GAP Report for 8/17/26
QUESTIONABLE
County Staff Calls for an Impact Analysis – So Why Approve the Rezoning Before It’s Done?
Buncombe County Commissioners will vote August 18 on a request to change two Kampgrounds of America (KOA)-owned parcels near US 70 from commercial to residential zoning. County staff recommends approval, but its own report says vulnerable populations may live nearby and that an impact analysis is appropriate. Commissioners should not approve the rezoning first and study its effects later; they should require the analysis before the vote and use it as the starting point for a consistent, County-wide anti-displacement framework.
PROBLEMATIC
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone
Updated 8/18/26: City Council is pressing pause on this issue, removing it from their August 25 agenda. We encourage you to use our updated template to appreciate and acknowledge this move, which is in direct response to community advocacy.
Updated 8/17/26: Council Member Kim Roney responded to our report last week by suggesting that Council pause the vote while additional community engagement is underway and explore whether expanding the Asheville Rides Transit (ART) Passport program could help preserve service to destinations that would otherwise lose it. She also asked how the City is participating in Buncombe County’s transit study and whether that study might offer another option for service between South Asheville and the airport. Her question raises a broader one for us: what opportunities have the City and County explored for a more coordinated transit strategy? (You can read Roney’s full response below.)
Active Issue Reports
County Staff Calls for an Impact Analysis – So Why Approve the Rezoning Before It’s Done?
QUESTIONABLE
Summary: Buncombe County Commissioners will vote August 18 on a request to change two Kampgrounds of America (KOA)-owned parcels near US 70 from commercial to residential zoning. County staff recommends approval, but its own report says vulnerable populations may live nearby and that an impact analysis is appropriate. Commissioners should not approve the rezoning first and study its effects later; they should require the analysis before the vote and use it as the starting point for a consistent County-wide anti-displacement framework.
The Facts: At its August 18 meeting, the Buncombe County Commission will hold a public hearing and vote on a rezoning request from Kampgrounds of America. KOA wants the County to change two parcels totaling 6.77 acres at 517 Lazy Bear Boulevard and along US 70 from commercial to residential zoning.
The change would make it easier to use the property for housing, including apartments or a manufactured-home park. It would not approve a particular construction plan, and the zoned maximum density would remain 12 homes per acre. Instead, it would change the kinds of projects that KOA or a future owner could propose on the land. The parcels have public water and sewer service, and one lies partly within the regulated 100-year floodplain. Nearby properties include vacant commercial land, manufactured homes, and an RV park.
The staff report says the property has a high score on the Buncombe Community Index, indicating that vulnerable populations may live near the rezoning, and states: “Impact Analysis is suggested for this parcel.” The public agenda materials do not include such an analysis. County staff and the Planning Board recommend approval.
Presentation slides and other materials are available at the County’s Agendas and Minutes portal.
Our Assessment: We are not suggesting that the County should reject this rezoning; residential zoning for these parcels could allow needed housing in an area with water, sewer, and access to a major corridor. Commissioners should, however, understand the likely effects of this change before voting to change what can be built on the property.
The staff report on this issue actually makes a clear case for the kind of anti-displacement framework we’ve been recommending all year. The Buncombe Community Index found a concentration of conditions associated with vulnerability in the surrounding census block group, including poverty, lower incomes, food insecurity, limited education, housing-cost burdens, and lack of health insurance. Manufactured housing and an RV park are also among the neighboring uses. These findings do not prove that the rezoning would cause displacement, but they provide an evidence-based warning and should trigger the next step established in the County’s Comprehensive Plan: identify the potentially affected populations and analyze how the proposed change could affect them.
Several possible risks deserve examination. New housing supply could benefit the community, but there is no indication of what would be built, what it would cost, or whether it would serve households already struggling with housing costs. Market-rate development could increase nearby land values, rents, or redevelopment pressure. Manufactured-home residents could be particularly vulnerable if they own their homes but rent the land beneath them. People using RVs or other nontraditional housing as longer-term residences might face similar risks, although the public materials do not establish whether such residents are present. The analysis should determine whether these concerns apply and whether a project-specific zoning process, affordability commitments, resident protections, or other safeguards are warranted.
That is why we are puzzled that staff recommend an impact analysis, but then don’t provide one and instead recommend that the rezoning be approved. If such an analysis was done, Commissioners could use its findings to engage affected residents, evaluate alternatives, and identify appropriate safeguards before making a final decision. If they move forward with a vote now and approve this rezoning, the County will have less leverage to address any risks it subsequently finds.
