Durham's tenants are in a crisis, and despite proponent’s claims, the developer-and-landlord-led “fix” to the building code known as “Simplifying Code for Affordable Development,” or SCAD, will neither solve or barely improve affordable housing in our community. Rising rents in Durham are displacing residents, mostly from working-class Black and brown communities, to make room for mostly wealthier and whiter tenants. Our elected officials are left to accept the neoliberal myth that “the market will find a solution” and yet, despite having green-lit a lot of new development, affordable housing units remain at a premium. Durham City Council should vote against SCAD.
For the past year, the Council has been considering SCAD – a massive amendment to the building code brought forward by Jim Anthony, a large Raleigh-based developer. The plan proposes many amendments to Durham’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the document that the city provides to inform private developers of all the procedures, zoning rules and districts and standards they will need to follow in order to be allowed to build to code. Cities can use this to get private entities to enact the will of the city. For example, Durham’s current UDO provides a density bonus—where a developer is allowed to build a larger building than would have been allowed otherwise—if at least 15% of units are available for rent at 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). With the illegality of rent control and public housing, the most effective ways to address the affordability crisis outside of decommodifying housing, the UDO is the city’s sole tool with which it can ensure enough affordable housing options exist for its residents. Even this tool is blunted by NC state law that does not allow UDOs to mandate affordable housing. As such, any changes to affordable housing in the UDO has to meet the needs and come from the working class.
Proponents of SCAD will point to the fact that the amendment will increase the number of affordable rentals by 10 percentage points to 25% at 60% AMI if developers choose to utilize the bonus. This is a necessary and good change for the working class. However, SCAD also decreases how long the units have to remain affordable—reducing the required affordable housing period from 30 years to 5 years for rental units, and first sale for sale units. Both changes effectively reduce the stable housing and wealth-building opportunities SCAD purportedly claims it provides to the working class. On top of the reduction in the period of affordability, SCAD will allow developers to build lower-quality “affordable” units, permitting developers to create slums to squeeze profits out of poorer renters. And once the 5-year affordability requirement expires, landlords can then maximize their profits by evicting the poorer residents to then exploit white-collar tenants with higher rent budgets 5 years later. SCAD’s affordable housing “solution” works out to a temporary reduction (or “investment”) in landlord passive income that is part of the larger community-displacing, environment-destroying luxury developments that developers have been building in Durham, continuing the transfer of wealth from the working class to the capitalist class.
The City Council is set to vote on SCAD before the next council is seated. Voting the entire SCAD amendment as-is into the UDO would be a massive mistake the lame duck council will leave the incoming council to deal with. Not only is SCAD an ineffective solution, it is an anti-democratic cash grab backed by a coalition of landlords and developers who, on average, own 11.8 properties and 6.3 businesses. (Anthony, the primary architect of SCAD, is on record having said about Durham’s poorest residents that “gentrification is necessary to erase the ‘blight’”.) It is no surprise then, that SCAD does not ensure homes for fixed-, low-, and no-income parts of the working class who often fall below 30% AMI. Considering the importance the UDO is to development in Durham and the ramifications changes to it will have for decades to come, the Council must ensure that any changes made to the UDO serve Durham’s working class.
Keeping the 30 year affordability requirement in the current UDO is the bare minimum we must do to keep Durham affordable. Combining the minimum with changes in the UDO to further motivate affordable housing development could finally yield in greater affordable housing built in Durham. In addition to keeping the minimum duration, future Councils must also discern the types of developments it is approving—the only way to ensure Durham has affordable housing is to build affordable housing. Luxury housing, like other forms of wealth, will not trickle down. Continuing what we have been doing by approving fewer, larger, sprawling, poorly connected units that net developers the most profit (as recently done with the Perry Farm project) will only exacerbate traffic, high rents, environmental damage, and the climate crisis. We urge the Durham City Council to vote no on SCAD!