Candidate Housing Responses

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.

Below are the full responses from those who responded. Published so voters can better understand where candidates stand on housing in their communities. These responses also informed the Durham Housing Report Cards we released earlier this week, and the longer list of Municipal Candidate Report Cards coming soon.

2025 Durham Candidate Responses

Click here to view our report card and see how we graded their responses!

Durham Mayor

Leonardo (Leo) Williams (incumbent)

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

“Yes, I do believe that Durham is experiencing a housing shortage. The underlying reasons for it are nuanced and unfortunately involve many factors that are beyond the municipal government’s ability to control, but one of the main ways we can combat this is by ensuring the continued expansion of housing quantity and working to uphold housing quality within our municipal boundaries.”

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

“I believe there are various facets of the current UDO that due in large part to the passage of time are not as effectively geared for the needs of 2025 Durham, and I am confident in that the proposed updates will address those needs while staying true to the inherent character of what makes Durham the outstanding and diverse community that it is.”

Q: What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you’ve supported in the past that you’d like voters to know about?

"I’ve supported housing developments with majority of my votes because I understand the basic reality that our community deserves and need mass benefit with the least amount of burden. I supported SCAD (Simplifying Code for Affordable Development) for various reasons. Specifically, I supported to the deregulation of the restrictive and outdated zoning policy that prevented churches from building housing on their own property. To date, i’m still perplexed with what caused public backlash on something that would be so beneficial to so many in Durham. Now, churches are contributing to not only our housing stock, but to our housing type and affordability.”

Q: 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?

“I do support keeping these reforms in place, just as I am proud to have helped bring about SCAD and the pro-environmental changes it brought to our community, while incorporating a myriad of community-supported issues via amendments to the proposed legislation. In local government, every day brings new challenges that we are tasked with addressing within the limited framework of the authority granted to us by the State of North Carolina. Is SCAD perfect? No. But nothing is. So our job is to shoot for as close to perfect as we can get, and spend every day in office as elected officials working to chase down that elusive standard of perfection, which is exactly what I have done and will continue to do if granted a second term. In any public-private partnership, as many cases of development and ordnance modification are, we must critically scrutinize every inch of proposed policy, work collaboratively with our partners at all levels of government to address community concerns, and act in the best interest of the community. Rome was not built in a day, and neither was Durham. But with every new day, we are presented with an incredible chance to deliver for Durham and its people.”

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

"I have and will continue to support a zoning plan that allows us to continue the work that we have accomplished in the prior to years, including but not limited to new construction with negotiated affordable housing allocations, preservation of existing housing, N.O.A.H. Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing, A.D.U. Accessory Dwelling Units, social Housing concepts with shared common space, bolstering mixed income housing option with Durham Housing Authority.”

Q: 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?

"I am admittedly skeptical of any arrangement where the city cedes authority to influence the permitting process to ensure public safety and prosperity. I think by-right permitting is good in theory, but I also see many ways in which it could be abused in practice."

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

“One of the lags in the process of permitting is simply navigating the multiple departments/agencies with a 2 week signing window post inspection. What I would change is actually happening; bringing all development engagement under one umbrella and forming a more ombudsman approach within the customer service experience.”

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

“I do support increased public funding for subsidized/income-restricted housing in Durham because I think it’s the morally correct thing to do and I strive to combat homelessness and housing insecurity in whatever areas they present themselves, but I also support–and have lead the charge for–encouraging developers and other private entities to utilize their funds to help expand affordable housing availability across the Durham community.“

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

"Absolutely. The city of Durham has a Triple A Credit Bond Rating. If we were to partner with capable nonprofits by “backing” them in markets for “Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing,” it would afford them a much more formidable chance in acquisition opportunities. Acquiring apartment buildings that are coming to term would create turnaround housing units within 90 days, contributing to the city’s overall housing stock at a higher percentage than what we traditionally gain from new developments. This is using P3’s to mitigate growth and need."

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

"I will always be in favor of utilizing Durham’s tax policies to best serve the needs of the community. If presented with facts that show a tax revision would assist in the proliferation of affordable housing projects, I would certainly be open to supporting such a proposal."

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

"We have started support for small scale development by removing parking minimums, addressing stormwater mandates, and expediting projects that offer high affordable housing options."

Q: 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?

"Absolutely. Equity has been one of my main points of focus during my first term, and it will continue to be a priority in the second term."

Q: 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?

"I hope to implement a preliminary review process for tenant and landlord mitigation; specifically case management. This would reduce court appearances and legal fees, adding insult to financial strain."

Q: What does pro-housing locally mean to you?

“Mass benefit with the least amount of burden. Cities grow, and when they don’t, they die. I often hear about desires to keep taxes low while also restricting growth. This is logically misaligned. Expanding our tax base is a way to share the burden of cost for a decent quality of life in Durham."

Anjanee Bell

Q: 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."

Q: 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."

Q: What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you’ve supported in the past that you’d 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.”