We think the Commissioners should defer the vote until the impact analysis their staff recommended has been completed, published, and used to inform the decision. They could then formalize this approach through the scalable framework described in GAPavl’s full proposal, use existing County plans and tools to identify displacement risks before major decisions, match the response to the level of risk, monitor the results, and adjust when necessary.
Things to do: Email the Buncombe County Commission, asking them not to approve the KOA rezoning until the impact analysis identified by County staff has been completed, published, and discussed – and to use that process as the starting point for a consistent, County-wide anti-displacement framework.
Email Template: You can send an email to the Buncombe County Commission by filling out the form below. Our email tool will send an individually addressed email to the recipients, and enable us to track how many emails were sent overall in the campaign. If you prefer to write your own email, you can copy and paste (and adapt) our template text – please cc: or bcc: info@gapavl.org on your individualized email, so we can better track how many emails were sent.
Important: If you receive a response to your email, please forward it to us at info@gapavl.org so we can reflect that in the report back.
To: alfred.whitesides@buncombecounty.org, amanda.edwards@buncombecounty.org, drew.ball@buncombecounty.org, jennifer.horton@buncombecounty.org, martin.moore@buncombecounty.org, parker.sloan@buncombecounty.org, terri.wells@buncombecounty.org
CC: or BCC: info@gapavl.org
Subject: Complete the staff-suggested impact analysis BEFORE approving the KOA rezoning
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing about the proposed rezoning of two KOA-owned parcels near US 70 in Swannanoa. This could be a very beneficial change: the property has water and sewer service, and residential zoning could facilitate needed housing development. I am not asking you to reject that possibility. I am asking you to understand its likely effects before changing what can be built on the property.
The staff report recommends an “Impact Analysis” because the property has a high score on the Buncombe Community Index, indicating that vulnerable populations may live nearby. Nearby uses include manufactured housing and an RV park. Yet staff recommends approval, and the public agenda materials do not show that the recommended analysis was completed. If it was completed, it should be shared before the vote; if it was not, it should be done before the vote.
The analysis may find that the rezoning poses little displacement risk. But it should examine whether new development could increase nearby land values, rents, or redevelopment pressure; whether nearby manufactured-home residents rent the land beneath their homes; whether people use nearby RVs as longer-term housing; and whether the housing construction ultimately enabled by the rezoning would serve people already struggling with housing costs. It should also identify any protections or commitments warranted by those findings.
The County itself flagged the need to ask these questions. If such an analysis is important enough to recommend, it should be completed so it can inform the rezoning decision. Once the rezoning is approved, new development rights will already have been granted and the County will have less leverage to address any risks the analysis identifies.
Please direct staff to:
- Postpone the rezoning decision until the recommended impact analysis has been completed and published.
- Engage residents identified as potentially affected and discuss the findings at a public meeting before voting.
- Use this process as the starting point for the County-wide framework described in GAPavl’s full proposal: identify risks BEFORE major decisions, scale the response to the risk, monitor results, and adjust when necessary.
Buncombe County should know who may benefit, who may be harmed, and what protections are possible before it makes major land-use and public-investment decisions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Community or neighborhood]
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone
REPORT BACK STATUS
Positively Resolved
Report Back
Updated 8/18/26: According to multiple members of City Council, this item has been removed from the August 25th agenda and is paused indefinitely, as better solutions are sought. Use our new template to write to Council Members to acknowledge and appreciate this decision.
Updated 8/3/26: Council received the transit redesign presentation but took no vote. Staff presented the proposed network, the overwhelmingly negative survey results, and options for retaining service to destinations that could lose direct access, including ABCCM’s Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, West Haywood, and the Outlet Mall. Councilmembers expressed significant concern about the proposed losses and discussed smaller vehicles, partnerships with major employers and institutions, and additional funding. Staff is expected to return for a decision on August 25, so this issue remains unresolved; the discussion created an opportunity to seek a revised plan before the final vote.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 23
Recipients and Responses:
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer: Responded, see below
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Bo Hess: No response
- City Council Member Kim Roney: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Maggie Ullman: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
- City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response
PROBLEMATIC
Summary (updated 8/18/26): City Council is pressing pause on this issue, removing it from their August 25 agenda. We encourage you to use our updated template to appreciate and acknowledge this move, which is in direct response to community advocacy.
