Candidate Questionnaire Responses 2025

Jess Anderson: Chapel Hill Mayor

Mark Bell: Hillsborough Mayor

Kathleen Ferguson: Hillsborough Board of Commissioners

Barbara Foushee: Carrboro Mayor

Fred Joiner: Carrboro Town Council

Wes McMahon: Chapel Hill Town Council

Paris Miller-Foushee:  Chapel Hill Town Council

Danny Nowell: Carrboro Town Council

Cristóbal Palmer: Carrboro Town Council

Louie Rivers III: Chapel Hill Town Council

Erik Valera: Chapel Hill Town Council

Jess Anderson: Affordable housing remains a high priority for me and I have demonstrated my commitment to affordable housing throughout my tenure on the Council. In recent years, the Town has made meaningful progress by employing a multi-pronged strategy and a range of tools to expand access to affordable homes. This includes a growing mix of rental and for-sale units to meet the diverse needs of our community.

We currently have hundreds of new affordable dwellings in the construction pipeline. And, our annual budget includes dedicated funding for affordable housing, and voters recently approved an additional $15 million in bond funding to support new projects – which will help ensure that we keep the momentum going. 

Looking ahead to the coming year, I believe we must focus on three key areas:

1. Innovative solutions for our unsheltered neighbors — exploring new approaches to provide safe, stable housing for those experiencing homelessness.

2. A comprehensive master plan for public housing — developing a clear timeline and funding strategy to redevelop and densify our aging public housing communities.

3. Maximizing impact through partnerships — working closely with our partners to ensure affordable housing funds are used efficiently, with a strong emphasis on creating and preserving homes for those who need it most.  

Mark Bell: Affordable housing continues to be a top priority for me and for the Town of Hillsborough and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. A national housing shortage and heightened demand, especially in the North Carolina and Triangle markets, continues to drive development of higher-end housing options that is out of reach of average or below-average wage earners. The recent Orange County property tax revaluation demonstrates that average valuations are rising much faster than wages, which decreases affordability and pushes residents to spend more than 30% of net income on rent and utilities. As mayor, I will continue to champion the town’s approach to increasing safe and affordable housing in the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan, funding for projects and use of town land for affordable housing, and numerous other strategies adopted by the town when I was a commissioner. The mayor only votes to break a tie in Hillsborough, so my role is now to help guide the discussion and represent our commitment with residents and stakeholders to gain more permanently affordable housing in Hillsborough and Orange County.

Kathleen Ferguson: Attainable, safe, secure, affordable housing continues to be one of my top priorities. I will continue to advocate for Town funding support, policy support, and commitments to affordable housing for Hillsborough form developers.  

Barbara Foushee: I have been in service to the Carrboro community since 2017 and am committed to addressing housing access and affordability in town.   The town of Carrboro has a designated revenue stream to support affordable housing efforts and are currently dedicating a full 2 cents on our property tax rate for our affordable housing special revenue fund; the additional half cent was approved in our FY 2026 budget.  This funding can be used for weatherization projects, critical home repairs and land acquisition for projects with local affordable housing providers.  There will always be a need for affordable housing funding in the community as we try to increase the stock and maintain the naturally occurring affordable housing.   The town of Carrboro is also in the process of creating a unified development ordinance (land use ordinance re-write) that will be more closely aligned with our Carrboro Connects comprehensive plan which could lead to more affordable housing opportunities.

Fred Joiner: Affordable housing rank in my top three priorities as an elected official. In my first year, I am committed, to first, getting more educated about affordable housing in the context in which we live.

What I mean concretely by that is making myself available to listen and to hear from community members what "affordable housing" means to them. More specifically I want to hear from people who would are need of affordable housing , not just understand their housing needs, but their other needs in the way of employment, childcare, mental health service, food insecurity, legal services. Sometimes housing is just a symptom of some other systemic need or support that our neighbors need.

I also want to learn more about what the obstacles are to developing affordable housing and what I can do as an elected official to make it easier to develop.

Wes McMahon: Doing whatever we can to reduce the cost of living in Chapel Hill, including the cost of housing, is one of my highest priorities. The number one thing we can do is pass identified changes to our LUMO that will remove barriers to the construction of smaller, dense housing that by nature will cost less and be more attainable to middle and lower income residents. These changes do not cost money and can be implemented quickly. Second, we can stay the course on our current investments in affordable housing that include the Affordable Housing Development Reserve Fund and the Revolving Loan Fund. We should also see the completion of LIHTC projects that are in development and locate suitable town owned land for future LIHTC projects. Third, while we continue bringing new affordable units online, I would like to prioritize recommendations in our affordable housing plan that are lower cost and could get us results with the funds we have or those that have a smaller gap in funding. Finally,  we have to do our best to preserve naturally occurring affordable homes for long-term homeowners and renters. We have to address rising residential property taxes as an issue of affordability. We must work with the County to make sure that revaluations are fair and accurate. We also have to reassess our own budget priorities and assure the community that increasing taxes isn’t the only answer to making our town solvent while living up to our values. 

Paris Miller-Foushee:  Affordable housing, as evidenced by my work during my first term on council, is my first priority. As someone who grew up in public housing, and currently lives in one of the last working class, Black neighborhoods in Chapel Hill (Northside), I am committed to preserving and building more affordable homes that are close to transit options and meaningful amenities. 

During my first term on Council, we approved over 1000 new affordable homes and brokered a deal with UNC Health and Self Help Credit Union to establish a $20 million revolving loan fund to build affordable homes for our essential healthcare workers. 

During the first year of my second term, I want to execute on our Town's Complete Communities Framework where we will leverage town-owned land to build affordable housing, parks, and neighborhood retail so that folks of all backgrounds can afford to work, live, and play in our community. 

I will also work with UNC Chapel Hill to ensure that they build more on-campus student housing, so that the affordable homes in Chapel Hill, especially in Northside, can remain in our communities. 

Last, I will prioritize funding for our local non-profits and affordable housing developers to preserve and construct affordable units in our community. 

Danny Nowell: Affordable housing is my highest priority. In the first year of my next term, Carrboro will finalize it's revised Land Use Ordinance, which will place affordable housing at the center of our development plans to the fullest extent allowable by North Carolina law. I expect us to be incentivizing subsidized units with multiple elements of our ordinance to push developers toward delivering units rather than payments in lieu as much as possible. I'd also like to increase our efforts to acquire land as a town and establish a gap financing model to give us more leverage to push developers to build affordable units. 

