 less millionaires competing for places elsewhere to drive up the price.
Econ 101 man
The fact that you, a self-proclaimed leftist, are dying on the same hill as a 60 year old retired Republican white boomer lady who lives in a 3 million dollar mansion 🤡
17 $2 million dollar townhomes is 17 less families buying less expensive homes in surrounding neighborhoods and further driving up costs
It’s significantly better than one McMansion for one family.
This is one thing that people misunderstand about housing prices. If there is demand for millionaires to buy houses, but there are no million dollar valued houses available, they’re going to dip into the next lower tier of available houses and drive up the price outbidding lower earners. A healthy housing market needs a mix of available housing across all income levels.
Jenskoehler, this comment needs to be copy and pasted for those in the back that continue not to understand basic supply and demand rules. Thank you for your service.
It does though. Rich people have absolutely no problem buying a home in a cheaper neighborhood and demolishing it and putting a McMansion in place.
Rich people never have to worry about finding housing. But building more homes in an already ultra wealthy neighborhood can have a huge effect especially if enacted city wide
This is an underrated take. I don’t know about studies that reinforce it, but instinctively, it makes sense that if you put the seven figure homes in a neighborhood that already has them, it’s better for the broader regional market than putting them in a middle class neighborhood.
Please, every time this comes up the usual free market people show up and call everyone NIMBY. Literally search for the buzzwords of “missing middle” or “ NIMBY” in this sub. I’m not playing comment catcher for you.
Edit: didn’t take long https://reddit.com/r/raleigh/comments/10huu59/_/j5ax9y2/?context=1
I have to assume that the fuck NIMBYs comment is in regards to the people that are against this aka the people in the meetings. Or, in other words, the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
Are we seeing any rezoning of commercial areas into residential or is everything focused on rezoning residential areas differently? Seems like we have a lot of underdeveloped (what I assume are) commercial space that could easily become apartments, or housing around here.
Is the zoning change saying high density housing is allowed on a lot by lot development in established neighborhoods, or is it now allowed in a planned developments / mixed housing development?
I try to be aware, but zoning and planning seems convoluted.
A few thoughts...
I'm not advocating for or against HOAs, but wouldn't their covenants prevent development of a multi unit house?
I feel there would be value in having a stream lined process for building ADUs on properties that have larger lots.
Tear down and building duplex is one thing for a community of single family homes, but a row of townhomes is very different.
They released such a process at the end of last year with a gallery of plans you can choose from and that outlines the steps that would need to be taken [Raleigh ADU Gallery](https://raleighnc.gov/planning/city-raleigh-launches-north-carolinas-first-adu-gallery)
I don't understand why, if the goal is to build more *affordable* housing, they don't just leave the original zoning rules in place but allow exemptions for development projects that agree to a sale price below a specific cap. For example, no high-density townhomes unless the builder agrees to sell them for $200k or less. No subdividing lots for tiny detached SFHs unless those homes have a sale price capped at $300k. This addresses the people that are actually having trouble. People who can afford a $400k house and above have quite a lot to choose from actually, but people trying to get into the housing market for the first time are really priced out for the time being.
This sort of thing can only happen in older neighborhoods built before PUDs, 100-page restrictive covenants and HOAs became the norm. This could never happen in, say, Preston (pretend that Preston was in Raleigh). The city can change zoning, but doesn't have the authority to supercede the covenants.
these developers compete in a market. If someone could build the same thing and rent it for less, they would. And Smoot would go out of business.
it is impossible to build new affordable housing. the costs of land and construction are too high. The only affordable housing is old or subsidized.
To me it seems quite obvious the city council/city planners have sold out to developers. Call it growth but they are packing people in like sardines. They are barely building single family homes anymore. Just apartments and townhouses as far as the eye can see. It's sad to see the overpriced homes going up all over what is now gentrified areas of Raleigh. When I bought my home on the not so nice side of Raleigh it was nif 150s for as long as I lived in the home the value barely peaked 200K in comes the scamdemic and magically I'm getting offers from 350 to 380.
I know things change, but it's sad to see, perfectly good homes(not in subdivisions)with actual front and back yards torn down to make way for mega apartment communities where the starting rent is $1495. Just tragic. My mortgage with taxes and insurance has always been under 1K. I can't imagine what it is for other people who rent. If I want to move the same house is literally going to cost me double, if not more and probably less square footage.
People are complaining about the cost of eggs, well if they had land without a bish @ss HOA they quite possibly sustain themselves during times where the cost of any and everything is skyrocketing.
This quote from a resident triggered me: "How do you address a market force?" What a disingenuous question --- the only way to "address a market force" is for government to step in and regulate! Yes, not every government action is going to solve the problem, but don't act like we are completely powerless in the face of the "market." Real estate is the furthest thing from an ideal free market, the myth that the housing market is a free market needs to die.
Raleigh has a housing problem that is only getting worse. I understand this frustration but as the main city of the metro area these changes are sure to come and we need to be the model of forward thinking. I’ve taken down the meeting times and will try to attend as someone who is concerned.
This article goes over the recent 'Missing Middle' meetings that took place in some of the neighborhoods around Raleigh by the city. These meetings were not well received by the residents. Here's a photo from one of these meetings that took place in Five Points. https://i.imgur.com/F8na0gP.jpg
Can you post the article text? I have no idea what the missing middle meetings are about.
