Unified Development Ordinance

[Nathan2]

https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2024/02/05/udo-development-regulations-eliminating-single-family-only-zoning-city-council

What is going on with Charlotte's leadership obsession with dismantling the UDO, which hasn't even shepherded a massive increase in missing middle? Have they forgotten that we are in a housing crisis or do they only listen to wealthy single-family homeowners? Between this and the new "roads first" initiative I am wondering why I and younger people would ever view Charlotte as a place to put down roots. Younger generations want somewhere to live that doesn't involve being forced into a car paying large amounts of money just to drive to a grocery store while paying exorbitant amounts of money in a rental because we can't afford anything else. 

 

[CLTranspo]

42 minutes ago, Nathan2 said:

https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2024/02/05/udo-development-regulations-eliminating-single-family-only-zoning-city-council

What is going on with Charlotte's leadership obsession with dismantling the UDO, which hasn't even shepherded a massive increase in missing middle? Have they forgotten that we are in a housing crisis or do they only listen to wealthy single-family homeowners? Between this and the new "roads first" initiative I am wondering why I and younger people would ever view Charlotte as a place to put down roots. Younger generations want somewhere to live that doesn't involve being forced into a car paying large amounts of money just to drive to a grocery store while paying exorbitant amounts of money in a rental because we can't afford anything else. 

 

Totally agree - like I said in a post a few years ago I'm saving up for a down payment in a city like Chicago that already has extensive transit and affordable condos. Charlotte has done nothing the last few years if convince me that is the right decision lol 

[Nathan2]

5 minutes ago, CLTranspo said:

Totally agree - like I said in a post a few years ago I'm saving up for a down payment in a city like Chicago that already has extensive transit and affordable condos. Charlotte has done nothing the last few years if convince me that is the right decision lol 

Yea after COVID it looked like Charlotte was ready to make some radical changes. So far they have shown they don't care. We have a UDO that doesn't do much and they want to still gut it further, they have gotten rid of all pedestrian street trials, removed bus-only lanes, all but effectively canceled future transit expansion, and made housing extremely unaffordable. Not feeling any hope for the future here. 

[kermit]

3 minutes ago, Nathan2 said:

Yea after COVID it looked like Charlotte was ready to make some radical changes. So far they have shown they don't care. We have a UDO that doesn't do much and they want to still gut it further, they have gotten rid of all pedestrian street trials, removed bus-only lanes, all but effectively canceled future transit expansion, and made housing extremely unaffordable. Not feeling any hope for the future here. 

add me to this list, and I am very sure we are not the only three people in Charlotte to feel this way.

[TheMightyBK]

There is life- often better aligned with UPers’ aspirations- outside of Charlotte.  That said, the city needs a new McColl to bring back a big voice for big city dreams…not sure anyone has his clout these days, though.  

[CLT Development]

I didn't say this, because I cannot say this but please write to your council person. Please ask everyone you know that is aligned with you to email their council person. Hearing that there is a groundswell of people that want a better connected and more equitable Charlotte can change minds on council.

[davidclt]

On 2/6/2024 at 3:28 PM, CLT Development said:

I didn't say this, because I cannot say this but please write to your council person. Please ask everyone you know that is aligned with you to email their council person. Hearing that there is a groundswell of people that want a better connected and more equitable Charlotte can change minds on council.

And here's a handy-dandy list of contact by district (since there is not an easy place to find this - added One Clicks to add the district representative and all At Large representatives and the Mayor):

Mayor Vi Liles [email protected]   At Large Dimple Ajmera [email protected]   At Large LaWana Mayfield [email protected]   At Large James Mitchell [email protected]   At Large Victoria Watlington [email protected]   District 1 Dante Anderson [email protected] One Click - District 1 District 2 Malcolm Graham [email protected] One Click - District 2 District 3 Tiawana Brown [email protected] One Click - District 3 District 4 Reneé Perkins Johnson [email protected] One Click - District 4 District 5 Marjorie Molina [email protected] One Click - District 5 District 6 Tariq Bokhari [email protected] One Click - District 6 District 7 Ed Driggs [email protected] One Click - District 7

Edited February 8 by davidclt
Cleaning up good experiment gone bad

[kermit]

^ Thanks David! Emails sent to my rep and the at large folks.

