Raleigh At-Large City Council: Who Passes the Housing Test?
See which local candidates makes the grade. Early voting through Feb 28. Primary Day is Mar 3.
The Raleigh At-Large City Council race is the most competitive contest in this primary, with six candidates vying for two citywide seats. This election is nonpartisan. Voters may select up to two candidates, and the top four vote getters will advance to the general election.
These council members will directly shape zoning reform, permitting standards, affordable housing investments, and how the city manages growth. We believe housing is the measure of whether our leaders are ready to welcome growth and build a more affordable future.
We evaluated candidates based on their commitment to expanding housing supply, supporting affordability tools, protecting recent pro housing reforms, and ensuring predictable development standards. Below is our full breakdown of each candidate and why they earned their grade.
Stormie Forte earns a B based on her voting record and tenure on City Council since 2021. While she did not submit responses to our questionnaire, her record shows consistent support for missing middle housing and necessary zoning reforms to enable attainable housing. Recently, she voted yes on major rezonings such as Peace and West and North Hills, signaling a willingness to allow more housing in Raleigh’s denser urban areas. At times though, she has expressed more hesitation around apartment development, even in transit rich areas, but her overall record demonstrates meaningful support for housing growth when it matters most.
Clark Rinehart earns an A on housing for demonstrating a clear, consistent commitment to expanding housing supply across all types, particularly missing middle and transit oriented growth. He shows a strong understanding of how zoning, permitting, and predictability directly affect affordability. He also recognizes that while subsidies play an important role, they cannot substitute for allowing more homes in more places. We are encouraged by his support for innovative partnerships, including faith based YIGBY housing and mixed income development, to help Raleigh collectively address its housing shortage at scale.
Cameron Zamot is one of the stronger housing candidates in this field, earning a B for his clear support of missing middle housing and meaningful permitting reform. He understands how zoning classifications, lot size rules, and building code barriers affect the feasibility of fourplexes and other small scale housing, and he connects density directly to walkability and bike friendly neighborhoods. We have concerns about attaching inclusionary zoning requirements to small scale projects, which could limit production, but we respect his seriousness and engagement on the core supply issues facing Raleigh.
James Bledsoe earns a B for his clear understanding that increasing supply, reducing regulatory barriers, and reforming zoning are central to long term affordability. He supports expanding missing middle housing, reducing outdated height limits, and improving permitting predictability, which are all meaningful pro housing positions. However, his approach to housing stability and public subsidy is more limited and cautious, and we believe stronger commitments in those areas are necessary to fully address displacement and short term affordability pressures.
Sana Siddiqui earns a C. She did not respond to our housing questionnaire, so we evaluated her based on public statements and other written responses. Her positions place significant weight on neighborhood discretion and case by case review, which historically limit housing production. Neighborhood veto power is not a pro housing position, and we did not see a clear commitment to expanding supply through predictable, by right policies.
Joshua Bradley earns a D. He did not respond to our questionnaire, so this grade reflects his public record. He has argued that Missing Middle and larger projects should only proceed with mandatory inclusionary requirements and added public review. While we support strong affordability tools, requirements that make projects infeasible do not increase housing supply. We did not see a balanced commitment to expanding homes across income levels.
Transparency matters.
These assessments are based on candidate questionnaire responses to our housing questionnaire, other published questionnaires and public forums. Our pro-housing questionnaire was developed collaboratively with RDU New Liberals, Yes! in My Triangle YIMBYaction chapter, and Strong Towns Raleigh Local Conversation. Each group may also share candidate recommendations or endorsements.
We encourage you to read each candidate’s full questionnaire responses and public statements before voting.
Candidates who did not respond are noted above; grades reflect publicly available records.
Housing decisions shape affordability, neighborhood stability, and whether our communities welcome new neighbors. Share this guide with a friend, ask candidates where they stand, and make your plan to vote.