CityBuilder Questionnaire

Do you believe Durham is experiencing a housing shortage? Why or why not?

Yes. Durham is experiencing a housing shortage—most acutely at the price points where people live. The gap is not only how many homes exist, it is which homes, where, and for whom.

• Deep affordability. Rents and entry-level prices outpace local wages; long waitlists for subsidized units signal severe undersupply for seniors, working families, and returning citizens.

• Missing-middle and starter homes. Zoning, land costs, and financing favor large, high-end projects while older starter homes are torn down or flipped, shrinking NOAH.

• Location and fit. Too few homes are near transit, jobs, and schools, or sized for multigenerational and single-parent households.

• Loss and displacement pressure. Investor acquisitions and teardown cycles remove naturally affordable units, destabilizing long-time residents.

People and purpose first. The solution is diverse, mixed-income housing opportunities—gentle density like ADUs and duplexes, preservation of NOAH, and expansion of public and nonprofit housing—delivered with development without displacement and high-quality, climate-ready design. Affordability also requires good jobs and wages so residents can remain in Durham. This is how we build a better Durham for everyone.

Are there any current policies or regulations that you believe make it harder to build housing in Durham? What would you change?

Yes. Several rules and processes make community-rooted, mixed-income housing harder than it should be—especially small, starter, and deeply affordable homes.

What makes it harder today

• Case-by-case rezonings and negotiated conditions that create uncertainty and cost.

• Parking minimums in transit-served areas that raise costs and consume buildable land.

• Lot and form constraints that suppress “missing-middle” options.

• Fragmented, sequential reviews across agencies and utilities with unclear timeline ownership.

• One-size-fits-all fees that hit small and affordable projects hardest.

• Adaptive-reuse friction for office, motel, and faith-property conversions.

• Limited by-right capacity near jobs, schools, and frequent transit.
  

What I will change

• By-right gentle density where it fits. Allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and ADUs by right near transit, schools, and jobs with clear form standards.

• Right-sized parking without paywalls. End blanket minimums in Frequent Transit Areas; require practical Parking & Mobility Plans; enable shared and unbundled parking; protect neighbors with Residential Parking Districts and guest passes; preserve ADA access; no new meters on residential blocks.

• Unlock small lots and lot splits and enable tiny-home villages with strong life-safety codes.

• One-stop “Green Lane” with service levels. Concurrent reviews, a single accountable project manager, optional third-party plan check, and time-certain targets (e.g., first completeness check in 10 business days; consolidated comments in 20; resubmittal review in 10), plus a public dashboard.

• Pre-approved plan sets for ADUs, duplex/triplex prototypes, and courtyard apartments.

• Right-size fees with predictability. Scale to unit size and income level; allow deferrals for income-restricted units; publish a two-year fee calendar so teams can underwrite with confidence.

• Make adaptive reuse simple and fast. A single change-of-use pathway with life-safety focus, optional third-party inspections, and target timelines.

• Protect Durham’s zoning leverage where impacts are large. By-right projects that meet objective standards will move forward without discretionary delay. For exceptionally large map amendments (defined by clear thresholds for size, units, or intensity), use a published community-benefits menu tied to deeper affordability, climate readiness, context-sensitive design, and local hiring.

• Collaboration by design. Early, structured input with Preservation Durham, neighborhood leaders, faith institutions, and mission-driven developers—aligned with equity-impact reviews—so solutions are co-created, not retrofitted.

• Align infrastructure with housing on priority corridors.

• Public land for public good via long-term ground leases, community land trusts, and local-developer set-asides for permanent mixed-income affordability.

All reforms will be paired with energy-efficient, climate-ready standards so Durham builds more—and builds better.

What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you have supported in the past that you would like voters to know about?

Pro-housing policies and developments I will champion:
As a candidate, I have been clear about the types of policies and projects I will champion to add homes and protect people. I will advance diverse, mixed-income housing opportunities with strong anti-displacement standards and high-quality, climate-ready design. Examples include ADUs and gentle density near transit; acquisition-rehab to preserve NOAH; adaptive reuse of underused motels, offices, and faith properties; and public- and nonprofit-led housing on public land under long-term ground lease. I will prioritize community land trusts, limited-equity co-ops, rent-to-own pathways, and permanent supportive housing—especially for seniors, working families, and returning citizens. On major rezonings, I will use Durham’s zoning leverage to secure enforceable community benefits—deeper affordability, quality design, green infrastructure, and local hiring—so growth uplifts legacy and builds a better Durham for everyone.

Durham passed major zoning reforms in 2019 (EHC) and 2024 (SCAD) that eliminated exclusionary single-family zoning, removed parking mandates, and made it easier to build small commercial and infill housing. Do you support keeping these reforms in place? Why or why not?

Yes to the inclusive direction; refine for results. Ending exclusionary single-family zoning, enabling small-scale infill, removing blanket parking minimums near frequent transit, and allowing neighborhood-serving uses are steps worth keeping. However, I did not support SCAD as passed because it emphasized speed over affordability, accountability, and community voice. I will keep the core pro-housing elements and refine the rules to: require stronger anti-displacement tools and right-to-return in City-supported projects; fund preservation of NOAH; set clear curb management that does not create paywalls; and preserve Council’s zoning leverage on exceptionally large map amendments through a published community-benefits menu, while keeping by-right predictability and speed for projects that meet objective standards.

What specific additional zoning reforms would you like to see in the new UDO for Durham to meet its housing goals?

• By-right gentle density near transit, schools, and jobs: duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, courtyard apartments, and ADUs with clear form standards.