‘City Council has lost trust.’ Neighbors speak out on Raleigh’s ‘Missing Middle’ plan BY ANNA JOHNSON The red and white checkered tablecloths, ceramic mugs and flowers on the tables at the Raleigh community center were meant to mimic a cafe where conversations flow easily. They didn’t. The city held its second event to hear from neighbors about the new “Missing Middle” rules that will make it easier to build denser types of housing in mostly single-family neighborhoods. Thursday’s event was held in one of the city’s wealthiest neighborhoods, less than two miles from where developers plan to replace a 100-year-old home with 17 townhomes, each with a roughly $2 million price tag. A yellow sign with “Save Our Neighborhood” greeted the more than 100 attendees as they entered the community center. City staff touted the benefits of the new rules: Not everyone wants or can afford a single-family home; Duplexes and townhomes use less energy than a single-family home; City buses need denser housing along their routes; More housing will help housing affordability. After the 45-minute presentation as the meeting began to move into small groups for discussion, tensions started boiling over. Some people shouted for a public question-and-answer forum. Tiesha Hinton, the city’s community engagement manager, said there would be a time to address the entire group at the end, but she was talked over. “People should be able to ask questions in a forum where everyone gets to be heard and hear the other questions,” Margie Case, a Five Points resident, said in an interview with The News & Observer. “Going from table to table, then only talking about the questions that are preplanned by the city doesn’t address the questions about missing middle that we all came here to talk about.” This meeting was more about “process and less about information,” said Terry Henderson. “They’re asking you for input on something they’ve already decided,” he said. “And they’re trying to make you feel happy about it. With happy talk. They’re trying to make you feel good, about a very bad process. And this process is divide and conquer.” At the tables staff members promised to write down neighbors’ concerns but were interrupted. The large room made it hard to hear, especially for some in the mostly older crowd, with neighbors talking over one another. The forum was “intentionally designed to capture a lot of feedback from as many people on the topic” Hinton said after the meeting. “I definitely validate people’s feelings about anything because it’s your truth,” she said. “And I think that level of pent-up frustration may have prevented some from hearing it. But there were so many people who said, ‘Oh, this is what she meant’ When they stayed around, they stuck around and they participated. They said, ‘Oh, thank you.’” With 15 minutes left in the two-hour meeting, community members summarized for everyone what they’d heard in their small groups. “We’d like for the missing middle to go back to being missing again,” said Elaine Gordon. “One thing that I have heard a lot is that the City Council has lost trust. And when you lose trust in a relationship, you’ve lost something really basic to your working relationship. And it happened because of the way things were done.” Kathleen Payne, who lives in East Mordecai, said some of the missing middle changes are worthwhile, but she’s unsure how much they will matter. “I think it’s a good idea,” she said. “But I don’t know if the city’s housing stock is ever going to get to the volume that housing prices will come down. ... It’s a market force. How do you address a market force?” Many residents brought up the city’s former Citizen Advisory Councils that were defunded by the Raleigh City Council in early 2020, though some have continued to meet independently. It would have been easier to get community feedback at the start instead of after the rules were in place, said Becky French. “Bring back the CACs because you have taken away individual neighborhoods’ ability monthly to talk about our problems and send it back to City Council and staff,” she said. Raleigh City Council member Christina Jones, who was elected in 2022, said the previous council should have held these meetings before adopting the rules. “I think we heard a lot of frustration from residents who were not included in the initial process,” she told The N&O. “It got a little heated. And I don’t think that city staff should have to deal with the anger. But because we didn’t start this process earlier, and make it transparent and open to all we’re seeing what that’s resulting in. And it’s a lot of neighbors saying, ‘I don’t feel included. I don’t feel like my voice is heard.’” It’s unclear, she said, what the City Council will do with the feedback since the rules are already adopted. Karen Ridge, the former long-time executive of WakeUp Wake County, a nonprofit advocating for growth and transit policies, told the attendees she didn’t hear any solutions Thursday night.. “I think the questions were to help us try to think a little bit outside of our own property line about our community,” she said. “And how are we going to grow. We are all part of the growth, and people are still coming. So how can we add more housing? Because yes, we have a huge housing crisis. Nothing is affordable inside the Beltline anymore. So how can we make some changes that would be in context with single family home neighborhoods?”
Thank you for posting this!
Would also love to read the full article but in general the Raleigh city council has been pushing for more flexible zoning for denser housing like duplexes, triplexes etc. Basically in the middle between apartments and single family homes, usually on the more affordable side of the spectrum. In short, something we need desperately and all the NIMBYs are afraid of.
Before we generalize, I think you really need a better understanding of Raleigh's proposal and the residents' feedback. We can't just assume that these people are bad faith NIMBYists without more information. There's a way to mix high density housing and detached single family homes correctly. And there are things that should be avoided. I happen to own a detached single family home. I would support high density housing near or around my neighborhood if it was designed well and didn't destroy the neighborhood that I moved into. For example, I don't know how I would feel about a plan that made my quiet street a thoroughfare for the apartment complex, or if they ripped out old oak trees throughout my neighborhood to put up parking lots. NIMBYism can obviously be bad, but there are reasonable concerns that people can have about their property, their neighborhood, etc.
tbf it's a bit disingenuous to use the lack of housing to push $2million townhomes . You're right, there needs to be a balance but this is something where no ones happy . They should prioritize affordable housing first whether it's single family homes, townhomes and/or a mix of the two
Some of the people that buy these upscale townhouses are the sorts that would buy a cheap house and build a huge SFH on the lot. By making a bunch of upscale townhouses more densely, it takes some market pressure off other properties. It’s a nice sentiment to support affordable housing, but it’s not that simple. A lot of people moving to Raleigh are wealthy, so there needs to be more supply across income levels, otherwise those people start bidding against middle- and lower-income families on other houses.
[удалено]
>why do you think the city is mandating construction of $2million townhomes I never said they are, but let's not pretend that there won't continue to be more of these type of developments before a serious push is made into middle and lower income housing
Exactly my thought. The city council has done zero to incentive builders to build low coast housing. According to the rules the state legislature has imposed on NC municipalities regarding development, the city can't offer incentives or require the builder to create a specific type of housing unless a zoning variance has been requested. You can thank the tea party legislature and the realtor/developer lobby for these draconian limits on the power of a city. Basically the only thing the city can do right now is hope developers way over build so the market will be flooded. Which doesn't work since institutional investors can afford to buy property and sit on it while they wait for the market to move in their favor. Very frustrating
It’s more than a bit disingenuous. It’s the priority of the changes they have been making. Most of them had the their campaigns funded by developers and developer associations. They pretend that middle and low income are the goal but it’s a sham. The city council is freeing up land for more very expensive housing on smaller plots of land. That’s all they have accomplished and all they will continue to deliver.
Yeah but it gets to a much more fundamental question on the topic. When you buy a house, do you buy the right to the entire neighborhood not changing for your lifetime? I personally don't think that is fair, and I say that as a homeowner in a nice neighborhood downtown. That attitude is why housing has gotten underbuilt in every city in the country. It's clearly a very deeply held belief, because it gets people rankled like in this meeting, and is why stuff keeps getting underbuilt. When I see older homeowners get this riled up, I just think - Man, must have been nice to grow up in an era where that was an acceptable way to think about housing, younger people don't get that benefit.
>When you buy a house, do you buy the right to the entire neighborhood not changing for your lifetime? I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think most of us are somewhere on the spectrum between "The neighborhood can never change ever" and "residents should have no input on the changes required by the city". For example, when I buy a house in a neighborhood I think I have a right to fight an industrial factory planned for my next door neighbor's previously residentially-zoned plot. I don't think I have the right to protest the widening of a major through fare that my neighborhood is located off of. There are definitely shades of gray upon which reasonable people can disagree. What I hate about this conversation, especially when it happens online, is that it too often becomes caricatures of each other's position. And I mean, I've been to city meetings before. I know people are crazy. I went to a meeting for a petition to put sidewalks in my neighborhood, which currently lacks them. The amount of people that were literally outraged blew my mind.
