Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In theory, I think the concept of this type of ordinance seems like a great idea. But there's something about this one that just doesn't sit right with me.
It doesn't sound like these types of businesses are going to lead to more walkable neighborhoods or are going to contribute to the livability of neighborhoods. The ordinance seems like it's designed to benefit business owners and not the neighborhood or the community.
Agreed. Seems nice, in theory, but the information provided is absolutely sketchy and yet they are prepared to vote on a permanent change that would potentially alter living conditions for a good portion of Raleigh citizens ?
Where are the feasibility studies, the pilot program, requirements for a permit- or is one not required at all?
Scratching my head... if you look at the reqs. for Airbnbs, they seem to be outlined a bit more specifically, which is puzzling to me. Looky here.
No exterior advertising shall be allowed.
In residential zoning districts, short-term renters shall not utilize the premises for holding special events or gatherings.
For single-unit and two-unit living, the premise shall not be used for “Live-Work” or a “Day Care, Home”. For a multi-unit living, the dwelling unit shall not be used for “Live-Work” or a “Day Care, Home”
For any multi-unit living use, no more than 25 percent, or two dwelling units, whichever is greater, may be used for short-term rental in any single building.
Short-term rental operators shall comply with all applicable State and local laws, including those relating to fire and building codes, smoke detecting and carbon monoxide detecting equipment, housing codes, and payment of taxes to appropriate governmental entities, including occupancy taxes.
Seems like more rules for thee, but not for me.
I think you said it in another of your posts, the execution is lacking.
How about a developer creates a mixed use neighborhood- from the start- with SFH, and then we get more data to analyze as it moves forward. Good things, bad things, what needs to be more/less regulated. But remember, SFH only for the baseline to be established.
Or better yet, let's have Cary do a pilot program there ! Of course, they would never pass that chance up!
edit: to the OP, I have emailed my various concerns to the interested parties.
Or better yet, let's have Cary do a pilot program there ! Of course, they would never pass that chance up!
Most suburbs have restrictive covenants in place that would not allow these types of businesses. I don't know if it is possible, but if the neighborhoods that have concerns could get buy-in from neighbors to install restrictive covenants, wouldn't that address the problem?
Most suburbs have restrictive covenants in place that would not allow these types of businesses. I don't know if it is possible, but if the neighborhoods that have concerns could get buy-in from neighbors to install restrictive covenants, wouldn't that address the problem?
My shout- out to Cary was meant as playful sarcasm, b/c I don't see this issue ever arising or gathering local approval there...
Not all the old neighborhoods in Raleigh have restrictive covenants ( or HOAs), but trying to get some in place would seem to be after the fact, ie, no one would be alerted via a zoning request for an exception before the business was established, as is currently the case. At least, that is my understanding of the situation.
Not all the old neighborhoods in Raleigh have restrictive covenants ( or HOAs), but trying to get some in place would seem to be after the fact, ie, no one would be alerted via a zoning request for an exception before the business was established, as is currently the case. At least, that is my understanding of the situation.
I was thinking there was time before any changes in ordinances were passed to get buy-in from neighbors. But, even if there isn't, at least you could restrict it to the people already in the neighborhood who want to run these businesses from their homes and restrict expansion. Maybe there isn't, but even if not, you can still start to restrict the number of such businesses based on neighbors who agree they should be excluded, and perhaps expand in the future as others agree (current or new neighbors).
I was thinking there was time before any changes in ordinances were passed to get buy-in from neighbors. But, even if there isn't, at least you could restrict it to the people already in the neighborhood who want to run these businesses from their homes and restrict expansion. Maybe there isn't, but even if not, you can still start to restrict the number of such businesses based on neighbors who agree they should be excluded, and perhaps expand in the future as others agree (current or new neighbors).
Not sure what you are saying. This seems to be flying under the radar for most people- myself included. How could you restrict something before the fact if there are no existing covenants and a green light is given at the get-go? It would seem to be after the fact, and as is well known, it is much easier to ask pardon for something after the fact than it is to ask permission before the fact- which is how this seems to be set up. No zoning exceptions to be voted on... Suzy Q could open up her dance studio one day and you would only know about it from the large sign on her house and the new multiple cars on the street. And what exactly could her neighbors do if they disliked her new business- enact retroactive covenants?
All of this needs to be spelled out by the City of Raleigh Council, that it is not, is a disservice to its' citizens, pro or con.
I don't really see how these proposed changes represent some sort of "windfall" for developers. If there are concenrs over specific details missing from these proposed changes I can see why people would comment and seak additional clarity, but I think starting from a position of accusing the City Council of corruption and lining the pockets of developers with this text change is a poor strategy that is doomed to fail. I've been following Raleigh City Council for 15+ years now and it never goes well when that approach is used.
I don't really see how these proposed changes represent some sort of "windfall" for developers. If there are concenrs over specific details missing from these proposed changes I can see why people would comment and seak additional clarity, but I think starting from a position of accusing the City Council of corruption and lining the pockets of developers with this text change is a poor strategy that is doomed to fail. I've been following Raleigh City Council for 15+ years now and it never goes well when that approach is used.
I don't think anyone was recommending that strategy, and I missed the "windfall" comment. People are probably going to discuss issues differently here than they would with the Council.
I'd focus comments on the lack of clarity and specificity of the ordinance and how that may impact neighbors as well as how making this change may affect existing neighborhoods and the people who live there. Perhaps suggest doing better with future planning and zoning going forward rather than trying to change existing neighborhoods and/or suggest possible changes that would have a lower impact on neighbors. Also might ask what the goal of the change is and why they feel this may achieve that goal (studies, examples, etc). Maybe bring up equity in regard to HOA neighborhoods.
In theory, I think the concept of this type of ordinance seems like a great idea. But there's something about this one that just doesn't sit right with me.
It doesn't sound like these types of businesses are going to lead to more walkable neighborhoods or are going to contribute to the livability of neighborhoods. The ordinance seems like it's designed to benefit business owners and not the neighborhood or the community.
I live in Brier Creek with the shopping malls across the street. You can technically walk there from my house and about 2 hours later you'll be home. I'll support this proposal if it means I get 1) a French restaurant, 2) winery and 3) grocery store that I can *really* walk to. I know, I should have bought in Cameron Village but my partner worked in RTP.
Some of your responses tell me that people don't comprehend some things that are presented to them.
I guess the mayor and some council members depend on that.
What a condescending and conceited thing to say.
"...People don't comprehend some things that are presented to them" because they feel differently than you do about something? You avoided an intelligent and friendly discussion with me on Facebook about this topic and now you are insulting people here who don't arrive at the same conclusion as you. On FB I wrote my opinion followed by, "I'll respect your opinion". Your response: "Wow".
I don't like the queen, I mean, mayor either. I hate a lot of the changes I have been seeing over the years, but I won't oppose anything simply because she is attached to it somehow. That's not reasonable or logical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
