City Council is on Summer Break. So, we are re-running this blog as part of our Missing Middle Week.
Let’s stipulate a couple of points up front. Missing Middle, done well, is a good thing. But….
What the previous Council produced is MM done deviously, and sloppily. Much of it, in fact, undermines the whole premise of MM, which is to offer an increased number of affordable-housing options than would exist without it.
What should the new City Council do about the slew of so-called “Missing Middle” zoning changes that the previous City Council adopted under a cover of darkness, aka the Pandemic, in secretive/virtual sessions that few could follow?
Let’s stipulate a couple of points up front. Missing Middle, done well, is a good thing. But.
What the previous Council produced is MM done deviously, and sloppily. Much of it, in fact, undermines the whole premise of MM, which is to offer an increased number of affordable-housing options than would exist without it.
The temptation is to say that the new Council should repeal it all and start over.
At a minimum council should immediately set aside the worst parts of it and quickly revise a lot of what remains.
The temptation is to say that the new Council, rather than get lost in the weeds of this mess, should repeal it all and start over. And that may in fact be the best course.
But at a minimum, Council should immediately set aside the worst parts of it – starting with the Orwellian-entitled “Frequent Transit Development” option and the equally misleading “Conservation Development Option” – and quickly revise a lot of what remains.
If “quickly revise” can’t be done by staff, then the only good course is to shelve the whole Hasenpfeffer and begin again.
WHAT IS MISSING MIDDLE?
It is supposed to be a zoning reform, intended to let builders create smaller, multi-family housing – duplexes, townhouses, small apartment buildings – of the sort deemed “missing” from Raleigh.
So now, what is Missing Middle supposed to be?
It is supposed to be a zoning reform, intended to let builders create smaller, multi-family housing – duplexes, townhouses, small apartment buildings – of the sort deemed “missing” from Raleigh.
To fill the gap, in other words, between the single-family houses, on the one hand, and the giant apartment buildings on the other, which dominate our market today.
MM would fill the gap with small homes and duplexes, etcetera, that would be more affordable for more people.
Good idea, yes?
But, let’s proceed carefully, not every lot in Raleigh should have a small apartment building on it, especially when that “small” building is allowed to be pretty dadgum big.
Good idea, yes?
But let’s proceed carefully, MM fans, because not every lot in Raleigh should have a small apartment building on it, especially when that “small” building is allowed to be pretty dadgum big, which of course was allowed by the previous Council.
In some places, this kind of “gentle density” can work well.
But in others, a small apartment building that is actually big will detract from the small homes around it, especially if the sidewall of the building is looming over side porches below.
And let’s proceed carefully, too, because not every lot in Raleigh should have two or three houses on it, especially when one can be a McMansion and the others so-called “Tiny Houses” of up to 1,200 square feet each and 26 feet tall. 1,200 square feet is not a tiny house – but it is what the former Council allowed in this category.
It’s like the former Council did what the development industry wanted
It’s almost like the former Council did what the development industry wanted instead of what would help to address our crisis of affordable housing.
But of course, that’s exactly what the previous Council did. Mayor Baldwin and her allies, at the time a 7-member bloc on the 8-member council, were elected with the industry’s money, and they did the industry’s bidding. The industry wanted to step up production of upscale houses. Baldwin & Co. were there to help. And to mislead anyone watching by saying they were helping the poor.
THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL’S MISDEEDS
The crux of the problem facing us now is that Baldwin & Co., with reckless abandon, adopted not one, not two, but 11 separate zoning changes, some overlapping (i.e., doubly bad) and several of them quite complicated.
The crux of the problem facing us now is that Baldwin & Co., with reckless abandon, adopted not one, not two, but 11 separate zoning changes, some overlapping (i.e., doubly bad) and several of them quite complicated.
All of this was done with little chance for public input, almost no public discussion even at the Council table, and at a time when the Pandemic was making it difficult for most people to know that Council was meeting in the first place.
COUNCIL COOKED UP A SECRET SCHEME
It was no accident that the public was unaware of what Baldwin and her cronies were doing. Rather, they deliberately shut us out.
But just in case they weren’t shrouded enough, that bad ol’ Council cooked up a scheme in secret to eliminate the CACs – the Citizen Advisory Councils – from their traditional role in planning and zoning decisions. Thus, the one avenue citizens used to have for following Raleigh’s development practices was eliminated, again with total disregard for public opinion and no public discussion by Council before they lowered the boom.
In short, it was no accident that the public was unaware of what Baldwin and her cronies were doing. Rather, they deliberately shut us out.
WHAT THOSE 11 ZONING CHANGES– YES, 11 OF THEM – DO
Each of the 11 increases allowable density in Raleigh’s neighborhoods, but in different ways that overlap, feed on one another and combine to make it impossible to know what can be built on your own lot, let alone a neighbor’s lot.
Each of the 11 increases allowable density in Raleigh’s neighborhoods, but in different ways that overlap, feed on one another and combine to make it impossible to know what can be built on your own lot, let alone a neighbor’s lot.
These are complicated measures, written in legalese, that cannot be understood by anyone who is not conversant with the entire Unified Development Ordinance.
Here’s a sample
and What It Will Mean is Sprawl 2.0 for Raleigh
-
- Smaller lot sizes are allowed, replacing traditional zoning categories. R-10, for example, used to mean 10 housing units per acre. Now, it “sort of“ means 18 units per acre, but that’s a guess depending on the shape of the acre and how many acres are involved. Put it this way: The old R-4 is gone, as is R-6 and R-10. For what came next, hire a lawyer.
