At District E Town Hall, Candidates Debate the Merits of Density and Contrast Differing Views on Growth

This past Monday evening, in partnership with the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance, we held the next event in our series of candidate forums for the Raleigh municipal election coming up this fall on October 8th.

This was the second event in our ongoing series of Town Hall-style forums, where local residents have the opportunity to gather in an intimate setting and ask questions of the candidates looking to represent them on City Council. On Monday, the focus was squarely on the questions and concerns of residents living in Raleigh’s District E. You can check out a recap of our first Town Hall event, focused on Raleigh’s District C, here.

District E encompasses much of Northwest Raleigh, including Crabtree Valley Mall and parts of North Raleigh inside the I-440 beltline. As such, the residents living there know full well some of the challenges Raleigh has experienced during its rapid growth these past couple decades, particularly those related to increased automobile traffic and congestion.

Nonetheless, around 50 residents (a packed house!) beat the rush-hour traffic on Monday night to come out to Temple Beth Or on Creedmore Road and engage with candidates running at-large and for District E.

Among the candidates who participated were incumbent District E Council Member Stef Mendel and David Knight, her challenger.

Council Member Mendell, a retired international communications executive with GlaxoSmithKline, is seeking her first re-election after winning a seat on City Council back in 2017. She’s being challenged by Mr. Knight, a self-described “business-minded environmentalist” who, until recently, was the director of the Outdoor Recreation Industries Office at the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina.

The candidates for District E were joined by three of the six candidates running at-large, including incumbent Council Member Russ Stephenson, who has served on City Council since 2005, and two challengers, Dr. Portia Rochelle and Jonathan Melton.

If you weren’t able to attend on Monday, below is our recap of what ended up being a lively and mostly substantive discussion.

But first, a few disclaimers:

As a purely nonpartisan organization, we feel it’s important to point out that we neither support nor endorse any particular candidate, plan, agenda, position, or policy described below. Furthermore, although we’ve attempted to portray the candidates’ answers accurately and objectively to the best of our ability, mistakes can happen. So, if you notice that we’ve misrepresented any of the candidates’ positions, please feel free to reach out to us and let us know. Finally, given that our goal here is merely to relay to voters information about candidates and their positions, we’ve made no attempt to dispute or fact-check any of the candidates’ statements or claims.

District E Town Hall Recap

*Heather Keefer, Executive Director for WakeUP Wake County, welcomes residents to the District E Town Hall*

After a brief welcome and introduction from Jeff Murison, Executive Director for the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance, and Heather Keefer, Executive Director for WakeUP Wake County, the five candidates for City Council took their seats, accompanied by the evening’s moderator, Sean Maroney of Habitat for Humanity of Wake County.

The discussion began with a timely question to all five candidates related to events from last week’s City Council session.

In last week’s [August 20, 2019] Council meeting, Mayor McFarlane stressed that the Raleigh City Council sets the tone for our city and elected leaders and that, as such, representatives on City Council need to embrace collaboration. If you are elected to the City Council, how would you create a collaborative environment?

Jonathan Melton, one of the three at-large candidates, kicked things off by saying he was glad this question came up. As a family attorney, he said, he’s built his career on seeking collaboration.

Mr. Melton stressed that, “the best solutions come out of a little bit of conflict and a lot of compromise.” Moreover, he said, people often want the same things, but they disagree about how to get there. And although it can be difficult to quantify exactly what’s required to create a collaborative environment on Council, he said that he nonetheless believes this is a set of skills he has had to learn throughout his career.

At the same time, however, Mr. Melton cautioned that efforts to seek collaboration and compromise must go beyond the opinions and concerns of just a few residents in the community. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease,” he said. But, as he sees it, Council’s job is to set big policy issues and to “think about the greater good of the city, even if it is not the most popular thing.”

David Knight, candidate for District E, spoke next, saying that over the course of his twenty-five-year career in public policy making, he’s learned how good procedures work. And what’s happening on City Council right now, he said, is “not a good process.” He stressed that ideology should never predetermine the outcome of a city project, and vowed that, if elected, his top priority would be to “put people first” and strive to be “open, inclusive, and transparent.”

Mr. Knight aso underscored the importance of trusting experts and stakeholders and letting city staff “do their jobs,” a reference to a controversial issue from earlier this year when Council decided to cancel approved plans to install a sidewalk along Oxford Road following complaints from vocal residents. The decision to abandon the Oxford Road sidewalk project has since been reversed, but Mr. Knight said the initial decision to cancel the project was a deciding factor in his decision to run for office.

