Durham Dispatch

On March 15, approximately 75 demonstrators gathered in Moore Square to protest the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, an anti-war activist from Columbia University. The event featured speakers from UNC Students for Justice in Palestine, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), Jewish Voices for Peace, and other groups. Key topics included threats to freedom of speech, continued Israeli attacks on Gaza, and unexpected support for Khalil among North Carolina's Democratic congresspeople. No elected officials attended the demonstration, which was more heavily surveilled by Raleigh police than previous pro-Palestine rallies.   The rally began with chants such as, “Palestine is not for sale, Donald Trump belongs in jail!” before Hashem Amireh was introduced as the first speaker. Amireh, president of the UNC graduate student union, was suspended in May 2024 for Palestine activism [ 1 ].   “We do what we do for the sake of the oppressed,” said Amireh, “For the sake of Palestinians who have endured almost eighty years of dispossession, violence, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.”   Amireh, who relies on a student visa, noted that he enjoys fewer legal protection than Khalil, a green card holder. He vowed to continue his anti-war activism despite the increased risk of deportation. As Amireh spoke, audience members held signs with slogans like “Jews say, free Mahmoud” and “Fight Nazis, not students.”   The Trump administration is seeking to deport Mahmoud Khalil using the Immigration and National Act of 1952, which allows the expulsion of non-citizens for almost any reason. Khalil’s deportation could be halted if the judicial branch finds the 1952 law unconstitutional under the First or Fifth Amendments. The Immigration and National Act was passed during the Second Red Scare, an anticommunist hysteria used to undermine various forms of domestic dissent. Forward magazine reports that Democratic Senator Pat McCarran introduced the law in part to keep out “Jewish Holocaust survivors suspected of being Soviet agents” [ 2 ].   The second speaker, Rania Masri of the North Carolina Green Party, discussed recent Israeli attacks on Gaza. She said, “In the past 24 hours alone, twelve Palestinians in Gaza were slaughtered, butchered, shredded by US-made weaponry dropped by the Israeli pilots. That was including four children. Nine people were killed this morning in Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza while they were trying to distribute aid." According to NPR , eight of Israel's victims in the Beit Lahiya bombing were staff members of the UK-based Al-Khair Foundation, a humanitarian aid organization [ 3 ].   During her remarks, Masri defended her decision to vote for the Green Party in the 2024 presidential election, and also praised people who voted for PSL. Green Party nominee Dr. Jill Stein received 0.4 percent of the vote in North Carolina, while PSL’s Claudia Cruz garnered about 0.01 percent. Vice President Kamala Harris lost the state by 3.2 percent.   A speaker for the Palestinian Youth Movement linked recent Israeli attacks on Gaza and the West Bank to Khalil’s arrest: “These struggles are not far from us and the arrest Mahmoud Khalil is a prime example of that. As we all know now, undercover ICE agents kidnapped Mahmoud and claimed they were acting on State Department orders to revoke his student visa. When he explained to them that he had a green card, they claimed they would revoke that instead.”   Dozens of peace rallies have been held in Moore Square since October 2023. Speeches in the park are often followed by police-escorted marches. However, law enforcement presence seemed heavier at Saturday's event, with multiple officers patrolling the square and motorcycle cops stationed at nearby intersections. Raleigh city government and police have never moved to repress the ceasefire rallies, which have been able to maintain a safe, family-friendly atmosphere.   Sandra Korn of Jewish Voice for Peace addressed the crowd. She said, “What we saw in the last couple of weeks was a state-sponsored kidnapping targeting multiple students who spoke out for Palestinian human rights. All people of conscience, including Jewish people, should be demanding Mahmoud Khalil’s release immediately.”   Korn shared the news that North Carolina congresspeople Valerie Foushee and Deborah Ross had just signed a letter strongly criticizing Khalil’s detention [ 4 ]. The crowd cheered, pleasantly surprised at the move by two pro-Israel lawmakers.   AIPAC spent around $2 million to help elect Foushee in 2022. In March 2024, Foushee and other lawmakers travelled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss plans for continued wars against Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran [ 5 ]. Netanyahu now faces an ICC arrest warrant for alleged war crimes, including starvation and attacks on civilians.   Ross has accepted over $20,000 from AIPAC since 2020 and staunchly refused to support a ceasefire throughout the US-Israeli assault on Gaza. In May 2024, she voted in favor of HR 6090, a bill aimed at suppressing criticism of Israel on college campuses. Though the bill failed in the Senate, similar efforts have succeeded in weakening free speech protections and helped lead to Khalil’s arrest.   The “Free Mahmoud Khalil Now” event concluded with a speaker from Mothers for a Ceasefire, who spoke about other regions where US policies have contributed to ongoing conflicts, such as Sudan, Congo, and Haiti. Circling back to Palestine, she said, “It’s only freedom of speech when they promote a genocide on a nation. However, when we tell our politicians to stop killing children, we are the problem.”   Work Cited   "Something You Can’t Ignore: Q&A with Hashem Amireh, Who Was Suspended Following the Pro-Palestine Protests at UNC."  Indyweek , 12 June 2024,  https://indyweek.com/news/orange/something-you-cant-ignore-qa-with-hashem-amireh-who-was-suspended-following-the-pro-palestine-protests-at-unc/ . Silverstein, Andrew. "McCarran-Walter Act: State Department Plan to Deport Pro-Hamas Students."  Forward, 7 March 2025,  https://forward.com/news/702427/mccarran-walter-act-state-department-plan-deport-pro-hamas-students/ . Lonsdorf, Kat. "Gaza Air Strike: Israel and Al-Khair Foundation."  NPR , 16 Mar. 2025,  https://www.npr.org/2025/03/15/nx-s1-5329257/gaza-air-strike-israel-al-khair-foundation . Foushee, Valerie.  X (formerly Twitter) , 17 March 2025,  https://x.com/ValerieFoushee/status/1901708531016835402 . "Prime Minister Netanyahu to AIPAC delegation of Democratic Congressmen: We must win - there is no substitute for victory."  Israeli PM YouTube Channel , 27 March 2024,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrGI_9FDGR4 .

On Nov. 8, Nuestro Barrio Liberation Café in Old East Durham hosted an emergency forum opposing a threatened war against Venezuela by the Trump administration. Triangle PSL, CODEPINK, Triangle DSA, and several other groups provided speakers and experts for a panel. Between 30 and 40 people attended the event, which appears to be the first protest in Durham concerning the potential conflict. The ‘No War on Venezuela’ forum began with chants of “Money for jobs and education, not for wars and deportation”. The audience included many peace activists who had spent the last two years protesting US involvement in Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The first panelist was M. Paola Davila Uzcategui, who was born in Mérida, Venezuela. She discussed how US policies toward Venezuela have sown division among friends and family from the region. “Right now, my family won’t love that I’m here”, said Uzcategui, “But something that we have talked about is that, regardless of our beliefs throughout the revolution, is that the Venezuelan people do deserve to live.” Two decades of US wars in the Middle East and North Africa have directly or indirectly killed more than 4 million people, according to Brown University [ 1 ]. The second panelist, Omar Nabulsi of the Palestinian Youth Movement, participated in these wars as an American soldier. The experience of “seeing the machine from the inside” turned him into an anti-war activist. Nabulsi remarked, “You don't have to be the most knowledgeable person to see this pattern of countries that refuse to bow down to imperialism where they are sanctioned, destabilized, and coups are organized against the government and the people.” The emcee of the event, Victor Urquiza, is a member of Triangle PSL, which is best known for holding frequent pro-Palestine demonstrations in Raleigh’s Moore Square over the last two years. By holding what appears to be Durham's earliest protest against a threatened war in Venezuela, Triangle PSL burnishes its reputation as the Triangle’s leading anti-imperialist group. The third panelist was Nada Mohamad from Palestinian Youth Movement. She discussed recent moves by Latin American countries to show solidarity with Palestine, despite themselves facing the threat of sanctions or invasion. Mohamad said, “Cuba has routinely backed Palestine in the UN and condemned the genocide in Gaza and did so while living under a decades-long US embargo that is characterized as a form of economic warfare.” Triangle PSL held a ‘Noche Cubana’ event in April 2025 that raised $2,000 for humanitarian relief. The group also held a ‘Break the Blockade’ teach-in and fundraiser at Nuestro Barrio in August 2025 [ 2 ]. The fourth panelist was Emily-Rose Gaeta, a member of CODEPINK. She joined the feminist anti-war group because of its viral videos where members ‘birddogged’ politicians on Capitol Hill to question them about AIPAC contributions. To protest a potential war with Venezuela, Gaeta said, “We’re going to be hitting the streets, just like we did with Palestine, just like with Sudan, Congo, and Haiti.” In February 2024, Durham became the largest city in NC to pass a ceasefire resolution during Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The resolution passed 5-2. It was opposed by mayor Leonardo Williams. The fifth panelist was Tristan Bavol-Marques, a Triangle DSA member who leads its Venezuela Working Group. He was asked why the US was so strongly motivated to exert control over Venezuela. Bavol-Marques said, “The main interest is oil. In the past, Venezuela has had an extremely oil-centric economy … Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. That’s why we’re interested.” The US is an aggressive state that has waged almost continuous wars for around four centuries. It announced its intention to dominate the Western Hemisphere through the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. Recent US invasions of Latin American countries include Panama in 1989, Grenada in 1983, and the Dominican Republic in 1965. Brutal US-backed dictatorships in the region are often referred to as ‘banana republics’. Work Cited 1. Costs of War . (2025, October 7). Brown University. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human 2. At Old East Durham Café, Socialists raise funds for relief in Cuba. (2025, September 5). Durham Dispatch . https://www.durhamdispatch.com/post/at-old-east-durham-cafe-socialists-raise-funds-for-relief-in-cuba

Image credit: City of Durham As a Durham resident, I’m deeply concerned by Durham’s plans to launch a Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) and enter into contract with Peregrine Technologies. RTCCs, like automated license plate readers (ALPRs), are rapidly cropping up across the US, as companies like Peregrine and Flock have been aggressively marketing the use of big data and algorithms in policing. The city of Durham is arguing that the RTCC, which includes Peregrine adoption, will make Durham a “Safer Community” and an “Innovative and High-Performance Organization.” This argument is ludicrous on its face. Safer for who? Innovative how? RTCCs are police units that collect, store, and analyze enormous amounts of data using new technologies designed to facilitate mass surveillance and predictive policing. Durham’s Police Department (DPD) will feed Peregrine’s software data from police reports, body cameras, digital evidence, ALPRs, emergency call records, mobile pings, and social media, and potentially additional data from data brokers. This data will then be used by Peregrine’s platform to guide decisions, including how and where to allocate public resources and who to target in investigations. This “data-driven policing” enables law enforcement agencies to track, record, and profile members of the public in real time, and easily exchange troves of information with other law enforcement agencies. Data dashboards, social network analysis, and other common tech tools can not only reveal to DPD and other law enforcement agencies who you and I associate with, histories of crises in our families and neighborhoods, and where we travel but, by keeping meticulous record of every person and place, inevitably entangle us all in criminal justice systems. In a nutshell, these technologies, by collecting and storing expansive arrays of data, undermine our 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure and throw our rights to privacy in the trash. While we will all be impacted, we will not be impacted equally. We must remember that these tools do nothing to address systemic racial, ethnic, and other forms of discrimination in policing. As a result, marginalized groups and the places they live or frequent will be disproportionately impacted as historically biased police data is fed into RTCC tools and programs. Research (including that published in books like Surveil and Predict and in reports by the NAACP and American Bar Association) has shown that data-driven policing, which necessarily relies on biased police data, further entrenches discrimination. In recent listening sessions, Police Chief Patrice Andrews has shared that the RTCC is meant to be a “force multiplier” to make their work more “efficient.” That is, in light of staffing shortages, DPD wants to rely on tech to guide their responses and investigations. However, police provide a public service that carries with it a profound potential for negative consequences for us and our neighbors; officers carry lethal weapons and involvement in the criminal justice system, whether one is arrested, on trial, or incarcerated, has monumental personal and financial costs. Considering the fundamental unreliability of historical police data, and the present unreliability of machine-driven methods, the chances of harms befalling us all as a result of this hasty plan is far too great. The RTCC will inevitably cost millions, and we should not be wasting this money on carceral systems now. Decades of science have already shown that the best way to reduce crime is to invest in people. Housing reduces crime. Healthcare reduces crime. Access to food and quality education reduce crime. Policing, and especially policing enhanced by tech, is not the answer. Inequalities and economic insecurities are at a historic high right now, and we should be investing in addressing that root problem. The RTCC and its Peregrine platform endanger us and our civil liberties. Cities across the country are rejecting mass surveillance and mass data extracting companies. Just this year, Charlottesville rejected Peregrine, Hillsborough and Austin rejected Flock, and Nashville rejected Fusus. Durham should abandon these plans. Our city has been on the right track by expanding the truly innovative HEART program and Community Safety Department, adopting the 4th Amendment Workplace resolution, and seeking other ways to protect its public from unconstitutional and harmful law enforcement practices and ensure we can all “safely [engage] in public life" (4th Amendment Workplace resolution). Building up an RTCC would not only be a step backwards, but upend all the progress we’ve made.