(with a bonus note about transit expansion)

EDIT: 24 hours later (pretty quick) my only reply has been from Ajmera

Edited February 7 by kermit

[kermit]

The Ledger decided to write today about how ‘neighbors are concerned about triplexes sprouting up.’ There was no discussion (in the free version) of how Mecklenburg has a housing shortage and a huge sprawl problem.

The Ledger has always struck me as anti-urban, this really removes all doubt.

Edited February 7 by kermit

[Nathan2]

28 minutes ago, kermit said:

The Ledger decided to write today about how ‘neighbors are concerned about triplexes sprouting up.’ There was no discussion (in the free version) of how Mecklenburg has a housing shortage and a huge sprawl problem.

The Ledger has always struck me as anti-urban…

Are there any triplexes popping up? I haven't seen any duplexes or triplexes go up since the UDO passed.  Where is the wave of character destroying missing middle housing that politicians cried about?

[RANYC]

The portion of the UDO allowing multi-plexes by right across the entire city in any zone designated as residential is screwed by my calculations. 

I wouldn’t even waste my breath on Lawana, Watlington, Renee, Tariq, and Ed.  Tariq and Ed never voted for the UDO in the first place, and the others have somehow twisted the debate into a racial thing, with reasoning that multi-plexes are an attack on black NIMBYs in historically black neighborhoods.  Bizarre stuff.  I can barely stand to watch council and committee meetings online for having to hear Lawana mumble through wayward reasoning. 

That’s 5 out of 11.  The only wildcard MIGHT be Tawana who is brand new in her seat.  I’m not sure who on council has taken her under their wing.  She’s very blunt and brusquely complains that members are going through parliamentary procedures too fast.  She’s anti recriminalization of public defacation  and urination, as are Lawana and Renee, so I suspect they may have Tawana in their alliance of countering the UDO’s attack on black neighborhoods.

You all have visions for Charlotte that just aren’t there.  This just isn’t as urban a place where it counts, in the head and in the culture.  Tune into these council deliberations to really grasp that.  

Best we can hope for is multi-plexes by-right in center city or where it’s being built as true, small-scale infill, so on properties sub-5 acres.  Sub-5 acres are likelier to be small and perhaps local or first-time developers and a number of the reps might be supportive there.

A densification give-away to big, mass-producing corporate developers is something this council is highly unlikely to support.  

Edited February 7 by RANYC

[kayman]

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

The portion of the UDO allowing multi-plexes by right across the entire city in any zone designated as residential is screwed by my calculations. 

I wouldn’t even waste my breath on Lawana, Watlington, Renee, Tariq, and Ed.  Tariq and Ed never voted for the UDO in the first place, and the others have somehow twisted the debate into a racial thing, with reasoning that multi-plexes are an attack on black NIMBYs in historically black neighborhoods.  Bizarre stuff.  I can barely stand to watch council and committee meetings online for having to hear Lawana mumble through wayward reasoning. 

That’s 5 out of 11.  The only wildcard MIGHT be Tawana who is brand new in her seat.  I’m not sure who on council has taken her under their wing.  She’s very blunt and brusquely complains that members are going through parliamentary procedures too fast.  She’s anti recriminalization of public defacation  and urination, as are Lawana and Renee, so I suspect they may have Tawana in their alliance of countering the UDO’s attack on black neighborhoods.

You all have visions for Charlotte that just aren’t there.  This just isn’t as urban a place where it counts, in the head and in the culture.  Tune into these council deliberations to really grasp that.  

Best we can hope for is multi-plexes by-right in center city or where it’s being built as true, small-scale infill, so on properties sub-5 acres.  Sub-5 acres are likelier to be small and perhaps local or first-time developers and a number of the reps might be supportive there.

A densification give-away to big, mass-producing corporate developers is something this council is highly unlikely to support.  

I still encourage those to write the CoC Mayor & City Councilpersons about how they support the more denser housing types within the City by-right in all residental districts. This is how you put elected officials on notice about what we see and warn them that it's shouldn't be this myopic.