- Small apartment buildings, which need not be small, are allowed in some of the new zoning categories, but not all. But then a sweeping change, the 11 th one – allows small apartment buildings that are not small on every lot in Raleigh if it’s served by “frequent” bus transit. Except that the service need not be frequent, nor anywhere near the lot, and may not even exist.
- Proximity to a bus line with “frequent service” – real or imagined, existing or “planned” – results in every lot in a not-too-distant neighborhood being up-zoned without a hearing, and without anyone knowing about it in advance. This is the so-called Frequent Transit Development Option. (Which is not to be confused with Transit Overlay District zoning, which also up-zones lots but only if the lots are actually close to an actual frequent-transit bus stop. Yup, if you’re confused, you’re not alone. Our planning staff can’t explain it either.)
- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Tiny Houses (that are not tiny) are allowed on every lot in Raleigh, the only constraint being minimal side and rear setback rules. Tiny/Not-So-Tiny Houses are also allowed on flag lots, a term used to describe someone’s back yard when they sell it, as a separate lot, to someone else.
- By the way, ADUs, Tiny Houses and tiny houses on flag lots can be rented out as Short-Term Rentals (Airbnb, VRBO etc.) with no constraints. Alert: It may not be grandma living in that “granny flat” that Baldwin talked so much about.
- No parking requirements are attached to any of this, meaning all of the additional cars in your neighborhood, from the ADUs and duplexes and Small/Not-So-Small Apartment Buildings, may end up parked on your street. What if on-street parking is already in short supply? We feel you. But you may want to call Mark Spain.
- Instead of limiting density increases to places where frequent transit actually does exist – and where cars might therefore not proliferate as housing units increase – the Baldwin/Industry Council opened the door to more cars everywhere. We call it Sprawl 2.0 – it’s just like the sprawl of single-family houses that brought our traffic congestion to begin with, only now the houses and cars will multiply on the same number of lots, in neighborhoods where transit will still not exist.
WASN’T MISSING MIDDLE SUPPOSED TO YIELD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
Did the previous Council proceed with care to assure that Missing Middle would bring us additional small, more affordable homes?
Quite the opposite.
Did the previous Council proceed with care to assure that Missing Middle would bring us additional small, more affordable homes?
Quite the opposite.
That Council deregulated the housing industry in Raleigh, allowing builders to make more money on every building lot, with no limits on the size of new houses/duplexes/etcetera, nor on their price.
It did so – our Council — while continuously waving the banner of “affordable housing,” which MM zoning should provide, but doing nothing to make it happen. Meanwhile, Raleigh’s approach will hasten the removal of smaller, older homes and apartments, what is termed Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), that could be protected from the MM onslaught but weren’t.
How so?
Now, with Raleigh’s MM deregulation, the choice is between preserving that small house or tearing it down and building two or three big, expensive houses
How so?
Well, it used to make sense, in many neighborhoods, to preserve an older house and fix it up, especially if it’s small – and therefore affordable – in a neighborhood of modest homes. True, it might’ve made more sense, if you could afford it, to tear the house down and build a McMansion, but only if you had $400,000 to buy the lot, scrape off the old house, and build the new one for, oh, $600,000 or more.
Not a route most of us would choose unless we were luxury-home builders, or rich. Or both.
But now, with Raleigh’s MM deregulation, the choice is between preserving that small house or tearing it down and building two or three big, expensive houses very close together on the same lot, or maybe a “small apartment building.” Which puts that small, older house on a death watch, and the luxury builders are on the prowl.
Don’t replacement houses have to be at least arguably more affordable?
No, they do not.
But don’t the replacement houses, after a scrape-off, have to be at least arguably more affordable?
No, they do not. As was shown when a builder acquired an old house in Hayes Barton, which is not a poor neighborhood, and announced he’d be tearing it down and building 17 townhomes on the same lot for sale at $2 million each. And with MM on the books, he was entitled to do it and no one could stop him.
Affordability is not a requirement in any of the Missing Middle changes.
Indeed, affordability is not a requirement in any of the 11 Missing Middle changes. And while one of the 11 purports to incentivize affordability via additional density bonuses, the incentive is negligible, because work-arounds make the same higher density achievable without any affordable units.
Raleigh is not in the business of preserving affordable housing
Sadly, Missing Middle is – in Raleigh – just a scheme to upzone land, push its value higher, help developers build more upscale stuff, and collect higher property tax revenues from each residential lot involved.
The brunt of Missing Middle, however, will be felt most not in Hayes Barton or other affluent neighborhoods but in historically minority, lower-income East and Southeast Raleigh neighborhoods where a swath of older, smaller houses still exists at prices below $500,000 – in many cases, well below.
If Raleigh wanted to preserve these affordable homes, it could buy them, or buy the land under them to provide capital to the owners, or loan the owners money – if they need it, as many do – for critical repairs or improvements.
Raleigh, however, is not in the business of preserving affordable housing, any more than it is in the business of pushing developers to build more of it.
Sadly, Missing Middle is – in Raleigh – just a scheme to upzone land, push its value higher, help developers build more upscale stuff, and collect higher property tax revenues from each residential lot involved.
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
If modest homes are destroyed and replaced, that’s not a bug in the system, it’s a feature.
So no surprise, MM in Raleigh is all about catering to the well-off. That’s the business Raleigh is in.
If the new Council members want to charter a different course of business, one that serves the broad public interest, their first step should be to dismantle Missing Middle as it stands, rid us of the worst of it, and figure out what’s worth keeping.
Livable Raleigh Editorial Team
If you appreciate the kind of reporting we bring to you
|
Please donate $10 or $20, Thanks for supporting |
 |