Unified Development Ordinance

[kermit]

Quote

""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.""

^ @KJHburgwhat type of housing would you consider to be ‘missing middle’ in areas where the highest density option is a triplex?

Edited February 10 by kermit

[RANYC]

51 minutes ago, kermit said:

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.

Sorry, but I disagree with you.  The forces driving institutional acquisitions of residential real estate and the predictable, and captive income streams they bring, are way more complex than anything the UDO and its crafters are even close to solving.  But we digress and it's not really a debate worth discussing further in this thread, I don't think.  Do I think the UDO is some sort of smoking gun for housing affordability?  No.  Are some of its principles good for sustainability and for shaping Charlotte's urban form?  Yes.  Should density be encouraged as policy in swaths of the city?  Yes.  Should density be encouraged in every corner of the city, even before we extend the reach of secure, frequent, and reliable transit?  No.  Does the transit plan with the Silver extend the reach of frequent, secure, and reliable transit to all the corners of Charlotte that are seeing density?  No, instead it appears to concentrate it along a line.

Edited February 10 by RANYC

[jthomas]

It's inevitable that the first wave of projects will stick out like a sore thumb in exclusive single-family areas. This is the phase where leaders will need to have courage to stay the course as the urban form evolves into something new.

I also don't think smaller missing-middle like triplexes and rowhomes should be thought of as creating transit-supporting density. Rather, they are building blocks towards walkable, 15-minute neighborhoods. I don't know what the UDO says (if anything) about small-scale neighborhood commercial, but that is a crucial component to avoiding the worst-case scenario of auto-oriented density. 16-to-20 dwelling units per acre is regarded as the minimum density to make neighborhood commercial viable. That density is achievable with triplexes and rowhomes. The goal would be for gently higher densities to enable neighborhood businesses which residents can reach without a car. That, I think, is a more palatable evolution for most neighborhoods to aspire to, rather than wholesale teardowns. 

[RANYC]

9 minutes ago, jthomas said:

It's inevitable that the first wave of projects will stick out like a sore thumb in exclusive single-family areas. This is the phase where leaders will need to have courage to stay the course as the urban form evolves into something new.

I also don't think smaller missing-middle like triplexes and rowhomes should be thought of as creating transit-supporting density. Rather, they are building blocks towards walkable, 15-minute neighborhoods. I don't know what the UDO says (if anything) about small-scale neighborhood commercial, but that is a crucial component to avoiding the worst-case scenario of auto-oriented density. 16-to-20 dwelling units per acre is regarded as the minimum density to make neighborhood commercial viable. That density is achievable with triplexes and rowhomes. The goal would be for gently higher densities to enable neighborhood businesses which residents can reach without a car. That, I think, is a more palatable evolution for most neighborhoods to aspire to, rather than wholesale teardowns. 

As someone living on the westside and doing routine litter pick-ups, I can tell you the transition to density and alternative housing product is intimidating to many.  By the way, Freedom Drive looks as though someone is routinely shaking out bags of garbage along its length.

Edited February 10 by RANYC

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

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.  

 

I think you may misunderstand what missing middle housing is 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing

It is about density, not affordability. Yes there were inherent promises of affordable housing in the UDO, but no one said they’d be building affordable housing triplexes in south Charlotte.

Building triplexes in single family neighborhoods IS addressing missing middle. 

Edited February 10 by MothBeast

[KJHburg]

so if someone wanted to raze a historic home in Dilworth and build a modern triplex could they do that ?  Of course not.  Why are historical  districts allowed to stop this densification?  I saw the renderings of these modern contemporary  triplexes and they so out of character for that neighborhood.  Perhaps most SF neighborhoods should become historic (many are older than 50 years old now) and protect themselves?  I have no problem with neighborhoods having SFs, duplexes and triplexes on the same street.  I think neighborhoods like Dilworth should be able to have some new "missing middle homes" too.   