Mayor	Vi Liles	[email protected]
At Large	Dimple Ajmera	[email protected]
At Large	LaWana Mayfield	[email protected]
At Large	James Mitchell	[email protected]
At Large	Victoria Watlington	[email protected]
District 1	Dante Anderson	[email protected]
District 2	Malcolm Graham	[email protected]
District 3	Tiawana Brown	[email protected]
District 4	Reneé Perkins Johnson	[email protected]
District 5	Marjorie Molina	[email protected]
District 6	Tariq Bokhari	[email protected]
District 7	Ed Driggs	ed.driggs@charlottenc

FYI, I'm black and not falling for this bs. Watlington, Mayfield, and Johnson love to throw anti-UDO rocks then hide their hands as being so-called pro-black. Well, being anti-urban is anti-black because most newcoming black residents of Charlotte are middle-class, educated individuals who can't even afford 9 out of 10 housing products available within the CoC. Thus all of them are pushing out the black residents who aren't already existing homeowners.

Many black folks like myself would love to see more duplexes or triplexes so my peers and friends can buy their first-time home within the City of Charlotte allowing me generational wealth and equity for themselves or family. 

Edited February 7 by kayman

[CLTranspo]

I actually just sent an email this morning 

[davidclt]

21 hours ago, kayman said:

I still encourage those to write the CoC Mayor & City Councilpersons about how they support the more denser housing types within the City by-right in all residental districts. This is how you put elected officials on notice about what we see and warn them that it's shouldn't be this myopic.

Mayor	Vi Liles	[email protected]
At Large	Dimple Ajmera	[email protected]
At Large	LaWana Mayfield	[email protected]
At Large	James Mitchell	[email protected]
At Large	Victoria Watlington	[email protected]
District 1	Dante Anderson	[email protected]
District 2	Malcolm Graham	[email protected]
District 3	Tiawana Brown	[email protected]
District 4	Reneé Perkins Johnson	[email protected]
District 5	Marjorie Molina	[email protected]
District 6	Tariq Bokhari	[email protected]
District 7	Ed Driggs	ed.driggs@charlottenc

FYI, I'm black and not falling for this bs. Watlington, Mayfield, and Johnson love to throw anti-UDO rocks then hide their hands as being so-called pro-black. Well, being anti-urban is anti-black because most newcoming black residents of Charlotte are middle-class, educated individuals who can't even afford 9 out of 10 housing products available within the CoC. Thus all of them are pushing out the black residents who aren't already existing homeowners.

Many black folks like myself would love to see more duplexes or triplexes so my peers and friends can buy their first-time home within the City of Charlotte allowing me generational wealth and equity for themselves or family. 

Added One Clicks to generate the message, add all at large, district representatives and the mayor:

Mayor	Vi Liles	[email protected]
At Large	Dimple Ajmera	[email protected]
At Large	LaWana Mayfield	[email protected]
At Large	James Mitchell	[email protected]
At Large	Victoria Watlington	[email protected]
District 1	Dante Anderson	[email protected]	One Click - District 1
District 2	Malcolm Graham	[email protected]	One Click - District 2
District 3	Tiawana Brown	[email protected]	One Click - District 3
District 4	Reneé Perkins Johnson	[email protected]	One Click - District 4
District 5	Marjorie Molina	[email protected]	One Click - District 5
District 6	Tariq Bokhari	[email protected]	One Click - District 6
District 7	Ed Driggs	[email protected]	One Click - District 7

[KJHburg]

Here is part of that Charlotte Ledger story about triplexes.   I think the point of this story was that it was not bringing more "missing middle" housing into the neighborhood but just increasing density.  The prices are as high as the homes they replace if not higher.   These are being developed by the original developer of Epicenter Mr Ghazi.   

""Public records show that the Topping Place lot was bought in August 2023 for $825,000, when it contained a 2,448 s.f. brick home built in 1958. The purchaser is listed as a Matthews company called Aspen City Homes, which demolished the house and filed plans with the city to build three attached two-story units of 2,021 s.f., 2,177 s.f. and 2,018 s.f. “Each unit has an open-concept living space on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor,” according to paperwork filed with the city.    Real estate-watchers expect the units on Topping to sell for at least $1M.

Company officials did not return emails or phone calls from The Ledger this week. Among the contacts listed for the company in city records is Afshin Ghazi of The Ghazi Co., best known as the developer of uptown’s Epicentre.

City records show that Aspen City Homes is working on at least seven other triplex projects in Charlotte, including:

The 3600 block of Providence Road, south of Cavendish Court, on a 0.45-acre lot.

The 5500 block of Lansing Drive in the Lansdowne neighborhood, off Sardis Road. The company paid $750,000 for the 0.54-acre lot in August 2023.

