Additional Research for Council to Consider Related to Adding 3 District Seats

An Open Letter to the Raleigh City Council

I am writing to request that Council defer further action on the Resolution of Intent to add 3 district Council seats.  Deferring action will give staff adequate time to research the potential impacts of this proposal on Raleigh residents, while also allowing for thoughtful and thorough community engagement.  

According to a review of agendas and meeting minutes, March 5, 2024, was the first time Council publicly discussed adding 3 additional district seats.  When it was discussed, the only justification for adding 3 district seats was an assumption that it would reduce the workload of individual Councilors.  However, no one produced any data, research or empirical analysis supporting the assumption that adding district seats will make the City Council job more manageable.  Assumptions and intuition cannot be the sole basis for Council’s decision to fundamentally change the size of City Council. Particularly when there is substantial data and research addressing the importance of maintaining balance between district representation and at-large representation.  

In 2021, a Council-appointed Study Group researched and considered a variety of district and at-large combinations. The Study Group’s Final Report recommended adding a single district seat.  In addition to the Study Group’s efforts, the following research suggests that favoring district seats over at-large seats will erode housing affordability and risk undermining the interests of historically marginalized communities.

1. Warding Off Development: Local Control, Housing Supply, and NIMBYs

2. The Trade-Offs between At-Large and Single Member Districts

3. District Versus At-Large Voting: Why District Voting Results in Worse Policy for Minorities

4. “Power to the Neighborhoods.” New York City Growth Politics, Neighborhood Neoliberalism and the Birth of the Modern Housing Crisis

5. The Context Matters: The Effects of Single-Member versus At-Large Districts on City Council Diversity

6. The Supply-Equity Trade-Off: The Effect of Spatial Representation on the Local Housing Supply

Beyond the data, research and evidence, there are practical considerations favoring deferral of the Resolution of Intent to add 3 district seats.  Council just authorized staff to initiate a new comprehensive planning process that is scheduled to culminate in 2026.  If Council adds 3 district seats, the redistricting process will take place in tandem with the comprehensive planning process.  Once authorized, the City has no flexibility in the process for implementing the addition of 3 district seats.  It will require an RFP process to retain a consultant and then conduct intensive public engagement.  All of that must be completed months before the July filing deadline so potential candidates can decide to run and in time for the Board of Elections to print ballots and prepare for the primary and early voting.  

Running these two complex processes simultaneously risks pushing staff to the breaking point and exhausting the public’s patience and capacity to engage.  A better approach might be to increase the budget for developing the comprehensive plan and direct staff to add a “Council Structure” component to that engagement process. Once the engagement process is complete in 2026, Council can consider Council size considering the results of the engagement process.

Based on these considerations, Council should defer further action on increasing the size of City Council until there has been adequate and thorough public engagement and more consideration given to the applicable evidence and research.  In the meantime, Council should add money to the FY24-25 budget to hire additional staff to assist Councilors with constituent service and policy development.

Thank you.

This open letter was sent to Raleigh City Council on Saturday, April 13th.