[KJHburg]

7 hours ago, kermit said:

^ @KJHburgwhat type of housing would you consider to be ‘missing middle’ in areas where the highest density option is a triplex?

so you agree with me that Dilworth should raze some of their smaller SF homes and build duplexes and triplexes?    I doubt you would.  

On the edges of these neighborhoods closer to major roads yes triplexes and duplexes could be built and in fact many years ago they did.  But to drop a triplex brand new in the middle of SF home neighborhood I know the Dilworth types would surely hate that but they can hide behind historical designations.   Thank God many neighborhoods have HOA restrictions that wont allow this to happen.  Yet most new communities around the city have all kinds of mixtures of housing types from apartments to townhomes to SF homes (see Highland Creek, Berewick,Waverly, and many smaller newer neighborhoods) 

I am ALL for increasing density along existing major transit corridors even future ones but in the middle of SF neighborhoods with NO hope of ever seeing a bus route is not right.  As this grows around town you will see a backlash from all types of neighborhoods lower income ones, high income ones all over.  

 

[kermit]

16 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

so if someone wanted to raze a historic home in Dilworth and build a modern triplex could they do that ?  Of course not.  Why are historical  districts allowed to stop this densification?  I saw the renderings of these modern contemporary  triplexes and they so out of character for that neighborhood.  Perhaps most SF neighborhoods should become historic (many are older than 50 years old now) and protect themselves?  I have no problem with neighborhoods having SFs, duplexes and triplexes on the same street.  I think neighborhoods like Dilworth should be able to have some new "missing middle homes" too.   

You didn't really answer the question, what does missing middle look like when a triplex is the max density allowed? Why do you and the Ledger feel like these triplexes are not 'it'? There are a ton of new build, single family all around me that is out of character for the neighborhood. Honestly it makes no difference to me if those out of character places contain one, two or three families -- honestly the triplexes are better for me since that will mean better restaurants and neighborhood retail. 

On Dilworth (and other historical districts), of course homes can be torn down and replaced with a triplex. In the city-designated district you might need to wait a year before tear down, but it would be allowed. There is a tear down across the street from me right now. The other part of the UDO designed to increase density is ADUs, which are permitted to be built in the historic district.  The historic districts in town are blessed with pretty good transit (for Charlotte) thanks to their centrality, so they are very appropriate places for densification.

8 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Thank God many neighborhoods have HOA restrictions that wont allow this to happen.

Won't allow what to happen? They won't allow new housing to be built to accommodate new arrivals and allow our kids to afford living in Charlotte? Won't allow land owners to realize the full value of their land? Won't allow a mother in law suite to be built?

Edited February 10 by kermit

[KJHburg]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

You didn't really answer the question, what does missing middle look like when a triplex is the max density allowed? Why do you and the Ledger feel like these triplexes are not 'it'? There are a ton of new build, single family all around me that is out of character for the neighborhood. Honestly it makes no difference to me if those out of character places contain one, two or three families -- honestly the triplexes are better for me since that will mean better restaurants and neighborhood retail. 

On Dilworth (and other historical districts), of course homes can be torn down and replaced with a triplex. In the city-designated district you might need to wait a year before tear down, but it would be allowed. There is a tear down across the street from me right now. The other part of the UDO designed to increase density is ADUs, which are permitted to be built in the historic district.  The historic districts in town are blessed with pretty good transit (for Charlotte) thanks to their centrality, so they are very appropriate places for densification.

Won't allow what to happen? They won't allow new housing to be built to accommodate new arrivals and allow our kids to afford living in Charlotte? Won't allow land owners to realize the full value of their land? Won't allow a mother in law suite to be built?

Missing middle to me is not replacing $825K home with 3 $1 Million ones. 