"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.”

Q: 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."

Q: 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.”

Q: 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."

Q: 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.”

Q: Is there a specific type of affordable housing, public investment, or nonprofit housing model you’re 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."

Q: 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.”

Q: 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."

“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.”

Q: 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."

Q: 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.”

Rafiq Zaidi

Did not respond.

Angela (Janie Love) Reddick

Did not respond.

Lloyd A. Phillips

Did not respond.

Pablo Friedmann

Did not respond.

Durham City Council Ward I

DeDreana Freeman (incumbent)

Did not respond.

Elijah King

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

“In short, yes. The fact is Durham does not have sufficient housing supply to meet the demand at all income levels. While I acknowledge a vacancy rate among luxury units, I also recognize that these are just out of the reach of everyday Durhamites like myself. Durham needs to be building more units at the price points that working folks can afford.”

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

“In short, yes. Expanding Housing Choices (EHC) and Simplifying Codes for Affordable Development (SCAD) were steps in the right direction to streamline our building process here in Durham. While I am concerned that broad, unchecked upzoning (without guarantees for affordability, tenant protections, or anti-displacement measures) will accelerate gentrification, I also believe that density is necessary to ensure affordability, connectivity, and protection of greenspaces.

I would like to streamline the process for upzoning when appropriate without giving blanket approval for high density development in historically underinvested, Black and brown communities."

Q: What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you’ve supported in the past that you’d like voters to know about?

"A lot of housing developments, especially the ones that end up in the news or on the pages of reddit and substack, are honestly in the gray area, which is to say there are reasons to both approve and deny requests for rezoning. As a candidate and not a sitting City Council member, I’m most interested in the votes that should have been easy. Fox Crossing II, for example, was a project that, while approved, was voted against by one of my opponents on Council, and another on Planning Commission. Both voiced the somewhat valid concern of connectivity, and while I generally agree with the need for connectivity in new developments, this particular development was limited by location and surrounding infrastructure. By this metric, no development could have reasonably met this criteria, allowing unattainable perfection to cheat Durhamites who don’t own our homes, like myself, out of what we need. Had the majority of City Council denied this zoning request to develop within the Urban Growth Boundary, Durham would have missed out on 320 units that, while 95% would not be classified as “affordable”, would be more attainable than many of the other options before us.

In our current political landscape, there is no way to construct sufficient public housing to meet the needs of our residents. As such, we have to find ways to make the system work for builders as well as our residents. This isn’t theoretical to me. I moved 11 times before age 18, I’ve seen an eviction notice, and I am unlikely to ever own my own home. The fact of the matter is that many of the folks on Council currently (and some of those vying to be on Council) are in a position to vote no on such developments because they don’t have to live with the increased rent that happens as a result of too few units for too many people. Longtime Durham residents, seniors, young folks, and wage workers do, and those are the communities I’m fighting for."

“Yes. The flexibility provided to developers allows us to meet Durham’s growing needs while still maintaining regulations on the things that matter most like the environment.”

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

“I believe the new UDO must expand housing options while protecting our communities from displacement. That means building more “missing middle” housing like duplexes, triplexes, and ADUs, especially near transit and job centers, so working families have real choices beyond luxury apartments. I want to continue to evaluate Durham’s zoning and permitting processes so we identify areas of improvement, as we did with parking minimums in the adoption of the SCAD amendments, and incentivize building the housing Durham needs. Durham’s zoning should work for the people who live here now and the neighbors we’ll welcome in the future.”

Q: 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?

“In general, by-right permitting allows developers to know at the outset of the project what the rules are instead of moving through a series of hearings where they may or may not get approval for the zoning change. Durham needs to do a better job of zoning areas based on our place-type map and comprehensive plan, laying out a clear rulebook for developers to follow and structure their projects accordingly.

While I am generally opposed to bureaucratic red tape, I am also concerned that allowing all projects to proceed by right would result in development that does not include the affordable housing that Durham needs."

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

“I think the biggest problem is the need for rezoning in many neighborhoods, even for small multi-family developments such as duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings. While I am deeply in favor of community input, I also recognize that some input boils down to little more than folks not wanting “those people” to destroy their property values. In those cases, I am always going to side with providing more affordable and attainable housing.”

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

“Yes. In fact, I support another affordable housing bond to ensure that everyone in Durham has a place to call home.”

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

“While I support public and nonprofit investments in affordable housing, I am also deeply aware that these are largely unsustainable. In fact, both of these are short term solutions, albeit necessary ones. Long term, I want to see increased incomes through economic development while simultaneously ensuring streamlined development so that housing supply can keep pace with growth.”

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

“Yes, Durham should revisit fees — but only in a way that directly supports affordable and small-scale housing. We can’t give blanket breaks to big developers; the savings must translate into affordability for Durham families.”