The 200 block of Marsh Road in the Sedgefield neighborhood near South Boulevard. The company paid $725,000 for the 0.4-acre lot in August 2023.

The 3100 block of Mayfield Avenue off Marsh Road near Sedgefield, on a 0.3-acre lot.

The 4000 block of Chevington Road, near the Foxcroft East Shopping Center, on a 0.41-acre lot.

Two adjacent triplex projects on the 5500 block of Carmel Road, at Winwood Circle. The company paid $850,000 for a 0.97-acre lot in August 2023 then appears to have divided it into two parcels and is developing both as triplexes.

Identical designs: The designs for each triplex submitted to the city appear to contain the same square footage and layout, leading some neighbors to describe them as “cookie-cutter” designs rather than custom-built homes that account for varying lot sizes.""

Some Charlotte neighborhoods beginning to see effects of UDO | WFAE 90.7 - Charlotte's NPR News Source

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

I think the point of this story was that it was not bringing more "missing middle" housing into the neighborhood but just increasing density.  The prices are as high as the homes they replace if not higher.   

I know you’re trying to summarize the article, so I’m not talking about you KJ, but that argument is absurd. This part of the UDO was never meant to create more affordable units in the the most expensive area of the city, its intent WAS to create density. More folks moving into these already overpriced neighborhoods instead of building McMansions in gentrifying neighborhoods preserves naturally occurring affordable housing. Also if they were building affordable housing triplexes off Barclays Downs we all know the NIMBYs would have something to say about that as well. The whole thing is just silly. 

Edited February 10 by MothBeast

[kermit]

1 hour ago, KJHburg said:

Here is part of that Charlotte Ledger story about triplexes.   I think the point of this story was that it was not bringing more "missing middle" housing into the neighborhood but just increasing density.  The prices are as high as the homes they replace if not higher. 

I agree w Mothbeast, I think increasing density alone achieves the goal of the UDO and does make Charlotte more sustainable. I don’t really understand the distinction here about what makes these triplexes not qualify as “missing middle”. I am also not certain that these locations permit anything more dense than triplexes, if that is the case what would be a better solution to our housing shortage, than this slight nudge in the right direction?

Edit: Ghazi has revealed himself to be an asshole, but the world is full of those.

Edited February 10 by kermit

[RANYC]

Density is economically efficient but does have drawbacks.  I support the UDO, and generally support density although I try to stay keenly aware of the trade-offs.  Those who protest the density mandate or express grave concerns about the resulting inequality, loss of tree canopy, and pollution are well within their rights and they should be part of the debate to find the compromise that works for what and where Charlotte is.  

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119019300282?via%3Dihub

[kermit]

28 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Density is economically efficient but does have drawbacks.  I support the UDO, and generally support density although I try to stay keenly aware of the trade-offs.  Those who protest the density mandate or express grave concerns about the resulting inequality, loss of tree canopy, and pollution are well within their rights and they should be part of the debate to find the compromise that works for what and where Charlotte is.  

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119019300282?via%3Dihub

Thanks for the cite, that paper is now on my afternoon to do list. I will point out this clause from the abstract which seems particularly relevant to Charlotte:

Quote

we find that density seems to be a net-amenity that is associated with positive external welfare effects. Densification policies may be welfare enhancing, but the distributional effects may be regressive, especially if residents are immobile and housing supply is inelastic.

The tldr is density only improves overall welfare when a) new housing can be created (which the UDO allows for); and b) transit is available to provide equitable access (something we have completely failed to do). 

I think all of us knew that the UDO was only gets us halfway to the goal of creating a city that can flourish over the long term. Density is problematic in the absence of transit, but creates huge benefits when non-auto modes are available.

Edited February 10 by kermit

[RANYC]