Cristóbal Palmer: Affordable Housing is a top priority of my campaign to keep the seat I have held since December of 2024, and in less than a year since my election to my seat I’ve demonstrated that housing is a priority both by taking a liaison appointment to the Housing and Human Services Advisory Commission (HHSAC), and with my vote to support a half cent equivalent allocation to affordable housing programs such as critical home repairs and weatherization. Additionally, both the Downtown Area Plan Project and the UDO rewrite that are in-process have housing affordability as key goals. I look forward to working with the consultants and town staff as we finalize both projects.

Louie Rivers III: Affordable housing is a top priority for me. It is the 2nd plank in my campaign platform and  interrelated to the other two planks in our platform: 1) preparing for climate change; and 2) promoting transparent and equitable community engagement.

During my first year as a council member I will look for ways to better fund affordable and transitional housing in Chapel Hill. I provide greater detail in my response to the next question.

Erik Valera: Affordable housing must be at the heart of how we grow as a town. I’m committed to addressing Chapel Hill’s affordable housing crisis—it’s one of my top priorities. We cannot build an inclusive and connected future if the people who teach our children, serve our meals, and care for our elders cannot afford to live here. The Complete Communities framework is only meaningful if it begins with affordable housing.

In my first year, I will support adoption of the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) rewrite to allow more missing-middle housing and strengthen requirements for deeper affordability. I will vote for a LUMO that aligns with the Future Land Use Map, encourages housing near greenways and transit, and introduces form-based design standards that prioritize walkability, tree protection, and stormwater resilience. These updates will unlock vacant and underused parcels, expand housing options, and enable new development forms currently restricted, helping stabilize prices over time.

Zoning reform alone won’t end the crisis. I will advocate for stronger communication and support for those at risk of displacement and invest in deeply affordable housing for households earning 30%–60% AMI. By prioritizing nonprofit developers, land trusts, and transit-oriented projects, Chapel Hill can build a truly inclusive, complete community.

Jess Anderson: 1. Using town-owned land, working with partners, and leveraging LIHTC and other funds to create new affordable housing communities to be the only way for us to provide housing for our lower wealth individuals.  The Town has been very successful, in recent years, at competing for LIHTC awards and has plans for additional applications for the Legion Road property and others.  We need to keep that up.

2. In Spring, I asked staff to explore opportunities for working with Dignity Moves – an organization that is addressing homelessness in California by creating interim supportive housing.  Initial conversations have been positive, and I am eager to have us find opportunities to partner with them to provide immediate relief for many of our unsheltered residents. 

3. Expand master leasing to serve more low-income renters.

Mark Bell: Hillsborough has multiple strategies that I support to increase the supply of affordable housing for a variety of AMI levels, as well as to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). These strategies are aligned with similar goals of our Orange County Housing Coalition partners and include negotiating with developers wishing to build new housing and to partner with established organizations such as Habitat for Humanity of Orange County and CASA to create a significant percentage (e.g. 15%) of units as permanently affordable for specific ranges of AMI. Units dedicated to extremely low AMI (30% or less) typically require external support from the town, Orange County, or through creative development arrangements, and the town created a special fund equal 2 cents of the town's property tax rate dedicated to affordable housing to assist in this scenario. Our recent support for Habitat’s Auman Village is an example of this type of funding allocation, as is our dedication of town-owned land adjacent to the future train station for affordable housing, and the town’s recent funding support for the Orange County Home Repair Consortium's Repair & Renovation Pilot Program to help preserve NOAH.

Kathleen Ferguson: We need to continue pushing developers to include, and we need to stand behind our annual financial commitment for housing adopted in the FY 25-26 budget. When the Town develops our train station property, affordable housing for 0 -30% must be included, along with affordable housing for 30-60AMI, 60-80 AMI, and 80-120 AMI.I also would like to see the county include affordable housing, especially for 0-30% and 30-60% as they redevelop county properties in downtown Hillsborough. 

I would like to see 3D printer and other alternative build materials/process developers approach us so that the few remaining developable options can be done so at lower costs and create more affordable options. We also need support from the community for density. Unfortunately, our greatest challenge, however, remains infrastructure limitations that cap the number of residences that can be built within Hillsborough's Town limits: limited wastewater capacity, water treatment capacity, and land availability without developing into the rural buffer. It is why I am working towards developing a regional housing plan as chair of Central Pines Regional Council's Housing committee. With regional planning, we expect to be better able to identify ideal affordable housing sites along mass transit routes and open up opportunities to apply for regional / multi-jurisdiction housing funding grants.

Last but not least, we also need have to have state and federal funding support, changes to financing rules to allow mortgages and homeowner tax breaks for tiny homes, and we need additional authority granted by the legislature. We especially need massive federal and state funding support for development, case management, and care for permanent supportive housing, for which we are in desperate need!

Barbara Foushee: We need funding, collaborations with affordable housing providers, government agency engagement and good working relationships with developers who might want to help with housing the lowest income community members.  This effort would entail bringing together a coalition of community and all available resources over a sustained period of time to be successful and sustainable.  It will take all of us!  Other ideas to consider are repurposing existing buildings, innovative and creative financing opportunities and rent subsidy programs.

Fred Joiner: As we approach about new development, we should think about requiring developers to set aside a a certain percentage of units as affordable for our neighbors earning 30% Area Median Income (AMI) and below. I think that is a start. I am not interested in develop set aside developments where only these neighbors reside. There are many studies that demonstrate that mixed income communities are healthier communities. I am interested in mixed income communities and spaces.

Wes McMahon: We should ensure the continuation and completion of current LIHTC projects and continue leveraging suitable town-owned land for future LIHTC projects. We can also work with community partners to find additional private investment to help reduce the cost to build units for those at 30% AMI and below, like we saw with the construction of Peach Apartments. We should also encourage more private funding into our Revolving Loan Fund and put those funds to work. 

Paris Miller-Foushee:  The two levers for creating affordable housing for individuals earning 30% AMI are: using Town-owned land to build homes for families at this income level, and an expedited review process for affordable housing that priorities families making 30% AMI. 

During my first term, we established a plan for leveraging Town-owned land to build homes for families at 30% AMI, and we established the expedited review entitlement process for affordable housing projects. 

During my second term, I want to double down on these two measures, and ensure that they apply to 30% AMI affordability, not just 80% and above. 

Danny Nowell: I'd like us to shift away from strict reliance on our zoning policies (though I think we can be getting more from them, which is why the LUO is such a priority) and focus on acquiring land for gap financing and development with partners like Pee Wee Homes, Empowerment, and Habitat for Humanity. In a gap financing model, we could offer land that the Town acquired at a steep discount, and use a Town fund to give low-interest loans to cover the first position on development costs needed to make radically affordable units pencil out for developers. 