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

“During my small business tour, which included local, small-scale developers, I noticed an overarching pattern. Bureaucratic red tape is killing small businesses of all types, but especially builders. Raleigh’s approach, condensing all business support info into a single, easy-to-use PDF, is exactly the kind of streamlined communication Durham needs. A more functional local government would create centralized, user-friendly tools and ensure consistent messaging so that entrepreneurs don’t get bogged down in the red tape.

We need to create a space where small businesses not only have a seat at the table, but have a chance to build it. Several cities across the United States have established small business commissions or advisory councils led by local entrepreneurs to strengthen the voice of small businesses in city governance. Similarly, Durham can, and should, establish a similar small business commission, including local small-scale developer voice, to ensure the city is able to identify and correct potential issues."

“Yes.”

Q: 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?

“First, I think tenants are protected when they have options. In our current housing crisis, tenants have no alternatives and landlords are acutely aware of this. This leads to predatory practices. Step one is to empower tenants by giving them choices. We can only do that by increasing the supply of affordable and attainable units.

Second, Durham needs to literally invest in our residents. We can do this by investing in eviction diversion, but also through downpayment assistance that would allow tenants to begin building wealth.

Third, part of the job of a City Councilmember is advocacy. There is no reason to sit on our hands locally because Raleigh has prevented us from doing the things that our residents need. In fact, my experience as Third Vice Chair of the NC Democratic Party has prepared me to advocate for Durhamites on the state level. We’ve seen some success on this front with a whole slate of bipartisan pro-housing bills in the legislature this cycle. If elected (and even if not!), I intend to elevate the stories of Durham residents to move meaningful policy forward."

Q: What does pro-housing locally mean to you?

“As somebody who knows what it’s like to get off the school bus to an eviction notice, who has felt what it’s like to sleep on their pastor’s living room floor because it was literally the only option, being pro-housing isn’t political; it’s personal. And while I appreciate the Durham City Council members who advocate for the needs of folks like me, I’m ready to have “folks like me” actually shaping policy ourselves. Even members of council who may have grown up similar to me are currently homeowners who don’t have to live with the consequences of voting no time and time again. And while I know that not every project is perfect and some of them need to be denied, I also recognize that saying no to housing, however well-intentioned, results in kids just like me coming home from school to eviction notices. So being pro-housing locally is about creating systems that don’t just allow for housing development, but actively encourage and foster the housing development that Durham needs.”

Andrea Cazales

Did not respond.

Matt Kopac

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

“I’m not certain Durham is experiencing a housing shortage, but we seem to have an imbalance of supply and demand. We have done better in recent years to build more homes for people, and median rents and home prices have begun to stabilize. However, affordability remains one of our greatest challenges, with dramatic increases in rents and home prices over the past ten years which have resulted in significant displacement and have left our marginalized neighbors severely cost burdened and without good alternatives. We have high vacancy rates for higher priced apartments, but we are lacking in supply for more affordable and accessible housing, where we still see strong demand and increasing prices.”

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

“Yes, restrictive zoning in high-demand areas has made it harder to add small-scale incremental density. In addition, our byzantine permit and site plan approval process has made it harder to build housing and has made housing more expensive. I would allow more flexibility around height, set-back and lot coverage, permit more multi-family and mixed use projects in suitable areas, and would seek to streamline the permitting process. I believe it is possible to maintain neighborhood character while meeting the need for more diverse housing stock in Durham, including more affordable and more accessible housing.“

Q: What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you’ve supported in the past that you’d like voters to know about?

“I supported the $95M Affordable Housing Bond, Expanding Housing Choices to allow more ADU development, and advocated along with the Environmental Affairs Board for elements in SCAD like more housing types and eliminating parking minimums. I also have a background as an affordable housing and community development advocate in Washington, DC, where I fought for federal support for communities like Durham.”

“I do, yes. These changes were valuable tools to reduce displacement of low-income residents, allow incremental evolution in our neighborhoods to accommodate new residents, and bring greater vitality to our urban areas, while maintaining neighborhood character. They also make our communities more walkable and connected and can reduce pressure on growth at the periphery of the city.”

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

“In the new UDO, I would like to see more missing middle housing, more mixed use development, and expanded allowances for cottage homes/accessory dwelling units. I would like this l to be combined with affordable housing incentives and possibly inclusionary zoning (like what Chapel Hill has been able to maintain despite state preemption) to build our stock of affordable housing.”

Q: 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?

“There must be a balance in where and how we expand by-right permitting, and Durham would benefit from this change. A process that is rules-based, clear and predictable helps us build more homes, reduce costs – which can benefit homeowners and renters, particularly in the case of affordable units – all while maintaining compliance with local development guidelines.”

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

“The special use permit and site plan review process can lengthen approval times and increase costs, including in cases like duplex conversions and infill projects. Building permit application rules that require review by multiple city departments can add weeks or months to project timelines. Parking requirements can also make infill harder, though that has been addressed at least temporarily in Durham. I would allow more rules-based by-right permitting for qualifying projects, streamline building and site plan reviews, and maintain no parking minimums.”

