Thread by @JillianDURM, Rezonings and annexations: a thread.TL:DR: As usual, the problem is capitalism. (1/) [...]

Rezonings and annexations: a thread.

TL:DR: As usual, the problem is capitalism. (1/)

When we consider a rezoning request, we aren't deciding between a proposed project and building nothing - we're deciding between a proposed project and what a developer can build by-right. (2/)

Under NC law, all property can be developed by-right subject to local zoning requirements, with the exception of property under a conservation easement. (3/)

Most of the lots that we rezone for are either zoned Residential Rural (1 home per acre) or RS-20 (approx. 2 homes per acre). Because of the large lot size requirements in these zoning districts, developers tend to be large, expensive, single-family homes. (4/)

When a developer submits a rezoning request, they are usually asking for the right to build more homes on the same piece of property. Because these lots will be smaller, the homes are also generally smaller and less expensive. (5/)

This does not mean that the homes will be "affordable" by any city or community definition. In fact, very few for-profit new homes in Durham are affordable by my standards. It means they will be cheaper than if that same land was developed with larger homes on larger lots. (6/)

We have a significant housing shortage in Durham, and of course it's the most critical for people living on the lowest incomes. We also have a rapidly growing population that even a global pandemic has done little to slow down. (7/)

In addition to affordability, the other major concern we deal with environmental sustainability. There are two definitions of sustainability operating in these conversations though, and they're fundamentally in tension. (8/)

Sustainability v1.0 practices require causing as little damage to the environment through the development process as possible. Sometimes called "low-impact" development, advocates for this type of sustainability practice generally support lower-density developments. (9/)

Adjunct arguments to the 1.0 philosophy include concerns such as increases in traffic, stormwater issues, encroachment on streams, clear cutting of trees, disturbing of wildlife, etc. Abiding by these practices generally requires building fewer homes. #housingcrisis (10/)

Sustainability 2.0 practices require dense, walkable, mixed-use developments that include a variety of housing types as well as on-site retail and office space and can support transit. (11/)

These types of development will by their nature have a significant impact on the natural environment of the area. It allows building more homes, but only if they meet these specific requirements. #housingcrisis. (12/)

These two conceptions of sustainability are both valid and yet are also fundamentally in tension. And both have to be weighed against the need for more housing generally, and for more lower-cost housing in particular. (13/)

Things get even stickier when issues of gentrification come into play. Building more housing mitigates against price appreciation overall, but we also know that when newer homes are built near older homes, it can cause the price of those nearby homes to go up. (14/)

As often as neighbors worry that more density near them will cause their property values to go down, other neighbors are worried that building more expensive homes near them, or any investment in their neighborhood at all, will cause their property values to go up. (15/)

So when we have a rezoning request, we're often choosing between low-density by-right expensive single-family development and higher-density less expensive development that is still single-use, not dense enough to support transit, and not affordable to low-income people. (16/)

Well neither of those options is that great!

So why are these our only choices?

Mostly because housing development is done by for-profit entities which are primarily interested in well, profit! (17/)

Also because local governments, especially in preemption-heavy states like NC, have been denied the ability to regulate the housing market to any significant degree to protect communities and ensure development fulfills community needs. (18/)

We need more tools for local governments, more publicly-supported housing, more non-profit housing development, & more housing co-ops. We need to remove as much housing as possible from the consumer market. We need federal investment in sustainability and a #GreenNewDeal (19/)

Tonight we're deciding between 202 single-family homes or a mix of 320 single-family & townhomes. Both options are more expensive than most homes in the area. Neither will be accessible to low-income people. Neither will include retail or office. Neither will have transit. (20/)

I don't have the answers. Obviously!

But it's clear that no matter what we do here, the primary beneficiaries are going to be developers. That's a feature, not a bug.

... continued today! because last night was exhausting.

(22/)

I’ve been thinking about another area where our values come into conflict with each other: neighborhood engagement. In general, everyone on city council deeply values reaching out to the community, being accessible and transparent, and listening to residents. (23/)

The problem we face is that with zoning issues, particularly when developers want to build denser housing, neighbors almost always oppose it. This is an issue in EVERY growing city, and it’s a real problem. (24/)

It’s not that their reasons aren’t valid, but they are driven primarily by their self-interest as property owners as opposed to the best interests of the city overall (which includes tens of thousands of renters and thousands of people who are unstably housed or homeless). (25/)

And of course there are racial dynamics underlying these conversations, because Black property owners and white property owners often have very different concerns, histories, and relationships to government and development. (26/)

Of course developers are also self-interested! Neighbors are fighting a multi-billion dollar industry with expensive lawyers and consultants, backed by rich investors who insist on outrageous returns on their projects (that’s a whole other thread). (27/)

So we’re balancing the opinions of self-interested neighbors (who are our constituents), desires of self-interested developers, positions of interest groups (usually environmental); the advice of professional city staff; and our own values and sense of the public good. (28/)

Give the neighbors opinions too much weight, and we’ll never build a dense development again. Give the developers desires too much weight, and you get whatever is most profitable for them to build at the time. (29/)

At the core we’re always struggling with the broad impacts of the capital market for housing and land and the fact that our economic system treats housing as a commodity rather than a human right. (30/)

Latest Threads Unrolled: