How many egoists does it take to prove they are unconcerned with the destruction of Raleigh’s aesthetic and environmental integrity? Just one… but three can really screw it in.
Rallied by undeserved applause, unifying t-shirts and the very audible comment of “she’s a socialist,” the re-zoning opposition group banded together to show their true colors—a zoning opposition based solely on the individual property owners’ right to as large a fiscal return on their property as possible. This large fiscal return would come from selling or renting of a property (hopefully NOT zoned R-4 in their opinion) as multi-unit dwellings or to have another behemoth mansion playing king-of-the-hill.
Now if these residents are concerned about a financial return on their investment doesn’t this mean that they will ultimately either sell the property or rent it out? Either way they won’t be living there much longer and it thus becomes apparent that they are not truly emotionally and physically invested in the neighborhood. If someone is streamlined by a potential big money return there is no way they can be sensitive to the past, present or future neighborhood needs that don’t affect their investment.
Over a hundred people were in attendance and about a third supported the re-zoning and more than that opposed it. The proposal submitted by CommunitySCALE requests the rezoning of 140 properties in the Five Points and Fallon Park areas. Rezoning would require new houses to sit on at least a quarter of an acre and sit 5 feet farther from their neighbors and 10 feet farther from the road than the current zoning requires.
This is a near impossible dilemma. The pro-rezoning group wants the character of the neighborhoods preserved while the anti-rezoning group wants the right to do with their property as they see fit.
Easily the simplest, and arguably strongest point from the opposing group was that, “rezoning will not stop big homes from being built.” This statement had much truth behind it. R-4 lots, through some misguided intent, can ultimately STILL have a house built on it that is way out of scale. However, this comment was almost as if the opposition was reveling in the notion that these houses ARE untamed monsters and there is nothing anyone with any good sense can do about it.
The opposition continued it’s retort by stating that “rezoning would decrease land value because there would be less space to build on.” Maybe true. The proponent group stated that there is a “26% loss in value to houses next to a new large house.” Again, maybe true. The figures on this could surely sway the council’s decision.
The pro-rezoning group (CommunitySCALE) began their statements with a more quality-of-life rhetoric. The “destruction of the character of these places” has been happening since the “mismatch between the built neighborhood and the zoning” began in 1959. The proponent group wants the current zoning returned to the original R-4 zoning in place when the houses were being built starting early last century.
Another point brought up by the opposition was the “functional obsolescence of the lot.” In what way is the functioning of these lots obsolete? Oh wait, I understand. These lots have trees on them…. nobody likes trees anymore. And oh yeah… these “obsolete” lots a large enough that you can play stick ball without your back swing hitting the house next door. I forgot that nobody does anything outdoors anymore… silly of me. So, considering that these historical lots are “functionally obsolete,” does that mean that a smaller lot accompanying a larger or multi-dwelling unit would be “functionally progressive?” This must be the new functional wave of the future. A new modernism. Disregard for environment and quality of life is the New Functionalism. Let’s all be some no-shade, big-runoff, land-filling, house-building Functionalists. Call it Neo-Funk.
The basis for the opposition’s claim was that the convention center also was “functionally obsolete” so a new, larger one was built in place of it. I guess they feel that is some kind of precedent for the properties in question. Proponents say their neighborhood is completely viable with houses in good condition and is an ideal core neighborhood mix. Additionally, the CommunitySCALE proponents promulgated that there are not many neighborhoods left for low income families and that high density would increase the “irreparable harm” being done to the streetscape and watershed.
The opposition was not hesitant to label the rezoning attempt as “predatorial downzoning.”
Council member Thomas Crowder even brought forth the idea of a moratorium on teardowns until a solution can be reached.
I’m not sure if there is an appropriate way to solve this. While I do not necessarily think a return to original zoning regulations will solve this in-fill dilemma, I do think the underlying problem here stems from an egotistical cultural obsession in far too many people with grandeur and accoutrements. Don’t expect there to be a hearing on that with city council.
The last speaker for the opposition group really messed up when his statement was actually more in-line with the goals of the proposal. “We like our 20 foot setbacks” and the “interactions we have with neighbors.” Don’t you realize that this proposal is trying to MAINTAIN that setback which you find so valuable? If the zoning stays the same and your neighbor sells their property for a giant house to be built on there won’t be any neighbors on porches to talk to—there will be vinyl siding.
<a > wholesale</a>
Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.