Council Member Stef Mendel followed that by by emphasizing her background in psychology and communication and by talking about her experience community organizing prior to serving on City Council.

Council Member Mendell said she thinks that, over the past two years, Council has done a good job overall of listening to residents and to each other, despite what she labeled as “media hype about dysfunction.” She also defended her decision-making on the Oxford Road sidewalk issue, saying that, since that time, she has asked for a change in policy to listen to the wider community.

Next up was Dr. Rochellle, another at-large candidate, who pointed to her doctoral degree in church growth and community development as evidence of her ability to seek collaboration and cooperation. Dr. Rochelle said that listening is the key ingredient and “you have to elect people who have the opportunity to express their concerns.“ She vowed that, if elected, she would speak up for people who do not have the opportunity or means to give voice to their own frustrations and concerns.

Council Member Stephenson wrapped things up on the first question by saying that the job of City Council is to listen closely and to maintain an awareness that there are no solutions or issues that are right or wrong or black or white. He emphasized the need for finding a common vision and determining where the community consensus is on issues, arguing that we should strive to achieve “the most gain for the most people.”

Following the first question, the focus turned more directly to the concerns of residents living within District E. The at-large candidates left the table, and questions were asked directly of the two candidates seeking to represent District E. All the questions asked during this portion of the evening were submitted to WakeUP ahead of time by members of the community.

At this time also, Jonathan Melton apologized for having to leave early for a prior engagement and excused himself.

A resident from Country Club Hills asks: Due to property values, our neighborhood has some of the highest property taxes in the city, but the streets are in terrible shape. Why is this? And what will you do about failing and crumbling infrastructure in our district?

Council Member Mendell started things off, recognizing the reality that property taxes in the district are indeed going up and that not everyone has the resources to pay. She emphasized the need to give cost burdened residents — and especially seniors — a break.

However, she underscored that while we need more sidewalks and more resources dedicated to addressing infrastructure and stormwater problems, “there are always trade-offs.”

“We’re a wealthy city,” she said, “but we have a lot of needs.”

She also said that people who benefit and profit from Raleigh’s growth need to “do more to pay their fair share towards these sorts of repairs,” highlighting a Community Benefits Agreement as a possible avenue through which this could happen.

Mr. Knight chimed in next, noting that, so far this year alone, there have been a total of seventy-nine water main breaks throughout the city. Moreover, he said, there are over 200 miles of failing or failed water or sewer lines. He pointed to the need to work together and invest in our city’s future to “stay ahead of our issues, instead of getting into a crisis situation.”

In light of the city’s problems with water and sewer infrastructure, he criticized Council Member Mendell for rejecting city staff’s recommendation of a 3 percent increase to the city’s water and sewer rates back in 2018 and for opting instead for only a 1.6 percent increase.

What are three specific actions you would take to help alleviate the affordable housing crisis in Raleigh?

Mr. Knight began by noting that housing affordability affects us all, regardless of income level. To help alleviate the problem of housing unaffordability, he said he would:

Support a voter referendum for an Affordable Housing Bond.
Work to give residents more options on where to live within the city by supporting policies that reduce urban sprawl — specifically by adding density where appropriate, allowing more mixed-use development, and by reducing restrictions on accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) and whole home rentals such as Airbnb.
Partner with more private and nonprofit organizations to provide additional assistance to those who can’t afford market-rate housing.

Mr. Knight said he was disappointed City Council decided not to put an affordable housing bond on the ballot this October, as had been considered. But he also said he believes the bond needs to be bigger than what has so far been proposed.

He went on to say that, with respect to density, he cares less about how tall a building is than with how well it connects to the rest of our city’s grid.

“That’s how you make growth pay for itself,” he said. “When it’s connected to our transportation and transit system, when it’s connected to our green space and greenway system, and when it’s connected to our water and sewer system that is already there.”

Council Member Mendell pushed back against some of what Mr. Knight said and kicked off her answer by outlining her concerns when it comes to density.

“The density that I see being built around us is expensive density,” she said, adding that “density in and of itself is not the answer.”

Council Member Mendell elaborated further by saying that, as she sees it, we need density that includes affordability. Toward that end, she pointed to what she saw as a success from earlier this year, when Council approved a new set of voluntary rezoning conditions to try to encourage developers to create more affordable housing in the city.

And while she said she also supports an affordable housing bond, Council Member Mendell said that the reason Council decided against putting one on the ballot this October was that city staff said there wasn’t enough time to put together an effective marketing campaign. As such, Council is currently exploring putting an affordable housing bond on the ballot for March 2020.