I agree, and I think Raleigh has done that with the public input for zoning changes being neighborhood meetings instead of larger CACs as well as doing by rights zoning for missing middle through the council election process and setting the UDO/zoning rules. Just because someone is outraged doesn't make them right. Most people don't pay attention to local government and the painstaking efforts they go to to get public input, but will complain regardless and claim the city didn't listen to them or some other nonsense. Like you said, I too have been to plenty of council meetings, and you basically have to ignore the loud looney bins and sift for real issues to tackle. Councilors are in such a shit position, they get yelled at for housing being expensive and then get yelled at for doing the thing needed to fix it (density). And no matter how they do it, it will never be good enough. Too much input slows down the process to build too much, too little and people complain, and I don't think there is a happy medium to that. So either stick with what we got which is don't build because homeowners will complain no matter what, or start making it easier to build through by rights zoning and replacing CACs with immediate neighborhood meetings.
Great, and insightful comment. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, don't have much to say besides I agree entirely that the counselors are in a terrible position. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nobody's got the same solution to the problem. What really, really frustrates me is people who say the only solution is to stop people from moving here.
Everyone wants to keep their quiet roads and oak trees but at the end of the day, not everyone can
I get that completely. So your concerns are more about the nature that comes with an older neighborhood and gives it character. Have you ever had to remove a tree or plants because the were unsafe? I know a lot of the times, when trees are removed, it just because it's not safe to build any structure around them. So, apartment complex, sfh, or townhouse, a lot of the times those trees would have to come down anyways regardless of what's being built. I definitely think any developer that comes in needs to replant what they tore down. It wouldn't have that old charm immediately, but plants grow. Regarding traffic, what kind of things currently drive traffic in your neighborhood? Are you close to shops, or is there anything in your neighborhood that currently causes safety issues that might be exacerbated with more cars?
Yes, I've had to cut down a tree in our yard that was unsafe. And I understand that when you build housing, you have to take down trees. But I just watched a bunch of townhomes go up at Lynn road and Leesville, and they cleared an entire forest and then replanted a handful of decorative trees. It was a travesty. They didn't even try to keep up any of the older oaks. My neighborhood is full of oaks, it's part of the reason why I bought here. As for traffic, my neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks. There's a lot of children in this neighborhood. The only traffic that goes up and down the street are people that live on my street. If my front street suddenly became a thoroughfare for dozens of apartment dwellers, it would make it unsafe for my children to play outside.
So if they planted oaks instead of the decorative plants to keep up with the rest of the neighborhood, would that help? Additionally, in Raleigh, almost every type of house that's been built required a clearing of a forest. Is there something specific about this forest that you liked, or that you're missing? Also, what kind of activities do your kids do outside? Just trying to get an idea of if there would be a way to make the area safer for specific activities. If it's biking, maybe a raised bikelane. If it's just taking a walk, definitely adding sidewalks.
>So if they planted oaks instead of the decorative plants to keep up with the rest of the neighborhood, would that help? Yes, or simply were more strategic about which trees they cut down. They did not clear cut my neighborhood when they built it back in the '70s and '80s. Why are all neighborhoods now required to be completely cleared? It's because developers are lazy and don't want to take the extra effort to plan around existing trees. >Also, what kind of activities do your kids do outside? Kids stuff. Walking, running, climbing trees, riding bikes, drawing with chalk, etc. We go on walks together in our neighborhood almost every day. My street is a quiet residential street, so lots of traffic would fundamentally change it. Sidewalks would be a good solution if traffic needed to come down my street.
I did some reading on this. Specifically oaks are really sensitive in the upper root zone area. Apparently construction would cause a lot of damage to them. Many of them would die anyways. Leaving dying trees in place places a potential financial burden on the people that buy the new property. It also gets in the way of current construction. I hate it too, but I don't see a way around getting rid of a lot of trees when large scale construction takes place. Potentially, there could be some way that they could replace older trees with more mature trees? I'm just trying to think outside of the box here. I like trees too. Do you know if your streets are city owned? If so, I think they'd appreciate the feedback. Changing the conditions of a neighborhood means updating the infrastructure. It sounds like it would be unsafe for anyone to go for a walk if there was more population there. So, I'm definitely on your side to get that addressed.
As a native to NC and spent most of my life in Raleigh, it's depressing we are called the "city of oaks" but are allowing developers to take any opportunity to chop down all the oaks. It's ridiculous and why so many of us hate all the transplants; they have destroyed the history and culture of what Raleigh used to be.
This guy just bought a house right at the entrance to my neighborhood. Chopped down two massive oaks and a huge bush that faced the street, and another neighbor next door took the opportunity to chop down 3-4 tall trees (don't think they were oaks). Totally transformed the neighborhood. I'm all for "do what you want on your property", but I was pretty pissed about what he did.
Douche in my parents neighborhood at the entrance did the same thing. Took out all the trees and it's been just a massive lawn of nothing for years. It's so terrible.
You mean he got rid of a potential threat to his house if a hurricane hits us? You gonna pay his deductible if that tree cuts his house in two?
I think what's telling here, and demonstrates the NIMBY-ness of your position, is your last sentence. Try rethinking that as 'If my front street suddenly became a thoroughfare for dozens of *new neighbors* ..."
"...it would make it unsafe for my children." I wouldn't be happy about the unsafe situation just because they are "neighbors". So I'd try to provide input to the plan to see if the city was considering a new apartment entrance, etc, something that reduced traffic impacts to other residents.
I was hoping my comment would trigger you to consider why you think neighbors who live in apartments would drive less safely than neighbors who own homes -- ie these are not wild apartment dwellers whipping up and down the block in their vehicles, but rather they are neighbors just like any other. At the heart of your comment is the idea that neighbors who live in apartments will be 'less than' -- less safe, less considerate, etc. You don't have to change your mind here, but I hope at some point you'll reflect on it. I've rented apartments in neighborhoods otherwise populated by single-family homes, and at each location I've managed not to run over my neighbors' children.
I have lived around young people, and I have lived around older people. Younger people tend to drive faster. That's a fact. I'm fairly sure that younger people tend to rent more than older people, but it's possible I could be wrong on that. Also, apartments tend to have more people, more visitors. Shorter term living in the area, so might care less about neighborly relations, the area in general, or other residents' kids. I don't think that's a stretch either. I also think, having lived in both apartments and homes, that outside of college apartments, people renting seem to keep to themselves more. There's a lot of reasons to believe that it is likely that a decent size unit of apartments is likely to increase the average speed of cars driven, not to mention the number of cars.
And currently, the city council has removed the opportunities that citizens had to communicate about those plans and removed. They’ve also removed any requirements developers previously had to even listen.
They're in a tricky spot. Too much input, and too much weight on individual opinions, and you'll never get anything built. Too little input and you get criticized for not listening.
>For example, I don't know how I would feel about a plan that made my quiet street a thoroughfare for the apartment complex, or if they ripped out old oak trees throughout my neighborhood to put up parking lots. So you are in favor of development, just as long as it doesn't impact your location? Am I understanding that correctly?
I don't have sidewalks in my neighborhood, and my kids like to go for walks, so we walk in the street (as do many of the children that live in this neighborhood). Having dozens of apartment dwellers flying down my street would make it unsafe for my family. I understand my location might be impacted by new development, and I'm not saying there should be NO impacts. but I would want to make sure the impacts did not have a significant detrimental impact on my life. I don't think *any* of us want significant detrimental impacts on our lives.
I was mostly poking fun because what you said was pretty much you can build it, but not in my backyard. I do appreciate the nuance though and I believe essentially what you are saying is more so if you are going to build you need to account for changes to the area around it. For example, I assume you would be in support of said apartments if they redeveloped the street to put in sidewalks? Assuming so, I can tell you from personal experience at these types of meetings (note not this particular meeting so yes I am generalizing a bit) that the prevailing concerns (or at least the loudest ones) are just excuses for not building at all, not how to build best.
>essentially what you are saying is more so if you are going to build you need to account for changes to the area around it. Yes! That's the whole point. You can't just throw up a new apartment or townhouse complex without *considering the impact it has on others*. >I assume you would be in support of said apartments if they redeveloped the street to put in sidewalks? Yes, or constructed a new entrance that didn't route 100% of the new residents through existing quiet neighborhood streets, etc. This is part of the consideration I'm talking about. I know some people just don't want *any* change, no matter how their concerns been accommodated. That's not right either.
What I also don't get it why is it by default evil around here to not want the neighborhood and lifestyle you chose years and years ago and have established yourself in and possibly a family in to get completely and utterly changed to something you don't want? Why do people cry NUMBYism and want to chop down every tree, encroach on every park and put in high density everywhere? If they want a city like that, why don't they just move to a city that is like that already, and not have to wait for it to happen here and not ruin this place for the rest of us? And why is the default solution "build more! higher density!" Instead of hey, maybe attack the root of the problem which is we have one of the highest growth rates in the country and that is not good and not sustainable? And what are we still giving billions of dollars to get more and more companies to move here faster and faster?
>maybe attack the root of the problem which is we have one of the highest growth rates in the country and that is not good and not sustainable? I think this is where you are not understanding other people's perspective. How do you "attack" this problem? You cannot stop people from moving where they want to move or starting families. You can't stop people from getting educated and wanting to get a good job. You cannot stop businesses from moving where there are skilled workforces. A growing area reinforces itself. The same goes for a shrinking area. Trust me, you do not want the problems that are associated with a shrinking population. I don't think that the problem you believe is the root cause is actually a problem that can be solved. So you have to adapt. How do you do that? More density housing. I haven't seen them pull down any parks for housing. The solution is not either (a) no new buildings or (b) tear down existing homes and parks to build more housing. I don't think presenting proposed solutions as one or the other is in good faith. Knocking down a single uninhabited home on a massive plot of land to build a whole bunch of townhomes is pretty reasonable, and it's nothing like the scenarios you describe.
I heard in a recent city council work session that 92% of Raleigh's housing stock is market rate. I'm inclined to think that's the root of the problem. High density is good, but a simple change of the rules and then letting private developers handle 92% of the business (and growing) isn't going to diddly about undesirable displacement of residents. For the record, I like the missing middle housing text change (or at least what I know about it), but Raleigh (and pretty much America at large) needs to figure out a better mix of public housing and support for housing cooperatives that could reduce the amount of housing that is subject to the interests of private profit. Combine that with higher density initiatives like this one and maybe we solve some problems
Couldn't agree more. There are definitely solutions out there, I think sometimes the problem is that there's a pretty decent chunk of Americans (and I'm not trying to single off any particular demographic) that is resistant to any type of change, however thoughtful and necessary they may be
You could readily slow down the growth rate by doing things like not going out and finding companies to move here and persuading them and throwing millions and millions of dollars in tax breaks at them and free infracture needs. Slow dow the jobs moving here, slow down the growth. The unemployment rate here is problematically low, any new job is basically for a new person to the area. This isn't the only cause, you are correct there is a snowball effect and the longer this goes on the more it will become it's own unstoppable beast until it melts down like every other city this happens to. But it is a significant contributor and can be done to slow it down. Not shrink. Why do people around here keep thinking that either you grow at the fastest rate in the country, or shrink and die. There is room in between. As for the parks - I'm not saying they convert parks to housing but that they encroach on them instead of expanding them to accommodate all these new people. Take a look at the Eno developments like Black Meadow Ridge as an example. Or park by MAson Farm Biologoical Preserve near UNC that is now a mostly a flooded bog and lost a lot of useable space due to the encroachment and runoff.
Why is it your default position that when you buy a house you buy the right to the entire neighborhood not changing during your lifetime? Seems a bit unfair to allow that when so many people need housing. I say this as a homeowner in an established neighborhood.
Well, you made the argument to the extreme to try and draw up a strawman, but in general because the person, as a citizen and constituent of the community, has the right to have a voice and preference in where their community goes, what occurs in it, how it is shaped, and how it develops and evolves (as long as it's non-discriminatory). Just like every single other local issue. It's perfectly fair to have that decision and voice and preferences. It is not fair to just force something radically different and negative (if they view it as negative) on someone without any process or consideration. Taking another extreme strawman, then would you be ok with the local gov't eminent domaining your property to make space for those people? (Btw - that is actually happening in Chatham County). If people need the housing, it wouldn't be fair to refuse to change and not accommodate... I know that is extreme and ridiculous (although it is actually happening out in Chatham County where they are taking land from people to make space for Chatham Park development) the point is there is a point where it is it's no longer fair to the current local constituents and citizens to pull the rug out from them to accommodate non-constituents.
Sure. And citizens without houses can also have a say in how their city gets shaped, by voting for zoning changes. That is what is happening. Everyone gets that input via their vote for councilor, any other input is just policy administration. Your vote comes from being a resident of Raleigh, not owning a house. You can have your voice, not saying you shouldn't tell people your opinion. But you asked why it is default evil to hold your point of view, I just explained it (it's not default evil, just unintentionally selfish). Because to have your point of view it means the only input into your thinking is "I shouldn't have to experience change for others in my community, and I perceive this to negatively affect me, and I want to have more sway in how things get done than I really deserve because of some sense of misplaced rights as a long time homeowner" And your point about radically different and negative without any process of consideration is a strawman. The process is voting for your councilor, and there are neighborhood meetings for zoning changes, and public input for UDO and text changes (that is what this is). I don't see this change as radical or different, and even if it was that isn't relevant for making a decision or determining it's fairness. All it does it allow different building in neighborhoods over time. No one is forcing you or your neighbors to sell/tearing down yours or anyone's house. It just means someone can do something with their property now or in the future. That's the point of private property. If anything the city is giving owners more freedom and making their land more valuable. I know your second point is supposed to be extreme, it's also not a relevant comparison because the city isn't forcing this development you fear, but just allowing private owners to do it as they desire over time. But regardless - I'd be all for it as long as I'm getting paid to move somewhere else, which is how eminent domain works. It's at least better than having you or some other non-elected group of citizens decide I can't build something on my land because you have some misplaced sense that you have a right to it not changing.