Image credit: Union of Southern Service Workers On Nov. 8, approximately 40 workers and community supporters marched into Durham Food Hall to petition management about workplace grievances. Employees of the venue, working with Durham Hospitality Worker’s Alliance (DHWA) and the Union of Southern Service Workers (USSW) delivered a demand letter to MDO Holdings (text available below this article). Labor action was initially sparked when an ICE recruitment advertisement played in the food hall, but workers then raised other issues such as inhumane heat, sexual harassment, overtime pay and more. An ICE ad played on an internal TV in Durham Food Hall on Oct. 24. Furious workers picketed in front of the venue, and some vendors closed for several days. In response, MDO Holdings ended its contract with the advertising service, promised trainings on how to interact with ICE, and some vendors offered donations to pro-immigrant charities [ 1 ] . The demand letter also calls a public apology for the ad and a statement opposing ICE. However, the letter has seven demands, and only one is about ICE. The “Safe Workplace” demand calls for proper training and protective equipment for kitchen staff. Workers at the Nov. 8 rally explained that this request stemmed from the high rate of burn and cut injuries in the Durham Food Hall. The “Overtime Pay” section implies that vendors avoid paying workers time-and-a-half for overtime by splitting their hours between different corporate entities, and the letter demands an end to the practice. The Nov. 8 march began at CCB Plaza and moved down Foster Street to the Durham Food Hall. Dozens of participants entered the packed venue and read the demand letter aloud to someone at Auctioneer Bar. It was not clear if the person was a manager or an employee who was the only person the protesters could find. Given the public spectacle, there is no doubt that MDO Holdings is now aware of the demand letter, which was the main objective. Afterward, the crowd exited the food hall and listened to speeches on the sidewalk. Durham Food Hall workers Kai Bradley and Lenny made remarks, as did pastor Emily Wilkes and USSW member Nahshon Blount. Lenny said, “We face sexual harassment, racism, inhumane heat with no air conditioning, leaky ceilings, and more. We only have one bathroom for 60 employees to share. This ICE recruitment ad was the final straw.” Vendors and workers at Durham Food Hall have raised some concerns about management in the past [ 2 ]. However, there wasn't publicly visible labor organizing at the venue until now. During Saturday's event, Durham Food Hall workers did not mention any plans to push for an NLRB election. Instead, they seem focused on working with DHWA and USSW to fix the issues raised in the demand letter. If workers at the well-known downtown venue can coalesce into a new union, it would be a significant step forward for Durham’s labor movement. Workers from the Duke Graduate Student Union (DGSU) and REI Union Durham attended the Nov. 8 march to show their solidarity. Organized labor in Durham has been active recently. The city’s only unionized Starbucks in Renaissance Center held a practice picket on Oct. 27 as part of Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) preparations for a possible nationwide strike to secure a first contract [ 3 ]. On Nov. 8, Carolina Amazonians United for Solidarity and Empowerment (CAUSE) launched an organizing drive aimed at four Amazon facilities in the Durham area [ 4 ].   --- Letter from Durham Food Hall Workers to MDO Holdings Michael Olander Jr., CEO MDO Holdings and Durham Food Hall Vendors, We, the undersigned workers at the Durham Food Hall, are standing together to demand a safe workplace free of intimidation and a voice on the job. MDO Holdings and its vendors are profitable because of our hard work, yet we have experienced a pattern of sexual harassment, unsafe working conditions, and intimidation and racism especially towards immigrant workers while at work. Therefore, we demand: Repair and accountability for the ICE recruitment ad played Provide ICE raid training including 4th amendment workplace training and no search and seizure training Issue a public statement taking a stance against ICE Make a public apology for the harm to workers and chaos caused by the ad A safe workplace Fully functioning air conditioning to prevent staff health emergencies Fully staffed, well paid cleaning staff Proper training and protective equipment for work duties Protections against sexual harassment Implement a zero-tolerance policy including a no rehire clause Provide training against sexual harassment in the workplace Transparency on investigation for parties involved End to racism at Durham Food Hall Allow patrons to use restrooms regardless of purchase Zero tolerance policy for overt racist behavior DEI training for all managers and owners of the Food Hall Provide overtime pay for overtime hours worked within pay period End splitting hours between LLCs Voice on the job and direct line of communication to MDO holdings Provide clarity around who makes decisions Immediate end to retaliation against workers for organizing Pay workers for lost time they were scheduled to work but not allowed to enter Durham Food Hall MDO Holdings and its vendors have the power to improve our working conditions and ensure that we are able to safely provide for ourselves and our families, however, they have failed to do so. We, the undersigned workers of Durham Food Hall, are united together in these demands with the support of Durham Hospitality Workers Alliance and the Union of Southern Service Workers, SEIU. We are organizing to protect our health and safety and improve our lives and that of our families. We expect a response from MDO Holdings and their vendors one week from today. --- Work Cited Blackmon, C. (2025, October 29). An ICE ad was shown in the Durham Food Hall last week. Where things stand now. Raleigh News & Observer . https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article312675700.html A tale of woe inside Durham Food Hall. (2024, May 3). INDY Week. https://indyweek.com/food-and-drink/durham-food-hall-feature/ Durham’s only unionized Starbucks holds practice picket. (2025, November 6). Durham Dispatch . https://www.durhamdispatch.com/post/durham-s-only-unionized-starbucks-holds-practice-picket Amazon Union Campaign Expands to Durham. (2026, November 4). Indyweek . https://indyweek.com/news/durham/amazon-union-campaign-expands-to-durham/