Council Member Mendell concluded her answer by talking about “naturally occurring affordable housing” and strategies for preventing teardowns. She said that, too often, we bulldoze otherwise reasonably good homes, which she described as a “waste of resources.” Instead, she said, we could make low cost interest loans available to help people keep living in these houses.

She also said she is proud that this Council was recently able to move forward on ADU’s and short-term rentals. However, she added that one of the things we need to be careful about with respect to ADU’s and short-term rentals is that “we don’t want investors buying up a lot of houses that would ordinarily be available for ordinary people to rent.”

“We want the housing to be available for people who live in Raleigh long-term,” she added — specifically for those who “are making their lives here and who want to contribute to the community.”

What will you do to ensure that Raleigh becomes a more bikeable, walkable, and transit-friendly city, and that development pressures and increased density needed in order to achieve that goal occurs equally across all neighborhoods?

The first opportunity to answer here went to Council Member Mendell, who said that, in her opinion, the current process for adding new sidewalks — through petition and community consensus — is not the way to go. She stressed that we should look at where we need sidewalks and then build them more objectively, rather than subjectively. “Where do we need sidewalks to get kids schools, and where we need them to get people to bus stops?” she asked.

She said the same thing applies to bike paths.

“We put them in a lot of places around the city, and I’m not sure they’re always in the right places to get people where they need to go.”

She noted that the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) provides Council with recommendations on where to implement bicycle facilities, but that she’d like to see the commission “step up a little bit and give us better advice on where to put these things.”

Mr. Knight responded to some of what Council Member Mendell said, stating his position that “sidewalks are fundamental to smart, sustainable growth” and that, as such, we need more sidewalks not fewer.

“You should never reject a sidewalk,” he said. “Sidewalks are the basis of connectivity for everybody, not just people who live in that neighborhood.” He also stressed the importance of similarly adding more bicycle lanes throughout the city and further incentivizing bus use.

“The bottom line is we’ve got to give our citizens more options on how to get around the city.”.

What strategies will you use to increase the variety of housing options available in our community, especially those at lower price points (e.g., accessory dwelling units, townhomes, duplexes, and cottage courts)?

Mr. Knight began by briefly reiterating his three ideas for promoting more affordable housing throughout Raleigh (outlined in an answer to an earlier question), noting that this specific issue calls for work on the City’s zoning laws.

“We’ve got to allow more mixed-use in future development,” he said. “If developers have to build big houses on big lots to get their money back, then that’s what they’re going to do.”

He went on to say that we’ve got to give the development community more options, just as we need to give residents more options on where they live and go to work.

Furthermore, he argued, there are changes that need to be made to City procedures and processes. For one thing, he said, the City’s “overly prescriptive zoning laws” are contributing to gentrification, forcing developers to build on the least costly land they can find. Furthermore, the City’s permitting process is moving too slowly, and it’s hurting small business owners.

Council Member Mendell talked about the City’s comprehensive plan on zoning, which lays out where in the city different types of housing and different levels of density are allowed. She said that City Council recognizes that Raleigh is presently missing some aspects of “missing middle housing.” But at the same time, she said, she doesn’t want to do away with single family zoning.

“We need a variety of housing types, she said, and “one size does not fit all.”

On the topic of ADU’s (or Granny Flats, as they are sometimes called), Council Member Mendell expressed skepticism that ADU’s help to increase housing affordability.

According to some studies, she said, ADU’s generally only benefit middle and upper income residents and those who are predominantly white.

Council Member Mendell again emphasized what she sees as the importance of looking into “naturally occurring affordable housing.” And while she said she recognizes that the City’s zoning laws are complicated, she stressed that the City should talk to builders to find out what developers need to build more affordable housing. Along those lines, she noted that she and several other members of Council have been exploring ways to make it easier for affordable housing developers to build, such as by reducing permit fees or by implementing accelerated timelines for approvals.

Questions from the Audience: “Let’s Hear About the Quarry!”

*Over 50 residents came out to Temple Beth Or in District E on Monday night to meet with and ask questions of candidates running for City Council*

During the final portion of the evening, all four candidates — including the two at-large candidates — took questions from residents in the audience. Residents submitted their questions in writing throughout the night, and WakeUP made the final determination as to which questions were asked.

Questions from the audience ranged from issues regarding homelessness and mental illness to clear cutting trees and maintaining the City’s continued fiscal responsibility.

