Raleigh adopted a carefully thought-out and comprehensive rezoning of the entire City just 10 years ago which was and is designed to handle the growth we are now experiencing. But, Raleigh incentivizes speculators and hustlers to find cheaper and less densely zoned land not in the core of downtown and then rezone it because the city will rezone almost anything so long as you commit to building more density whether affordable or not.
Growth is inevitable, it can be transformative; it’s up to us to see that it isn’t destructive. Zoning and land use planning are the tools we use to meet this challenge.
“We’re growing! we’re glowing!” the press release says. The Mayor’s got plans and a very nice suit, Telling us Raleigh is “ripening fruit.” Just remember, dear Leader, amidst all the hype: If you don’t fix the potholes, the fruit’s overripe.
It turns out that at that January hearing when North Hills traffic was lightly discussed, the referral to the Transportation Committee – which had been previously promised to opponents – was not for any review of North Hills traffic at all but rather for the Six Forks Corridor Project – a dead project that would have provided little if any relief for traffic congestion in North Hills.
Let’s move on from self-serving and counterproductive supply-side theories used to justify massive developments that are violating our neighborhoods and our adopted growth plans. Instead, let’s work with Wake County’s Affordable Housing Director toward solutions described in Livable Raleigh’s Affordability Agenda, to produce much more affordable housing and more growth according to our adopted plans.
The most devastating loss of affordable housing in the past 20 years has been the city constantly greenlighting the destruction of vast numbers of small brick ranches, duplexes and mom and pop apartment buildings in the older parts of town to give way for McMansions and “luxury” apartment towers.
The rezoning has three critical inconsistencies with the Midtown area plan and the Comprehensive plan that Raleigh is supposed to use for policy guidance that is intended to shape how the city grows and develops through the year 2030. However, recent approvals by Council indicate that they follow their own rules and create greater building heights without considering consequences.
On January 6 rezoning case Z-34-25, the rezoning of North Hills, was presented to Council for approval. Council chose to hold the hearing open for a vote at their January 20 meeting. This is not a new conversation for the city. A nearly identical rezoning request was submitted in 2021 but was ultimately withdrawn after City Council members and residents raised substantial concerns. Both elected officials and the public made it clear that the proposal did not adequately address inconsistencies with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, particularly around building heights, density transitions, and the absence of meaningful affordable housing commitments.
Poll results show that Raleigh is failing miserably in community engagement. Allotting an extra four minutes per side at the public hearing was insignificant compared to the potential impact of the proposal. Discussing Six Forks Road traffic issues on January 29, more than a week after the proposed January 20 vote on the rezoning proposal, is a real slap in the face to Raleigh residents. What good does it do to hold further discussion AFTER a decision has been made? 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. This case is just the most recent example of shutting the people out of the process in favor of developer/donor interests.
The applicant is requesting height everywhere that is inconsistent with the zoning recommendation of the Midtown area plan, which recommends heights between 4 and 20 stories, inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map, which recommends heights between 2 and 20 stories, and inconsistent with Table LU-2, which recommends height for Regional Mixed Use at a maximum of 20 stories. So, how can the staff review determine that this application is consistent with the Future Land Use Map, the Urban Form Map, and the Zoning map of the Midtown area plan, when it clearly is not?