web analytics
Oct
06

Impetuous Council Needs Unrestricted Renovation

Two years ago 10% of voters elected a new Raleigh City Council that quickly found itself at odds with its voters. Within months several drastic, potentially devastating measures were exercised:

Garbage Disposal Ban – Based on absolutely no scientific evidence, the entire city council (with the exception of Philip Isley ) voted in a ban on new garbage disposal installations. The ban was later overturned after a political firestorm. During discussions Rodger Koopman stated that “we are at war” with soldiers living in less than ideal conditions and it is “our duty” to “suck it up once in a while”. Councilor Crowder stated that this would be the “only logical step toward healthy water”, yet the evidence actually points to the contrary.

Water Restrictions – This city council, in the aftermath of a highly unusual drought situation, imposed a water use policy that restricts residents from properly maintaining a drought resistant lawn. Watering laws are irrationally based on days of the week, rather than ideal watering times. There is a prodigious amount of information published by N.C. State University and the state’s Cooperative Extension Service, yet this city council never even considered conveying some of the simple and proven best-practices for drought resistant lawns.

Water Rates – After restrictions and diligent citizen behavior reduced water consumption by 7%, the city council voted to raise water rates 8.5% because the public works division was suddenly losing money.

House Replacement Law Russ Stephenson and Thomas Crowder were strongly in favor of limits on homeowner’s abilities to renovate or replace their houses. Crowder wrote in an email “If a new house is to be developed on a site where a house was torn down, it would go to the Planning Commission for approval unless it does not exceed a reasonable increase in the existing area of the structure – say 10 to 20 percent in area and 10 percent in height.” Later he wrote “I spoke with Russ and I believe we are on the same page . . .The house being replaced is no more than 30% greater than the gross floor area of the original structure and the height is no greater than 10% of the original structure height.  To sum it up . . .if you have a 1,500 SF home you can increase it to 1,950 GSF.  Same analogy goes for height.”

Can you imagine living in a 1,500 square foot house and only being able to add 450 square feet, regardless of the neighborhood’s setback scheme, the condition of the house, the height of neighboring houses, and the condition of those houses?

* * *

The problem with some of these incumbents is that they are willing to take drastic measures without thinking through the consequences. A garbage disposer ban would have led to scores of improperly DIY-installed disposers, additional loads on garbage hauling, increased animal control problems, and, as the research suggests, a sewer system with more clogs than is currently seen. The city imposed water restrictions, only to raise the rates, keeping the total burden on families the same or worse than before!

A severe limit to house replacement sizes would destroy the value of older homes inside Raleigh, and directly cause more suburban sprawl. Who would want to renovate a 1,200 square foot house in Five Points when all you could add is a little utility room and a closet? Young people would completely lose interest in older houses that were improperly built, and flee to the outskirts of Raleigh much like they did after World War II, collapsing the housing market in established neighborhoods.

Another problem with this quantitative approach to a qualitative problem is that many of Raleigh ugliest replacements and renovations would have still been allowed under these restrictions. Conversely, some of Raleigh most beautiful replacement houses would have been denied. ( Link 1 , Link 2 ). It would turn the Planning Commission into a draconian architectural review board, putting architects at the mercy of the commission’s whim.

Do we really want a City Council that makes irrational, negligent decisions? These decisions have direct effects on our lives, our savings, and our children. People were intensely interested in the presidential election last year, but to be honest, this city council election means far more. Only 10% of registered voters bothered to vote two years ago, and the effects have been chilling. We heard a lot about “change” in the last year. I’ll take some change! It’s time to instill some common sense, freedom, and empathy in the Raleigh City Council. Vote very, very carefully today , and make this city more attractive, more productive, and more beautiful than ever.

  • http://www.raleighmsa.com Ernest

    While I do see the need for high standards in architecture, I totally object the crazy restrictions some city leaders wish to put in place when it comes to size and height. Sure, it doesn’t make sense to build a 40-story building next to a single story home, but I have seen a ton of new homes next to smaller, older structure and there was nothing overwhelming.

    Yes, we need some good urban guidelines, but they have to make sense to the average resident. The opinions of a few should not be the deciding factor, regardless of how loud those voices are. There may be some exceptions, so we may have to look at it case-to-case, but for most areas in Raleigh the city leaders should be more willing to listen more to those who actually invest their money in rebuilding their home.

  • Tim Miller

    I can appreciate your speaking up for those things you believe in, but I have one question: Why post this particular entry today, rather than last week? Had you posted it last week, you would have allowed for debate on the items you find so important. That is much better than effectively stating “throw the bums out” on election day.

    Garbage Disposals: Few would disagree with your stance on the garbage disposal fiasco. It would have been nice to have some real justification behind the Council’s decision vs. whatever old wives tales they used.