Overall, the candidates were in agreement that the City needs to do more to address homelessness and get people struggling with mental illness out of the criminal justice system. A couple of the candidates pointed to the new Oaks City Cares Center on South Wilmington Street as an example of the positive work being done on this front by the City and its partners.

Aside from these matters though, there was one other issue that was clearly at the forefront of many residents’ minds on Monday night — namely the controversial Quarry planned for 105 acres of land currently controlled by RDU Airport and adjacent to Umstead State Park. Indeed, judging from the comments and questions from several members of the audience, this one issue is likely going to play a key role in how some District E residents decide to vote this October.

For background reading on RDU Quarry issue, see the following articles from The News & Observer:

Wake Stone sweetens proposal for quarry on RDU property, but opponents aren’t biting (November 13, 2018)
RDU board approves plan to quarry stone on airport land (March 1, 2019)
Opponents of RDU quarry sue to stop mining work from getting started (March 12, 2019)
Court extends order banning RDU quarry, and the stone company is fine with that (April 3, 2019)
The FAA says it won’t stand in the way of a quarry on RDU airport land (April 29, 2019)
RDU quarry lease came with no public input. Now critics want local governments to step in (May 22, 2019)
Rally at Umstead park shows that the RDU quarry will be a political issue this fall (July 27, 2019)
RDU makes its case why a judge should dismiss the airport quarry lawsuit (August 8, 2019)

Regarding the RDU Quarry next to Umstead State Park: What will you do about it, if elected?

The first opportunity to answer went to Council Member Stephenson, who began by stating bluntly that the RDU Quarry is going to be an environmental disaster that will be “irrevocable.”

“We’re never going to be able to fix it,” he said.

Council Member Stephenson went on to say that, early on, although everyone on Council agreed that the Quarry was a terrible idea, the thinking at the time was that “there’s nothing we can do.” He pushed back against that idea, arguing that, at the most recent City Council Meeting on August 20th, the City Attorney came forward in saying that the City of Raleigh is on the deed for the land in question and that “we have a standing to intervene.” He quickly pointed out, however, that even if the City does indeed intervene in some way, there’s no guarantee the effort would be successful.

He described the present debate among Council Members on this issue as “a difference of opinion — whether we want to just sit back and wait and see what happens, or whether we want to send a strong statement to the Airport Authority Board.”

Dr. Rochelle went next, saying simply that “all I can add is that we’re all against it, and we’ve got to make sure it doesn’t happen.”

Council Member Mendell followed by saying she believes what the City Attorney has to say on this issue, adding that “we have a right and a responsibility to intervene.”

She went on to say that while she heard rumors about a potential deal by RDU to lease land for a quarry back when she was first elected in 2017, she was “assured” by airport authorities later in 2019 that “nothing was going on.” Then, she said, a meeting was called by the RDU Airport Authority soon afterwards and “two days later, they voted to lease the land.”

“I don’t understand what was going on,” she finished. “Something doesn’t smell right about this.”

Mr. Knight concluded the discussion by saying that he’s spent his entire professional career “protecting our public lands and growing our public lands.” He noted that, as such, if it were up to him, he would “of course choose an outdoor recreation destination over a quarry for this land.” However, he added, “Right now, it’s in the court system, so we’ve got to let the court system do its job.”

Still More Town Halls to Come and Don’t Forget to Submit Your Questions Online

We want to extend our thanks to all the candidates and residents who came out on Monday evening to participate in this engaging, lively, and informative Town Hall event. Given the issues Raleigh is presently facing, we believe it’s more important now than ever for residents to be engaged with and take an active role in local government.

Special thanks also to Temple Beth Or for hosting, to Sean Maroney for moderating, and to our friends at the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance for co-sponsoring the event.

Our next Town Hall event will be on Thursday, August 29th, at 6:00pm, at Marsh Creek Park on New Hope Road. That Town Hall will feature the candidates running for Districts A and B.

The candidates running for District A are Joshua Bradley, Patrick Buffkin, and Sam Hershey. The candidates running for District B are David Cox (the incumbent Council Member for District B) and Brian Fitzsimmons. Candidates running at-large are also invited to attend.

To indicate your interest in attending the Town Hall for Districts A & B, simply go to our event page on Facebook. You can also submit a question for this or any other upcoming Town Hall event by clicking here.

Finally, don’t forget that early voting for the Raleigh and Cary municipal elections begins Wednesday, September 18th. Click here to view a list of all early voting sites throughout the area. And if you’re a resident of Raleigh, you can click here to look up your City Council District.