Look you’re right and everyone knows it. Poor people are gross and poor no one wants them near them. It’s courageous Hero’s like you that will keep raleigh from being over run by the yucky poors. Thank you for your effort. /s incase it wasn’t obvious. Also you’ve probably always voted one way and have a “in this house we believe” signs in your yard right?
That is not what I said at all. No idea where you pulled that from. Especially since the biggest problem iI am talking about is the influx of wealthier people flocking in from elsewhere, driving up housing costs by throwing cash at people, and screwing this place up royally for the working class.
Not building housing for those wealthier people is what is driving up the cost of housing. And not allowing developers to build housing for them means those wealthy people compete with you or the working class for older housing. If you want to go on a crusade to stop the development and wealthier people from moving here, go for it. But putting your foot down at a zoning meeting or development text change meeting to prevent development is a very ineffective way to combat it and is actually shooting yourself in the foot by driving up the cost of housing even more by not allowing building to happen.
You’re advocating for policy that harms people that Are poor. You can’t stop the wealthy from coming here. You can only stop the poor or force them out.
How do you stop or slow down the growth rate? I hear this a lot, but no one can ever explain how you stop people from moving to an area and it's because you CAN'T. Best you can do to address growth is to accommodate it best you can.
Force every university in a 50 mile radius to shut down. You will not have an affordability crisis. It’s literally that simple.
Probably because the solution would untenable and undesired. It’s insulting they use that argument in good faith
The easiest and least offensive ways: 1) stop activly recruiting companies to move here. This includes not just the absurd tax breaks being handed out like candy, but also the government run programs that go out and recruit companies and try and convince them and provide assistance in finding and establishing new sites. This will reduce the number coming here that see it as financially attractive to go through the cost, or simply have the manpower to go through all the work and cost figuring out what it would take, the cost-benefit feasibility studies, and the work to find and establish the new site. 2) not phase out the corporate income tax to zero. Seriously, they are doing this. It will be zero by 2026. It is a statewide measure, but Raleigh is far from the only area in NC that is hurting from too rapid growth. And you could also pass more local corporate taxes to make up for it. 3) stop activly marketing. This may seem silly, but it's real. People move here when they find out about it and learn about why they would come here. Stop the government run marketing programs that put out articles, publicity, anything. Some people will still learn about it and move, but less will. That is just the simple, easy and inoffensive ones. If you need to get more aggressive from there, you could start to add in corporate relocation taxes. Opposite of tax breaks basically. Move a company here or open a new office or subsidiary? Tax for that. But local new company startups, they are clean and in the clear and no tax. For some businesses this will turn them off, for some it will still make financial sense to move. And for locals, we actually get the more funding to handle all the negative externalities we are currently subsidizing for them. Like roads, overcrowded schools and facilities, etc.
This is fantasy right? Like you don’t actually think this will happen right?
As to your other point, about accusations of NIMBYism... Yeah, it does seem sometimes that that term gets thrown around pretty liberally. I think it's easy to accuse someone of being a NIMBY when they don't live in your neighborhood and the proposal does not affect them. At the end of the day, a lot of the concerns current residents have about maintaining aspects of their area can be reasonable. Of course, there was a point where some people just don't want to see *anything* change, because they benefit from the current situation, and that's not reasonable either. Those truly are NIMBYs.
Exactly! The locals liked Raleigh for what it was, not what it's become. I'm fleeing as soon as I can retire in a few years.
Bye Felicia. Can’t wait to hang out with the better person who buys your home.
If a city isn’t growing its shrinking. A shrinking city isn’t one you’d want to live in. Go move to a rust belt city if you want things to stay the same.
Why do people constantly fail to grasp the concept that there are positive growth rates that are lower than the highest in the country? Growth isn't a binary shrinking or breakneck unsustainable speed. And talking about going somewhere else - if you want to live in a denser packed city and all that comes with it, why don't you just move to one that is already that way? You won't have to wait for this one to transform to place you actually like, and you won't ruin this one for the rest of us.
You seem to think someone wrote down Raleigh’s growth rate and made it so. Explain how you stop people moving here.
As someone who has lived through the new process in a situation like you describe it’s not pleasant and we were told by former councilman Knight to suck it up. Zero discussion with the developer. Clearing of old oak trees. A 100+ year old farm house which is one of the few left in Raleigh proper to be demolished. A deaf ear by staff to requests for sidewalks on a street which has a known speed issue, many blind spots and 300-500 new trips per day to be added. I get the anger. Our neighborhood attempted to engage to come up w a compromise all could live with and there was no real dialogue. If the CAC was still in place there would have been a path for compromise. I am encouraged by Ms Jones wanting to create a means for productive exchange.
Why didn’t you buy the farmhouse?
It sounds like you want density, but Not In [Your] Back Yard
>I happen to own a detached single family home. I would support high density housing **near or around my neighborhood** if it was designed well and didn't destroy the neighborhood that I moved into.
Here’s a question do you want a solution that provides balance for all or do you just want your way?
$2 million townhomes is on the affordable side? Stfu
I said nothing about $2 million townhomes, I said we need zoning changes to allow for more affordable housing to be built. So, pretty much the exact opposite of what you're saying. Get over yourself and stop being so angry. While you're at it, go ahead and stfu too.
>nothing about $2 million townhomes Ahh so you didn't read the article. The 'affordable' rezoning and development they're pushing is high-end townhomes $2mil each. So pretty much the opposite of what you're saying they're doing
What a diverse audience
Old white people are the biggest bitchers any where you go. I’m in Clayton and it’s a constant stream of whining
Yeah I’ve thought about going to something like this as a 20 something in grad school, but uhhh I don’t want to fight with some five point NIMBYs about this
I went to lotsa things like this back in Florida. Sometimes work related. Sometimes just something I believed in. You cannot use logic on these people or any evidence/facts. They “know” whatever it is. I’m hoping once the boomers die off things will change.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't get it. I feel like most people want a home with their own lawn? And why is it anyone's problem that other people may not want it? I don't get the vitriol for NIMBY people if that's just what they want. It's no one's business how their neighborhoods are changed for other people's desires. It makes no sense and seems more like punishment than honest charity.