Cristóbal Palmer: I support a targeted public-private partnership to build housing designed to serve the population below 30% AMI, perhaps in combination with service delivery space for unhoused or other at-risk residents.The housing availability challenges for these populations are significantly more intense than for other groups, and come with additional planning challenges, including identifying and securing the availability of an appropriate site. Our current five year projection for capital projects has been significantly disrupted due to Chantal, and many naturally occurring affordable housing units were impacted by Chantal. I look forward to hearing from town staff in September of this year how they propose we adjust our budget for years 2 and 3 in our capital projects plan, and housing availability is top of mind for me going into that conversation.

Louie Rivers III: I think that Chapel Hill needs to be creative in the funding of housing for individuals at 30% AMI. Specifically, we should seek to leverage the considerable affordable housing provider ecosystem and existing relationships that exists in our community (this includes the town of Chapel Hill, Self Help, Empowerment, Community Home Trust, The Marian Cheek Jackson Center, the North Carolina Housing Coalition and others) to seek affordable housing funding from the non-profit sector, specifically large foundations (such as the Kresge Foundation). The innovation would be that the town would serve as a partner with the other local housing organizations in seeking these grants as opposed to serving as a funder to these local organizations. The town does not have a enough money to cover our affordable housing needs on it's own. Additionally, trying to do it through the development process is not quick enough and does not provide enough units.  

Erik Valera:  Creating affordable housing for individuals earning 30% AMI and below is essential to building a Chapel Hill where everyone has a place. If we are serious about ending the affordable housing crisis, we must lead with compassion and bold solutions that center those with the least access to safe, stable homes.

I will advocate for using public land—such as the Greene Tract and other town-owned parcels—to partner with nonprofit developers who specialize in deeply affordable and permanent housing. I support expanding the Town’s Affordable Housing Fund to provide layered subsidies and gap financing that make 30% AMI units financially viable. I will also work to ensure we fully leverage state and federal tools, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HOME funds, which remain available. Finally, I will prioritize pairing new housing with transit access and language inclusion, so that homes connect people to opportunity and all residents can fully participate in shaping the future of their neighborhoods.

Jess Anderson: YES - Housing policy has a racialized context and current day patterns are based on past discriminatory housing policies, like redlining and access to capital. Affordable housing is one of the best tools we have locally to correct for a variety of racist policies that have contributed to gaps in outcomes for black and brown populations. 

Mark Bell: YES - There is a very long history of racial exclusion through restrictive zoning and housing policies that confronts us to this day. Hillsborough is a member of the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) program and the One Orange Countywide Racial Equity Framework, and we’re in the process of creating our own racial equity plan to address equity in numerous areas, including housing, development, and transportation. We work with numerous organizations and programs to help overcome housing inequities, including the Orange County Housing Department's Home Preservation Coalition, Home Repair & Renovation Pilot, Housing Choice Voucher Program, Emergency Housing Assistance Program, Partnership to End Homelessness. 

Kathleen Ferguson: YES - People of color continue to be disproportionately represented among folks at risk of homelessness, homeless, and in low and lower income jobs, which limits their housing options. Housing is a human right, and we cannot leave segments of people without affordable safe permanent housing options.

Barbara Foushee: YES - Yes I do and housing inequities should be addressed through a racial equity lens. I  understand the intersectionality between housing, race, and economic mobility. The role that systemic racism plays in housing access is a crucial issue and racial equity should be embedded into all affordable housing goals, plans and strategies.  Because of decades of institutional and systemic racism, people of color are more likely to face eviction, homelessness and lack of access to safe, adequate affordable housing.  We can't solve housing inequities until we acknowledge the role that racism plays in it. 

Fred Joiner: YES - In many places in the US, housing it built on the foundation of discriminatory convenants, bigoted and racist loan processes, racist appraisals and home valuations; these are a sampling of the systemic issues. This does not include the violence that racial and ethnic populations have experienced in just trying to find a place to live. Because all of these are the groundwater and bedrock of how housing is deployed we see that Black, Brown and other ethnic people are systemically exclude from homeownership or living in certain communities, often the communities that they work and serve in. 

Wes McMahon: YES - As an employee of Durham Technical Community College, I participated in the two-day Groundwater workshop with the Racial Equity Institute. This was a crash course in discriminatory policies that date back to our country’s founding and that were continued through the establishment of the Federal Housing Administration. Redlining, exclusionary zoning, and discriminatory lending (to name only a few of many practices) have denied communities of color access to homeownership and opportunities to build wealth enjoyed by white households. 

Paris Miller-Foushee: YES - In my neighborhood, the displacement of Black families who have had their homes for centuries are being displaced because of the affordability crisis in Chapel Hill. In times of rapid gentrification, decreasing development, and increasing demand, it is Black families that get pushed out. That is why building affordable housing throughout the town protects Black families from displacement, but it also empowers families of all background to live in our community. 

By building more affordable housing, we retain our historic Black families, and we open up our community to families, who due to system oppression and economic abandonment, might not have had the opportunity to live in Chapel Hill. 

Danny Nowell: YES - The commodified housing market and our broader capitalist structures disproportionately exploit and disenfranchise people of color. On the one hand, workers of color face artificially low wages and and unique barriers to building generational wealth; on the other hand, historically Black-owned land becomes increasingly desirable as gentrifying market forces put pressure on discreet areas and wage suppression makes housing more difficult for Black and brown owners to hold onto. Like all of our systems that concentrate wealth and capital into fewer and fewer hands, this system leaves people of color behind on both ends of the market, both robbing them of capital needed to buy homes and making it too difficult to continue to hold the homes people of color already do own. 

Cristóbal Palmer: YES - While Carrboro has taken important and necessary steps to acknowledge the harms of the past, and has taken the crucial step of applying a racial equity lens to decision making to reduce harm moving forward, there have been race-based housing harms perpetrated in my own lifetime, and reparations for those harms have not been made. We cannot claim that we have equality of opportunity if there are clear racial differences in access to capital and lending based on race-correlated differences in family net worth, and the high cost of housing acts as a racial barrier to generational wealth transfer. If we are serious about having a level playing field, we need stable housing for everyone.

Louie Rivers III: YES - Yes, due to ongoing and historical discrimination in education and job markets, people of color (especially Black people) are much more likely to have lower incomes and significantly less wealth than White people. Furthermore, historical systems of oppression in the United States since the end of reconstruction such as Jim Crow and redlining and ongoing systems of oppression such as the importance of credit scores in home ownership and rental processes have prevented Black people from having equal and full access to America's housing markets. 