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

“Absolutely. Durham needs a comprehensive affordability strategy, including public funding for subsidized affordable housing. Durham has already shown leadership with a willingness to fill the gap left by disinvestment at the federal and state level with initiatives like Forever Home from the $95M affordable housing bond. I also support community land trusts, public-private partnerships on public land, and strategic acquisitions of land for more affordable units. While most residents will have to compete for housing in the private market and we need a plan for that, we must still do everything we can to provide more affordable options for people at 80%, 60%, and 30% of area median income. Especially with costs going up so significantly in recent years, it is hard to afford to live in Durham. Even someone making a living wage of $25/hour only makes about $52,000 a year, or 41% of the area median income. This is an entry-level salary for a teacher or a firefighter – we must do what we can to provide options for these residents to be able to live in Durham.”

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

“We need all the models to try and address the challenge we face.

Keeping people in their homes is a top priority, so we need to fund eviction diversion, legal aid, repairs, and energy-efficiency improvements. These alone aren’t sustainable, long-term interventions, so we need more subsidized affordable housing like through land trusts and pathways to economic mobility.

One program that stands out is the Durham Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Loan Pilot Program. I would like to see us expand this revolving loan program for ADUs and other kinds of missing middle housing, along with training and support for local developers. I want to see more of our local housing needs built by our residents and local developers. "

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

“Yes. Right now, due to restrictive local zoning, large-scale outside capital, and federal policy, large scale developers that can afford lawyers are privileged in our local development process. We need to find ways to make it easiest for small-scale and more affordable projects to succeed. I’m not as sure about how we would be able to reduce taxes, but fees are a clear opportunity area to priorities the kinds of developments we want and need most. Some of the fees Durham can reduce or waive include building permit review fees, site plan fees, and water and sewer utility connection and extension fees. These would help reduce the cost basis for small-scale and affordable projects.“

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

“I have touched on these topics in prior questions, but I’ll expand here that I’d like to see greater partnership with Durham Tech to help train and support the next generation of local builders, while also offering pre-approved designs that can be fast-tracked through the permitting process.”

“Yes.”

Q: 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?

“While Durham’s ability to provide tenant protection is limited by state law, there are meaningful steps I will pursue locally. It’s critical that the city rigorously enforce housing maintenance codes and tenant complaint processes through Neighborhood Improvement Services. One key action should be increasing fees and penalties for landlords who fail to comply with housing code orders to incentivize better property management. To protect tenants from retaliation and empower them, the city must expand tenant education programs and legal aid access, helping renters understand and assert their rights.”

Q: What does pro-housing locally mean to you?

“Pro-local housing to me means more building more incremental, small-scale housing development, built by local people, that is responsive to local demand, rather than promoting large-scale, top-down growth models.”

Sheryl Smith

Did not respond.

Samaria McKenzie

Did not respond.

Durham City Council Ward II

Mark-Anthony Middleton (incumbent)

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

“Like other American cities experiencing steady growth, Durham is challenged by a housing supply stock that can accommodate that growth. My belief is that if we don't continue to build we will experience a shortage. This is why this election is so critical.”

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

“While scrubbing for efficiency is always in order, there aren't any particular policies or regulations that I would consider overly burdensome or at odds with industry best practices. However, I do believe that the subjective views and positions of voting policymakers can and at times have made it harder to build housing in Durham.”

Q: What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you’ve supported in the past that you’d like voters to know about?

“I'm very proud of my past and present support of using city owned land to expand our city's affordable housing stock. Before being elected I was one of the grassroots leaders of the movement that led to the Willard Street and Ashton Place Affordable Housing initiatives. It was very gratifying to be able to cast a vote in favor of those projects after assuming office. I am also proud of my advocacy in ensuring that the redevelopment of 505 W. Chapel Hill St. includes a robust affordable housing component. Finally, the market rate projects that I supported rezoning for consistently contain proffers that accrue to the public good that were not part of the original proposal prior to my engagement and inquiries.“

“I was proud to cast affirmative votes for both of these significant reforms and yes I do support keeping them. Both of these policies expand Durham's toolbox to manage urbanization without doing violence to our city's core values.”

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

“I'd like to experiment with a more robust density bonus. I'm also curious about what requirements can be relaxed (not eliminated) for development that is LEED compliant and dense infill projects within the Urban Growth Boundary.“

Q: 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?

“By-right permitting if clearly delineated seems to be a logical and organic extension of by-right development itself. There are always instances where a clarifying or corrective inquiry may be required as even autopilot needs to be disengaged at times. However, I am fully committed to efficiency and experiency in delivering housing to our residents. “

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

“Over the years I've had to navigate the tension between the reasonableness of our permitting processes vs the speed of staff responsiveness. As the industry goes, I'm not certain that Durham is an outlier in terms of what we ask but I am certain there are steps we should explore to expedite our process. By way of change I would seek a prioritization of infill projects in light of public concern about "car centric suburban sprawl" and the urban growth boundary contained in our new Comprehensive Plan.“

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

“Insofar as the state of North Carolina doesn't allow for inclusionary zoning local governments have to put their money where their values are. I am a long time proponent of affordable housing and a truth teller when it comes to the dynamics of captalism and market forces. Durham already taxes itself to build affordable housing and has on an ad hoc basis used public funding to subsidize housing. My support for increased public funding mirrors my advocacy for developers to offer more when seeking to do business in Durham.”