New housing is being built anywhere.  I am not against ADUs and what I was saying is the deed restrictions will keep some triplexes out of neighborhoods.   Most t every new neighborhood is a mixture of housing styles and I cited many examples.  So the market is building lots of varieties of homes everywhere but a growing city like ours always has a need for more.  What about all the infill on former commercially zoned land and that is a good thing but it does push those businesess out further to the suburbs.  Case in point the The Bradham apartments on the Pepsi Cola bottling plant site on South Blvd.  That plant is now in Harrisburg.  I think this city is densify at a tremendous rate but yes I don't like the idea of a triplex plopped down in the middle of a neighborhood that as I said has no hope of even a bus route.  

They won't allow new housing to be built to accommodate new arrivals and allow our kids to afford living in Charlotte?    So a $ 1 million triplex unit is what your kids will be able to afford?  More supply is needed everywhere and yes that includes in surrounding counties.  

On Dilworth (and other historical districts), of course homes can be torn down and replaced with a triplex.    I can't wait to see this happen and be sure to notify me when it does which I highly doubt without a firestorm.

We will agree to disagree on this but I am favor of increasing densities where the infrastructure or transit is nearby.   

 

 

[kermit]

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

Missing middle to me is not replacing $825K home with 3 $1 Million ones.

We have been underbuilding for demand for a quarter century. Its going to take time for supply to catch up to demand. The first entrants into a new market will need to get excess rewards (higher prices) in order to compensate for the higher risk of being among the first to market with a new product. When we build more, prices will come down -- Minneapolis' experience has shown that.

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

 What about all the infill on former commercially zoned land and that is a good thing but it does push those businesess out further to the suburbs.  Case in point the The Bradham apartments on the Pepsi Cola bottling plant site on South Blvd.  That plant is now in Harrisburg. 

Is this a bad thing? Shouldn't industrial property owners be allowed to sell their land into the free market? 

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

They won't allow new housing to be built to accommodate new arrivals and allow our kids to afford living in Charlotte?    So a $ 1 million triplex unit is what your kids will be able to afford?  More supply is needed everywhere and yes that includes in surrounding counties. 

Why are you so skeptical that increased supply will eventually reduce prices. Housing prices certainly are not going to decline if we don’t change anything. The laws of supply and demand influence price for every other product, why do you think housing is different? 

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

 but yes I don't like the idea of a triplex plopped down in the middle of a neighborhood that as I said has no hope of even a bus route. 

This is a straw man. Every one of the triplexes that the Ledger reported on is within 3-4 blocks of an arterial which already has a bus route. Its not realistic to expect transit will go to the door of every property.

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

 More supply is needed everywhere and yes that includes in surrounding counties.  

On Dilworth (and other historical districts), of course homes can be torn down and replaced with a triplex.    I can't wait to see this happen and be sure to notify me when it does which I highly doubt without a firestorm.

The UDO represents a change to the status quo, of course people are going to be ticked off about that change initially. However, the benefits of densificaiton in the core are tremendous (and relying on new housing on the edge of town is clearly unsustainable). People's discomfort with triplexes and ADU  (there is no actual evidence these things negatively impact neighborhoods, its only pearl clutching at this point) should not be allowed to eclipse our need to build a sustainable city. If someone is genuinely bothered by this change they can always move to an HOA neighborhood.

Edited February 11 by kermit

[Guest]

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

Missing middle to me is not replacing $825K home with 3 $1 Million ones. 

New housing is being built anywhere.  I am not against ADUs and what I was saying is the deed restrictions will keep some triplexes out of neighborhoods.   Most t every new neighborhood is a mixture of housing styles and I cited many examples.  So the market is building lots of varieties of homes everywhere but a growing city like ours always has a need for more.  What about all the infill on former commercially zoned land and that is a good thing but it does push those businesess out further to the suburbs.  Case in point the The Bradham apartments on the Pepsi Cola bottling plant site on South Blvd.  That plant is now in Harrisburg.  I think this city is densify at a tremendous rate but yes I don't like the idea of a triplex plopped down in the middle of a neighborhood that as I said has no hope of even a bus route.  

