Jonathan Melton

On May 4, 2021, Raleigh City Council approved a tax increment grant (TIG) policy. Despite accepting campaign donations from developer John Kane, for whom the TIG would benefit, Melton voted in favor of the policy.[19] [20] The TIG policy allows the city of Raleigh to provide up to $5 million per year (2% of the annual budget) in tax rebates to private developers, effectively shielding them from increases in property taxes due to rising property values.[21] A month later on June 1, 2021, Raleigh City Council passed an annual budget that included an increase in property taxes generating an increased $7 million per year which was supported by Melton.[22] Critics of the TIG policy point to the combined actions of increasing property taxes on Raleigh residents and providing tax rebates for select private developers as an unfair redistribution of wealth from average residents to wealthy real estate developers.

The increase in property tax rates came at a time when property values throughout the Triangle region were climbing due to national trends in the housing market and impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic.[23] While Melton was part of a coalition to increase property taxes for Raleigh residents, neighboring Durham County was working to implement a tax assistance program. On October 6th, 2021, Durham County tax office in partnership with the Durham department of social services launched a program to provide up to $750 of tax relief to qualifying residents as a means of combating gentrification and displacement of low-income residents.[24]

Melton has campaigned on the issue of bringing more affordable housing to Raleigh, however during his time on council housing costs skyrocketed an estimated 42.5%.[25]

Jonathan Melton has also continuously taken campaign funds from John Kane, a real estate developer in the Raleigh area, who refuses to build affordable housing in his developments and directly contributes to the gentrification of low income areas in Raleigh.

Melton was part of a coalition strategy that primarily targeted increasing the housing supply and the density of housing through private market forces. Little effort was made to ensure affordable housing units were included when rezoning cases were brought before city council to increase density, with Mayor Baldwin and allies such as Melton repeatedly claiming that North Carolina state law prohibited inclusionary zoning. Critics of Raleigh City Council's housing policies point to the density bonus program implemented by Charlotte which allowed for height increases in existing zoning if private developers committed a certain percentage of units as affordable housing units.[26] Others criticized the housing policies as naïve, saying the private market strategy relied on the premise that providing any type of housing would inevitably lead to a stabilization of housing prices for all types of housing; a flawed premise as for-profit developers primarily construct luxury style homes beyond the financial means of working-class residents. The rising prices of housing and rental costs in Raleigh that coincided with Melton's tenure likely increased the rate of displacement and gentrification occurring within the city substantially. Housing justice advocates with claim that this was the intent of Mayor Baldwin’s coalition policies from the start, and that Councilor Melton aided and abetted these harmful policies.

In February 2020, Councilor Saige Martin brought forward a motion to disband citizens’ advisory councils. These advisory councils were distributed geographically across the city[27] and provided feedback for proposed rezoning. While CAC votes were non-binding, the votes would be taken into consideration by City Council along with the Planning Commission’s vote when deciding if a rezoning case should be approved. Supporters of CACs say they provided a mechanism for participatory democracy.[28] Martin's motion to disband CACs by ceasing financial support by the city, and ending their involvement in any rezoning cases moving forward. Melton voted in favor of the motion. Martin claimed the funds were needed to revamp community engagement.[29] City Council commissioned an outside consultant at a cost of $70,000 to provide a report on community engagement; among the recommendations, the consultant provided was the formation of neighborhood enrichment units.[30]