Image credit: Artivista Karlin DURHAM, NC - On November 7th, the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, student organizers from a coalition of student, affinity, cultural, labor and community organizations under the banner Duke Rise Up, including both local groups and national organizations such as Sunrise Movement and Campus Climate Network,  organized a rally on Duke’s Abele Quad demanding  President Vincent Price reject the Trump administration’s “loyalty oath” compact made available to universities nationwide, which they say represents an unprecedented federal attack on democracy, academic freedom, and the safety of the entire Duke community. At the rally, Duke students unfurled an 8-foot banner reading “Duke rise up! Reject the compact,” along with two additional banners demanding “Price: protect your workers” and “Price: protect your students.” About 40 participants held hand signs demanding that Duke protect academic freedom, stand with immigrants, pay their workers a $25 per hour livable wage, protect international students, and protect trans students, as they heard from various speakers about why Duke University must reject the compact. “This compact is a direct attack on academic freedom, DEI, affinity groups, international students, trans students like myself, and the safety of all students and Durham workers here at Duke,” said Artivista Karlin, an organizer with Sunrise Duke. “We’re calling on President Price to reject the compact and refuse to bend the knee to authoritarianism.” Abi Human, president of Duke's Jewish Solidarity Movement, shared a song at the rally titled "You Won't Bring The Movement Down," and called upon students to "fight back against the fascist regime our country is descending into." Other voices  on campus have spoken out already to express the student body’s discontent with the compact’s demands, calling on Duke to reject Trump’s compact immediately.  “We're not here today because we want to see Duke fall short, or because we hate it. Quite the opposite, we want the students, faculty, staff, and community members here to thrive. We hate that it is not being the best it can be, not living up to its mission,” said Connor Ennis, a member of the Duke Climate Coalition. The rally yesterday was part of a nationwide student day of action  under the national Students Rise Up coalition. Peer institutions, including MIT, Dartmouth, Brown, and Penn, have already rejected the Trump administration’s compact following similar student mobilizations.  Students, faculty, and staff at more than 100 campuses across the US rallied against the Trump administration’s assault on higher education on Friday – the first in a planned series of nationwide, coordinated protests on the first Friday of every month that organizers hope will culminate in large-scale students’ and workers’ strikes next May Day and a nationwide general strike in May 2028 . Despite mounting pressure, Duke University has yet to issue a definitive response. President Vincent Price has called the compact “ problematic ” but has not publicly refused to sign it.  Sunrise Duke, Duke Climate Coalition, and coalition partners emphasized that the compact represents an attempt to consolidate federal control over universities, undermining their independence and silencing dissent.  “Neutrality and silence in times like these is a choice,” said Wendy House from Sunrise Duke. “President Price has a duty to protect trans students, international students, affinity groups, all workers and students, and the very principle of academic freedom. Anything short of outright rejection  of this compact is complicity.”

On Oct. 27, Starbucks workers and union supporters gathered outside the Renaissance Center location for a practice picket. The store is one of three in the Triangle area represented by Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), which is negotiating a first contract and preparing to strike in the next few months if necessary. Rallygoers chanted, “The workers united will never be defeated” and “Hey hey, ho ho, union busting has got to go” and held signs reading, “Just practicing for a just contract” and “No contract no coffee” [ 1 ] . About 20 people came to Monday’s event despite rainy conditions and workday timing. Attendees hailed from the NC AFL-CIO, Durham Association of Educators, Triangle Party for Socialism and Liberation, Union of Southern Service Workers, as well as Apex and Fayetteville Starbucks workers. While the SBWU is pressing hard for a first contract, the corporation is stalling negotiations to avoid recognizing the union’s permanence and legitimacy. The Starbucks workers have noted that the company's CEO, Brian Nichol, made around 6,600 times more than the average barista in 2024. In a social media statement, the SBWU said, “Over 12,000 Starbucks United members are fighting one of the biggest corporations on earth for a fair contract with higher pay, better staffing, and respect on the job. Workers also need the resolution of unfair labor practices!” The practice picket went unnoticed in local media with the exception of Univision North Carolina [ 2 ]. In an interview, a former employee named Olivia said, “I liked my co-workers, but it was a place where we didn't know when we were going to have to come in to work. We worked overtime a lot. They didn't give us the things we needed to do the job properly, but they still punished us. This event is to say that we didn't deserve that.” By showing the capacity to strike soon, workers are implicitly threatening to disrupt business during the profitable Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. In the Univision video, a supporter named Victor said, “There are many workers who are organizing to fight for better wages, better working conditions, for the smallest things. How is it possible that in the richest country in the world, in history, there are people here who cannot survive on these wages that they are given?” Starbucks baristas earn around $16 per hour, according to Indeed.com . A living wage in Durham is about $29 per hour for a household of two working adults and two children [ 3 ]. The Renaissance Center store unionized in Dec. 2023 by a 16-2 vote. Management quickly retaliated by cutting hours for pro-union employees, according to workers, who responded by demanding a 20-hour minimum work week [ 4 ]. There are seven unionized Starbucks in North Carolina and three in the Triangle (one apiece in Durham, Apex, and Chapel Hill). Since 2021, SBWU has grown to represent more than 650 stores and 14,000 workers, a streak of success triggered a severe anti-union crackdown by the corporation. The NLRB has responded with almost 200 complaints against Starbucks labor practices [ 5 ]. --- The Renaissance Center is also home to a unionized REI. Workers at the outdoor retailer won their NLRB election in May 2023 and continue to work towards a first contract. In March 2025, REI Union Durham celebrated one of their leaders, Steven Pitts, winning a legal settlement against the company two years after being fired [ 6 ]. On the union’s second anniversary, REI workers rallied outside the Durham location to demand good faith negotiations towards a first contract. At the event, the Durham Labor Choir went semi-viral by singing pro-union lyrics to the tune of a Chappell Roan song [ 7 ]. In August 2025, REI Union reported a breakthrough in talks with the company that could be “tremendous step forward in negotiating a first contract”. Trade unions have long been persecuted in North Carolina. The state has a unionization rate of 2.4 percent and Oxfam has designated it as the worst state for workers in 2025 [ 8 ]. A Jim Crow-era law, NC GS 95-98, still bans public sector unions while a ‘right-to-work’ law serves to weaken the finances of organized labor. North Carolina’s labor history is dotted with deadly events such as the Loray Mill Strike in 1929, the Greensboro Massacre in 1979, and the Imperial Foods Fire in 1991. Work Cited 1. Union of Southern Service Workers. (2025, October 27). Practice Picket. Instagram . https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQVH1M3gJ0Z/ 2. Univision North Carolina. (2025, October 28). Trabajadores de Starbucks en Carolina del Norte se preparan para huelga: esto es lo que exigen [Video]. YouTube . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPwiVm1BReg 3. Living Wage Calculator - Living wage calculation for Durham County, North Carolina. (2025). https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/37063 4. Patrick, J., Coffey, K., & Olexik, M. (2024, February 22). Starbucks employees in Durham report problems after decision to unionize. WRAL . https://www.wral.com/story/starbucks-employees-in-durham-report-problems-after-decision-to-unionize/21295778/ 5. Walter, K., Madland, D. (2025). The Fight To Unionize Starbucks by the Numbers. Center for American Progress .  https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-fight-to-unionize-starbucks-by-the-numbers/ 6. The Best States to Work in the US 2025. (August 28, 2025). Oxfam .  https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-justice/workers-rights/best-states-to-work/ 7. Two years after being fired, REI union organizer in Durham wins settlement. (2025, April 1).  Durham Dispatch .  https://www.durhamdispatch.com/post/two-years-after-being-fired-rei-union-organizer-in-durham-wins-settlement 8. REI Union Durham & Durham Labor Choir. (2025, May 21). Chappell Roan meets the REI union. Instagram .  https://www.instagram.com/reiunion/reel/DJ60BviNbqZ/

Durham’s election for Mayor and City Council ward seats is happening right now, and it’s a lot more important than you think. You are voting on whether to allow developers to erase Durham as we know it. A little-known new state law makes who controls the City Council pivotal for Durham’s future, potentially changing the city—and county—dramatically and permanently. In the next year, the City Council will vote on a new development ordinance (the “UDO”), with a draft now on City Hall desks, that would make it much, much easier to build extremely tall and dense development. For example, in the current draft, Broad Street could go to six stories, with up to 10 stories allowed in some circumstances. Downtown stretches of Broad Street. Image credit: Google Maps And that new state law? It would make such changes in the UDO permanent. Last December 11th, over Governor Stein’s veto, the North Carolina legislature gave the real estate industry a big holiday gift: Tucked 131 pages into the Hurricane Helene relief package was an unrelated provision that makes it practically impossible for cities or counties statewide to tighten regulation of development. The law turns planning and development regulation on its head, by saying that before a development ordinance imposes new restrictions on property use, every single owner of property affected must agree in writing to the new rules. Each and every owner. It makes development regulation into a ratchet that can go only one way: loosening laws to allow denser and taller development. Durham’s new draft UDO, under direction of the pre-election four-member City Council majority of Mayor Leo Williams, Mark-Anthony Middleton, Javiera Caballero and Carl Rist, has entirely new zoning districts which allow much denser and taller development, most of it “by right.” This means most development will not need a rezoning. Approval will be an administrative check list. You won’t have any say in the new development, even if it backs up to your yard. No public hearings. No public input. No notice given to nearby property owners. No City Council leverage to negotiate for better development or affordable housing. You will know a big new demolition and development is happening when you see it happening. And there will be no going back so long as the new state law remains. If dense development causes your yard to flood and your foundation to crack — well, that’s your problem. You can try to sue the developer, because the City will not help you. Mayor Leo Williams’ frequent refrain is, “We will build.” Without any more nuanced development policy, the environmental destruction has been massive. Rampant sprawl in southeast Durham has clear-cut and mass-graded thousands of acres of forestland. So much red clay has eroded into Lick Creek and its tributaries that they run tomato red. Many of those creeks are dead. The fish have died of clogged gills and the freshwater mussels have suffocated under silt. Williams, along with Mark-Anthony Middleton, Carl Rist and Javiera Caballero, preach we need more affordable housing — which is true — and that more building will drive down rents and house prices — which is not. Durham’s recent history has shown that to be a fiction. And national studies prove it. Like the regularly disproven supply-side economics argument, building willy-nilly doesn’t bring down house prices or rents. Instead, the relatively small additional housing supply that results from loosening development regulation accelerates gentrification. No lowering of prices has been found. A massive study looked at data from 1136 cities from 2000 to 2019. The conclusion? “[W]e find no statistically significant evidence that these reforms lead to an increase in affordable rental units within three to nine years of reform passage.” A 0.8% increase in housing stock was found, but, “This increase occurs predominantly for units at the higher end of the rent price distribution...”. Land-use reforms and housing costs: Does allowing for increased density lead to greater affordability? Urban Studies 1–22 (2023). Worse, loosening development rules fuels demolition, displacement and gentrification, disproportionately hitting lower income African-American and other minority neighborhoods, as found by recent studies of several cities. For one example, see Upzoning and gentrification: Heterogeneous impacts of neighbourhood-level upzoning in New York City, Urban Studies 62(10) (2025). The findings of these studies are mirrored in Durham’s experience. Durham Dataworks found that Durham’s loss of its African-American population is accelerating. Meanwhile, more affordable houses are common targets for tear-down, with 3 to 4 houses often built on a city lot, and each of the new houses selling for 30 to 40% more than the house that was torn down. High materials’ costs makes it very difficult to build new housing units that will sell at affordable prices. For affordability, preserving existing housing units is the better public policy. It should be noted that most development votes by the Durham City Council are unanimous. Over the past two years, there are about a dozen votes that split 4 to 3. However, those votes have been crucial, causing great human and environmental damage. Durham is getting the worst of both worlds - deregulated density along with rampant sprawl - without adequate infrastructure to support either. The alternative? Tell your City Council and County Commissioners that you want a more balanced approach to planning and development. And tell them to hit the brakes on deregulating development by loosening regulations while a state statute says there will be no going back. Sherri Zann Rosenthal is a former developer, and created Eno Commons, a 22-home cohousing neighborhood. She retired from her position as Deputy City Attorney for the City of Durham in 2020.