They won't allow new housing to be built to accommodate new arrivals and allow our kids to afford living in Charlotte?    So a $ 1 million triplex unit is what your kids will be able to afford?  More supply is needed everywhere and yes that includes in surrounding counties.  

On Dilworth (and other historical districts), of course homes can be torn down and replaced with a triplex.    I can't wait to see this happen and be sure to notify me when it does which I highly doubt without a firestorm.

We will agree to disagree on this but I am favor of increasing densities where the infrastructure or transit is nearby.   

 

 

I’m sorry KJ but this discussion has gone off the rails. It doesn’t really matter what missing middle is to you, it has an established definition and if you have your own this isn’t going to be much of a discussion. You have now jumped to this straw man Dilworth argument which doesn’t make any sense to me, they built a quadplex right off East Blvd just last year for example. My original point was that you paraphrased the NIMBYs as saying that because these new units weren’t affordable housing, they weren’t missing middle. I corrected that notion and I am going to move on now.

Edited February 11 by MothBeast

[KJHburg]

the UDO is the law of the land here in Charlotte and if it is as popular as most of you think it is then there will be no problems.   People will make their own choices about where they might live.

I was showing an example of this triplex housing being put into a neighborhood and trying to show some of you why people might be upset.  My words here have been mischaracterized so I will leave this conversation.  Good luck with the UDO! 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

the UDO is the law of the land here in Charlotte and if it is as popular as most of you think it is then there will be no problems.   People will make their own choices about where they might live.

I was showing an example of this triplex housing being put into a neighborhood and trying to show some of you why people might be upset.  My words here have been mischaracterized so I will leave this conversation.  Good luck with the UDO! 

I think we can set an example for ending discussions that boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding before they get too out of hand. Much respect to you and your contributions to this website KJ and I’m sorry we weren’t on the same page here.

[davidclt]

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

the UDO is the law of the land here in Charlotte and if it is as popular as most of you think it is then there will be no problems.   People will make their own choices about where they might live.

I was showing an example of this triplex housing being put into a neighborhood and trying to show some of you why people might be upset.  My words here have been mischaracterized so I will leave this conversation.  Good luck with the UDO! 

This whole discussion made me think of this from Marketplace on Monday evening: Amid a national housing shortage, Texas is an exception - Marketplace

Scott: Healthy! I mean, the rest of the country can hardly be described that way. What is going on in Houston that makes it healthy?

Grant: Well, you know, Houston is one of those areas that people are moving to from other areas, number one. Number two, we have adopted something that the rest of the country has known for years, and it’s called the duplex. And the duplexes are just absolutely flying off of the shelves. So some markets are, you know, of course, doing better than others, but overall, that’s why I will say it’s pretty healthy.

 

Scott: So largely speaking, the country has been facing a housing shortage. There just aren’t enough homes for sale. But Texas has had a little bit of a different story with a lot of building in the past few years. Do you feel like you have enough supply there?

Grant: I’ll say we have sufficient supply because, specifically in Houston, we have a lot of vacant land. So what’s been happening is we have noticed a lot of our vacant land has been converted into housing, which is great for those that are in need of housing, but not so great for those that, you know, understand the need for green space.

[Nathan2]

You can argue what middle missing is supposed to be all day long. The reality is that more housing creates more options for people no matter what income bracket they are coming from. As someone looking for housing in Charlotte right now, it's fairly slim pickings out there. We would kill for more options in established neighborhoods. Is Dilworth truly historic? Historic enough to protect people's existing artificially inflated housing values and artificially deflate the housing supply here while preventing more people from being close to a transit-rich neighborhood? Forcing multifamily units to be along major roadways is a problem within itself, Multi-Family dwellers shouldn't have to be subjected to increased noise and car pollution. People deserve options and deserve to be able to live in Charlotte. 

