Brian Fitzsimmons
Brian Fitzsimmons ran for election to the Raleigh City Council to represent District B in North Carolina. Fitzsimmons lost in the general election on October 8, 2019.
Biography
Brian Fitzsimmons was born in Broome, New York, and lives in Raleigh, North Carolina. Fitzsimmons earned a bachelor's degree from St. Bonaventure University. His career experience includes working as an insurance agent. Fitzsimmons has served as the chair of the Wake County Democratic Party.[1]
Elections
2019
See also: City elections in Raleigh, North Carolina (2019)
General election
General election for Raleigh City Council District B
Incumbent David Cox defeated Brian Fitzsimmons in the general election for Raleigh City Council District B on October 8, 2019.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | David Cox (Nonpartisan) | 54.1 | 4,143 |
| Brian Fitzsimmons (Nonpartisan) | 45.3 | 3,469 | ||
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.5 | 42 | ||
| Total votes: 7,654 | |||
 = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Campaign themes
2019
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Brian Fitzsimmons did not complete Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Fitzsimmons' campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
On May 21st, the Raleigh City Council implemented rules pertaining to short term housing rentals (STR’s), which most commonly come in the form of AirBnB or VRBO. In short, the rules say: Whole-house rentals are only allowed in mixed-use zoning A full-time property resident must be present during the rental A max of two adults are allowed, plus their minor children Homeowners would be required to submit applications for “homestay permits”, which would likely need to include a general layout and proof of residency All existing ADU’s (or ones created via the new ADU process) would be counted as whole-house rentals and would face the same restrictions Violations of the ordinance could mean $500/day fines Like most issues that appear before council, addressing short-term rentals requires a nuanced approach. It’s valid to say that allowing whole-house rentals by-right could have a negative effect on housing inventory. In cities where this has been allowed, it is not uncommon to see owners buy up houses simply for the purpose of short-term rentals. There are ways to combat this, including (at the most basic level) common sense regulation of the length of each stay. This requires, and deserves, further study. But instead of choosing to do so, Council rejected a motion by Councilwoman Stewart to further study the whole-house aspect of this ordinance. To the majority of council, this is just another binary issue. They are choosing to ignore the group that they convened to study this issue, despite their self-described commitment to citizen engagement. They are choosing to ignore the countless folks who have made their fear of renting a room (as opposed to a whole house) well known. Instead, they are relying on the voices of a few. Council’s fear of STR’s and their effect on housing inventory rings pretty hollow. It’s a convenient excuse, even as they work to further prevent any kind of meaningful density. You can’t harbor a fear of a depleted housing inventory while at the same time actively working to keep it that way. This was billed (much like the ADU decision) as a “compromise”. Again, this council views this issue like it does so many others: on or off, for or against, legal or illegal. In their view, both the ADU decision and the decision on STR’s allows them to say that both are allowed under city law, while ignoring the incredible hoops and onerous regulations citizens must go through to make it work. Compromise assumes concessions from both sides, arriving at a middle ground. Working together to find common ground is what we should demand, at the very least, from our municipal government. But we can’t mistake the ADU and STR decisions for this. Make no mistake, the only true concession made by the majority of council yesterday was the “approval” of an STR ordinance. Everything else was on their terms. People are sick of hearing about STR’s, ADU’s, and scooters. I get that, believe me. But know that they are indicative of a larger problem: an aversion to anything new. I truly believe, despite my disagreement with a number of the council member’s votes yesterday, that all eight of them have the best intentions at heart. They love Raleigh, and want what’s best for our great city. What we have to realize is that what part of what has made us great is growth, advancement, and an embrace of new ideas. Our past has brought us all kinds of committed people and business, joining a rich history of long-time North Carolinans in the Capital City. It’s all of these things combined that has us on a truly awesome trajectory. Why would we stop that now? Some will say we are trying to destroy the single family neighborhood. Please do not believe that. I live in one and love it. No one is suggesting that we build a 12-story apartment complex next to your split-level ranch. I just want to see Raleigh continue on its path of progressive and thoughtful growth, welcoming businesses and families of all types. This requires a nuanced approach, and it’s that approach that I will bring to council.