The working class in Durham is at a crossroads. Corporate developers are throwing a record amount of money into the City Council and Mayoral elections. This election will determine whether Durham is a city that invests in its communities or is a city that continues the path of recklessness in over-developing, displacing, and gentrifying our communities. Currently, there is a 4-3 block of city council members that has voted against all our union’s proposals in the last two election cycles, resulting in city workers withholding their labor, due to continued unfair wages and skyrocketing cost of housing and living expenses. This same block supports faster development, with inadequate housing affordability and poor city infrastructure. Mayor Williams himself has stated that, “I love gentrification.” Mayor Pro Tempore Middleton prefers to lecture city workers on their family budgets, rather than support their demands for higher minimum wage, yet their pens have never run out of ink when developers came knocking. The City is currently working to rewrite its Universal Development Ordinance without acknowledging the lack of support for critical infrastructure and those who maintain it. Our union members are tasked to maintain and support these infrastructures, often put together by contractors who have long ago took the money and ran, leaving you, the citizens of Durham with the bill. Willie Brown, President of UE150, and a stormwater maintenance worker in the City of Durham, stated that “Durham has a cancer, and we know cancer is often hard to detect in the beginning stages, yet often easier to cure,” referring to reckless development and displacement. “When it gets to the stage where it’s easier to detect, it is often fatal. You must treat cancer before it gets too late. I have never seen such a high level of underhanded skullduggery from developers in an election. We need candidates who will take the side of the citizens and not further displace, undermine, or destroy the communities that make Durham, who and what Durham is.” “City workers are the ‘only responders’”, stated Brown. They are the only responders when the streets are flooded from inadequate stormwater infrastructure, when water main lines break, when trees fall into the roads in the aftermath of storms, and when snow and ice cover city streets creating dangerous conditions. “We’re there for the good and the bad times, we never leave you stranded.” Brown further stated, “We come from far and wide to serve this city, because many of us can’t afford to live here.” Based on UE150’s main priorities, which include: 1) ensuring fair pay and up-to-date living wages adjustments for city workers, 2) creating more affordable housing, and 3) holding large corporations, including Duke University, accountable to pay their fair share of taxes to local governments, we are endorsing the following candidates: Mayor – Anjanee Bell Ward 1 – DeDreana Freeman Ward 2 – Shanetta Burris Ward 3 – Chelsea Cook This article was first published by UE Local 150 , the union that represents Durham city workers.

Lick Creek is a vital, sensitive stream in Durham that already struggles with sediment pollution from development. When construction sites aren't careful, mud and dirt wash directly into the water, smothering fish and wildlife. Sound Rivers fights tirelessly to keep this creek clean. But now, the Redeeming Development Group (RDG) is asking Durham City Council for a rezoning to build the Wake Olive Apartments without a real plan to protect our water during construction. They asked for our trust and then abused it. The project was denied in 2024, in part due to concerns about water quality. To get their project approved, RDG met with Sound Rivers, promising to implement superior water protection methods that go beyond the minimum requirements. At the Planning Commission hearing, they used our name and reputation as an environmental group to prove they were "collaborating" and convinced the Commission to vote yes, even though there are no meaningful protections to avoid sediment pollution during construction. RDG used our name, then vanished. That's bad faith. The moment RDG got the Planning Commission's vote, they completely cut off all communication with Sound Rivers. No explanation. No follow-up. Just total silence. Protecting water quality isn't complicated. Our request was simple, science-backed, and proven: Turbidity Sampling. This process, recommended by the EPA, samples the water flowing off a constructon site to ensure that it isn't polluting the creek. It's an easy, low-effort step for a developer but a massive safeguard for the environment. This is not included in the development proposal. Tell Durham City Council: say no to bad actors! We urge the Durham City Council to oppose the Wake Oliver Apartments Rezoning (Z2400038). We must send a message: Durham deserves developers who meet a higher standard of integrity and environmental protection of our drinking water supplies. Contact your City Council member today at council@durhamnc.gov .

At the city council work session on Oct. 9, Chelsea Cook advocated for a new ordinance that would increase tenant rights in Durham. Based on similar policies in Charlotte, Pittsboro, and Pineville, the proposed policy would make it unlawful for landlords to collect rent from properties deemed to be uninhabitable. Cook's ordinance will be debated at the Oct. 20 meeting of city council. Triangle Tenants Union and other organizations have called on supporters to pack the chambers. Cook is working to change Chapter 10, Article VI, Section 10-241 in the Code of Ordinances so that it would be “unlawful for the owner of a place of habitation that is imminently dangerous to health or safety to collect rent”. Imminent danger would be determined by eleven conditions such as “no potable water supply”, “no operable heating equipment, during November, December, January, February, or March”, and “no operable sanitary facilities” [ 1 ].   Cook called the pro-tenant ordinance “something that would allow for tenants who are in the most vulnerable positions to have a little bit more negotiation power.” [ 2, timestamp 1:13:00 ]   She said, “What ends up happening when people have habitability issues that are this severe is that they have to spend money outside their homes in order to have their basic needs met. They have to go to hotels, they have to take showers elsewhere, they have to join memberships at places … What happens when they have to spend all of that extra money and almost half of them are already rent burdened, they miss their rent payments the next month.” [ 2, timestamp 1:13:30 ] Cook described how some landlords let properties to deteriorate as a gentrification tool. She said, “[Landlords] can allow this to go on … until folks are forced to leave because they are unsafe, or they miss their payments and end up in eviction court. They can use those habitability issues to ensure that those folks who they don’t want are out and they can get residents that they want in.” [ 2, timestamp 1:14:00 ] After their input was solicited, the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) advised that the proposed ordinance could be vulnerable to a court challenge [ 3 ]. Similar ordinances have been used by three NC cities, two of them for decades. However, it is the role of CAO as an institution to be risk averse. During the Oct. 9 work session, the council majority (Javiera Caballero, Mark-Anthony Middleton, Carl Rist, and Leonardo Williams) seemed reluctant to step outside the bounds recommended by the CAO. Nate Baker supported Cook’s proposal.   In a Sept. 25 memo, the CAO recommended an alternative policies to protect tenants living in unsafe conditions. The lawyers suggested adding nine uninhabitability conditions "to the Emergency Repairs section of the Minimum Housing Code, Section 10-239(d)". Tenants would then be able to petition the Housing Appeals Board for a wider range of emergency repairs.   