    Water Restrictions: So, we rebounded from the drought, so why NOT let folks go back to wasting water like there was an unending supply? The Council left some of the restrictions in place to keep the wasteful habits from being relearned. Do you have information that other methods of water conservation work better and are equally enforceable? Give that info to the Council, and work on getting it changed. But I cannot fault the City Council for working towards trying to avoid the issues we had.

    Water Rates: There are fixed and incremental costs to supplying water. Unfortunately, the fixed portion is a huge chunk of those costs. People cut by consumption by 7%, and should be commended for it. The costs to the City for supplying that 93% did not drop much from supplying the 100% that had been used. Revenue had to be replaced. Hopefully, those variable costs were reviewed closely to find savings prior to the rate increase. But, again, I cannot fault the City for ensuring the funds were available for vital infrastructure.

    House Replacement Law: I live in a townhouse, with no plans of rebuilding or moving, so what I know of the law is what is in the entry above… The City has a right, and the responsibility, to make sure significant changes to a homeowner’s property are properly approved. Want to build a McMansion on a tiny lot? Get approval. Want to add on to a small house? If it’s a significant change, get approval. Over the dozen or so years I’ve lived in the Triangle, I have read of more complaints of homeowners tearing down moderate or small sized homes and replacing them with very large home that don’t fit the neighborhood than complaints of restrictions the City has for rebuilding or renovating. There are bound to be situations where larger houses will fit nicely into the neighborhood where the homeowner will need to get approval now. Fine – just do it. Check out Shelley Rd. and Wimbledon Dr. near Six Forks to see some nice examples of that. But I would hate to see those same new houses plopped into the tiny single lots where 750-1,000 square foot bungalows sit now on Oberlin near Glenwood.

    See? Debate is not too painful.

    • http://www.danamccall.com Dana

      Tim,
      Thanks for your thoughts. You should know that in the last 5 weeks I have been incredibly busy working on many projects. The rate of posting here has slowed to just bare essentials, and Dreamhost’s servers have been quite spotty, especially this week. I did not intend to post this editorial so late, but that’s how it happened.
      I have suggested to several council members that watering every day before Noon would be more effective and save more water in the long run than alternate day watering…deaf ears.
      You do realize that your argument against houses that “don’t fit” suggests that no modernists houses should be built in Raleigh. What is “fit”? Homogeneity? That’s for Cary. This is Raleigh, where we have diversity that is celebrated. Get approval from whom? The Planning Commission? What if we have a planning commission that only allows the architectural fad du jour? What if we have a PC that categorically hates modernist houses? What about a PC that insists that all new houses be brick with beige trim? These distinct possibilities are OK if you think that slapping percentage size increase restrictions that ignore the full setting are OK.
      Only certain bums need to be thrown out. We as a people should not have to “suck it up” an put up representatives who cannot solve problems any better than this council has in the last two years.

  • Tim Miller

    Dana,

    I apologize for not taking the servers into consideration into your timing as well as the fact that you may have a life outside of this blog. I read way too much into when the entry posted.

    And I agree, requiring folks to go to the Planning Commission does open up a huge can of worms when one tries to define “what fits in.” My intent was not (NOT) to create Cary II out of Raleigh. When I first moved to this area I was shown many houses in Cary. A very fine town, but just not what I wanted, so I am now located near Sanderson High School.

    However, just because somebody owns a lot, they do not have the right to put anything there…. The other folks in that neighborhood have the right to not be drowned out by a monstrosity. By that, I do not mean “no modernist architecture” or any other specific mode. I was referring to size, and height. I do not think it is unreasonable to restrict how high a structure can be in relation to what existed there originally. If the house next door used to be able to be hit with sunlight, then it should still be able to receive sunlight….

    But you are absolutely right – we don’t need a PC PC, so to speak, limiting architecture to the fad du jour… I should have been more specific in my comments.

  • Nick

    None of these issues seem like a big deal. They are certainly not enough to throw out the whole council and start fresh.

    Plus I wouldn’t agree on about half of them. The water restrictions did not go far enough. Many older houses were getting replaced with mcmansions that detracted from the rest of the neighborhood, and I would consider 30% a reasonable cap for replacements. Beyond that point, I think the council should approve whatever it is, and if it’s architecturally solid then it should get approved.

  • http://www.raleighmsa.com Ernest

    Let me add one more item on my wish list: Corporate relocations to downtown. I think that we need to take a fresh look at how we can attract major companies to our city’s core. I do not mean 1-2 HUGE companies, but a wide variety, from 100 to 2000+ people. It is crucial to our downtown’s future as a place to live, work and play.

  • Kathleen

    May I weigh in on this? We’ve owned 14 homes in different parts of the country. One was a “starter ranch” with a nice lot & great neighborhood. Full basement, 3 bed/1 bath, 12-1500sf. As family came along, this would not have worked very long. The common practice was to raise the roof & double the square footage. The PC should be limiting the FOOTPRINT to 30%, but allow families the option of adding 1 floor to a 1 story structure, without changing the footprint. Thereby giving homeowners the opportunity of staying in the house/neighborhood if their needs change.

top

-->