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

“Perhaps the most dramatic and effective public investment is when Durham decides to donate city owned land for Affordable Housing initiatives. In our economic system it is the most direct on ramp to shaping the Durham the government wants to see. Not the exclusive on ramp, but the most direct. The Willard Street and Ashton Place projects are shining examples of a public private partnership that honors Durham's commitment to thriving economically diverse neighborhoods.“

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

“Progressive and tiered taxation is something that has long been dreamed of in Durham relative to a number of different variables including agevand income. I'd have to explore the legal guardrails with respect to taxes but I am certainly open to a revisitation of our fee structure particularly connected to affordable projects and dense infill projects within our urban growth boundary.”

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

“This is a simple proposition - money. Technical support could also certainly be provided for community based housing. Durham's voracious appetite for dense and plentiful housing sometimes creates tension between our growth and many residents' desire for small scale and community based housing. These types of projects, similar to affordable housing, could be greatly aided by the donation of city owned land along with technical support and expertise.”

“Absolutely. Perhaps one of my more controversial defenses of SCAD was that some of the pushback was not about helping minority neighborhoods but rather preserving the fabric of historical wealthier neighborhoods that have not changed. I have often said from the dais that I'm one of the most influential people in our city and I can't insulate my own neighborhood from the impacts of growth. All of Durham must be prepared to be impacted by urbanization and development.“

Q: 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?

“I believe that a landlord roundtable convened by the mayor and/or council could be a very helpful tool in improving the tenant experience. A city subsidized security deposit fund is something that should be explored in addressing some if the issues potential tenants experience when using Section 8 vouchers.“

Q: What does pro-housing locally mean to you?

“It means that no neighborhood, district, or zip code is exempt from new neighbors and varied housing types. I'm not talking about willy nilly hodgepodge projects that do violence to the "character" of a community; but rather thoughtful projects that honor the old and welcome the new simultaneously. It's not always easy but we can not deem some area as "off limits" to welcoming new Durmites.“

Shanetta Burris

Did not respond.

Ashley N. Robbins

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

“No, I do not believe there is a housing shortage. I believe the housing shortage is manufactured to benefit developers, venture capitalists, and investors. Durham continues to build luxury, high priced apartments downtown in spite of high vacancy rates and the dire need for more housing for poor and working-class residents. These units are vacant because they are not affordable! The supply and demand, "trickle down" approach to housing is ineffective. Nothing trickles down but water and waste. Building more housing only incentivizes developers and speculative investors who buy properties not to live in but to rent out and sell for profit. None of this helps with affordability.”

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

First, I believe capitalism is the primary source of all of our socioeconomic issues, including housing. Zoning and land use policies make building housing in Durham a long and sometimes arduous process. Hopefully with the UDO rewrite, these policies will be taken into careful consideration with changes that are beneficial to the community, not just to developers. Material costs have also gone up significantly since the the pandemic, making construction costs higher.

Q: What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you’ve supported in the past that you’d like voters to know about?

"I was a facilitator for a housing policy work group as part of Engage Durham, serving as an engagement ambassador and contributed to writing the Comprehensive Plan. I support the Walltown small area plan that was recently approved by City Council. I believe other communities in Durham, specifically historically Black and poor/working-class neighborhoods should proactively organize around what type of future they want for their community and see if small area plans address their concerns about development and gentrification."

“Although EHC and SCAD reforms may have been initiated to address housing affordability, like many policies, they have the ability to be exploited by unscrupulous entities who are just looking to make money and do not have a genuine interest in addressing the needs of Durham residents. I do not think a one-size fits all approach can be made for housing initiatives as there are different needs for different communities and neighborhoods. Our policies should take this into account. Zoning reforms should prioritize community needs, not simply reduce and remove barriers that make it easier for developers to further enrich themselves. Before taking a definitive stance on these reforms, I would want to confer with experts, examine the data carefully, and get feedback from the community.”

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

“I would like to see more public land ownership, community land trusts, land value tax policies, exclusion of single-family homes and gentrification, collective land use planning that centers residents and actively involves them in the process. I support limiting minimum lot size requirements, and reconsidering parking mandates (contingent on the needs of specific communities). I support more small area plans created with intentional engagement with residents who will be most impacted.”

Q: 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?