Erik Valera: YES - Affordable housing is a racial equity issue because, for generations, policies like redlining, racial covenants, and exclusionary zoning excluded Black, Latino, and other communities of color from safe, stable, affordable homes and the chance to build generational wealth. In Chapel Hill, the legacy is visible in neighborhoods like Northside and Rogers Road, where longtime residents face rising costs and displacement pressures.

Addressing this history means more than producing units—it means repair. I will prioritize deeply affordable homes in historically marginalized areas, support community land trusts, expand renter protections, and ensure residents of color have real power in development decisions. We must also plan affordability near schools, jobs, transit, and services so all families—regardless of race or income—can thrive. If Chapel Hill is to be truly inclusive, our housing policies must be rooted in equity, accountability, and community voice.

Jess Anderson: JUST RIGHT - The Town of Chapel Hill remains deeply committed to affordable housing as a top priority. We've demonstrated this commitment through substantial investments—including town funds, the dedication of town-owned land, $25 million in bond funding, and by staffing our Affordable Housing & Connected Community and Public Housing teams to carry out this vital work.

We also support affordability through other services, such as our fare-free transit system and grants to nonprofit partners that help make Chapel Hill more accessible and supportive for all.

While I would love for us to invest even more, we must acknowledge the financial strain many residents are facing. Property taxes have increased significantly in recent years, and we’re hearing from long-term residents and seniors who fear being priced out of their homes and community. That’s the opposite of what we’re trying to achieve.

Earlier this year, we approved $4 million in funding to support affordable housing projects and we have $20 million available through our affordable housing loan fund. This local funding is a critical component in putting together a variety of funding sources to fully fund our affordable housing master plan. 

As we approach the next budget cycle, my goal is to sharpen our focus on efficiency and outcomes—ensuring we fund our highest priorities while preserving affordability for low-income and fixed-income residents. I also want us to explore new funding sources and innovative partnerships to help offset reductions in federal support and rising costs.

Mark Bell: TOO LITTLE - Housing is probably the most expensive area Hillsborough could spend our limited resources, and the demand and cost of new construction continues to grow at a faster pace than we can fund. The result is a widening gap between where we are and where we know we need to be in order to achieve the housing goals in our Comprehensive Sustainability Plan. I think there will be increased pressure on county and local governments to fund non-market rate housing in the years ahead, which will compete with other priorities for much needed funding. I support continued funding for affordable housing and exploring of ways to expand funding.

Kathleen Ferguson: TOO LITTLE - Housing is ungodly expensive, and requires extraordinary amount of money to develop and maintain. So do we spend enough to solve the issue? Not even close. However, this would be the case if we spent our entire general fund was spent on housing. With that said, for the size of our general fund and given the costs we face for nonhousing infrastructure needs, I believe we are spending as much as our budget can support at this time. 

Barbara Foushee: TOO LITTLE - I think we are spending too little on affordable housing because the problem continues to grow, and our current level of investment doesn’t reflect the true scale of the crisis within the community.  Our approach should be centered on being more creative and comprehensive if we’re going to meet the needs of the most vulnerable populations and stabilize housing access and affordability long-term.  Housing is a social determinant of health and the lack of affordable housing isn't just an economic issue—it also has serious consequences for health, education, and overall well-being. Housing instability leads to higher stress, increased health problems, and has worse outcomes for our children.

Fred Joiner: TOO LITTLE - I think we have to re-examine what "affordable" means in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, etc. The fact is some of us are highly compensated people and affordable to me, means something totally different to someone that works at Food Lion or is a teacher, a staffer at the Century Center or a rookie police officer. 

I think we need to find a way to put more resources in middle income housing or including middle income housing in the new development.

Wes McMahon: JUST RIGHT - To be clear, there is too little funding for affordable housing across the board from our state and federal government. We should continually advocate for funding from other levels of government to provide more money towards making housing affordable and attainable for everyone. As a municipal government, we are spending the right amount. Chapel Hill demonstrates our commitment to affordable housing through affordable housing bonds and our reserve fund. We have some quality LIHTC projects underway and have shown that we are willing to contribute town-owned land to affordable housing. We shouldn’t take these commitments lightly. There are many other communities that can’t boast this level of support. I believe the budget negotiations in June of this year are evidence that the town is spending the right amount at this time. If I remember correctly, OCAHC advocated for additional funds for affordable housing, above the agreed-upon funding for the reserve fund, but the majority of council members viewed staff pay increases and deferred maintenance as higher priorities right now. I am also concerned about additional spending on affordable housing that would come at the cost of higher residential property taxes that in turn increase the cost of living in Chapel Hill. If there 

Paris Miller-Foushee: TOO LITTLE - We have increased our spending on affordable housing. But, I think we still need to invest in not just building affordable housing, but affordable communities. We have passed bonds to fund projects, have taken on LIHTC projects, and have ironed out lucrative public-private partnerships to build housing. 

I think we need to continue building financial relationships with our largest employers, UNC Health and UNC Chapel-Hill so that they also invest their resources in ensuring their essential employees can afford to live in Chapel Hill as well. 

Danny Nowell: TOO LITTLE - Ultimately, I am proud that Carrboro continues to increase our commitment to the affordable housing special revenue fund, as we did in our recently adopted budget. However, we need to make more and more efficient investments to make a significant impact in the housing market, which is why I believe land acquisition, gap financing, and increased partnership with nonprofit developers are all needed.

Cristóbal Palmer: TOO LITTLE - Housing is incredibly expensive, and the tools available to municipalities have multiple mechanisms that slow down the process of the municipality itself adding to housing stock. When spending the public’s money, we have a duty to do so with care in a fashion that maintains transparency and accountability. An unfortunate side effect of the way we have accomplished that in our small town over the past twenty years is that we have not adequately kept up with housing demand, despite people of good will making different changes at different times.

In the short run this means that we need to pay more to avoid falling even further behind. I believe we have taken an important step in that direction in our most recent (FY 2025-2026) budget, but we have more work to do.

Louie Rivers III: TOO LITTLE - There is dire need for affordable housing for people below 80% AMI nationwide, Chapel Hill is no exception. Furthermore, the need is even greater for people at 30% AMI and below.

What we spend on affordable housing is a dual investment in our town, not only do we  provide an individual or family housing we also enrich our community with new members and their talents and skills.

