A reader of our weekly newsletter, The Week Ahead, wrote with concerns about two items we recently published and we feel it’s important to address the concerns publicly so others can also see our response.
The reader writes:
My wife and I support your mission financially and in substance. But two inclusions from your recent newsletter concern me. First is the link to the Big Branch Greenway opposition piece. I don’t see how this issue is within your mission. There are good arguments for and against this alignment, but certainly the greenway itself will enhance these Raleigh neighborhoods. Why does Livable Raleigh endorse this opposition position?
You then include a post criticizing the inclusion of a poet laureate in the Raleigh budget. Again, reasonable argument can be made on both sides of this issue, but the tone deaf nature of the criticism, using AI to write a poem and offering to do so for anyone who wants a verse, is inexcusable. Think what you will about the merits of AI, but making light of its impact to the Arts and artistic pursuit is both insensitive and way outside of your lane. Why does Livable Raleigh include (and endorse) these extraneous positions in your newsletter? Are these Livable Raleigh donors who gain access to your mailing list, or are you actually endorsing these positions? I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Our response:
Thank you for your thoughtful note—and for your continued financial and substantive support of our mission. We genuinely appreciate your engagement and the care behind your feedback.
We’d like to address both of the concerns you raised.
First, regarding the Big Branch Greenway: to clarify, we are not opposed to the greenway itself. We agree that greenways can provide meaningful benefits to Raleigh neighborhoods. Our concern is specifically with the route selected for this connector, not the concept of the project.
We believe there are alternative alignments that would achieve the same connectivity goals at significantly lower cost and with fewer impacts—an important consideration given the city’s current budget shortfall.
We also have serious concerns about the process that led to this decision. In our view, the community engagement was not as transparent or consistent as it should have been, and there are questions about how information was presented to both the public and City Council. For example, we have documented concerns about how survey results and project details were handled, as well as how information was conveyed to advisory bodies and Council:
In addition, there are longstanding commitments that we believe warrant careful consideration. Forty years ago, the City accepted a Conservation Easement from the Anderson Forest developers that specifically prohibits greenway construction in the area now proposed for Segment 1B. After benefiting from that easement for decades, we believe the City should honor its terms:
Finally, the cost differences between route options are significant, and we believe more cost-effective alternatives deserve fuller consideration:
Our intent in sharing the article was to highlight these concerns and encourage a more transparent, fiscally responsible, and community-centered decision-making process—not to oppose greenways as a whole.
Second, regarding the AI-generated poem: we understand your reaction and appreciate you raising it. Our intent was not to be dismissive or tone-deaf, but rather to make a point about the broader policy question in a way that was accessible and, admittedly, a bit unconventional. That said, we recognize that it did not land as intended for everyone. We take that feedback seriously and will be more thoughtful about tone and framing in future communications.
Livable Raleigh supports the arts and recognizes their cultural and civic importance. The concern raised relates specifically to the $20,000 expenditure in the context of a projected $13M budget shortfall and the likelihood of additional tax increases. For many residents facing affordability challenges, even relatively small expenditures can feel significant when considered alongside broader budget pressures. Our goal in sharing this viewpoint was to contribute to a larger conversation about prioritization, not to suggest that the arts lack value.
More broadly, Livable Raleigh’s newsletter often includes viewpoints and submissions from community members to encourage dialogue around local issues. Inclusion of a perspective should not be interpreted as an endorsement of every element of that submission, but rather as part of fostering open civic discussion.
We understand that reasonable people can disagree on both of these issues, and we truly value you taking the time to share your perspective. Your support means a great deal to us, and we hope this provides helpful context for where we’re coming from.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you’d like to discuss further.
Regards,
Livable Raleigh Advisory Committee
NOTE – the reader wrote to Livable Raleigh in response to these two items:
A blog about the proposed Big Branch Greenway Connector: Please Save our Trees
A blog about the City’s Poet Laureat: Raleigh Resident writes to Council about Budget Priorities
The reader was alerted to these because they receive our weekly newsletter, The Week Ahead.
You can sign up to receive our newsletter every Friday morning here: Subscribe
Livable Raleigh Editorial Team
If you appreciate the kind of reporting we bring to you
|
Please donate $10 or $20, Thanks for supporting |
 |