“I believe that some of the red tape should be cut for projects that abide by the clear objectives, however, it is still important to have community input and feedback to ensure resident's concerns are adequately heard and addressed. This doesn't need to be a long, drawn out process but the community engagement is imperative.“

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

“I do not feel qualified to answer this question without consulting with the Planning Department and other experts.“

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

“Yes! I believe public housing is the real solution to the housing crisis. Privately owned housing does not serve public interests and exists to generate more wealth for developers and investors. This wealth does not trickle down to the community. "Affordable" actually has no real meaning. Affordable to who?“

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

"I actually believe that more social or public housing is the only way to secure long-term housing affordability. Affordable housing is unattainable under capitalism. Housing policy under capitalism is predicated on fattening the pockets and portfolios of developers, mortgage lenders, and landlords without regard for the needs of the poor and working-class. Many of our pension funds and investments are linked to real estate, so there is a vested interest in maintaining the systems that keep housing unaffordable and unattainable. Like many cities across the country, Durham relies heavily on enticing private investors to build ""affordable"" housing by changing zoning laws. These developers often do not deliver and receive a much higher return on their ""investments"" than the communities they disrupt.

The long-term solution to housing affordability is socialized housing owned and operated by local governments and non-profits with REAL community connections (not organizations that exemplify the nonprofit industrial complex and hoard resources). As long as private equity is responsible for housing, it will not be affordable. Under our current housing models, profit is the motive, not people! Socialized housing ensures residents are not cost-burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing-related expenditures."

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

“Yes, Durham should revisit the tax structure of affordable projects if it is in the public's interest and the community benefits are aligned with community needs.”

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

“Durham should reduce applicable fees, provide tax incentives, help entities secure grants, provide technical support, and any other assistance that may be needed to help community-based housing get built.“

“Yes, I support housing policies that promote more equitable development. Low-income and working class neighborhoods who have experienced historical disinvestment and gentrification require more robust, intentional community engagement to ensure we are not repeating the mistakes of the past and are not further burdening communities who have the least amount of access and resources.”

Q: 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?

“In my opinion, it is wholly insufficient to cite state law as a barrier for tenant protections. Local governments who are serious about addressing the housing crisis have to be ready, willing, and able to challenge state laws such as Dillion's Rule that prohibit certain regulatory measures around housing. I support tenant unions, eviction diversion programs, blacklisting of property owners who use tools such as RealPage to artificially inflate rents, blacklisting of property owners who purchase properties as investments to provide short-term rentals through sites such as AirBnB, creating a landlord registry with a ranking system and incentivizing "good" landlords.”

Q: What does pro-housing locally mean to you?

“I believe pro-housing means de-commodifying housing and treating housing as a human right. Housing cannot be both a right AND a commodity subject to market fluctuations. I believe in eliminating speculative investors from the process and redistributing public owned land to build social housing. I believe in tenants rights and the ability for tenants to unionize. I believe in the rejection of housing segregation based on income, race, etc. and I promote intergenerational, publicly owned, tenant lead housing co-ops.“

Durham City Council Ward III

Chelsea Cook (incumbent)

Did not respond.

Terry McCann

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

“Yes - There is not enough supply to meet the demand for the influx of people coming into the city.“

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

“SCAD and the fact that most homes and residences are stick built instead of pre-fabricated is making it harder to build. Regulation often prevents builders from doing what they do best - BUILD. However, builders should be made to build more pre-fabricated dwellings since they can be built at 1/3 the cost and our gentler on our environment. Barrier just as this should be removed to promote rapid quality building WITHIN THE CITY versus out in the suburban area of Durham. Vacant commercial areas will structures present need to be rezoned to residentual so that the propeties their can be sold and gutted to make places to live.“

Q: What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you’ve supported in the past that you’d like voters to know about?

“I propose that the City of Durham have a lower property tax rate on commercial apartments that are for rent that the landlord must FLUSH down to their renters in the form of lower rents. The rate would be set for a certain amount of years(4-5) but landlords receiving this rate must have building up to code. Renters in these properties can better budget their rent since it will be lower and set. They two can start to save the difference if their next step is home ownership. For landlords, those that want to acquire or build more commercial apartments would have an increased interest to do so with the goal of increasing dwellings and competition in the city with lower rents.”

“Smaller is wiser! We must build smaller homes in the city for greater density and to infil areas in the city. We can build more homes per square foot and with infllng, use space that is either already there but vacant, but also create zones in Durham that can be walkable communities.“

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

“I am not versed in the UDO very well but generally know that it lays out rules for development. What I would like to see are more smaller homes (under 1000 square feet) being constructed as well as more new communities that meet this design. As a former resident of SE Raleigh, where my parents bought their first home in 1974, ALL of the 700+ homes in my community were under 1000 square root with 1 bath and 2 bedrooms. Many converted the den into an additional bedroom - as my parents did. My mother still resides in the house to this day. In Durham we can do the same but with 2 baths maybe instead of 1 or a 1/2 bath.“

Q: 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?

