I am writing to share my concerns about the proposed North Hills rezoning (Z-34-25).
This rezoning does NOT DESERVE to be approved because of issues with housing affordability, transportation, and public engagement.
Livable Raleigh’s professionally conducted, statistically significant poll showed that a huge majority of respondents don’t think the City is doing enough about housing affordability and think developers need to do more. And here we have Kane Realty proposing yet another multi-story building with no provisions for housing affordability. Where are all the people who work at North Hills supposed to live? The City is happy to pick the pockets of citizens through bond initiatives to help provide more affordable housing, but we don’t seem at all willing to make developers put any skin in the game while they are reaping much higher profits as a result of rezonings. Of course it’s true that inclusionary zoning is illegal, but it is also true that rezonings do not have to be approved if they don’t offer significant community benefits. And please don’t be fooled if Kane offers to include some affordability once a certain number of units is built; he will ensure that he will never build that many units and thus will never have to deliver on affordability.
If the people who work at North Hills can’t afford to live nearby, that only contributes to sprawl. And again, our poll results showed that a majority of Raleigh residents don’t think the City’s infrastructure is adequate to support growth. We don’t need any traffic studies to prove how bad traffic is around North Hills, not only for nearby residents, but for anyone who drives on Six Forks Road. Discussing Six Forks Road traffic issues on January 29, after the proposed January 20 vote on the rezoning proposal, is a real slap in the face to Raleigh residents.
Speaking of engagement with Raleigh residents, poll results also show that the City is failing miserably in engagement. Allotting an extra four minutes per side at the public hearing was insignificant compared to the potential impact of the proposal. This deserves to be sent to a committee where there can be MORE public engagement. The neighborhood meetings held by the developer did not meet the requirements of neighborhood meetings as outlined on the City’s website. An Open House style meeting does not allow the public to consider all input from all attendees.*
The public also thinks that big money has too much influence on council decisions. Kane’s attorney tried to paint this “revised” proposal as being more responsive to public concerns. Offering of some green space does not alleviate the concerns people have about affordability, infrastructure, and engagement, not to mention quality of life issues from casting huge shadows over residential neighborhoods.
Please do the right thing — either deny this rezoning on January 20 or send it to committee for more discussion. Holding it at the table for two weeks without any meaningful engagement opportunities is nothing less than a farce.
