Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. attended segregated public schools in Georgia, graduating from high school at the age of fifteen.

He received the B. A. degree in 1948 from Morehouse College, a distinguished Negro institution of Atlanta.

He was awarded a B.D. In 1951 from Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania after three years of study.

He received a doctorate in 1955 from Boston University.

In 1954, Martin Luther King became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama and had become a member of the executive committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was commuting home on Montgomery’s Cleveland Avenue bus from her job at a local department store. She was seated in the front row of the “colored section.” When the white seats filled, the driver, J. Fred Blake, asked Parks and three others to vacate their seats. The other black riders complied, but Parks refused. She was arrested and fined $10, plus $4 in court fees.

In response Martin Luther accepted leadership for a non-violent bus boycott in Montgomery. The boycott lasted 382 days. During these days of boycott, King was arrested, his home was bombed, and he was subjected to personal abuse. On December 21, 1956, the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional the laws requiring segregation on buses.

In 1957 he was elected president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization formed to provide leadership for the civil rights movement. From 1957 to 1968, Martin Luther traveled over six million miles and spoke over twenty-five hundred times, wrote five books and numerous articles.

In April 1963 the Southern Christian Leadership Conference launched a campaign to end segregation in Birmingham, Alabama. The campaign was designed to have mass meetings, sit-ins, boycotts, marches, and voter registrations. On April 10, the city government obtained a state circuit court injunction against the protests.

In response King declared, “We cannot in all good conscience obey such an injunction which is an unjust, undemocratic and unconstitutional misuse of the legal process.”

On Good Friday, 12 April, King was arrested in Birmingham after violating the anti-protest injunction and was kept in solitary confinement. During this time King wrote the “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” After intervention by the Kennedy administration, Martin Luther was permitted to call home and arrange for his release which followed on April 20th.

On May 2nd more than 1,000 African American students attempted to march into downtown Birmingham, and hundreds were arrested. When hundreds more gathered the following day, Commissioner Connor directed local police and fire departments to use force to halt the demonstrations. During the next few days children were blasted by high-pressure fire hoses, clubbed by police officers, and attacked by police dogs. The images appearing in national media resulted in outrage.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent Burke Marshall, his chief civil rights assistant, to facilitate negotiations between prominent black citizens and representatives of Birmingham’s business leadership. Eventually an agreement was reached that included the removal of “Whites Only” and “Blacks Only” signs in restrooms and on drinking fountains, a plan to desegregate lunch counters, an ongoing “program of upgrading Negro employment,” the formation of a biracial committee to monitor the progress of the agreement, and the release of jailed protesters on bond.

Birmingham segregationists responded to the agreement with a series of violent attacks. President Kennedy ordered 3,000 federal troops to Birmingham and prepared to federalize the Alabama National Guard. On September 15th, Ku Klux Klan members bombed Birmingham’s Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, killing four young girls. King delivered the eulogy at the funeral of three of the victims, preaching that the girls were “the martyred heroines of a holy crusade for freedom and human dignity.”

On August 28, 1963, more than 200,000 Marched on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in the nation’s capital. During this event, Martin Luther delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

After the march, King and other civil rights leaders met with President Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House, where they discussed the need for bipartisan support of civil rights legislation eventually resulting in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In 1964, at the age of thirty-five, Martin Luther King, Jr., was the youngest man to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. When notified of his selection, he announced that he would turn over the prize money of $54,123 to the furtherance of the civil rights movement.

On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was to lead a protest march in sympathy with striking garbage workers of that city, he was assassinated.

Statement on Events in Washington

What happened yesterday in our nation’s capital was inexcusable. Doors and windows were smashed, people were injured, people came armed, there were armed standoffs, shots were fired, and four people died. I condemn these acts of sedition and insurrection. What happened yesterday must be thoroughly investigated and everyone responsible must be held accountable. I support our elected officials in Washington as they consider how to respond to these events.

Many members of Congress and others have proposed Impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment. I support such action.

Citizen Advisory Councils – Eliminated by the Mayor and Council – Brought Diversity to Raleigh Governance

Your vote can bring back our Citizen Advisory Councils and bring back the voice of ordinary citizens to our local government.