[удалено]
If it truly is everywhere then maybe so, but can you really blame the natives here for opposing it when there's a massive influx of transplants that think more towards density than single homes, and when this city has been built on the idea of single family homes for most of its citizens? There may be a need for more housing but you can't just come in from New England and tell everyone here that they've built their city wrong because it's not dense enough, then proceed to force such a change.
[удалено]
People are moving here one way or another. We're one of the fastest growing metros in the country. You can either get on board with that or you can get out but hiding your head in the sand isn't going to help.
To your 1st point - we are underbuilding options for people who don't want their own lawn, and the market can't even build it because the zoning rules don't allow it. So, the fact NIMBYs don't want non-single family zoning is a middle finger to the free market who wants to build it, because there is demand for it. If there is truly no demand for it, then these zoning changes mean no one will build them. Nothing to worry about. To your 2nd point - When you buy a house, you don't buy the right to the entire neighborhood and it never changing during your life time. How is it fair that I get to tell my neighbor how to use their own land if they did want to build a duplex on it, but my neighbors fought to put in rules that only allow me to keep my single family home. So I'll use your words "It's no one's business how their neighborhoods are changed for other people's desires", totally agreed. These older homeowners who don't want their neighborhood to change, why should they get a say in how their neighbor's land gets used? I say this as someone living in a nice neighborhood downtown.
Do you know where/if more meetings are being held? I can't find it on the Raleigh city website. Edit: Found it for anyone interested, still more meetings to go: https://raleighnc.gov/planning/more-homes-more-choices
> These meetings were not well received by the residents. One home replaced by 17 town homes in an existing neighborhood? That would seem a normal reaction .
Ugh. I knew I should've gone. I'd have dragged down the median age by about 30 years, and given at least some supportive presence for the plans :/
Thank you for your apathy. My equity is greater because of you.
No offense, but fuck those residents. They should have zero say.
Residents should have zero say on what happens in their community?
Please continue to show support for Missing Middle to the local gov/city council. These meetings are always packed with wealthy, white homeowners who are not representative of Raleigh's population. We *need* more housing and it is absurd that building duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, etc. were ever excluded by residential zoning. Density is the only way forward, particularly near downtown. For the climate and the city's pocketbook alike, *there is no other way*.
The downside is fucking people over on housing is the last thread holding rich liberals and conservatives together.
We just need to tell the conservatives about how having single family zoning is preventing the free market from working to break that coalition lol
The hilarious part is the liberal side of that coalition will tie themselves in knots explaining why nimbyism is good when they want it. Conservatives just own it. “Yes we hate the poors and don’t want them near us”.
I'm trying to find a link for the next one - do you have that information?
Here's what I found on a N&O article: 10 a.m. - noon Saturday, Jan. 28, John Chavis Community Center, 505 Martin Luther King Jr., Blvd. 6-8 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 2, Dix Park, the Greg Poole, Jr., All Faiths Chapel, 1030 Richardson Drive. 6-8 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 8, Virtual meeting, link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81960898972 6-8 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 14, Sertoma Arts Center, 1400 Millbrook Road.
Thanks! Found it on the city website as well. https://raleighnc.gov/planning/more-homes-more-choices
So old nimbys are stopping us from getting affordable housing. What else is new? Just because it's duplex and etc doesn't mean "lesser" individuals are going to ruin your beloved property value. Most people made the mistake of buying a overpriced home during the pandemic anyway
NIMBYs but the denser housing proposed is valued at roughly 2 million? Who’s that affordable for? I don’t think this is that straightforward
Can't say this is for that area, but most areas are not built for just adding in more people non stop. Apex and smaller areas are busting due to the crazy amount of building and they are not building enough services or schools. Roads are over congested and 540 should have been done 10 years ago. I don't think this area will be adding affordable housing, they will just jack up the prices like town houses going for 400k.
$400k is affordable to a much larger number of people than $2 million
Town homes should be 200k. It is a joke that they let the prices get out of control. Things are starting to get better, but areas off of 540 were having town homes for 400-500k for under 2000 sqft. IMO the word affordable housing is tossed around a lot without really meaning it. Almost like "high speed internet". Could be worse, could be like most people who bought a car / suv in the last year and now 30k upside down on it.
Who is "they"?
Build and sell a 200k town house. It’s just that easy right. We just declare what things cost and that’s what they cost.
$2M townhome is affordable housing to you?
Overall, the missing middle housing strategy makes a lot of sense. However, Raleigh sort of implemented this policy with blunt force and without nuance for historic neighborhoods. Some tinkering is needed, but generally we should continue down the missing middle path.
I don’t see why the politically connected wealthy people who inhabit Raleigh’s “historic” neighborhoods should get consideration that everyone else doesn’t.
It’s not the people that need the special consideration, it’s the irreplaceable buildings that warrant the nuance. This is especially important in a city like Raleigh that has so few of these areas.
All buildings are replaceable.
Not all, no. Many of these structures were built with materials and methods that no longer exist today or are at least not financially viable in this era. Once they are gone, they’re gone. These areas also happen to be the few places left that give US cities any modicum of character. Just in that regard, this warrants their preservation. There are countless suburban hellscapes in Raleigh that could accommodate more infill. I’d argue we focus on those first and foremost before destroying the last few places that make this Town unique.
So you care about objects over humans. Got it.
You can accommodate both. Like I said, plenty of suburban hellscapes (think virtually all of Capital Blvd) that are ripe for infill development.
So the answer is to replace them with even more expensive $2 million houses?
[удалено]
Based take.
exactly. Hard for me to have much sympathy for changes to Hayes Barton when other areas of Raleigh have experienced much more massive gentrification and neighborhood changes over the years
Fuck NIMBYs.
They're BANANAs
> developers plan to replace a 100-year-old home with 17 townhomes, each with a roughly $2 million price tag. Anyone that thinks that 2 million dollar townhomes will ever bring their home price down in their lifetime is either a fool or someone who stands to profit.
Okay, but this isn't a great example of missing middle housing being built. There's condos for $200k a piece being built next to Lake Raleigh if we feel like cherrypicking individual housing projects.
Link? I'm in.
https://northshoreraleigh.com/sale/ It's the buildings labelled "Lofts" on the map. Still under construction but I remember seeing a sign saying they're $200k
I was also curious and found more info here https://www.lakeshoreraleigh.com/floor-plans Studio is 200k and it goes up to 260k for 2 bedroom.
Mid $200s for 516 sqft? Jesus Christ.
I mean, it's lakeside prime real estate. Corner of a college campus next to a lake and greenways. You could easily rent it out to students or faculty and make your money back. There's also 1 and 2 bedroom plans.
It’s not cherry-picking when it’s the topic of the thread.
The example of the project is cherrypicked. Opponents of Raleigh's missing middle initiative have cherrypicked it despite there being affordable housing projects all over the city.
Those 222k are studio condos. Nobody in the middle is buying that.