Erik Valera: TOO LITTLE - Chapel Hill faces one of the steepest housing cost burdens in North Carolina, with many educators, healthcare workers, and service industry employees priced out of living in the community they serve. While the Town has taken important steps—like approving $15 million in affordable housing bonds and expanding the Affordable Housing Fund—demand still far outpaces supply, especially for households earning 30% of Area Median Income and below. Rising construction costs, limited available land, and regional population growth mean that without sustained and increased investment, the gap will only widen. Current funding levels, while meaningful, are not yet sufficient to meet the scale of need or to ensure that housing remains attainable for a diverse and inclusive Chapel Hill.

Jess Anderson: YES - It is important to me to hear from people, especially those who are most impacted by the decisions that we make.

With that in mind, the town applies an equity lens in all the work that we do and, as part of Complete Community, Town Council committed to new ways of engaging and centering the voices of people who are most impacted by our decisions.  In 2024, we conducted a Gaps Analysis and Engagement Study that is helping to guide changes to our community engagement approach and processes.

Mark Bell: YES - Hillsborough doesn’t have a department or advisory board dedicated to affordable housing due to the small size of our town. However, all Hillsborough meetings are open to the public and we engage residents with lived experience in all critical areas of town life, including the development of the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan and in areas such as housing, zoning, and transportation-centered development. 

Kathleen Ferguson: YES - I, my fellow electeds, and staff routinely go out into the community to seek opinions and ideas from youth, our most vulnerable, housing insecure, lower income, and senior residents in our planning processes. However, Hillsborough's challenges continue to be driven such considerations as land availability, water/wastewater capacity, residential/commercial tax ratios needed for fiscal sustainability.

Barbara Foushee: YES - Yes; low-wage workers, seniors, and unhoused neighbors should be included in the decision-making processes.  We must center those that are most impacted and vulnerable in the community which means inviting them to the table when the conversations and discussions are taking place.  This type of engagement would give policy and decision makers a unique insight into residents’ perspectives about affordable housing access and affordability for those on fixed and low-incomes as well as the unhoused within our community.  

Fred Joiner: YES - I think something as simple as having meetings at times and locations that are welcoming and accessible for our neighbors is a start. 

I also want to make sure that we do whatever we can to hold space and venues for our most affected neighbors to speak for themselves and to arm them with the information to speak on their own behalf.

Wes McMahon: YES - Absolutely. Those most affected must have a seat at the table. Our goal should be creating ways for residents to work with and speak directly to council that are in addition to attending council meetings with packed agendas. The format for participation should also be focused on informing policy, not just showing up for input on a specific vote. I would also look forward to seeing what staff would recommend as an effective outreach strategy to engage those with lived experience. I firmly believe that going out to the community, versus requiring the community to come to us, is most effective. The experience of reaching community members during Chantal relief showed me that there are very few shortcuts to canvassing and holding meetings in the community as a way to share information and realize authentic engagement. 

Paris Miller-Foushee:  YES - In my work with IFC and EMPOWERment, I work alongside residents most affected by the housing crisis. Their perspectives, priorities, and challenges are, as a result, always top of mind for me in my decision-making process. 

Beyond that, I have seen how specific task forces and seeking out input from specific populations instead of waiting for them to show up at a random meeting on a Wednesday evening when they have much more important things to do is extremely effective. As an active member of the community, I will assemble task forces when relevant, and will prioritize the input of those most affected by the affordability crisis as I make my policy decisions on Council. Just like I have done during my first four years in office. 

Danny Nowell: YES - I think our current council has done a pretty good job of responding to input from partners within the OCAHC, with a consistent track record of finding funds for potentially transformative partnership development, preserving NOAH units, tax relief programs for longtime residents and subsidies for weatherization. I also think our programs like Carrboro In Motion do a good job of getting out into the community to gather input, as we know that most inbound comment at public meetings or emails tends to disproportionately represent wealthier interests. We'll keep making it a priority to reach out to impacted communities, and ultimately make decisions that we think lift those residents up intentionally. 

Cristóbal Palmer: YES - Carrboro has multiple mechanisms for public engagement that we have been improving over the course of the last five years. Engagement efforts I’ll highlight include the Carrboro In Motion series and the Racial Equity Commission (REC). The makeup of the REC reserves voting membership of two members for people of color who have been residents for at least 20 years, and another voting liaison seat for a member of the HHSAC.

Carrboro elected officials and other town staff are very much aware that traditional tools of engagement such as public comment periods at meetings and the Council email inbox are not representative of the town based on age, income, or housing status, and we continually check in with our Communication and Engagement director about how to bring in more voices from our neighbors who have not been or felt heard in the past.

Louie Rivers III: YES - Yes, these voices are critical, their lived experience can help us better design housing and related processes that adequately serve their needs.

To engage these populations and arguably all populations, we need community engaged processes that are tailored to the needs of the specific population in question. Specifically, we need to engage with communities where they are or in spaces that they are familiar with at times when they are free. These engagement activities need to avoid the use of jargon and set clear expectations for what we are asking from the community and how their input will be integrated into the decision process. 

Erik Valera: YES - Community engagement is the cornerstone of my campaign, and that means centering those most impacted—low-wage workers, seniors, renters, immigrants, and unhoused neighbors—in every decision. I’ll petition for project based task-force advisory groups and appoint community members with lived experience to advise the Town Council and the Town Manager on projects that impact the housing crisis. 

To remove barriers, I’ll propose that task-force meetings be held at times convenient to community members, and offer stipends, childcare, food, transportation support, hybrid/phone options as appropriate. Taskforce meetings should prioritize clear, plain language avoiding jargon and acronyms whenever possible, furthermore interpreters should be available by default - not by special request. 

Jess Anderson: YES - This is not an area over which the Town has authority and, while I do not know the laws, I have heard concerns from many in our community.

As mayor, I know how difficult it is for people to have to go through the appeal process so would be interested in knowing more about how neighboring communities are doing things differently.  If there are alternative models that could improve our process, I hope we will explore them. 

Also, I am interested in exploring the idea of conducting revaluations more frequently so that people aren’t hit with such significant change all at once.  These types of adjustments can allow local governments to make more informed budget decisions and have a better understanding of the broader impacts on our community, particularly for those neighborhoods that can often feel the most burden and percent increase. 

Mark Bell: YES - Although the revaluation process is a county function, at least two neighborhoods in Hillsborough have reported concerns about the process and further investigation is warranted. At a minimum, I support an external review of the Orange County revaluation methodology, and thorough reporting of the results to county and municipal leadership to better understand if bias played any role in the valuation disparities that have been reported by the Orange County Property Tax Justice Coalition and individuals in Hillsborough and across the county.