[JHart]

Here is a quote from the president of the Dilworth Community Association about the UDO, “I can say in the Dilworth historic district, I haven’t heard much fear over the elimination of single-family-only zoning. We have multiplexes on almost every corner.”

 

[SgtCampsalot]

Hey, so can someone just tell me real quick: are tri-plexes by-right now (or three units per parcel)? 

I'm having trouble sorting through the available info online.

[kermit]

6 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Hey, so can someone just tell me real quick: are tri-plexes by-right now (or three units per parcel)? 

I'm having trouble sorting through the available info online.

Yes, triplexes can now be built (nearly) anywhere that was SF exclusionary before the UDO was passed.

• HOA neighborhoods still have home design restricted by existing HOA policies (nothing changed in HOA neighborhoods)
• The city has been making noises about making this change less universal (one policy was to require that formerly exclusionary neighborhoods keep a minimum of 30% SFH). I don't believe any of these changes have been adopted yet (but I may be wrong about that)
• Some areas allow for even higher densities in formerly SF exclusionary areas that are adjacent to corridors
• I am not certain about the logic but I believe ADUs are legal in lieu of (but not in addition to)  a 'plex in all of these areas.

EDIT: This is not a huge change in our land use regulation. IIRC duplexes have been legal on corner lots in Single Family Exclusionary zones for about 15 years. [there was one built about 15 years ago on the corner of McDonald and Magnolia in Dilworth, passers by would be hard pressed to identify it as a duplex]

Edited February 17 by kermit

[kermit]

Two things:

First, an OK article from NPR today on the 'trend' of ending exclusionary zoning in the US (primarily focuses on Minneapolis) . https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities

Second, I'll throw a grenade: Perhaps its time to think about assessing an affordable housing impact fee on all HOA neighborhoods which prevent ADUs and plexes in their rules? Since these places are choosing to not make any space contributions to resolve our housing crises, the least these Charlotte residents can do is contribute some money each year to ease this pressure on the remainder of the city that must shoulder this burden. People really should be expected to pay the full cost of their lifestyle choice, and, by virtue of their exemption from the UDO, these folks are currently getting a subsidy.  If HOA residents don’t want to pay the impact fee they can change their bylaws. Just a thought.

Edited February 18 by kermit

[MarcoPolo]

@kermit, excellent idea!  Lobbing a "fairness" grenade  into a debate founded and supported by a tidal wave of unfair practices, is always appreciated.   If people understood the enormous subsidies lavished on the American Suburban Lifestyle from its institutionalized  conception to today, they would be gobsmacked!   Before the counter-critics and apologists chime in with their defense of the "American Dream" and choice, it is important to state that the idea of "leveling the playing field" by tossing a grenade, as @kermit suggests, is not a slam on anyone's lifestyle preferences.   No one is accusing anyone of being a bad person for finding aspects of suburban living attractive.  The suburban experience is a valid one and should be part of any healthy urban mix, the key words here being  "healthy" and "mix".   The average city/town in the US has close to two thirds of its housing stock in the form of single family residential, and just under half of its land area under some form of medium to large lot single family zoning.   Not a healthy mix under most any assessment given the catalogue of "home" types that exist and the many preferences expressed in a population, and even the individual as they go through life.   The knock on affects of such a skewed urban fabric are significant, and often provide momentum for many fine debates on this very forum.   Outside UrbanPlanet the impacts are well understood and documented.   Kinda like Climate Change....people still continue to debate it, even though science, and observable data confirm it happening all around us.   And, like Climate Change, those fiercest in their opposition to a more balanced approach to housing are those who believe the debates are personal attacks on their character and choices.  The message needs to be better articulated and shared, for sure. 

@kermit, HOA's are particularly cunning in how they have hidden racist dogma and exclusionary tendencies behind "design" language.  Loosening their grip on the fate of cities would be very beneficial.   Your idea is interesting.....much to unpack before a coherent and fair set of policies could be enacted.   Would be great to discuss more!