Update 8/17/25: Council Member Kim Roney responded to our report last week by suggesting that Council pause the vote while additional community engagement is underway and explore whether expanding the Asheville Rides Transit (ART) Passport program could help preserve service to destinations that would otherwise lose it. She also asked how the City is participating in Buncombe County’s transit study and whether that study might offer another option for service between South Asheville and the airport. Her question raises a broader one for us: what opportunities have the City and County explored for a more coordinated transit strategy? (You can read Roney’s full response below.)
Update 8/10/25: At its July 28th meeting, the Asheville City Council reviewed the proposed Asheville Rides Transit (ART) network plan. Community feedback was overwhelmingly negative, but staff still recommended the plan be adopted. The proposal could improve frequency, reliability, and access to jobs for many riders, but would obtain those benefits by eliminating direct service to several important destinations and neighborhoods that disproportionately impact marginalized members of our community. Before taking final action, Council should require staff to change the proposed redesign to address community feedback, develop equitable solutions for riders losing essential access, and/or present practical options (like increasing transit funding) to preserve critical connections.
The Facts (updated 8/17/26): Council Member Roney’s recommendations reference the ART Passport program and the Buncombe County transit study.
- ART Passport allows businesses, private organizations, and public agencies to pay for their employees to ride ART without paying a fare when they board. Participating organizations are billed quarterly at a discounted rate of 52 cents per trip, and businesses of any size have been eligible since May 2025. The City’s current list of participating organizations includes Buncombe County, the City of Asheville, the Grove Park Inn, MAHEC, New Belgium, Biltmore organizations, Deerfield, Dope Dharma Media, and UNCA students. (You can read about ART Passport and see the current partners here).
- Buncombe County’s Community Transportation Service Plan is a five-year examination of public-transit conditions, options, needs, and the allocation of resources for Mountain Mobility. The County says NCDOT requires the plan for Mountain Mobility to receive state funding. Mountain Mobility provides demand-response transportation, ADA paratransit for ART, and three public Trailblazer routes that connect with ART or Haywood Public Transit. The County’s planning materials identify the Trailblazer routes and ART’s airport route as important corridors and note that congestion and capacity constraints can affect service. (You can read about the County study here.)
Original Facts: At the July 28th presentation, staff said the draft network would:
- Improve schedules and on-time performance.
- Coordinate transfers more effectively at the ART station.
- Provide 15-minute service between downtown, Hillcrest, and the River Arts District.
- Improve frequency in several higher-growth areas.
- End 90-minute routes.
- Increase the number of jobs an average low-income resident can reach by approximately 15%.
- Maintain or improve service to Housing Authority communities.
The proposal would discontinue direct service to:
- The Outlet Mall, Brevard Road, and Transformation Village — approximately 40 average daily riders.
- MAHEC — approximately 11 average daily riders.
- The Social Security office — approximately eight average daily riders.
- West Haywood — approximately 34 average daily riders.
- The Omni Grove Park Inn.
Staff presented alternatives for restoring some service, but each would reduce frequency, create irregular schedules, or weaken service elsewhere.
The Planning, Economic Development and Environment Committee did not recommend any particular modification to the proposed network. It asked staff to bring the proposal to Council for further discussion and recommended that the eventual Council decision include direction to identify additional, sustainable sources of transit funding.
Staff recommended approving the draft network as proposed. The presentation anticipated final Council action on August 25. You can see the presentation here, see the City’s explanation of proposed changes here, read the full report here, and read the full community engagement report here.
Our Assessment (updated 8/17/26): Councilmember Roney’s response strengthens the case for pausing the vote and assessing funding alternatives before accepting the proposed service losses. Council should request an accounting of ART Passport participation and revenue, examine whether existing partnerships can be expanded, and recruit additional employers and institutions at destinations facing cuts. Passport may not close the funding gap, but its potential should be established rather than assumed.
Roney’s question about the County transit study also deserves an answer. The City should explain how it is participating, what joint service or funding options have been considered, and whether closer coordination could improve connections beyond the city limits. Depending on the answers, a more coordinated City-County strategy may deserve serious consideration.
Original Assessment: The systemwide benefits to this plan appear meaningful, but those benefits come with concentrated losses that have not been fully resolved. We are also troubled by the stark disconnect between the community feedback the City received on this plan and staff’s recommendation to approve it without modification.
Survey respondents were not merely divided. They rejected the proposal by wide margins:
- Among all respondents, 52% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the draft network would be better for them, while only 25% agreed or strongly agreed.