When Mary-Ann Baldwin, Nicole Stewart, and soon to resign Saige Martin masterminded the elimination of the Citizen Advisory Councils, they offered their reasons for doing so. Their main argument was that the people who historically attended CAC meetings were old and white implying that residents of color and other groups barely participated. In short, they claimed that the CACs lacked diversity.

This was a specious argument.

In 2016/2017 I heard the same accusation from then Council member Baldwin (Mary-Ann Baldwin has been at this for a long time). At that time I compiled the following data on the volunteers who served as Chairs of their CACs.

African American: 9 (47.4%)
White: 10 (52.6%)
Female: 7 (36.8%)
Male: 12 (63.2%)

The Baldwin/Stewart/Martin claim that there was some kind of systemic racism that warranted eliminating support for CACs was completely unfounded. In my District I attended nearly every CAC meeting (note: Baldwin and Stewart rarely, if ever attended CAC meetings) and I can attest that the meetings were well attended by individuals of color, the young, renters, as well as home owners. They were full participants who were fully engaged in the meetings.

I speak out about this now because the election in October really will be a referendum on bringing back the Citizen Advisory Councils. We need the CACs to balance the power and influence buying that is happening in this city.

Eliminating the CACs served only to silence people – particularly people of color – in the service of contractors and developers brought about by a Mayor and Council members who have demonstrated time and time again that they don’t want to hear from ordinary citizens.

But this October we have a chance to change all that. Be prepared to vote because your vote matters more than it ever did.

Regarding the Rezoning for Downtown South

At yesterday’s special City Council meeting I made the following remarks regarding the Z-13-20 rezoning request for Downtown South. The measure passed 7-1 with me casting the lone vote in opposition. This is a huge rezoning and deserved better review and due diligence from City Council than a single meeting. Clearly, this was a pre-arranged deal with the developer before the meeting began. A hundred people spoke both for and against. Clearly, everyone’s time could have been better spent.

I want to thank everyone who participated tonight. This is the first formal discussion at City Council about this project. I want everyone to know that I have not had any in depth discussions with anyone on Council about this project. In my view we are at the beginning and not the end of Council’s due diligence. A few weeks ago I did email the Mayor objecting to rushing this rezoning request. I have been hoping that we can continue this process because there are outstanding issues.

First, I agree with recommendations from Planning Commissioners that this rezoning should be resubmitted as a planned development to give the rezoning and the Downtown South project better definition. A project of this size should, as a matter of principle, never be submitted and approved as a general or conditional use rezoning case. There are simply too many variables to make reasonable predictions about the outcome. As the New & Observer editorial staff noted, the rezoning case before us is simply too vague.

The conditions do not address the environmental concerns raised by the community. Flooding is an important component. However, environmental concerns go beyond flooding. They include future automobile emissions from tens of thousands of automobiles that will be in the area daily. They include trash and garbage. They include air pollution, wind tunnel effects and light pollution. They include impacts on wildlife. This development will be at the door steps of the Walnut Creek wetlands. We do not have the details and plans to truly protect the wetlands and the downstream communities from such a high level of development.

A development of this magnitude will, without a doubt, increase property values in southeast Raleigh and especially in the nearby communities. Those property values could easily double or triple. We all know well from the recent assessment that while the City remained tax neutral, the distribution of taxes shifted to those whose properties increased in value the fastest. This project will likely result in a further redistribution of the tax burden from the wealthy in Raleigh to those in this area who will experience rapid increases in their property values.

A condition has been provided to provide what the developer refers to as affordable housing. However, this condition only provides 99 out of the first 999 units of housing to hose earning 80% of area median income. Significantly, the condition sunsets after five years. While Council cannot require a single unit of affordable housing in these 145 acres, we should take the time for further discussions. Developing 145 acres with no room for those with low incomes is not in the best interest of the city.

Next, this rezoning does not address that the properties are located in a federal Opportunity Zone. An Opportunity Zone allows investors to channel capital gains from the sale of assets into qualified funds that make long-term investments in the designated underserved community.

According to a recent article in Barrons, the regulatory framework created by the Treasury Department to guide this program has fallen short in meeting the goals of helping communities in need. Among the shortcomings is the absence of timely disclosure and transparency which are needed to ensure that the investment dollars are supporting the community and not just serving as a tax break for the wealthy.

