Bob Mulder, former Chair of Raleigh’s Planning Commission and a Raleigh real estate professional, sent the following letter to Raleigh City Council on September 20, 2024.
We are publishing it here with his permission.
To: Raleigh City Council and Planning Commission
Re: Woodcrest Neighborhood Lawsuit
September 20, 2024
On September 18, 2024, there was an article in the News & Observer entitled “NC clash between higher density housing and neighborhood preservation lands in court”. The owner of two lots wants to build twelve townhomes, but the neighborhood covenants allow only single-family homes up to one and a half stories in height. The owner disagrees with the covenants, so he is suing the neighborhood to remove the covenants. Why is this happening?
The owner paid a total of $970,000 for both lots. Prior to purchase, did he perform the necessary due diligence to determine if there were covenants that would prevent his development project? If he were aware, then perhaps he should have approached the neighborhood to see if there would be any objections. I do not think it is good business practice to spend $970,000 without knowing if you can actually build the development. If he was not aware of these covenants, then I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. Throwing a legal tantrum at the neighborhood just causes a lot of anger, confusion, and legal costs for the neighbors. It just does not make any sense to do that.
The other major issue is the City of Raleigh’s attitude towards private restrictive covenants. I understand that the City is not in the business of enforcing those covenants, but they should not be ignored in the development approval process. Ignoring in force covenants can and does create legal problems for neighborhood residents as I previously mentioned. By ignoring covenants, the City is, in a subtle manner, encouraging their violation. When a development plan comes to the City, there should be a question on the application asking the applicant if there are any in force covenants, and to provide a copy of those covenants. If there are covenants, then the City should direct the developer to have a conversation with the neighbors before proceeding with the approval process.
There has been an effort by some people to demonize single-family detached developments because of some very detestable practices that have happened in the past and are using this sad history to discredit single-family detached neighborhoods. There are people who attempt to use this past bias to their advantage.
In the early decades of the 20th Century there was red lining by lenders that denied mortgage loans to African Americans, and there were covenants that denied their access to many single-family neighborhoods. I read that during those times, realtors had an ethics statement that basically said that helping a black family buy a house in a white neighborhood was violating a realtor’s ethical standards. A very sad history, to say the least.
In the past couple of years there have been articles in the News & Observer calling single family homes a fetish, and that single-family neighborhoods are racially discriminatory. I disagree with both contentions. Buyers purchase single-family detached homes because they want a measure of privacy, and they want a decent sized lot so they have room for family recreation and gardening. Just to be clear, I use the word “family” in the broadest of terms. Wanting these things is certainly not a fetish. Single-family detached neighborhoods have amenities that townhomes and more dense developments do not offer. You do not have to drive across town to a city park; you have your own “park.”
Today’s single-family detached neighborhoods are certainly not racially discriminatory. I live in a 1960s subdivision that I observe to have a fairly good cross section of a variety of ethnic backgrounds. What keeps buyers out of single-family neighborhoods of any ethnic background are the current high prices combined with interest rates that make it difficult to have an economically reasonable monthly mortgage payment.
There is a housing shortage, but you do not solve that problem by adopting policies that have the effect of spreading density everywhere in a willy-nilly fashion. One of the side effects of an unfocused policy on density is traffic gridlock in various locations, and we are seeing that on an increasing basis. The other negative side effect is a significant loss of our remaining urban forests. “Missing Middle Housing” has been sold as a way to get more affordable housing, but in our rapidly growing area any new “Missing Middle Housing” will be market rate housing, and that is not affordable in the true sense of the word. If you can afford a townhome in the $600,000 to $800,000 range, then it is affordable, but only to buyers who have that kind of income. Truly affordable housing would mean that folks who earn 30% to 50% or even 80% of the local area median income could afford to purchase a property. I do not see the private real estate market providing that kind of housing without local governments subsidizing expensive land costs.
If this lawsuit succeeds, then any subdivision with or without a homeowner’s association will be at risk. The only winners will be those charging legal fees, and the losers will be homeowners who purchased their single-family homes with certain expectations related to the future of their property.
Robert Mulder, Former Chair Raleigh Planning Commission
Other reports on this issue:
If you appreciate the kind of reporting we bring to you
|
Please donate $10 or $20, Thanks for supporting |
 |