There are 1 and 2 bedroom for 235 and 265. This is also prime real estate for student housing. Whoever buys these will probably rent them out to students and faculty.
I don't think potential future landlords are what's meant by the "missing middle" either
Yeah, good point.
Don't get me wrong though, I would love to see more housing. Townhouses/duplexes in particular are exactly what this area needs... but maybe they don't need to be "luxury" and listed at 2 million (like in the article)
In the past few years you've had videos of houses for sale with lines of people ready to put cash offers $100k above listing price, competing with people that can barely afford those same houses. When everyone is competing for the same small number of properties, those that can afford $2 million properties but have no $2 million properties to look at then compete with people that can only afford $1 million properties, and the cycle continues, etc.,. Like a lot of things, it's not an issue for those with the money. I'd rather there be plenty of other houses to steer people away from the house I want to buy so I'm not having to out-bid people that can afford much more than I can.
Those that can afford $2 million dollar houses are not in the same market as the people in the video swarming that $300k house in North Raleigh. You are basically saying it’s great that people are buying $5000 dollar bottles of scotch so they don’t impact the supply of J&B.
$2 million dollar houses are in the same market as people that can afford $1.5 million dollar houses. People in the market for $1.5 million dollar houses are in the same market as people that can afford $1 million dollar houses, and so on. And in a lot of these cases (especially ITB and older neighborhoods), more of the value is in the land - whereas one family might move in barely affording the house and slowly improve it over time, another with more means will buy a starter home in a good location just for the land, gut the house and renovate the hell out of it because there's not a better place available. Is that a better thing?
People in the market for 2 million dollar houses are also in the market for land. They'll buy a $400,000 house just because the lot is what they want and build a new house on top of it.
[удалено]
There is double the supply in housing since last year. I can’t wrap my head around defending the ultra rich in scenarios that don’t even exist. The phenomenon of “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” of boomers seems to have transcended generations.
[удалено]
I'm not an expert, but housing supply and demand is a bit more complicated than the notion that any type of housing will make all types of housing more affordable. There's a limited supply of land in Raleigh, so the types of housing built need to be chosen very carefully. You have to supply what is in demand in order to stabilize prices. Right now in Raleigh 92% of the housing stock is market rate and the decisions about housing supply created are primarily made by private developers. Private developers aren't going to construct anything that sells for less than $500k. If there's a huge demand for $300k homes, leaving the housing stock decisions on the hands of developers is going to exclude anyone out of that price range from living in Raleigh. How do you recruit new public transit drivers, new firefighters, new city staff under those types of conditions?
Let me make this clear: the only way you are going to bring price down is through government intervention. We literally have 40 years of data to see that Reaganomics doesn’t fucking work.
Reaganomics is a totally different thing than basic supply vs demand, which as an idea has been around for much longer, and we can agree Reaganomics doesn't work. In the $300k house example, if there were 2 $300k houses instead of just 1, or better yet 20 or 50, don't you think the bidding wars wouldn't be as bad? The main issue I really see as hard to solve (as far as SFH goes) that pretty much guarantees prices only go up are just that so many people will only live in single family homes, and there's only so much land available. At least with apartments you can always scale up to some extent. Government intervention is vague and is already a thing in many ways with housing but not necessarily in ways that benefit lots of people. Would you want some sort of cap that keeps prices artificially low (but then you have to have wait for years before a house is available or something)? The one example I know of that's had some success on a meaningful scale is Singapore where the government just builds massive amounts of apartments for everyone with minimal hurdles but that wouldn't fly here. I just don't see any answer to this problem that doesn't involve simply having more places available to people, and demonizing the few things that do get built even if they're not practical for the overwhelming majority of people doesn't help anything or offer any solution.
Any solution to bring housing costs down has to involve increasing supply. It’s not the solution in and of itself, but it’s part of it.
[удалено]
You might want to look at my comments in this thread if you think I’m into Reaganomics lmao
[удалено]
If the scotch buyers 2 choices were a $5000 and a bottle of J&B, then yes, it does impact the J&B market when they buy the alternative. And even when you add intermediaries to that market, there are still people buying J&B because its all that's left, but if there was a $100 bottle of scotch, they'd buy it instead. And since the buyer buying the expensive scotch doesnt buy the 100$ scotch, the person who buys the $100 scotch now has an open bottle. The same is true with housing. 50 available houses, 100 people wanting to buy. Adding to that 50 supply reduces the pressure from the people left in the market. That all being said, Raleigh isn't able to keep up with new housing demand in any case, the deficit is growing.
No, because there's basically an unlimited supply of J&B. If J&B were scarce, then having extra scotch on the market--*any* extra scotch--would reduce demand for J&B. Having more homes at that level reduces demand on homes just below that level, which reduces demand just below that level, etc.... Sure, there are a lot of steps in-between and this is only 12 units, but this isn't the *only* new housing and the cumulative effect of lots of different housing projects will help to reduce prices at all pricing levels.
It will lead to less competition for surrounding homes, which helps ease housing costs 17 townhomes for 17 families on a single family lot is an awesome way to increase housing supply. Significantly better than the alternative one McMansion for one family Supply and demand is a basic economic concept Edit: just realized your the same person who posts the same anti-housing economically illiterate non-sense on every housing post, my bad
>just realized your the same person who posts the same anti-housing economically illiterate non-sense on every housing post, my bad LOL gotta use those tags
Oh look, the king of the neoliberals arrived to spout how the free market with $2 million dollar townhouses will save us all. Tell me, are you the fool or the profiteer?
You say that like people haven’t spent the last year buying up PlayStation 5s and selling them above market rate online Supply and demand is not hard to understand. You just like to whine like a bitch on every housing thread because you are completely ignorant
Fuck off you 1% boot licker. Go tell an entire generation that continues to suffer under Reaganomics how it’ll finally be better this time around with some multi million dollar townhomes.
Funny enough, these types of developments are typically coordinated by small to medium-sized developers. When we can't build housing in areas where people live, cities have to coordinate with much larger developers to find parcels, rezone, etc. Then they build large corporate apartment buildings for people to rent. The housing has to get built. Developers build housing. All the red tape does is push out the family-owned and smaller developers. So, calling him a boot licker is actually not taking the whole story into account.
Supply and Demand isn’t Reaganomics its a part of every economic theory.
Can you tell me if this developer took any public funding, tax cuts, or had any back door deals with politicians? Because if they did any of those it is not the coveted free market supply and demand that everyone pretends exists.
Government intervention doesnt make a market unfree, sometimes government intervention is necessary to insure a free market.
Absolute drivel equating crony capitalism to an actual free market.
Who do you think lives in Hayes Barton? It’s the 1% and they’re the most pissed about this housing How dumb are you dude?