Cook is an eviction defense lawyer. She replied, “I don’t know who else of you has sat on this board, but I go to these board meetings … I send my tenants there all the time. You have to get an emergency hearing. It means enough board members have to sit down and make a decision. Then there is a 72 hour period in which they tell the owners of the property that they have to fix it. Then the city has to contract out to do the repairs. That’s city money they use to do the repairs. Then once those repairs are done, they can put a lien on the property if it’s ever sold to recoup the costs at a later date. That might be one year down the line, it might be never.” [ 2, timestamp 1:36:30 ]   City manager Bo Ferguson said, “the only emergency repairs that we have enforced under the ordinance have been heating related. Those are done at the city’s expense. There is the ability to levy a lien that only is repaid [on sale of the property]. Essentially, [the CAO proposal would be] a budget line item that is currently not budgeted. The discussion about the city remediating additional repairs would need significant staff analyses and likely an injection of new resources.” [ 2, timestamp 2:12:30 ]   While the CAO proposal would patch landlord neglect with public resources, Cook noted that it “does not get to the heart of [my] ordinance, which is the valuation piece … we are determining ahead of time that it is zero dollars for your rent if you are in one of these uninhabitable conditions.” [ 2, timestamp 1:37:30 ]   The city's lawyers also drafted an alternative ordinance "should the council still wish to adopt a prohibition on collecting rent". The alternate language from the CAO would "prohibit an owner from ... allowing occupancy of an imminently dangerous dwelling", which could be interpreted as meaning that tenants should be evicted if landlords allow a property to deteriorate.   Cook remarked, “The language in this makes me leery that people are going to be displaced.” [ 2, timestamp 2:06:30 ]   The council majority then tried to steer Cook onto a committee to work out a compromise. She replied that she’d spent three months trying to partner with her colleagues on the pro-tenant ordinance without success. Given that context, Cook prefered that her language to be placed on the agenda of the Oct. 20 council meeting.   Remarkably, student activists in the Riverside High School Affordable Housing Club played a significant role in lobbying for the pro-tenant ordinance. The club is mentioned as a major supporter in city documents and the organization’s president published an Indyweek op-ed advocating for the new policy. A source from the Indyweek piece states almost half of Durham residents spend 30 percent of their income on housing. Another source claims that about 16 percent of Black households in Durham are evicted on an annual basis [ 4 ].   In a statement, the Triangle Tenant Union said, “In just one week, we will be packing Durham city hall to support an ordinance that would allow tenants to withhold rent for safety code violations … we can’t let city council water it down.” The group's social media used the slogan, “No Rent for Slumlords.” The People’s Alliance, Triangle PSL, Durham Black PAC, and other organizations have issued calls for their supporters to attend the Oct. 20 city council meeting to support the ordinance. Cook's proposal has also received support from progressive clergy at the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church and Trinity Avenue Presbyterian Church.   Work Cited Cook, Chelsea; Riverside’s Affordable Housing Club. (Aug. 21, 2025). Housing Ordinance Amendment to Protect Tenants. City of Durham. https://cityordinances.durhamnc.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/WS-Published%20Attachment%20-%2018125%20-%20OTHER%20-%202%20-%20HOUSING%20CODE%20ORDINANCE%20ADDITIO.pdf?meetingId=709&documentType=Agenda&itemId=44887&publishId=253158&isSection=false City of Durham NC. (2025, October 9). Durham City Council Work Session October 9, 2025 [Video]. YouTube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3K_yAOoZe0 City Attorney’s Office. (Sept. 25, 2025). Imminently dangerous conditions and rent prohibition housing ordinances. City of Durham. https://cityordinances.durhamnc.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/WS-Published%20Attachment%20-%2018125%20-%20MEMO%20-%203%20-%20CAO%20RESPONSE%20MEMO%20-%2010_20_202.pdf?meetingId=709&documentType=Agenda&itemId=44887&publishId=253159&isSection=false 4. Graber, M. (2025, October 13). Op-Ed: Durham needs a tenant protection ordinance . INDY Week. https://indyweek.com/news/opinions/op-ed-durham-needs-a-tenant-protection-ordinance/

Image credit: Engage Durham, New UDO Zoning Comparison Viewer After Durham adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in October 2023, the city began to rewrite its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which includes the city’s zoning rules. The new rules will guide Durham's physical growth for at least the next decade, although UDOs can be amended. The rewrite will have a major impact on housing costs, gentrification, sprawl, and other issues. The city council would approve the final UDO after the 2025 elections.   To help the public understand the proposed changes, Engage Durham launched the New UDO Zoning Comparison Viewer , last updated in early 2025. The tool includes a side-by-side map that shows how the new rules would simplify and transform zoning in many neighborhoods. An important change is the introduction of "Residential Neighborhood (RD)" zoning, shown in bright yellow across large areas of Durham.   Under the proposed RD zoning, a landowner could choose from three development paths. RD-1 would allow a single primary house and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a standard 5,000 sq. ft lot. The second scenario, RD-2, would allow greater density on a similarly-sized lot, allowing up to four compact housing units (such as smaller houses or duplexes) in buildings up to three stories tall. The third and most dense option, RD-3, would permit one housing unit for every 625 sq. ft. of lot size, but only for projects that meet an affordability requirement that has not yet been defined. For example, an eight-unit, three-story apartment building could be built on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. Proposed "Residential Neighborhood" development options. Image credit: City of Durham [ 1, timestamp 34:00 ] The proposed RD-2 and RD-3 zoning options could fuel two kinds of problematic growth on cheaper land in Durham. In centrally located, lower-income neighborhoods, the new rules may accelerate displacement of current residents through rising rents and property taxes. On the city’s outskirts, the construction of dense 'by-right' projects could speed up a costly pattern of suburban sprawl. While this model of growth is highly profitable for developers, it creates long-term financial strains on the city, as delivering services like roads, water, and fire protection to dispersed areas is far more expensive than servicing a dense urban core. In southeast Durham, sprawl has also been environmentally destructive [ 2 ].   It may be prudent to restrict the more intensive RD-2 and RD-3 options to within a few miles of downtown Durham. This geographic limit can also be paired with community benefits agreements and inclusionary zoning to encourage housing that serves low-income and working-class residents. This approach would channel investment into a higher-density, less car-dependent urban core, create fewer long-term financial liabilities for the city, and blunt the forces of gentrification and displacement. Durham’s struggle to balance developer investment with the housing needs of working-class residents is is currently being faced by many US cities. A promising idea from Louisville, KY is an anti-displacement ordinance that uses an algorithm to check whether developer projects aligns with neighborhood income levels. If a project would price out current residents, then it cannot receive city subsidies [ 3 ].   