Durham deserves transparency, fairness, and leadership rooted in the people—not report cards designed to mislead and manipulate.

CityBuilder’s so-called “report card” graded not only candidates for mayor but also those running for City Council ward seats. While each candidate has a right to respond in their own way, my focus here is on the mayoral race—the race I am in, and the one where I am directly accountable to Durham’s people. It is important that I face this moment with clarity, because leadership requires addressing challenges directly, even when they are designed to distract or divide.

At or around September 17, 2025, Jen Truman and CityBuilder published their “candidate report card.” The leading line of their release states:

“CITYBUILDER, in collaboration with RDU New Liberals, Yes in My Triangle!, and Strong Towns Raleigh Local Conversation, invited every candidate in this year’s municipal races to complete a housing questionnaire. Our goal was simple: to see which candidates understand that our region needs to build more homes of every kind, from market-rate to subsidized affordable housing and every missing middle solution in between.”

This framing is revealing. Their stated “goal” was not to evaluate candidates on whether they would protect Durham residents from displacement, preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, or deliver permanent affordability. The goal was narrowly set: reward those who promise to build more—regardless of how, for whom, or at what cost.

That bias showed up in the grades.

Mayor Leo Williams received an “A.” CityBuilder praised him for having “led the charge on multiple housing initiatives” and quoted him saying he has “supported housing developments with the majority of [his] votes.” In reality, his responses were broad, growth-centered, and heavily reliant on SCAD—a deregulation package that fast-tracked approvals while sidelining affordability safeguards and community voice.

I was given a “C.” This, despite publishing the most detailed, people-centered housing agenda in the race—policies that include by-right gentle density, accessory dwelling units, community land trusts, permanent affordability through long-term ground leases, anti-displacement protections, adaptive reuse, climate-ready standards, and reserving public land for public good. These are concrete tools, published in writing, and available for anyone to read.

CityBuilder’s so-called rationale for my “C” centered on my stance toward SCAD (Simplifying Codes for Affordable Development). Let me be clear: that is not a fair assessment of my position—it is a strategic distortion. By saying I show a “lack of awareness” or “unwillingness to back reforms,” they imply one of two things: either I do not understand SCAD (a false claim—my response was highly specific and policy-competent), or I am unwilling to support reforms (also false—I support them with safeguards). This framing sets up a false binary: either you rubber-stamp SCAD as written or you are “against housing.” That is exactly the deregulation agenda they are pushing.

I supported the direction of SCAD, but not the way it was written. Durham cannot afford reforms that move fast and break people. I believe in building more housing—but housing that is permanently affordable, anchored by anti-displacement protections, accountable to the community, designed with quality, respectful of neighborhood history and character, and built to be sustainable and environmentally responsible. Opposing deregulation without equity guardrails is not ignorance—it is integrity.

I also want to note something important. Like many candidates, I received an email from Jen Truman of CityBuilder asking me to complete their questionnaire. The email framed it as a nonpartisan effort, designed to “share responses publicly with members and readers ahead of the election.” At no point did it disclose that answers would later be scored, graded, and circulated as part of a “report card” in collaboration with PACs and advocacy groups. If CityBuilder had been forthright about their intentions, candidates—and the public—could have engaged with clarity. Instead, this process cloaked bias in the language of neutrality. That is not transparency; that is manipulation.

Voters should also consider the source:

• RDU New Liberals – a political action committee (PAC) registered in North Carolina, based in the Triangle. They raise and spend money to influence local elections, primarily in Raleigh and surrounding areas.
  
  

• Yes! in My Triangle (YIMBY Action chapter) – a regional arm of the national YIMBY Action network, headquartered in California, with a Triangle-based chapter. While not itself a PAC, it is an advocacy group aligned with pro-deregulation housing reform.
  
  

• Strong Towns Raleigh Local Conversation – the local branch of Strong Towns, an advocacy network. Not a PAC in itself, but more Raleigh-focused than Durham.
  
  

These are the organizations CityBuilder partnered with to grade Durham’s elections. Durham voters deserve to know who is shaping this narrative.

As an educator, I know what it means to grade fairly and responsibly. As a student, I have never been of the spirit to accept grades I know I do not deserve—especially grades given subjectively, without a clear rubric, and under conditions designed to reward alignment rather than truth. That is a real concern, and it is indicative that Durham is under attack by interests that would prefer deregulation to accountability.

I believe that people and communities must be their own strongest advocates, because no one else will protect Durham’s future with the same urgency, truth, or care. That is why I live my values—by standing firm, speaking plainly, and fighting for a city where growth uplifts legacy instead of erasing it.

Let me be clear: Durham is not anti-development. We are anti-displacement. I welcome and will champion values-aligned developers—those committed to permanent affordability, preserving naturally occurring affordable housing, engaging in community-led small area plans, and building projects that strengthen rather than erase neighborhoods.

What I will not do is hand our city’s future to groups—inside or outside Durham—pushing deregulation at all costs. Durham deserves development with integrity, not speculation disguised as progress. If CityBuilder’s “A” stands for allegiance to deregulation, then I am proud that my “C” stands for courage, conscience, and community.

Durham must be protected against harm from every direction—from outside groups seeking to impose their agendas and from inside interests that place profit above people. When people and organizations, whether local or external, mislead, manipulate, or exploit Durham’s needs for their own gain, they weaken trust and put our city at risk.

Durham’s elections belong to Durham’s people. Not real estate interests. Not Raleigh PACs. Not developers grading their own homework.

I will continue to lead with bold vision, disciplined learning, and firm resolve to ensure that growth uplifts legacy instead of erasing it. Together, we will build a better Durham—for everyone. Where everyone belongs. Where no one is left behind.