The City Council’s decision to approve the rezoning case on West Street (Z-12-25), adjacent to the Glenwood-Brooklyn neighborhood, is hard to understand – unless, that is, you understand that a majority of Council always approves rezoning cases, no matter how outsized, because the development industry controls them.
The city has grown enormously in the past few years, as people from all over began to recognize it’s a great place to live. But this growth was accompanied by absolutely no planning – or bad planning – which means we are now living in a helter-skelter atmosphere akin to a Third World city in which anything goes. Along with this has come a lapdog attitude when it comes to the city council’s relationship with developers. Sound familiar? This commentary was written 5 years ago in 2019.
The public hearing for this case will be held Tuesday, October 7 at 7pm. This public hearing will allow ONLY 8 minutes in TOTAL for those in opposition to present their case to City Council. Watch this video outlining the full fact and policy based opposition to Z-12-25. The 240’/360′ towers, in a transition area, 776′ along Historic Glenwood-Brooklyn Neighborhood only 190′ to 240′ feet from homes violates all plans, polices, urban planning guidelines and logic.
I honestly have to ask – why seek public input if it’s not reflected in the analysis? Community engagement should serve as an opportunity to either mitigate community concerns or provide a transparent and respectful explanation when disagreement exists.
Our Comprehensive Plan says building heights should transition from the Central Business District to residential neighborhoods. The planner says 30 stories is transition. FANTASY!!
Raleigh has the tools and the policies to manage growth responsibly. Z-12-25 ignores them. Approving this rezoning would not only damage a historic neighborhood but also set a precedent that threatens every neighborhood in Raleigh. The Comprehensive Plan shows us the path forward: moderate, context-sensitive growth that strengthens, not undermines, our city’s future.
The materials being presented by the Planning Department in support of Z-12-25 do not create a complete picture or analysis that is useful for basing your decision on this third round of change requests for these particular parcels. A good analysis of compatibility should take a broad view of relevant rules, plans and guidance, and it should reflect stakeholder input with integrity. Given the inadequacies of the materials provided to you, there is no way you can come to a rational conclusion of consistency with the comprehensive plan.
I appreciate your constant vigilance, your push for accountability and how you seek and embrace feedback from your members and your community of followers.
Staff reports carry weight in Planning Commission and City Council deliberations. When they misclassify sites, turn a blind eye to policies, minimize area plans, and claim no adverse effects, they create the illusion of consistency where none exists and inflate the benefits while minimizing impacts. This clearly affected the Planning Commission deliberations and stunted debate necessary to make an informed decision.
Staff made 4 simple analysis errors. We go through each of those errors, show you the language from city documents that was misinterpreted and give you the updated results.