• Once the multi-plex allowances show some staying power nationwide (meaning they become "settled and established policy"), I imagine you'll see Blackstone and Apollo and Canyon and other Funds raise capital and plow tons of money into a vast number of lots all across Charlotte in order to do multi-plexes en masse. 
• These Funds will have a new housing product to put money toward.  That new type of product will be multi-family by-right in neighborhoods that they never could have touched with rezonings in the past. 
• The Funds may buy single-family housing lots in Charlotte by the hundreds, stimulating the demo industry for wide-scale tear-downs, and then converting many of lots into multi-plex and duplex rentals.  Some of the multi-plexes may be converted into for-sale units, but no one can really say.   
• For the multi-plexes that remain rentals, it will represent Blackstone, Apollo, Canyon and other faraway, institutional ownership of Charlotte neighborhoods that have historically been owner-occupied.
• Trees will be cleared out to make room for the density but likely replaced with saplings along the perimeter of lots and be the configuration of our city's new canopy in the next generation. 
• With so much institutional capital pouring into certain neighborhoods, the price of any remaining single-family lots will surge because of their growing scarcity in non-HOA communities and for their conversion value.
• We will have more housing product for more people, and the resulting density should make it easier to shift to even more walkability.  Without robust and responsive transit, and if all these new living spaces still command 2+ cars, the parking pile-on could be an aesthetic nightmare and impede walkability.

By the way, this is sort of my fear...massive pools of wall street money plow in to the multi-plex trend like a tidal wave, fundamentally reshaping our neighborhoods like a machete instead enhancements and diversification on the margins like that of a scalpel.  I sort of wish there was a way to encourage robust development of multi-plex infill by small, emerging, and local developers.  

Edited February 10 by RANYC

[RANYC]

10 minutes ago, kermit said:

Thanks for the cite, that paper is now on my afternoon to do list. I will point out this clause from the abstract which seems particularly relevant to Charlotte:

The tldr is density only improves overall welfare when a) new housing can be created (which the UDO allows for); and b) transit is available to provide equitable access (something we have completely failed to do). 

I think all of us knew that the UDO was only gets us halfway to the goal of creating a city that can flourish over the long term. Its nearly worthless in the absence of transit.

Bingo.  The UDO without a robust and comprehensive transit plan to which it closely aligns is a bit like shooting in the dark.  It is an "unfunded mandate."  I'm still wracking my brain wondering if a UDO without a DETAILED transit plan might actually be worse than no UDO at all.

Edited February 10 by RANYC

[kermit]

39 minutes ago, RANYC said:

• Once the multi-plex allowances show some staying power nationwide (meaning they become "settled and established policy"), I imagine you'll see Blackstone and Apollo and Canyon and other Funds raise capital and plow tons of money into a vast number of lots all across Charlotte in order to do multi-plexes en masse. 
• These Funds will have a new housing product to put money toward.  That new type of product will be multi-family by-right in neighborhoods that they never could have touched with rezonings in the past. 
• The Funds may buy single-family housing lots in Charlotte by the hundreds, stimulating the demo industry for wide-scale tear-downs, and then converting many of lots into multi-plex and duplex rentals.  Some of the multi-plexes may be converted into for-sale units, but no one can really say.   
• For the multi-plexes that remain rentals, it will represent Blackstone, Apollo, Canyon and other faraway, institutional ownership of Charlotte neighborhoods that have historically been owner-occupied.
• Trees will be cleared out to make room for the density but likely replaced with saplings along the perimeter of lots and be the configuration of our city's new canopy in the next generation. 
• With so much institutional capital pouring into certain neighborhoods, the price of any remaining single-family lots will surge because of their growing scarcity in non-HOA communities and for their conversion value.
• We will have more housing product for more people, and the resulting density should make it easier to shift to even more walkability.  Without robust and responsive transit, and if all these new living spaces still command 2+ cars, the parking pile-on could be an aesthetic nightmare and impede walkability.

By the way, this is sort of my fear...massive pools of wall street money plow in to the multi-plex trend like a tidal wave, fundamentally reshaping our neighborhoods like a machete instead enhancements and diversification on the margins like that of a scalpel.  I sort of wish there was a way to encourage robust development of multi-plex infill by small, emerging, and local developers.  

I don’t share your pessimism about institutional ownership risks for a few reasons:

• Institutional ownership only happens where there is a housing shortage that investors can exploit (Blackstone has said exactly this in investor relations materials). If initiatives like the UDO are successful in reducing  barriers to new housing construction (with SF exclusive zoning being one of the biggest) then supply will increase. We have seen tentative signs of supply increases reducing housing costs in Minneapolis already. As shortages are reduced, institutional investors will move on to the next thing.
• We can predict how much new housing will be held as rentals vs. for sale products. It is all about capitalization rates (which are tied to construction costs and rents). Institutional investors are not insatiable, unthinking,  monsters. They do what they do because it maximizes their ROI. Increasing housing supply will make rentals less profitable in the market. Their ability to bring new capital into markets with housing shortages also has the potential to quickly increase housing supply more quickly than local developers alone. 
• I am concerned about a shortage of non-HOA neighborhoods in Charlotte. Since so much land outside of route 4 is HOA controlled, the portions of Charlotte that can be densified are limited. IMO national legislation stripping HOA’s of their power to control landuse are going to be needed. This change would be similar to rendering racist deed covenants unenforceable. I do find it ironic that HOA land use restrictions could potentially be the cause of property values in those neighborhoods to decline relative to non-HOA properties (but this is far from a sure thing).