The proposed UDO could reduce the Durham city council’s influence over at least one major commercial project close to downtown, the Heritage Square redevelopment. In August 2025, the Sterling Bay company withdrew a rezoning request for the vacant shopping mall in the heart of historic Hayti. The company initially sought council approval to build above 175 ft. Under the new UDO, the site would be zoned as CX-8. Like the RD-3 zoning, CX-8 includes an undefined affordability requirement [ 4 ]. If Sterling Bay meets that future requirement, the company could build with no height limit and without a public hearing, proceeding with a ‘by-right’ project and bypassing the city council. Current zoning for residential areas. Image credit: Engage Durham [ 5, slides 23-24 ] The contents of the new UDO will be heavily influenced by the outcome of the 2025 city elections. The current council is divided 4-3 on development issues, specifically on annexation and rezoning requests.   A four-member majority of Javiera Caballero, mayor pro tempore Mark-Anthony Middleton, Carl Rist, and mayor Leonardo Williams have voted in favor of virtually all developer requests. Their approach to the UDO is expected to focus on maximizing housing construction with no affordability mandate or protections against displacement and sprawl.   A three-member minority of Nate Baker, Chelsea Cook, and DeDreana Freeman has used the annexation and rezoning process to negotiate for community benefits. This group has voted to approve developer requests around two-thirds of the time. The priority of the council minority for the new UDO would be to strengthen the city’s leverage to control sprawl, secure affordable housing, and prioritize community needs.   Two members of the pro-developer majority, Middleton and Williams, are being challenged by Shanetta Burris and Anjanee Bell, respectively. Bell, Burris, and the minority incumbents (Cook and Freeman) have been endorsed by the city workers union, UE Local 150. The Durham Progressive Democrats have also endorsed Burris, Cook, and Freeman, while staying neutral in the mayoral race.   The business-oriented Friends of Durham group has endorsed the challengers to Cook and Freeman (Diana Medoff and Matt Kopac), while backing the incumbents Middleton and Williams. Major organizations such as the People’s Alliance, the Durham Committee for the Affairs of Black People, and the Indyweek newspaper split their endorsements between the two camps. Durham city council votes in 2024 on zoning changes and consolidated annexations Image credit: BCPI Work Cited City of Durham NC. (2024, October 30). New UDO Oct 22 Virtual Community meeting  [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIzQ-FexhxY Durham developer settles pollution lawsuit, protecting Raleigh’s drinking water. (2025, September 23). Raleigh News & Observer . https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article312144711.html ‘Anti-Displacement Tool’ to Direct City Funding to Projects that Won’t Price Out Residents. (2025, June 27). Shelterforce.   https://shelterforce.org/2025/03/06/anti-displacement-tool-to-direct-city-funding-to-projects-that-wont-price-out-residents/ Draft Zoning District Standards (Fall 2024) . (2024, September 30). Engage Durham. https://engagedurham.com/DocumentCenter/View/646/Draft-Zoning-District-Standards-Fall-2024 Unified Development Ordinance Code Audit & Approach. (2024, May 1). Engage Durham . https://engagedurham.com/DocumentCenter/View/601/Durham-New-UDO-Audit-and-Approach-Presentation-JCCPC-20240501

L eft: 505 West Chapel Hill Street site. Image credit: Raleigh News and Observer. Right: Redevelopment plan (now abandoned). Image credit: City of Durham. Dear Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tempore Middleton, and Council members Baker, Caballero, Cook, Freeman and Rist: The organizations listed below believe that the Durham City Council’s decision at its June 5 Work Session to end negotiations with the Peebles Corporation creates a unique opportunity at the 505 site to address the City’s worsening affordable housing crisis without further delay.  At the Work Session, we were pleased to hear that a majority of Council members expressed a desire to proceed now with building a significant number of affordable units at 505 West Chapel Hill Street. We call on the Council, as our duly elected representatives, to direct City staff to move forward immediately with a plan to build a minimum of 130 units of rental housing affordable in perpetuity to families earning 60% of AMI.  Specifically, we call on Council to direct the City Manager and City Staff to:  Within 90 days, select a qualified affordable housing developer with a successful track record in Durham and North Carolina to partner with the City to develop and implement a plan to build a minimum of 130 units of affordable rental housing at 505;  Work with the selected developer to create a plan acceptable to the City and the developer for building the affordable units and sufficient parking facilities on a portion of the 505 site; and Within 90 days of selecting the developer, return to City Council with the plan and a proposed contract with the developer for Council’s consideration and approval. The following points inform our request: An RFP process is not required for the City Council to move forward with affordable housing, which it has named as its first priority at the site. The City Attorney clearly indicated at the June 5 meeting that the City could enter into a sole source agreement with a developer to address a public need. At least two highly qualified affordable housing developers with experience in Durham and NC – Laurel Street Partners and DHIC – have indicated an interest in engaging with the City to proceed with construction of affordable housing on the portion of the 505 site that does not include the Milton Small Building (MSB).    This approach was one of the three possible pathways outlined by City Staff in its memo to Council: “ Pursue Smaller Scale Redevelopment” (a) Solicit a developer for Milton Small and/or affordable housing and b) Add surface parking and open space.   We are concerned that yet another extended planning process for the 505 site – such as a master planning process -- will cause unacceptable delays in addressing the City’s affordable housing crisis. The best time to build affordable housing is now, when the market for commercial office space and higher end or market rate housing is “soft.”    For this major tract of City property strategically located in Durham’s downtown, we continue to favor a long-term ground lease to the developer, or equivalent protections for the City’s interests and for the welfare of the residents of any affordable housing built at 505.   We remain committed to building units affordable in perpetuity at 60% of AMI.  We encourage the use of DHA project-based vouchers to make a portion of the units affordable to families at 30% AMI.   We take no position on the advisability of preserving the MSB. Adequate space exists on the remainder of the 4.4 acre site to accommodate 130-plus units of affordable rental units and sufficient parking, while leaving room for other forms of development (housing, retail, commercial) as market conditions improve.    We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you in the next few weeks to discuss this request. In the meantime, thank you for your consideration of this opportunity to address Durham’s critical need for affordable housing. Sincerely,   Rick Larson, on behalf of Duke Memorial United Methodist Church Durham Coalition for Affordable Housing and Transit Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People  Durham People’s Alliance This article was first published by People's Alliance .