[TheMightyBK]

Not sure what the laughing emoji replies are about 

[davidclt]

On 2/8/2024 at 12:26 PM, davidclt said:

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

So quick follow-up to this. . .  On 2/8 (@ 11:15 am) I wrote all my representation a brief, polite but unambiguous email concerning the UDO.

So far I've heard from Dimple (2/8 @ 3:15) with a coherent, affirmative response. Mayor Liles (2/13 @ 3:30) anodyne, almost neutral response about staying engaged with the process and no changes proposed yet. Otherwise, Mayfield, Mitchell, Watlington and Anderson all Radio Silence. Dante's silence surprises me a little bit because I thought she was more engaged with her constituents.

[kermit]

1 hour ago, davidclt said:

So quick follow-up to this. . .  On 2/8 (@ 11:15 am) I wrote all my representation a brief, polite but unambiguous email concerning the UDO.

So far I've heard from Dimple (2/8 @ 3:15) with a coherent, affirmative response. Mayor Liles (2/13 @ 3:30) anodyne, almost neutral response about staying engaged with the process and no changes proposed yet. Otherwise, Mayfield, Mitchell, Watlington and Anderson all Radio Silence. Dante's silence surprises me a little bit because I thought she was more engaged with her constituents.

I had exactly the same set of (non)responses to my emails (although I did not send anything to the mayor). I am also disappointed by Dante's silence, particularly since I am in her district (Larkin would have replied).

Edited February 20 by kermit

[RANYC]

I expect that the UDO "multiplex-everywhere" provision will change so just brace yourselves.  For projects that are 5 acres or less, including urban infill projects, multiplexes will continue to be allowed everywhere, and I believe this will get a majority of council's support.

Are multiplexes in single-family neighborhoods a way out of our national housing crisis?  I doubt it.

Are monetary policy, monetary policy expectations, incentives targeted to affordable housing suppliers & a wider variety of financing product to said suppliers all bigger variables in improving housing affordability?  I believe so.

 

[kayman]

4 hours ago, RANYC said:

I expect that the UDO "multiplex-everywhere" provision will change so just brace yourselves.  For projects that are 5 acres or less, including urban infill projects, multiplexes will continue to be allowed everywhere, and I believe this will get a majority of council's support.

Are multiplexes in single-family neighborhoods a way out of our national housing crisis?  I doubt it.

Are monetary policy, monetary policy expectations, incentives targeted to affordable housing suppliers & a wider variety of financing product to said suppliers all bigger variables in improving housing affordability?  I believe so.

 

IDK, the word is many of the members on the CoC City Council were caught off guard by the volume of constituent emails on the by-right multifamily residential allowance removal within the UDO. They didn't expect so much constituency pushback, and might holdoff on action until we're not paying attention. In other words, we might have keep our collective foot on their necks until they drop this bad idea completely dropped. 

If you haven't contacted the CoC City Council yet then please do express your displeasure because this UDO allowance removal needs to be killed and buried permanently:

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

Keep reaching out to them too and spread the word to other supporters of the UDO allowance to reach to CoC City Council as well.

 

7 hours ago, davidclt said:

So quick follow-up to this. . .  On 2/8 (@ 11:15 am) I wrote all my representation a brief, polite but unambiguous email concerning the UDO.

So far I've heard from Dimple (2/8 @ 3:15) with a coherent, affirmative response. Mayor Liles (2/13 @ 3:30) anodyne, almost neutral response about staying engaged with the process and no changes proposed yet. Otherwise, Mayfield, Mitchell, Watlington and Anderson all Radio Silence. Dante's silence surprises me a little bit because I thought she was more engaged with her constituents.

I'll follow up with Anderson and Mayfield personally as both are involved in non-profit organizations I'm a boardmember of both. Watlington is a waste of time as she has a record not even responding to her former D3 constituency. 

Edited February 21 by kayman