Kathleen Ferguson: YES - The General Assembly needs to increase homestead credit and grant counties and towns greater discretion with revenue generation, property tax, and tax rebate options. And, the county needs more options for increasing revenue with an increased commercial tax base.

Barbara Foushee: YES - This is the process of updating real property tax assessment to market value and present use value as of a single appraisal date.  The goal is to equalize the tax base.  I do think that this process should be more equitable and while the goal is to distribute the property tax burden fairly based on market value; it has not felt that way to countless residents across the county.  While I appreciate the various resources and assistance that have been offered at the county/municipal level I would still like to see the inequities associated with this process evaluated.

Fred Joiner: YES - There are parts of this county that do not get the services that they pay for.

Wes McMahon: YES - The Marian Cheek Jackson Center has done tremendous work on this issue and should be consulted by anyone who wants to learn more about how the valuation process could be more equitable. This is their claim and it should be taken seriously: “This shift of property tax burden does not appear to be justified by market housing data compared across neighborhoods or within them. In fact, revaluation data in the largest Historically Black neighborhoods in the County shows significant vertical regressivity, meaning that the newer, larger homes in those communities are undervalued while the older homes are systematically overvalued.”

Paris Miller-Foushee:  YES - I was directly impacted by Orange County's inequitable property tax valuation process because I live in the historically Black Northside neighborhood. The County needs to overhaul its property tax evaluation process. Mainly, the process of choosing actual comps needs to change. In a neighborhood that is rapidly gentrifying, choosing comps that are newer and bigger to derive a high tax valuation is not equitable. 

There needs to be more transparency around the process of valuations, and more efforts to protect historic families from expensive tax bills that are a direct result of rapid gentrification and a lack of historic infill development. 

I am an advocate for changes in the process, transparency of the process, and increased legal resources made available to my neighbors to fight unjust valuations. 

Danny Nowell: YES - This answer is a little more complicated than a yes or no. It's plainly clear too many longtime homeowners of color, especially Black homeowners, saw disproportionate home valuations that placed unfair tax burdens on them. We do need to make sure, however, that wealthier homeowners' assets are assessed to a full enough extent to make sure they're paying into our system. As home values have skyrocketed, it's important that we leverage that to fund our affordability priorities, but we also need to keep a reparative framework in place to make sure those increasing values are actually delivering wealth to the homeowners who need it. I could be persuaded that the current assessment practices are equitable if in fact appeals and mitigation efforts are accessible and available to the residents who need them. However, if these hurdles are proving too high for the residents who need to clear them, we need to work with our county partners to develop a more precise and considered process. 

Cristóbal Palmer: YES - We have now had two revaluation years (this year and 2021) that showed troubling patterns of overvaluation of homes in historically Black neighborhoods not in line with patterns in other neighborhoods. Orange County has agreed to study this, but a commitment to study is not a commitment to change and prevent this from happening again. I want a commitment to change.

Louie Rivers III: YES - According to the North Carolina Housing Coalition, low income communities and communities of color's neighborhoods suffer from overvaluation and are less likely to be successful in appeals of changed valuations compared to other communities. Also, these neighborhoods are more likely to experience gentrification which leads older houses being compared to newer gentrified properties during the valuation process. These factors (widespread valuation, difficulties during the appeals process and gentrification) need to be explicitly considered in a reformed tax valuation process. 

Erik Valera: YES - Orange County’s property tax valuation process needs to be reformed because, while designed to ensure fairness, it too often produces disproportionate burdens on historically Black and working-class neighborhoods. In recent years, residents in areas like Chapel Hill’s Northside—a historically Black neighborhood—have found their homes over-assessed relative to their actual market value, leading to inflated tax bills. These overvaluations aren’t just technical errors; they reflect structural flaws in mass appraisal systems that often ignore context, neighborhood history, and disparities in housing quality. Without reform, this system continues to push out residents who have lived here for generations, undermining community stability and deepening racial and economic inequities.

Reforming the process would mean implementing tools that better account for neighborhood-level differences, improving transparency around how values are calculated, and ensuring appeals are accessible—especially to residents without legal or financial resources. It also means shifting from a one-size-fits-all valuation model to one that recognizes the historic impacts of redlining, disinvestment, and uneven growth. A more equitable system would not only protect vulnerable homeowners from displacement—it would help restore trust in local government and ensure that Chapel Hill and Orange County remain places where all residents, regardless of race or income, have the opportunity to stay and thrive.

Jess Anderson: YES - If necessary.

Sanctioned encampment space is certainly not my vision for housing alternatives. Instead, I want us to get people into temporary and permanent supportive housing and to have the services that they need.

That said, in situations where there are no better options, I would want people to have the ability to have a tent and a safe place to be.

Mark Bell: YES - Statewide, the number of unhoused people is increasing significantly, and Hillsborough has a small number of encampments within the town limits and an unknown number nearby in the county. Hillsborough hasn’t taken any action on regulating encampments to my knowledge, and I support continued collaboration with the Orange County Housing Department's Partnership to End Homelessness, Health Department, and Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team to make recommendations regarding encampments on public property, including safety, sanitation, and efficient access to county services.

Kathleen Ferguson: NO - It is an abdication of government responsibility to address safe permanent supportive housing, wrap around services, job training. This is where regional collaboration and planning offers economies of scale that better enable these kinds of solutions. Such spaces don't address the real issues and don't honor human dignity. Criminalizing poverty or corralling and penning up vulnerable people is not the answer.

Barbara Foushee: YES - Yes, I would support the creation of sanctioned encampment spaces for unhoused neighbors, under certain conditions and with specific safeguards in place.  We have to get more creative about addressing this community issue. The key is ensuring that these spaces are not just temporary solutions but are part of a broader, more comprehensive approach to addressing homelessness. These spaces can provide a more dignified and secure environment for individuals while also managing public spaces.  The spaces should have  continual oversight and guidance.  Sanctioned encampments can serve as a crucial safety net for unhoused individuals, offering a more humane alternative to being pushed out of public spaces. However, they should not be an end in themselves but part of a larger, holistic approach that includes housing-first policies, access to healthcare, mental health support, and job training. These spaces can provide a critical lifeline for people in crisis, but they must be implemented thoughtfully to ensure that they lead to real, lasting solutions.

Fred Joiner: YES - While I think sanctioned encampment space is a good idea. i am also interested in what we can do to provide longer term, dignified and durable support for our unhoused neighbors. 

