Reeves Peeler
Name: Reeves Peeler
Which office are you seeking? At-Large District
Campaign website: www.reevesforraleigh.com
Social media: On Twitter, Instagram and Facebook all of my usernames are @Reeves4Raleigh. On Facebook it's "Reeves For Raleigh".
The income of many households in Raleigh is too high to qualify for income-restricted/subsidized housing, yet these residents are cost-burdened by climbing prices and rents across market-rate housing. Explain at least 2 policies you will seek to implement to address the rising costs of market-rate housing in Raleigh.
According to Raleigh’s Consolidated Plan, cost burdened households in Raleigh are disproportionately represented at lower AMI levels (<30% AMI being the most cost burdened, followed by <60% and <80%, and finally with market rate housing being the least cost burdened). Currently, Raleigh’s <80% AMI income maximum for a single individual is $68,500 and our <60% maximum is $51,420. This <80% level max is roughly 41.7% higher than the starting salary of a 1st year Wake County public school teacher with a bachelor’s degree ($48,339.90). As you can see, many of our public servants are considered low income and qualify for income restricted housing. Income-restricted housing should be our first priority when discussing housing shortages, since the City’s data shows that is where the vast majority of our shortages are.
That said, there are crucial steps we should take to address the rising costs of market-rate housing in Raleigh as well. While we cannot force private developers to only develop certain types of housing, we can set intentional guidelines in our UDO to incentivize certain trends and housing types.
The first step that should be taken is to amend our urban infill ordinances (also called Missing Middle) to limit the size of certain housing types as the City is redeveloped. Raleigh already uses this policy with our ADU rules, where we limit the total square footage and footprint of an ADU. By expanding this approach to things like Cottage Courts, Townhouses, and Duplexes, we can help encourage developers to build new market rate infill stock that is not super-sized and hyper-expensive (aka a “McMansion”).
Another step I will push for is to improve and expand how we use Density Bonuses. I believe the concept behind the Density Bonus for Raleigh’s Frequent Transit Areas (aka as Frequent Transit Development Option or FTDO) is an excellent start. We could expand this by offering further incentives for developers to build both smaller and more dense housing in appropriate areas near public transit and bike/ped amenities.
I will push to preserve our existing/naturally occurring affordable housing stock (also called “NOAH”). These are rental and for-purchase homes that are rented or bought at market rate but are lower cost without subsidy, usually due to their size, age, location, and other factors. These homes are a vital part of our housing ecosystem, yet they are being destroyed at an alarming pace and causing median rents/prices to skyrocket.
There are numerous ways we can do this in Raleigh in the short term. I will push to create zoning overlays that protect these affordable units from destruction. Zoning is one of the most powerful tools at the City’s disposal to either incentivize or disincentivize development. In much the same way that we incentivize development of underutilized areas, we should disincentivize the destruction and displacement of our badly needed working class and middle class homes and neighborhoods. I will also push to expand the City’s investment into the Wake County Affordable Housing Preservation Fund in order to add our ability to maintain, upkeep, and preserve these NOAH units. In the same way that we incentivize the new development we want, we must also incentivize maintaining the development we want to keep.
Finally, one of the easiest ways to preserve NOAH housing and lower prices of NOAH rentals is to keep property taxes affordable for the people living in them. Often, lower income workers and seniors/retirees are forced to leave and/or sell affordable market rate homes because they cannot afford Raleigh’s rising taxes. If property taxes stay affordable for these residents, not only can they stay in their homes and neighborhoods, but they also will have less incentive to sell to a developer that will flip their NOAH property into something more expensive. There is a vast array of tools we can use to keep property taxes affordable for residents, primarily by setting up expanded property tax rebates for qualifying residents. We can also reduce the pressure to raise property taxes city-wide by setting guidelines for property developers to contribute directly to the local infrastructure needs of areas they redevelop (whether that be income restricted housing, parks, sidewalks, bike lanes, stormwater, etc.), and therefore not having property taxpayers shoulder all of the infrastructure funding burden.
In the long term, we should be lobbying the State of NC to reduce the grip of pre-emption they keep on Raleigh that prevents us from taking vital steps to improve our planning and housing issues. Raleigh is a major engine of NC’s economy and our city center is home to much of the state’s vital bureaucracy and administration. We should be able to fully govern ourselves and make decisions for ourselves. A prime example (which will admittedly be difficult in the short term) is to lobby the state to repeal the ban on NC municipalities’ ability to pass rent control laws. Rent control is a valuable policy tool for keeping down the price of market rate housing and Raleigh should have the ability to decide for ourselves if we want to utilize it.
What is an issue in Raleigh that deserves critical attention, but isn't talked about much in the media or the community because it's not sensational or obviously apparent?