In lieu of government-mandated disclosure, a voluntary framework has been created called the Opportunity Zones Reporting Framework. This framework was created by the US Impact Investing Alliance in partnership with the Beeck Center for Social Impact and Innovation at Georgetown University and the Community Development Finance Initiative of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in February 2019.

This framework creates a set of best practices designed to achieve “positive economic and social outcomes in distressed communities. These recommendations were signed by 70 organizations. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Council has received any information about this framework. This framework needs to be discussed before we move forward with any rezoning. Without it, there will be no timely disclosure or transparency for these tax deferred funds. At a minimum we need commitment to following this framework.

Let us remember what Ralph Ellison wrote in 1952,

“I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.”

“You wonder whether you aren’t simply a phantom in other people’s minds. Say, a figure in a nightmare which the sleeper tries with all his strength to destroy. It’s when you feel like this that, out of resentment, you begin to bump people back.”

The Downtown South project could be a great project for Raleigh and for Southeast Raleigh in particular. But so many of Raleigh’s citizens have come forward with concerns. We as a Council need to take the time to openly and transparently consider these issues and work with citizens and the developer to resolve them.

To move forward with this rezoning at this time will signal that Raleigh’s citizens, especially Southeast Raleigh’s citizens, are truly invisible to the wealthy and powerful of this city.

The protests of 2020 should have been a wakeup call. If we continue to treat people as invisible we should not be surprised when they bump people back.

Downtown South – Who Has Signed Up to Speak?

Who will be speaking in support or opposed to the Downtown South rezoning? Here is what I know. Looking through the list it appears that those in support are primarily developers, business owners, and soccer enthusiasts. Those opposed are primarily social and environmental justice organizations and religious organizations.

Downtown South – Z-13-2020

The following images are slides that present information about the Downtown South rezoning request in Raleigh, NC.

Most rezoning requests ask for a change in entitlements. Often these entitlements pertain to the kinds of uses that are allowed and/or the heights that are allowed. In some cases the uses are restricted to residential uses. In other cases the uses are expanded to include commercial and/or institutional uses. Maximum heights will also vary. In Raleigh certain zoning districts allow up to 40 story buildings.

In this particular case, the requested outcome is for a mix of residential, office, and commercial uses and heights up to 40 stories. These are considered to be maximum entitlements.

This case also comes with a set of conditions that limit the entitlements under certain circumstances. For example, certain uses are prohibited and heights are prohibited provided certain conditions are met. Also included are conditions that pertain to the management of storm water to mitigate possible downstream flooding.

The properties under consideration for rezoning are also located south of downtown Raleigh. They are near historically Black neighborhoods. It is anticipated that this rezoning will result in the construction of thousands of luxury residential units which will raise property values. A major concern is that low income families who rent in the area will eventually be forced to move as property values rise and more properties are redeveloped – gentrification with displacement.

There are also concerns about the road infrastructure, a dramatic increase in the traffic, and the impact of this traffic on nearby neighborhoods.

In the following slide, the highlighted properties are adjacent to the subject property (which is to the north). What the condition says is that maximum heights are 12 stories for a distance of 180 feet from the property line.

In the following slides, the highlighted properties are the subject properties.

In the following you will see Tier 3 site plan mentioned. What is a Tier 3 site plan? At the moment I do not know. But I will update this post as soon as I find out.

Why I Don’t Support Council’s $80 Million Housing Bond

Raleigh is a wealthy community that has seen tremendous growth for many years. In the past, Raleigh has grown outwards with new subdivisions being constructed year after year. Today Raleigh encompasses 144 square miles.

Today it has become more difficult for the City to continue to grow outwards. There are environmental impacts and it is becoming more difficult and costly to extend infrastructure such as water, sewer, and roads. As a consequence we are seeing the construction of more and more rental housing in the form of high-rise buildings.

But this is not, in general, affordable housing. The apartments at North Hills, and downtown near Fayetteville Street and along Peace Street as well as elsewhere in the City are marketed has high-end, luxury housing.

There is tremendous pressure to buy up older, affordable apartments and tear them down and replace them with new, more expensive options. People are being evicted to make this happen and those people are finding it nearly impossible to find a new place to live.