• Established Neighborhoods framework to discourage teardowns of NOAH, offer conservation or local historic districts where communities want them, and apply demolition-delay tools.

• Adaptive reuse made easy: expedited change-of-use for office-to-housing, motel conversions, and faith-based/nonprofit projects.

• Neighborhood-serving corner uses: small groceries, childcare, and clinics within walking distance.

• Right-sized parking without paywalls and ADA priority.

• Climate-ready standards: tree-canopy and green-infrastructure requirements, EV-ready and solar-ready provisions, flood-resilient siting and materials.

• Public land for public good: zoning that supports mixed-income communities on long-term ground lease and community land trusts.

• Equity-impact review, codified and time-certain: a checklist with a fixed review window, published at pre-application, aligning entitlements with measurable anti-displacement and affordability outcomes—no moving goalposts.

Do you support by-right permitting—(where cities set clear, objective rules) and projects that follow those rules can move forward without subjective delays? Why or why not?

Yes. Predictable, by-right standards reduce cost and time for small builders, nonprofit partners, and mixed-income housing. I support a form-based, by-right approach with objective design, height, and setback rules; strong life-safety and climate-ready standards; and clear, upfront community-benefit expectations. For significant map amendments with large impacts, Council discretion will remain so Durham retains leverage to secure binding public benefits.

What specific permitting processes in Durham do you believe slow housing production or make infill harder? What would you change?

Pain points: fragmented, sequential reviews; unclear timeline ownership; utility-capacity surprises; historic-district and change-of-use friction; fees that burden small projects.

Fixes: a one-stop Green Lane with time-certain service levels; pre-approved plans; early, all-agency pre-application meetings; a public tracking dashboard; utility-coordination compacts; and climate-ready checklists that resolve stormwater and heat-mitigation needs early, not late.

Do you support increased public funding for subsidized or income-restricted affordable housing in Durham? Why or why not?

Yes. Market production alone will not reach deep affordability. I support renewed housing bonds; an acquisition-preservation fund for NOAH; gap financing for nonprofit and mission-driven developers; and strategic use of public land under long-term ground lease to deliver permanent, mixed-income affordability built to high-quality, energy-efficient standards.

Is there a specific type of affordable housing, public investment, or nonprofit housing model you are especially passionate about? Why?

• Community Land Trusts and long-term ground leases to keep homes affordable across generations.

• Limited-equity co-ops and rent-to-own to build stability and wealth for working families.

• Permanent supportive housing and motel conversions paired with services.

• Employer-assisted and faith-based partnerships that add mixed-income homes near jobs and transit.

  These align with development without displacement, preservation of NOAH, and climate-ready design.
  

Do you think Durham should revisit or reduce the taxes and fees it places on new housing, particularly small-scale or affordable projects?

Yes. Fees should be scaled to unit size and income level and aligned with City goals. I support waivers or reductions for long-term affordable units; deferral of certain charges to certificate of occupancy; streamlined connection costs for modest infill; and green-building incentives for energy- and water-efficient projects.

What incentives (fee reductions, grants, technical support, etc.) could Durham offer to help more small-scale or community-based housing get built?

• Small-Developer Toolkit: pre-approved plans, step-by-step guides, and City navigators.

• Fee relief and micro-grants for code-compliant ADUs, duplexes/triplexes, and preservation rehabs.

• Shared-parking template agreements and brokerage with faith institutions and offices to unlock small sites near transit without paving homes or creating paywalls.

• Acquisition-preservation loans for local owners and nonprofits to keep NOAH in place.

• $1 ground-lease opportunities on select public parcels to CLTs and mission-driven builders.

• Green-building bonuses (fast-track and grants) for climate-ready projects.
  
  

Historically, some of Durham’s wealthier neighborhoods have resisted change while lower-income areas have absorbed more than their share of growth. Do you support housing policies that promote more equitable, citywide development?

Yes. People and purpose first. Every neighborhood must be part of the solution. I support gentle density and mixed-income options in high-opportunity areas, strong anti-displacement investments where burden has been highest, and transparent metrics—such as a NOAH Preservation Scorecard—so growth is shared citywide. Collaboration with neighborhoods, builders, and nonprofits will guide design and ensure better outcomes block by block.

While many tenant protection tools are limited by state law, what local tenant protections or renter support policies do you support or hope to implement?

• Eviction Diversion and Right-to-Counsel funding with early legal help, mediation, and rental assistance.

• Proactive housing code enforcement for habitability (including heat and cooling) with rapid hazard remediation.

• Relocation assistance when City enforcement actions displace tenants through no fault of their own.

• Problem-property focus and landlord education to correct chronic violations.

• First-look policies on City-assisted properties for tenants and local nonprofits.

• Source-of-income acceptance in City-funded housing and City contracting.

• Renter resource center with counseling on rights, utility relief, and pathways to homeownership.
  All City-assisted housing will be conditioned on just-cause protections, longer notice windows for rent increases, and compliance with health and safety standards—measured and enforced.
  

What does pro-housing locally mean to you?

More homes and more equity at the same time. People and purpose first. It means diverse, mixed-income, well-located, climate-ready homes; preservation of NOAH; and protection from displacement. It means aligning zoning, permitting, public land, and funding with access, equity, and wages, because affordability depends on income and rent. It means collaboration—with neighborhoods, Preservation Durham, nonprofits, employers, and builders—to expand real opportunities for everyone who chooses Durham. Durham is moving fast; it must also move fair—so we build a better Durham for everyone.