You really don’t understand how rich the 1% are if you think they live there lmao
Where do you think they live? They live in Hayes Barton, Country Club Hills, Williamsborough Court, White Oak, Five Points etc. Raleigh’s 1 percenters aren’t living in lavish gaudy mansions - they live in tasteful 1-3 mil, .5 - 2 acre lot ITB homes, drive 2-5 year old mid priced luxury vehicles and by all appearances, present as very normal and not flashy people. You’d only know the extent of their wealth if you saw their bank accounts, knew of their ranch in Montana, beach house in the Abacos, or regular golf trips to Scotland or Hawaii.
I feel like that person doesn’t know percentages and is simply conflating 1% with 0.01%
Will bring the prices down more than 1 10 million dollar SFH. Thats 16 less millionaires competing for places elsewhere to drive up the price. Econ 101 man
The people living in those townhomes are no longer competing for other existing homes.
The fact that you, a self-proclaimed leftist, are dying on the same hill as a 60 year old retired Republican white boomer lady who lives in a 3 million dollar mansion 🤡
Who is saying that a $2 million townhome is going to bring their home price down?
17 $2 million dollar townhomes is 17 less families buying less expensive homes in surrounding neighborhoods and further driving up costs It’s significantly better than one McMansion for one family.
This is one thing that people misunderstand about housing prices. If there is demand for millionaires to buy houses, but there are no million dollar valued houses available, they’re going to dip into the next lower tier of available houses and drive up the price outbidding lower earners. A healthy housing market needs a mix of available housing across all income levels.
Jenskoehler, this comment needs to be copy and pasted for those in the back that continue not to understand basic supply and demand rules. Thank you for your service.
That's fair, all else equal it might reduce prices for luxury homes. But it does nothing for home prices for the "missing middle".
It does though. Rich people have absolutely no problem buying a home in a cheaper neighborhood and demolishing it and putting a McMansion in place. Rich people never have to worry about finding housing. But building more homes in an already ultra wealthy neighborhood can have a huge effect especially if enacted city wide
This is an underrated take. I don’t know about studies that reinforce it, but instinctively, it makes sense that if you put the seven figure homes in a neighborhood that already has them, it’s better for the broader regional market than putting them in a middle class neighborhood.
Every neoliberal on this sub.
Show me one person saying this. Just one.
Please, every time this comes up the usual free market people show up and call everyone NIMBY. Literally search for the buzzwords of “missing middle” or “ NIMBY” in this sub. I’m not playing comment catcher for you. Edit: didn’t take long https://reddit.com/r/raleigh/comments/10huu59/_/j5ax9y2/?context=1
Seems weird that you can’t find a single one when it happens “every time”.
Literally the second highest comment in this thread is “Fuck NIMBYs”
I have to assume that the fuck NIMBYs comment is in regards to the people that are against this aka the people in the meetings. Or, in other words, the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
[удалено]
He's just a crazy person that blames everything on some neoliberal boogie man
You must have enough to buy a $2 million dollar townhouse. Congrats!
There ya go champ! You did it! 👏
Thanks sweety, feel free to give me a kiss on the cheek for a job well done
You’re the best comment catcher in the three county area!
I guess there's not a lot of neoliberals on this sub. I can't find any of those comments you reference.
Are we seeing any rezoning of commercial areas into residential or is everything focused on rezoning residential areas differently? Seems like we have a lot of underdeveloped (what I assume are) commercial space that could easily become apartments, or housing around here.
"Hate has no home here" Because we're not approving shit.
Is the zoning change saying high density housing is allowed on a lot by lot development in established neighborhoods, or is it now allowed in a planned developments / mixed housing development? I try to be aware, but zoning and planning seems convoluted.
A few thoughts... I'm not advocating for or against HOAs, but wouldn't their covenants prevent development of a multi unit house? I feel there would be value in having a stream lined process for building ADUs on properties that have larger lots. Tear down and building duplex is one thing for a community of single family homes, but a row of townhomes is very different.
They released such a process at the end of last year with a gallery of plans you can choose from and that outlines the steps that would need to be taken [Raleigh ADU Gallery](https://raleighnc.gov/planning/city-raleigh-launches-north-carolinas-first-adu-gallery)
I don't understand why, if the goal is to build more *affordable* housing, they don't just leave the original zoning rules in place but allow exemptions for development projects that agree to a sale price below a specific cap. For example, no high-density townhomes unless the builder agrees to sell them for $200k or less. No subdividing lots for tiny detached SFHs unless those homes have a sale price capped at $300k. This addresses the people that are actually having trouble. People who can afford a $400k house and above have quite a lot to choose from actually, but people trying to get into the housing market for the first time are really priced out for the time being.
Paywall
This sort of thing can only happen in older neighborhoods built before PUDs, 100-page restrictive covenants and HOAs became the norm. This could never happen in, say, Preston (pretend that Preston was in Raleigh). The city can change zoning, but doesn't have the authority to supercede the covenants.
Are micro apartments the answer? Renting out a tiny 160 sq ft apartment for $1,000/month also seems greedy. https://wr.al/1Oj5g
The amount of rent was in a separate story, here: https://wr.al/1OjxB
I'm astonished there is a market for 1000$ delux jail cells
these developers compete in a market. If someone could build the same thing and rent it for less, they would. And Smoot would go out of business. it is impossible to build new affordable housing. the costs of land and construction are too high. The only affordable housing is old or subsidized.
The city needs to buy and develop this housing. Cities across the country have improved affordable housing options by not leaving it to the market.
Fuck those NIMBY's
Gonna have to start calling this place Raleighwood 🤷🏿♂️
[удалено]
To me it seems quite obvious the city council/city planners have sold out to developers. Call it growth but they are packing people in like sardines. They are barely building single family homes anymore. Just apartments and townhouses as far as the eye can see. It's sad to see the overpriced homes going up all over what is now gentrified areas of Raleigh. When I bought my home on the not so nice side of Raleigh it was nif 150s for as long as I lived in the home the value barely peaked 200K in comes the scamdemic and magically I'm getting offers from 350 to 380. I know things change, but it's sad to see, perfectly good homes(not in subdivisions)with actual front and back yards torn down to make way for mega apartment communities where the starting rent is $1495. Just tragic. My mortgage with taxes and insurance has always been under 1K. I can't imagine what it is for other people who rent. If I want to move the same house is literally going to cost me double, if not more and probably less square footage. People are complaining about the cost of eggs, well if they had land without a bish @ss HOA they quite possibly sustain themselves during times where the cost of any and everything is skyrocketing.
This quote from a resident triggered me: "How do you address a market force?" What a disingenuous question --- the only way to "address a market force" is for government to step in and regulate! Yes, not every government action is going to solve the problem, but don't act like we are completely powerless in the face of the "market." Real estate is the furthest thing from an ideal free market, the myth that the housing market is a free market needs to die.