“I would be in limited suport of by-right permitting ONLY if what is being built in Durham does not push people out because the cost to build is high and prices for renting or purchase astronomical. There needs to be a good mix of higher end homes and lower end homes so that everyone wins. Builders need to suit the needs of the citizens of Durham and our agenda for housing instead of having builders come in, build, make a profit and leave and not having produced enough housing for citizens on the lower end of financial latter. THEY MUST BUILD DURHAM TO OUR SPECIFICATIONS - not there.”

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

“Reluctant vendors that do not want to sell make it harder to infil. They are looking for a higher price but know they can hold onto it since it is theirs. Perhaps policies that will force landowners to sell vacated properties at market rate within a certain period of time will force them to sell before being assessed penalties. However, vacant propeties that become eyesores, hovels and places of drug activity need to penalized very serverly as this becomes a health concern to the city at large.“

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

“No. We have HUD but Durham handles their HUD housing more locally instead of like other cities that do it federally. Too many hands are touching the HUD money so that today we have many low income sites that are falling apart or in ill repair. Durham has made a complex problem morph into a complicated problem. She needs to take the middle man out and let the feds handle HUD here in Durham. The HUD money is needed for certain residents including Section 8. Able bodies citizens should be required to work but regulations against how much they work should not be a hinderance Keep their Section 8 rent set for a certain period of time and every 3-4 years reevaulate their rent. The goal is is to get people off assistance and into self sufficiency and off the government dole.”

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

“Habitat for Humanity - Some people just need a ittle help to get into a home. There is integrity in work and achieving what some call the American dream. Individuals working with Habitat is great since it does just that while requiring the future homeowner to put in sweat equity.”

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

“I am all for lower taxes so yes but as long as they are not passed on to larger scale projects. If it can be done legally, when a homeownder refinances their home, "some" of the reduced fees, "not all" canbe paid back to the city.”

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

“Durham needs to use a parcel of land that is specifically for this development and with input from the community decide what will go into the community. From the grocery stores, barbers and salons, drug stores to the dwellings, Durham needs to build like this. Find a local builder preferably that understand Durham and have them build the community. I can see it being a walkable community on the bus line with a shopping center in the center for grocery and other services that attract people from other portions of the city but surrounded by 800-1200 square foot homes. Durham just needs to remove regulations and let builders build these mosty pre-fabricated homes within a set period of time. When achieved by the designated time and if there are no hiccups, reward the builder with an incentive(reward). Any future design flaws that might come up over a period of years (TBD) would be deducted.”

“Back in the eary 1940's Harlem, the wealthy and not so wealthy lived amongst each other. As things changed there, the wealthy left and the less wealthy dominated the area including the schools and business community. While they were together, both thrived and benefitted from each other. Durham is designed now where you can go from an affluent area and drive into a lesser affluent one in minutes. The outskirts (Treyburn) are more exclusive are they are more removed from inner city Durham. City development should not have any class of citizens more concentrated in one part and less in another. They should flow & blend together. This WILL work will a well-funded Durham Police Department and a City Council that backs law enforcement.”

Q: 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?

“.”

Q: What does pro-housing locally mean to you?

“It means removing barriers to acheive housing.”

Durant Long

Did not respond.

Diana Medoff

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

“Yes. Durham is growing rapidly, with more growth expected, but building hasn’t kept pace. The result is that rents and home prices are rising faster than wages for so many of us, families are struggling to find homes we can afford, and more of our neighbors are experiencing housing instability and homelessness.

While some would argue that Durham’s vacancy rate indicates there is no shortage, we lack the right kinds of housing for working people. We must be proactive about zoning reform, cutting red tape for small-scale infill development, and use city resources to support deeply affordable options. In short, we need to be building more."

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

“One key change I would make is ensuring Durham’s Comprehensive Plan is more closely tied to specific zoning updates that allow for greater housing density within the Urban Growth Boundary. Right now, too many of our policies contribute to housing scarcity, which makes displacement not just likely but inevitable. We need to say yes to building more homes at every income level, especially small multi unit homes and middle income housing in areas close to transit, schools, and jobs.”

Q: What are some pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you’ve supported in the past that you’d like voters to know about?

“Just last night, September 2, there was a case before City Council, Durham Gateway at Brier Creek. No development will ever be perfect, but this project was a model in terms of how Durham could use public-private partnership to accomplish our development goals. Specifically, this project has strong community support, is going to contribute $40 million in infrastructure to the city, includes commercial/light industrial to further help expand the tax base, and has an innovative and promising approach to incentivizing affordable housing. The project was conscious of sustainable building practices and met the goals articulated in the Strategic Plan. It checks the important boxes, and while other members of the council expressed the need for housing solutions like these, my opponent still voted no to this development.

Every time we say no to one development, we increase the need to say yes to others, developments that are likely to be less beneficial to our community. Unlike my opponent, I do not want perfection to be the enemy of the good, especially when so many families in Durham are facing housing insecurity and homelessness as a result of our current housing shortage."