This is an admittedly difficult question because I believe there are many. In my opinion, the foremost is the severe understaffing and underappreciation of our City departments. The City is having a difficult time filling vacancies in many areas, whether it be housing, planning, or our firefighters or police. One of the most outrageously underappreciated departments is our firefighters, who are at dangerously low staffing levels and have been fighting for separation allowance for years. Jobs that are highly physically dangerous and jobs that primarily take place in an office are not attracting, nor retaining as much talent as we need to keep Raleigh running top notch. A top priority for me is to better invest in our public servants and pay living wages for all departments.
Other issues for me that deserve more attention include improvements that we badly need to our tree conservation ordinances and lack of tree cover included in new developments, our lack of cycling infrastructure (particularly protected bike lanes), need for an independent alternative safety response unit, the expansion of the RDU quarry, and the alarming amount of clear cutting and annexation by Durham in the Falls Lake and the possibly long term ramifications it could have for Raleigh’s water supply.
How will you balance the interests of individuals with those of the general public? Especially when voting on an issue that will negatively impact a small, but vocal group of residents, but which offers significant benefits to the general public?
I believe expansive and robust citizen engagement is vital to a well run city. I firmly believe that limiting public comment times, ending CACs, and pushing more and more decision making to backroom processes as happened throughout 2020 to 2023, and still sometimes happens now, has been a net negative for the City of Raleigh. While it is true that often white and wealthy centric groups dominate some engagement conversations, cutting out the processes rather than doing the hard work of improving and expanding them to include more people was a bad decision that lowered many residents’ confidence and trust in their local government, no matter who sits in the leadership roles. I think Raleigh will unfortunately be feeling the indirect effects of these choices for years to come and the next City Council and Mayor will have significant work to do to rebuild this trust. The only way to do this is to expand our community engagement tactics, bringing in more residents’ voices (specifically residents at lower wealth levels), and doing it at a time and place where they are comfortable. Often this will take shape outside of Council meetings, which many people are unable to make with their daily lives. The City of Raleigh must invest in new avenues of engagement, whether that be digital, door-knocking, roving events, and more.
I have had significant experience with engaging passionate residents not just through my time on the Planning Commission, but also in my years as a community organizer with Down Home NC and other groups. In my experience, better education and expanded communication around the long term benefits (and identifying exactly *who* benefits) from certain projects/initiatives can often quell reservations that residents have, which not only helps important projects get completed but also builds trust for future initiatives.
Should Council allow more Missing Middle housing (duplex, triplex, townhomes and small apartment buildings) to be built in the City? If yes, how would you accomplish this? If not, why not?
Yes. Missing Middle’s theme of allowing smaller, more dense, and more affordable homes to be infilled into Raleigh is vital to our success as a city.
I think there is plenty of room for improvement on Raleigh’s urban infill ordinances to better include our low and middle income neighbors. Currently our Missing Middle rules don’t do enough to encourage smaller/medium sized housing. While Missing Middle has done good things to streamline 100% affordable developments and ADUs, it also has had some adverse effects. In many instances, the new housing developed under Missing Middle rules has been much larger and more expensive than what previously existed in its place. By being direct as to what type and size of Cottage Courts, Townhouses, and Duplexes we want to encourage, we can help developers build new market rate infill stock that is not super-sized and hyper-expensive (aka “McMansions”) and is at a price range that is most badly needed.
Missing Middle should aim to improve affordable, modestly sized, public transit friendly, walkable, and cyclable housing choices and to allow room for more local, neighborhood centric (and not car-reliant) commercial and public spaces. It should not create a land speculation frendzy, which I believe has happened in some parts of Raleigh. Zoning is a vital tool that the City of Raleigh should use carefully and responsibly so that we reduce the pressures of gentrification and displacement, not heat it up.
And as I mentioned in a previous answer, I will push for improving and expanding how we use Density Bonuses. I believe the concept behind the Density Bonus for Raleigh’s Frequent Transit Areas (aka as Frequent Transit Development Option or FTDO) is an excellent start. We could expand this by offering further incentives for developers to build both smaller and more dense/numerous housing in appropriate areas near public transit and bike/ped amenities. We also should hold to our UDO rules when applying Density Bonuses and not only developers to rezone outside of the Density Bonus rules, therefore rendering them useless, as has recently happened in multiple instances.
Should the City continue investing in Bus Rapid Transit? If so, what additional investments and/or land use regulatory changes should the City make to support the successful implementation of the Western and Southern corridors? If no, why?
Yes. BRT is vital to our future and we should look to connect with other public transit corridors regionally and to RDU airport in the near future.
I had the privilege of closely working on the rollout of the New Bern BRT station planning and TOD zoning through the Planning Commission. We need density along public transit lines, but we have to do more to ensure that density does not displace working class communities that rely on the bus, and that the new density is affordably priced. Relying on the TOD Density Bonus alone will not achieve this, in my opinion. We must do more to include working class, poor, and middle class communities when creating these bus corridors.