My concern here is that the encampment space becomes a location that continues the othering that our unhoused neighbors already experience.

I do support this but it has tobe executed with great care and consideration.

Wes McMahon: NO - I believe our community has a strong base of private resources, non-profit support, help from religious congregations, and investment at the Town and County level that we can provide creative temporary housing solutions for our unhoused neighbors without a tent encampment. We have demonstrated that we can take care of the unsheltered during cold and hot weather events and we can double down on caring for people interim while we develop more sustainable temporary and permanent housing options. We also have to be aware of our lack of resources as a Town to create, maintain, and eventually repurpose a tent encampment. What are the costs? Do we have the funds, where would they come from, and would those funds take away from reaching the bigger goal of housing?

With that said, I would listen to recommendations from all of our community partners working to support our unhoused neighbors such as the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness, the Orange County Street Outreach, Harm Reduction and Deflection program, the Interfaith Council, our own Town of Chapel Hill Crisis Unit, the District Attorney’s Office, and the many local church congregations engaged in support for the unhoused. I could support efforts that are made in collaboration with Orange County, the Chapel Hill Town Manager, and community partners with a focus on what will be most effective at reaching the goal of temporary and/or permanent stable housing for our unhoused neighbors. Initially, however, I feel like the efficacy of tent encampments is not known and Chapel Hill is exactly the kind of community that can come together to find alternative solutions first. 

Paris Miller-Foushee:  YES - The safety of all of our residents, both housed and unhoused, should be a priority. During my first four years on Council, we increased funding and resources available to street outreach programs to ensure the safety of our unhoused neighbors. The main challenges there is to ensure that we have reached all of our residents. 

I think a sanctioned encampment space for our unhoused neighbors would make our outreach programs more effective. We would be more readily able to provide food, counseling, and supportive services with the aim to get our unhoused residents into transitional housing before securing a home. 

Danny Nowell: YES, NO - I'm curious what the guidance would be from OCAHC and other leaders close to this work. My first instinct is to say yes, of course; encampment spaces don't hurt anyone, and safe places for unhoused people seem to be the very least we could offer. On the other hand, I could envision it being the case that a "sanctioned" space has a ghettoizing effect, and that the right policy may be to simply let unhoused people camp where it makes the most sense for them. In any case, I think a compassionate approach to unhoused people involves not using town resources to move or disturb them, and if a sanctioned space provides safety, dignity, and continuity with the least friction in community, I'd certainly be supportive. 

Cristóbal Palmer: NO - In the wake of the Grants Pass decision, I understand the desire to reach for various stopgap tools to ameliorate the harms of failures at the federal level. The core problem with creating a municipally managed sanctioned camping space is that the town incurs all of the cost and risk downsides of property management with few of the public health benefits that come from providing a stable location to provision services. Further, multiple of the case studies I have read are from contexts where there was either a law passed to ban encampments, or a push to do so. To me it is a higher priority to reduce the criminalization of poverty than it is to provision new space for encampments. If the goal is for Carrboro to help transition more unhoused residents to stable contexts for the provision of care, I think we should first reach for other tools. The last count I have access to showed fewer than 80 chronically unhoused residents within Carrboro, and I would welcome a frank conversation about what budget measures would cut that number by more than half without displacing anyone.

Louie Rivers III: YES - Providing a place where unhoused people can safely camp will provide better protection from the threat of predation and make it easier to provide them with social and medical services.  

Erik Valera: YES - I support a sanctioned encampment space for our unhoused neighbors because everyone deserves a safe, dignified place to rest—even when permanent housing isn’t yet available. In Chapel Hill and Orange County, the number of people living unsheltered continues to rise, while shelter space remains limited and the wait for affordable housing is long. A sanctioned space is not a permanent solution, but it is a compassionate and practical step that acknowledges people’s humanity, reduces harm, and creates a bridge to housing.

By providing a clean, managed space with access to restrooms, trash collection, and basic services, a sanctioned encampment can improve health outcomes, reduce the risk of violence and displacement, and connect residents to case management, healthcare, and housing navigation. It also protects our environment by reducing the need for unsheltered camping in forests, creeks, and greenways. Most importantly, it creates a space where people are not pushed into the shadows, but brought into community—with voice, safety, and support. This is what it means to build a town where no one is left behind.

Jess Anderson: More specifically:  A lot in some places; a moderate amount in others.

Chapel Hill’s Complete Community strategy centers around expanding housing supply and diversifying housing types to meet the Town’s current and future needs.  As the champion for that plan, I am a staunch proponent for increasing housing density within town as a way to be more inclusive, sustainable, and economically competitive now and in the future. 

The strategy was shaped in part by the 2021 joint Town–UNC Housing Needs Assessment, which called for two major commitments:

1. Building 485 new housing units annually to meet demand.

2. Creating a broader mix of housing types, especially “middle housing” like duplexes, townhomes, and cottage courts—offering more affordable options for new families and empty nesters who want to live or stay in Chapel Hill.

To meet these goals, we’ve taken several strategic actions:

• Adopted Transit-Oriented Development standards to encourage housing growth along transit corridors.

• Extended the southern water and sewer boundary, unlocking new areas for middle housing.

• Streamlined project review for developers who commit to 25% or more affordable units.

• Enabled Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and gentle density—such as duplexes, quadplexes, and cottage courts—in existing neighborhoods.

As of February 2025, the Planning Department’s Development Activity Report shows that we have 1,525 new homes under construction.  This includes 174 affordable units and 183 middle housing units.  The report shows thousands more in the pipeline.  So, we are making progress.

What’s next?   We’re preparing updates to our land use rules that will allow up to 40 middle housing units to be built by right, along with other changes that support our Complete Community vision and goals.

Mark Bell: A MODERATE AMOUNT - I support Hillsborough’s Comprehensive Sustainability Plan and “smart growth” strategies to promote diversity in housing options among all income levels, including multi-tenancy options such as “missing middle” and mid-rise apartments. Housing density is most appropriate when sited near transit hubs, greenways, sidewalks, shopping and entertainment opportunities, and we have approved over 2,000 dwelling units in recent years that are in keeping with this development strategy. However, for a town of 10,000 residents, this rate of growth is not sustainable over the long term due to land and infrastructure capacity scarcity.

Kathleen Ferguson: A MODERATE AMOUNT - We have three choices: Grow up, grow out, or no growth. Density is the best for sustainability. It is the most efficient for service delivery, it is best for climate action, and it offers the best opportunities for affordability.