“Yes. Housing options, especially the ability to build more densely, create opportunities to cater development to the needs of a particular neighborhood instead of blanket policies that may or may not be helpful. The market will still produce builders building parking when appropriate while not requiring them to when not appropriate. This sort of flexibility allows for infill development over suburban sprawl, which protects our natural resources and builds climate resiliency.”

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

“I am in favor of the zoning reforms proposed in the new UDO, especially those that allow for more dense development in established neighborhoods. The construction of duplexes, triplexes, fouplexes, and even small apartment buildings should not be bogged down in administrative red tape. Instead, building these options should be more accessible to create workforce housing that makes sense for Durham.”

Q: 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?

“As a general rule, I support removing bureaucracy to make the building process more streamlined and effective. While I understand the complexities of some housing projects, I also think the process should be as simple as possible to allow for builders to spend their time and resources optimizing for affordable and sustainability over navigating an arduous administrative system.”

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

“The approval process for rezoning is overly complicated and drawn out, especially for small-scale and affordable infill development. This is why I would support expediting this process and doing so in a way that incentivizes affordability and moves us away from unsustainable suburban sprawl.”

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

“Yes. I appreciate the ways in which Durham has, and continues to, invest in affordable housing. While I support this approach, I also recognize that this is not a long-term solution to Durham’s housing crisis, and am most invested in solutions that build affordability long-term and for all of Durham.”

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

“I fully support public and nonprofit investment in affordable housing. However, I also understand that this is little more than a bandaid on Durham’s gaping housing wound. Durham needs to prioritize a system where building makes financial sense to the people doing the building.”

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

“I support waiving impact fees on small-scale and affordable infill development as well as expediting the review process for projects prioritizing affordability. These would both allow builders to save money and directly translate into more affordable options for Durham residents.”

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

“Please see above regarding taxes and fees. My priority is not to cut costs for builders across the board, but instead incentivize developers building the housing Durham needs, resulting in real cost benefits for Durham residents.

I also want to create a system where such ideas could continually be brought to council, whether formally or informally. Part of this is about intentionally building relationships with small-scale developers and being more intentional about understanding their needs and challenges rather than only focusing on “accountability” of deliverables."

“I want to be clear that I don’t support density in theory when it doesn’t impact me. I support density in actuality – literally in my backyard. In fact, my husband and I have built an ADU into our own home and have supported efforts to subdivide lots and increase density in our own neighborhood. We all have to do our part, and while I could have easily gained the support of personal friends in this campaign by choosing to be vague in my stance on building, I have actively made my preference for greater density clear, even when I knew it might lose me supporters. My work on city council would not just be to take sometimes unpopular votes, but to actively work to move the community towards a more pro-housing perspective.”

Q: 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?

“To strengthen tenant protections against unfair rent increases and poor living conditions, we need a multi-layered approach that addresses both immediate needs and long term solutions.

First, I would advocate for increased resources for eviction diversion. Too many tenants face housing insecurity without access to legal support or mediation services. Expanding funding for eviction prevention programs, like those currently supporting Legal Aid, would help more residents stay in their homes and avoid the long term consequences of eviction.

Second, I fully support continuing and expanding the Forever Home affordable housing initiative. This investment has already helped hundreds of individuals and families access permanent housing, and it remains one of Durham’s most powerful tools for supporting low income renters and preventing displacement.

We also need to modernize our zoning regulations to reduce barriers to building diverse housing types. By allowing more density within the Urban Growth Boundary, including small homes, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units, we can increase housing supply and affordability. This directly reduces the pressure that allows landlords to raise rents unfairly and helps prevent poor living conditions driven by a lack of options.

In addition to renter protections, I believe in helping tenants become homeowners when possible. That is why I support expanding down payment assistance for first time, low income buyers, with a focus on essential service workers like teachers, nurses, and first responders. Homeownership offers stability, builds generational wealth, and reduces vulnerability to rising rents."

Q: What does pro-housing locally mean to you?

“When we say no to more density within the Urban Growth Boundary, we are choosing a path that pushes people out of Durham. That displacement is not accidental, it is the direct result of policy decisions. It is also a departure from both my vision for Durham and the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

I want to say yes to building more housing at every income level, including affordable, workforce, and missing middle housing, within our existing footprint. Denser housing in areas with access to transit, jobs, and schools is the most effective way to reduce housing costs, improve connectivity, and fight displacement. It also helps us avoid costly and inefficient sprawl that stretches our city services and isolates residents from opportunity.

If we are serious about equity, then the Comprehensive Plan must be connected to real zoning reforms that allow us to build the housing we say we need. We also need stronger policies that prevent displacement, including support for community land trusts, homeownership programs for longtime residents, and tenant protections.

Equity, gentrification, and displacement are not abstract concepts. They show up in who gets to stay in Durham and who is forced to leave. I am committed to turning the values in our Comprehensive Plan into action, so Durham can grow in a way that truly includes everyone."