In today’s political climate, these two words seem to be used interchangeably. “What is equal must also be equitable.” In reality, we’re talking about two completely different things. From a municipal standpoint, it breaks down like this: “Should all available city services be provided to each and every Raleigh district?” <– This is a question of equality. “Should the areas of the city which are historically underserved get more in order for them to catch up?” <– This is a question of equity. The fact of the matter is, we should do everything in our power to ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to achieve in our great city. From what we are able to do, we should be willing to do everything to make that happen. But equality means nothing without equity. If people are starting from a different starting point, equal access to services means very little. It means that those who are already struggling have to work that much harder to end up at the starting point of many others. As a city, Raleigh must be willing to understand the difference between equality and equity, and that begins with comprehensive training. At the onset of each council term, council members should be required to attend a day-long workshop on the state of equality and equity in the City of Raleigh. Groups from around the city could come in and provide insight on what kind of progress has been made thanks to the prior term’s efforts, and what needs to be done in the coming term. You’ll hear a lot during this election about equality. Let’s just be sure that we pay as much attention to equity.
The issue of “affordable housing” is a difficult one, to say the least. For starters, it’s entirely subjective. What is affordable to you might not be affordable to me, or vice versa. Affordable housing has a working definition that typically says that if you earn less than 60% of Raleigh’s Area Median Income (AMI), you qualify for assistance. Raleigh’s AMI for a family of four is $67,450, so you would have to earn at or below $40,470 to qualify. While those at that level are most often highlighted, we cannot ignore those who are closer to 30%, or even below that. There are far too many people in Raleigh who fall into that category. Raleigh is facing a crisis when it comes to affordable housing, but this isn’t anything new. This issue has been staring us in the face for years, without nearly enough focus being paid on it by our city council. Thousands of families are searching for housing that they can afford, and the current affordable housing vacancy rate rate remains steady at 1.6%, with no sign of growing. In 2015 the Raleigh Housing & Neighborhoods department was tasked with the goal of producing 5,700 affordable units in ten years. Council contributed to this goal a one-cent property tax increase, some of which was allocated in 2018. Even when we consider that, we still are not doing enough to address the problem. Greater investment in affordable housing is only part of the solution. We need to be willing to consider everything. Money will not solve all of our problems. We need to be willing to consider: Making it easier for developers willing to invest in affordable housing to get the needed rezoning approvals. In rezoning cases, it is the petitioner who carries the burden of proof. Considering the crisis we find ourselves in, we should consider, within reason, shifting some of that burden to neighborhoods. Why shouldn’t affordable housing be built? Ensuring that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are available via a by-right option, without an overly burdensome overlay process Advocating for affordable mixed-use developments in and around transit corridors A willingness to embrace density in a gradual, deliberate manner Radical new (to Raleigh) ideas like single room occupancy developments Some of these ideas can work, and can be done now. Ideas like inclusionary zoning would absolutely give us a greater ability to address the issue of affordable housing in certain areas of our city, but we are limited in what we can do based on North Carolina law. Similarly, North Carolina must be willing to implement comprehensive source of income discrimination laws, protecting holders of Section 8 vouchers from being denied acceptance. While we continue to advocate on Jones Street for every arrow in our quiver, let’s do the things we CAN do. [2] |
” |
| —Brian Fitzsimmons' campaign website (2019)[3] | ||
See also
2019 Elections
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- City of Raleigh
- Raleigh City Council website
- Campaign website
- Campaign Facebook page
- Campaign Twitter page
Footnotes
- ↑ Brian Fitzsimmons' for Raleigh, "About Brian," accessed August 25, 2019
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Brian Fitzsimmons' campaign website, “Issues,” accessed August 25, 2019
| |||||||||