Barbara Foushee: A MODERATE AMOUNT - I do support it alongside smart planning processes that include integrating housing with sufficient infrastructure, ensuring green spaces, and offering a mix of housing types that can accommodate various income levels and lifestyles. 

There are advantages with increased housing density such as helping to alleviate the pressure on housing costs, environmental sustainability and with higher density, it's more efficient to provide essential services like public transportation, utilities, and emergency services as well as making it easier to create walkable communities.  It should be implemented strategically, with consideration for community well-being, environmental impact, and economic sustainability.

Fred Joiner: A MODERATE AMOUNT, A LOT - This is complex issue, but in short I support density with the understanding that there must be provisions for our middle income and lower income neighbors in particular along transportation and commerce corridors.

I think we have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to density.

Wes McMahon: A LOT - I believe in the Complete Community Strategy as adopted in our Comprehensive Plan that envisions dense housing along transit corridors. More dense housing equals smaller units that in turn are more affordable. More density can also increase the number of residents who can engage in a vibrant local economy, enjoy access to a great public school system, and live closer to work. 

Paris Miller-Foushee:  A LOT - I have spent my first four years on Council voting for and advocating for increased housing density. I championed zoning reform that made it easier to develop denser housing in Chapel Hill. And, I will continue to push for greater infill development closer to our downtown. The rural buffer gives us the permission to develop densely within Chapel Hill, but we also need to develop densely within our downtown corridor to keep market rates lower, balance egregiously increasing property tax valuations, and to balance our tax rate. 

During my second term, I will work with developers on downtown corridor dense housing projects that prioritize affordability. 

Danny Nowell: A LOT - Without denser housing, it's impossible for affordable housing to exist within the current market framework. We need to be taking advantage of the efficiencies density enables to lower unit costs, while also prioritizing the increased climate resiliency and connectivity that denser housing enables. 

Cristóbal Palmer: A LOT - Multiple factors lead to increased housing instability and a larger population of chronically unhoused residents, but housing cost is a major contributor. Our available housing units have not kept pace with population growth in the area, which has driven up housing costs faster than inflation, which as we are all very aware, has been high recently. Municipalities have multiple ways to control housing costs within their borders, and given our limited and bounded geography, targeted tools to create appropriate types of density make the most sense. In some places this is as simple as duplexes or triplexes. In other places this may mean targeted partnerships to add multistory mixed use with housing and other uses on the same lot. I would hold up my vote to approve the South Green development as an example that significantly adds density without compromising our values, but I would caution that that was a SUP-A process, which is too slow and we cannot rely on to deliver housing at the level we need.

Louie Rivers III: A LOT - I think that increased density within town limits is important for five reasons:

1) The value of land in Chapel Hill is incredibly high, denser housing development (including duplexes, triplexes, small apartment buildings and large apartment buildings) is an efficient strategy to help allow people that call Chapel Hill home a chance to actually live here.

2) We need more housing to serve the people that work in Chapel Hill across the income spectrum, it is important that people can live close to where they work. This will also reduce traffic in town.

3) Greater housing density in town is important in terms of protecting our natural environment. Greater density in town allows us to make use of and further invest in the existing infrastructure in town. Density in town protects the rural buffer.

4) Greater housing density in town will also benefit our tax base (which is currently overly dependent on the taxes of single family residential homes). 

5) A community with intentionally designed housing density is potentially much more walkable and less car dependent. 

Erik Valera: A LOT - I support increased housing density within Chapel Hill town limits as a critical step toward building a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient community. Thoughtful density helps us address the urgent need for more affordable housing, expand options for people at different income levels and life stages, and reduce the environmental impact of sprawl by building within existing infrastructure. It allows us to create neighborhoods where more people can live near jobs, schools, transit, and greenways—strengthening our social fabric and reducing our reliance on cars.

Jess Anderson: • Maintain dedicated funding in our annual budget for affordable housing.

• Identify opportunities to pilot the Dignity Moves model to create interim supportive housing for unsheltered residents.

• Ask planning staff to outline ways that our post-approval process can be more efficient so projects can get underway more quickly and with less cost.

• Continue to work with private developers to include affordable housing in new projects.

• Expand master leasing to serve more low income renters.

Wes McMahon: We are facing a period of declining revenue and increasing costs. As I mentioned above, we should ask staff to prioritize goals in the plan that require the least amount of investment to see results. For starters, we can move forward on regulatory changes and make already identified incremental changes to our LUMO (Recommendation 1). We also need to find private funding to offset reductions in federal, state, and municipal funds. Many people in the community are concerned about displacement of long-term renters and homeowners. I could see how Recommendation 8, “funding relocation assistance for displaced renters” is one that local private donors could support. I would encourage our non-profit partners to take the lead in fundraising and encourage town staff to enlist their support for implementing high priority recommendations where it is most effective to do so. 

Paris Miller-Foushee:  When I voted to approve the Affordable Housing Plan in 2023, I knew that the Town was already committing to building more dense and more affordable housing. The main priorities that I will commit to focusing on during my second term will be: expansion of transitional programs for our unhoused and most at-risk residents, gap assistance funds as well as eviction protections for families that are facing eviction, and property tax relief funds. 

Beyond building units, we need to fund our most vulnerable residents as the bedrock of our affordable housing strategy. 

Louie Rivers III: I will prioritize the continued reduction of barriers to building homes in Chapel Hill (specifically, what regulatory reforms can we make immediately at the town level as a council).

I will prioritize the further development of tax relief for low income households, households on fixed incomes negatively affect by rising property values; and for households affected by federal, university and scientific layoffs that may see a significant and sudden drop in their income.

Erik Valera: In my first year, I will focus on advancing Chapel Hill’s Affordable Housing Plan by turning policy into action—with a clear emphasis on deeper affordability, racial equity, and community-driven development. My top priority will be to expand housing options for individuals and families earning below 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI), especially those earning 30% and below, who are most at risk of displacement. I will support allocating additional resources to the Town’s Affordable Housing Fund and ensure those funds prioritize nonprofit developers, community land trusts, and projects near transit and essential services.

I’ll also work to implement zoning reforms outlined in the LUMO rewrite to allow for more missing-middle housing—like duplexes, cottage courts, and small apartments—while preserving environmental features and community character. Equally important, I’ll push for broader community engagement strategies so that low-income residents, renters, seniors, and unhoused neighbors are included in decision-making—not just informed after the fact. That includes expanding the Town’s Language Access Plan, holding neighborhood-based listening sessions, and advocating for an advisory group composed of people with lived experience of housing insecurity. The Affordable Housing Plan offers a strong foundation—my work will be to make sure it’s felt in people’s lives.