Token gestures of affordability are not good enough

Lisa Hughet has lived in Raleigh for nearly 30 years and says “my activism really kicked into high gear during the pandemic. Ironically, coinciding with a new City Council who appears not to have the residents of Raleigh as their highest priority. I’m also active in affordable housing matters and animal rescue.”

Lisa Hughet delivered the following comments to Raleigh City Council at the February 6, 2024 Public Hearing on rezoning case Z-45-23:   

I echo the concerns that County Commissioners Otwell, Bennett and Peeler have for this case. Specifically, the maneuvers taken to avoid affordability requirements in a frequent transit area.

In reading through the application there seems to be an intermixing of zoning types, residential and residential mixed use. This appears in the narrative and calculations with regard to lot size, rear set-backs and number of units allowed. This makes it difficult to agree with the reasoning provided on which transit overlay should be applied, assuming that the intent is to build the maximum number of units.

If that is the intent, there are others ways to get there – apply for zoning that uses the Urban Form, use RX zoning, R-10, 5 stories or divide the lots and apply Missing Middle. Instead, the option they went with was to remove the FTO and apply for TOD due to lot size minimums.

And herein lies the scenario I knew was coming.

In the UDO, we have two overlays for transit that both offer affordable housing. One is a requirement and one is a bonus. This site is in a frequent transit area, thus the FTDO condition would apply in that any unit over 12 must be affordable at 60%AMI for 30yrs. But by asking for a TOD, the bonus density isn’t triggered because, huh, they’re also only asking to go from 3 stories to 4. I don’t know how many affordable units would be built if they asked for the TOD and then built, by right, 5 stories. But I can guarantee it would be more than the number they are offering tonight.

So far, I haven’t stated anything the applicant does not have the right to ask for. Councilors Harrison and Patton have discussed with the applicant what they can do to offer more affordability. The applicant has come back to offer 3 units to be affordable at 60%AMI for a period of 10yrs, not the 30 yrs which is standard. In lieu of actual built units, they offered a total of $120,000. Need I remind the Council that this amount wouldn’t even produce one affordable unit when added to the city’s fund.

There are too many compromises that threaten what we have scratched and clawed at to get some affordability written into our UDO.

This is the third TOD case that has come before you with a token gesture of affordability. I have no doubt developers will continue to find ways around providing affordable units needed for BRT to be successful.

You’ve promised to closely monitor development along the BRT to make sure it’s equitable. Will your monitoring lead to a better outcome? Will you push back for better affordable housing conditions? Or, will you finally see that the TOD density bonus is simply window dressing and something else needs to be offered?

By far, the most troubling statement in the staff report that you need to pay attention to is, “by adding the TOD, the site will have increased residential entitlement WITHOUT having to incorporate affordability measures.”

However you crunch the numbers on the affordable housing condition that’s been provided, it doesn’t add up to a good decision. If you approve this rezoning, you will grant MORE entitlement than the current zoning WITHOUT the affordability requirement.

NOTE from Livable Raleigh – ultimately, the rezoning case passed by a vote of 7 – 1 with Councilor Mary Black being the sole vote against.

If you appreciate the kind of reporting we bring to you