
Tim Niles is a founding member of Livable Raleigh and has been a resident of Raleigh for over 30 years.
At the October 10, 2023 City Council meeting he delivered these public comments:

Good evening.
I want to address the June 30th Manager’s Report which responded to my earlier comments (Raleigh Must Refocus its Vision for Affordable Housing) about the Planning Department’s misuse of the “Expanding Housing Choices” Vision Theme.
Source: Comp Plan Vision Themes

You can see highlighted here the intent of this theme is to increase Affordable Housing.
Planning uses it for any increase in any housing type.
They rebutted my comments with their theory that housing affordability in high-demand markets like Raleigh, benefits from an increase in market-rate housing supply and trickle-down housing. They cited two studies to make their point.

I have five sources that argue the opposite.
Research showing density in hot markets does not improve affordability.
Sources:

You may recall I discussed “trickle down” theory last time and Raleigh’s City Staff admits it takes decades to occur by citing this study from Upjohn themselves.
New housing filters to become affordable over the course of DECADES.
Little is known about a shorter horizon of 3-5 years that is relevant to the current debate.
Source: WE Upjohn Institute

An example I spoke about was Clover Lane.
A rental complex of 56 units built in the 60s that has trickled down to become affordable.
You upzoned it to allow it to be replaced with 310 market rate units
You could have negotiated to include the same number of 56 affordable units as a community benefit for the increased entitlement given to the applicant while allowing them to benefit financially from 254 additional market rate units.
Maybe even go crazy and ask them to increase from 56 to 60 affordable units while still gaining 250 units at market rate.
A WIN-WIN for everyone.
Out of curiosity I looked up the data for the case.
Try not to laugh when I tell you what I found.
This case, and others like it, was marked consistent with the “Expanding Housing Choices” vision theme.
So, the same theme Planning uses to justify cases with no affordable housing because it will eventually trickle down is also used to justify eliminating existing affordable housing units that have trickled down to replace them with market rate units.
Do I need to repeat that for you?

This is the ultimate case of circular logic.

Or, it’s the Planning Department playing a cruel game of “heads they win, tails we lose.”

It’s the exact opposite of our state motto which is “To Be Rather Than To Seem.”
And, instead, it is “To Seem Rather Than To Be.”
Giving the appearance of support for affordable housing while eliminating it.
Whatever it is, let’s just sum up with a quote fom one of our country’s great legal minds.

Don’t pee on my leg and try to convince me it’s raining.
If you appreciate the kind of reporting we bring to you
Please donate $10 or $20, Thanks for supporting |
![]() |