Generally, these displaced people are elderly or working class people who earn below the area median income (AMI). And their numbers are growing. In a diverse city, not everyone is highly educated with advanced degrees in high-tech fields. Today more than 16,000 spend more than 50% of their income on housing. The need is tremendous and growing.

So, when Raleigh City Council voted 7-1 to place a bond on the ballot to raise money for housing, why didn’t they make any significant commitment to truly affordable housing? Why didn’t they address the need that so many in our City face?

Instead, the City Council plans to build market rate and near market rate housing arguing that doing so will help to fund what will ultimately be a handful of “affordable” housing units. For example, in a recent memo explaining how the $80 million will be spent, the City staff states, “30% AMI units (for low wage earners) must be mixed with higher income targets.” In same memo, City staff recommended committing some of the money to only 50 units at 30% AMI or less.

Additionally, City staff recommends committing to 25% of 9% gap financing and 10% of 4% gap financing for 30% AMI. Given that a total of $24 million is allocated for this purpose, the City’s commitment to providing housing at 30% AMI will amount to about 100 units. However, Council did not commit to an actual number of dwellings.

So, of the $80 million that voters are being asked to support, perhaps two tenths of it will be used for affordable housing for those most in need. However, there is no actual commitment.

Early in 2020, the Mayor established a so called compassion fund with $20,000 to help the homeless. To date, not a dollar has been spent to help those in need. City government does not need to be in the business of funding market and near market rate rate housing while building only a small number of affordable housing units (assuming that will happen). Developers in Raleigh do not need a blank check from Raleigh taxpayers.

As a consequence, I do not support the City’s housing bond.

Ending Single Family Zoning: Your Opinion Matters

Fields marked with an * are required

Historically, Raleigh's zoning ordinance has allowed properties to be zoned only for single family home - in other words only single family homes can be constructed on those properties. In general, entire neighborhoods have been zoned only for single family homes.

Recently, on July 7th, City Council voted to end single family zoning. On July 7th Council voted to allow so-called "cottage courts" to be constructed on properties that were previously reserved for single family homes.

A "cottage court" is a type of multi-unit housing.  Under the new rules that were adopted, up to 30 units can now be built on property that had previously been reserved for single family homes.

Do you agree or disagree with this decision?

Update from City Council, July 2020

On Tuesday Council took several actions.

First, Council approved allowing Accessory Dwelling Units – you can now build a second habitable structure on your property that meets certain guidelines. In general, I supported this measure. However, Nicole Stewart made a motion to gut most guidelines.

These guidelines included setbacks, heights, and landscaping as well as a prohibition against using the structures as AirBnB type vacation rentals. I felt that these guidelines would provide sufficient safeguards to maintain the peace, quiet, and property values of nearby homeowners. But, without these important guidelines, I voted against the measure.

Second, Council approved doubling the number of units for cottage courts and allowing them in R-2 and R-4 residential zoning districts. Originally, cottage courts (essentially, multifamily units with a common building for facilities such as laundry, recreation, etc) were limited to 15 units and were not allowed in R-2 and R-4 residential zoning districts. Now that limit has been increased to 30 units. This change effectively ends single family zoning in Raleigh. I voted against this measure.

Third, Council passed a change to allow four story buildings to go from 62 feet in height to 68 feet in height and a five story building to go from 75 feet in height to 80 feet in height. My main concerns with this change is that these buildings can be constructed directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. My opinion is that adjacent to neighborhoods, the height should actually be reduced. Moreover, taller buildings are less environmentally friendly. They are less energy efficient, increase carbon emissions, increase visual pollution, and are more costly to construct and therefore, are less affordable. I voted against this motion.

Fourth, I did support a motion to add Juneteenth as a holiday.

Fifth, I did support a motion to send a letter to the legislature asking for City Council to have more autonomy related oversight of the Police Department. The specifics of that autonomy remain to be determined by the legislature. Effectively, this moves the discussion of police oversight to the state legislature.

Lastly, Council held a public hearing on the $80 million affordable housing bond. At the conclusion of the hearing I noted that Council has not specified exactly how that money will be spent. I do favor an affordable housing bond that will provide real affordable housing. I do not support a blank check for developers. In the end, Council did not adopt any policy about how the $80 million will be spent. As a consequence, I voted against approving the affordable housing bond.