Edited February 10 by kermit

[RANYC]

19 minutes ago, kermit said:

I don’t share your pessimism about institutional ownership risks for a few reasons:

• Institutional ownership only happens where there is a housing shortage that investors can exploit. If initiatives like the UDO are successful in reducing existing barriers to new housing construction (with SF exclusive zoning being one of the biggest barriers) then supply will increase (and we have seen tentative signs of supply increases reducing housing costs in Minneapolis) and institutional investors will move on to the next thing.
• We can predict how much new housing will be held as rentals vs. for sale products. It is all about capitalization rates (which are tied to construction costs and rents). Institutional investors are not insatiable, unthinking,  monsters. They do what they do because it maximizes their ROI. Increasing housing supply will make them less significant in the market. Their ability to bring new capital into markets with shortages also has the potential to quickly increase housing supply.
• I am concerned about a shortage of non-HOA neighborhoods in Charlotte. Since so much land outside of route 4 is HOA controlled, the portions of Charlotte that can be densified are limited. IMO national legislation stripping HOA’s of their power to control landuse are going to be needed. This change would be similar to rendering racist deed covenants unenforceable. I do find it ironic that HOA land use restrictions could potentially be the cause of property values in those neighborhoods to decline relative to non-HOA properties (but this is far from a sure thing).

Fast-growing places routinely face a shortage.  Institutional investors like the long-duration income streams.  I do think high interest rates have foiled a bit of those trends for now, but should we ever get back to prolonged low rates, expect yield-seeking capital pools to come knocking again and although they have their models, they can be rapacious.  Again, anything we can do to support small-scale infill, I'm all for.

Edited February 10 by RANYC

[kermit]

8 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Fast-growing places routinely face a shortage.  Institutional investors like the long-duration income streams.  I do think high interest rates have foiled a bit of those trends for now, but should we ever get back to prolonged low rates, expect yield-seeking capital pools to come knocking again and although they have their models, they are rapacious.

They like long duration income streams only when they deliver higher risk-adjusted returns than treasuries. The only way to bring those returns down for institutional investors in housing is to build more — even just credibly threatening to build more (the UDO) will increase risks for institutional investors.

Institutional money is only rapacious when there is an inefficiency they can exploit.

Edited February 10 by kermit

[KJHburg]

From the city countys own website about affordable housing and the UDO
 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About the UDO - Charlotte Unified Development OrdinanceCharlotte Unified Development Ordinance (charlotteudo.org)

""How does the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) address Affordable Housing?
The vision and guiding principles of the UDO support affordable housing by encouraging a range of housing choices. In short, this includes housing that meet the needs of people with different incomes, ages, physical abilities and lifestyles. Research has shown that supporting a greater mix of housing types is key to providing more opportunities for affordable housing.

In addition, the UDO includes several other methods to achieve greater affordability including incentives, removing regulatory barriers, and providing higher density housing opportunities.""

I am just saying city leaders said over and over again it would help with the Missing Middle in housing well not really.  Yes it increases density but not  providing less expensive options in neighborhoods.    

Sustain Charlotte urges City Council to proceed with the approved UDO - Sustain Charlotte 

""Policy 2.1 in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will allow duplexes and triplexes to be built on any lot currently zoned for single-family only, except for areas where an HOA or covenants disallow this. This policy is an essential part of the plan because it will allow more “missing middle” housing within neighborhoods.  And increasing the housing supply is critical to addressing our housing affordability problem.  When we restrict housing, we reduce the supply, increasing the price.""

Missing middle must not mean lower prices or more affordable housing as these are just newer higher density homes.    I am just pointing out this how it is marketed to people more missing middle and we are not seeing that and likely won't.    Yes increased densities along transit lines or corridors is a great idea.