We can and should require more affordable units in new developments along our BRT lines. We should create incentives that make land acquisition and development more competitive and realistic for 100% affordable projects that are looking to build on the BRT lines and must compete with market rate developers. And we should expand our NOAH preservation efforts along BRT lines as well.
What is your vision for how Raleigh’s built environment should evolve over the next 10 years?
In the next 10 years, Raleigh should become a City where working class people can thrive. This means firefighters, nurses, teachers, bartenders, cab drivers, and everyone in between. We cannot keep pushing our most vital members of our workforce farther from the center of the city and farther from our best resources and walkable/cyclable spaces. Raleigh isn’t just for the wealthy and we should do everything we can to highlight and preserve the best parts of our history and unique neighborhoods, while building a city that works for everyone.
How would you change the way the City's Office of Community Engagement operates?
First, Raleigh must fully invest in its CACs and further expand how they integrate and operate with various different communities and wealth levels. I believe the City must do much more to educate and interact with residents about rezonings and sweeping text changes and Comp Plan Amendments. This means more than community meetings and mailers.
As I said earlier, I firmly believe that limiting public comment times, ending CACs, and pushing more and more decision making to backroom processes as happened throughout 2020 to 2023, and still sometimes happens now, has been a net negative for the City of Raleigh. Cutting out the processes rather than doing the hard work of improving and expanding them to include more people was a bad decision that lowered many residents’ confidence and trust in their local government, no matter who sits in the leadership roles. I think Raleigh will unfortunately be feeling the indirect effects of these choices for years to come and the next City Council and Mayor will have significant work to do to rebuild this trust. The only way to do this is to expand our community engagement tactics, bringing in more residents’ voices (specifically residents at lower wealth levels), and doing it at a time and place where they are comfortable. Often this will take shape outside of Council meetings, which many people are unable to make with their daily lives. The City of Raleigh must invest in new avenues of engagement, whether that be digital, door-knocking, roving events, and more.
Should the City preserve existing moderately priced housing (Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing) to help slow the rate of resident displacement? If yes, please provide 2-3 specific policies that you would ask your fellow Councilors to support. If no, what other policies do you support to address resident displacement?
Yes. As I mentioned earlier, these homes are a vital part of our housing ecosystem, yet they are being destroyed at an alarming pace and causing median rents/prices to skyrocket.
There are numerous ways we can do this in Raleigh in the short term. I will push to create zoning overlays that protect these affordable units from destruction. Zoning is one of the most powerful tools at the City’s disposal to either incentivize or disincentivize development. In much the same way that we incentivize development of underutilized areas, we should disincentivize the destruction and displacement of our badly needed working class and middle class homes and neighborhoods. We can do this with overlays and with new zoning classifications in our UDO that outline and identify the key characteristics of housing stock that we badly need to preserve.
I will also push to expand the City’s investment into the Wake County Affordable Housing Preservation Fund in order to add our ability to maintain, upkeep, and preserve these NOAH units. In the same way that we incentivize the new development we want, we must also incentivize maintaining the development we want to keep.
Finally, one of the easiest ways to preserve NOAH housing and lower prices of NOAH rentals is to keep property taxes affordable for the people living in them. Often, lower income workers and seniors/retirees are forced to leave and/or sell affordable market rate homes because they cannot afford Raleigh’s rising taxes. If property taxes stay affordable for these residents, not only can they stay in their homes and neighborhoods, but they also will have less incentive to sell to a developer that will flip their NOAH property into something more expensive. There is a vast array of tools we can use to keep property taxes affordable for residents, primarily by setting up expanded property tax rebates for qualifying residents. We can also reduce the pressure to raise property taxes city-wide by setting guidelines for property developers to contribute directly to the local infrastructure needs of areas they redevelop (whether that be income restricted housing, parks, sidewalks, bike lanes, stormwater, etc.), and therefore not having property taxpayers shoulder all of infrastructure funding burden.
Is there anything else you would like voters to know about you or your campaign? (Optional)
I was born and raised in Raleigh, attended all public schools in Raleigh (Lacy, Martin, Broughton), graduated from NC State University, and I plan to spend the rest of my life here. I had the great privilege of growing up in a unique neighborhood with amazing amenities. I believe that everyone here should have that same access and opportunity. This will not happen on its own. Both our city and state will continue to grow, and as we have seen in the past, unguided growth will leave many of our neighbors behind. We have to be direct about how we level the playing field and bring poor, working class, and middle class people to the table. We deserve to be a forward thinking city that reduces reliance on cars, invests in public transit, makes bold moves to create and preserve affordable housing, public parks, trees, and keeps the spirit of our name, the City of Oaks.