- Fifty-nine percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it would be better for people they know, compared with 24% who agreed.
- Fifty-seven percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it would be better for the region overall, compared with 28% who agreed.
- Among frequent ART riders – the people with the most direct experience of the system — 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the proposal would be better for them. Only 27% agreed.
The survey was self-selected and does not necessarily represent every Asheville resident or rider. But 1,350 people participated, including 429 frequent riders. The results are too substantial and too consistently negative to treat as incidental opposition.
Staff’s presentation identified the public’s principal concerns, including the loss of access to Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, West Haywood, and other destinations. Yet despite this acknowledgement, staff continued to recommend the draft network as proposed. The presentation does not clearly identify any significant network changes made in response to the overwhelmingly negative feedback.
Frequency, reliability, timed transfers, and increased job access are important equity benefits. But averages can conceal concentrated hardship. A relatively small number of riders may depend upon a particular stop to reach housing, health care, public benefits, or employment. Riders with disabilities, older adults, and people without flexible schedules may have no realistic substitute when bus service disappears.
Before asking Council to approve the network, staff should:
- Clearly identify what, if anything, they changed in response to public feedback.
- Explain why the principal concerns raised by riders were not incorporated into the recommendation.
- Directly engage the riders who would lose service and assess the effects regarding longer walks, terrain, accessibility, safety, and weather.
- Present equitable alternatives for preserving access to essential destinations.
- Explain what additional funding or community partnerships would be required to avoid forcing one group of riders to bear the impact of improving service for another.
If the City is going to conduct extensive public engagement, it should not then proceed with its original recommendation without clearly explaining how that feedback influenced — or failed to influence — the result. Council should use the period before the anticipated August vote to require that explanation and seek modifications that preserve the proposal’s broader benefits without abandoning riders who depend on the connections it would eliminate.
Things to Do (Updated 8/18/26): Use our email template to offer appreciation to the Asheville City Council for listening to the concerns of their community and pausing this proposed change to the transit system.
Update 8/17/26: Use our new email template, informed by Council Member Roney’s response, to ask Council to pause the August 25 vote, examine whether ART Passport partnerships can help preserve service, and explain how the City is participating in the County transit study. We encourage you to send an email even if you already did already, as these new questions and possible alternatives deserve consideration before the vote.
Update 8/10/26: Email City Council before August 25 and ask members not to approve the proposed network until the City explains what it changed in response to public feedback and develops workable solutions for riders losing access to essential destinations.
Email Template: You can send an email to the Asheville City Council by filling out the form below. Our email tool will send an individually addressed email to the recipients, and enable us to track how many emails were sent overall in the campaign. If you prefer to write your own email, you can copy and paste (and adapt) our template text – please cc: or bcc: info@gapavl.org on your individualized email, so we can better track how many emails were sent.
Important: If you receive a response to your email, please forward it to us at info@gapavl.org so we can reflect that in the report back.
To: AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov
CC: or BCC: info@gapavl.org
Subject: Appreciation for pausing the transit vote
Dear Mayor Manheimer and Asheville City Council members,
Thank you for hearing so many community voices with concerns about the proposed transit overhaul, and removing this issue from your August 25th agenda so better solutions can be pursued. I believe we can find an approach that better serves our City and region, and I’m glad you do as well.
Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Neighborhood]
Responses from City Council
Council Member Maggie Ullman – August 18
Thank you for weighing in on the transit plan. Your input helped clarify what matters most to our community: expanding access to frequent, reliable bus service while continuing to serve the riders who depend on every part of our current system.
I wanted to share that Council has pasued consideration of the current draft network and asked staff to develop a transit revenue strategy. The goal is to identify sustainable funding to provide service every 15 minutes along key corridors while maintaining all existing routes. This is an important next step toward making transit more useful and accessible to more people without leaving current riders behind.
Thank you again for making your voice heard.
Many thanks,
Council Member Kim Roney – August 17
Friends at GAP AVL, the draft transit network has been pulled from the August 25th Council agenda.
The draft network included needed service on major corridors but at the expense of cuts to affordable housing, jobs, the Social Security office, a library & voting location, and several health & human service locations.
The message Council received today included: “Staff will explore options related to the growth network and a path to various funding strategies. Since this research requires time due to staff capacity, there is no definite time when the item will come back before City Council.” This message is important because it notes that the draft plan with transit cuts could return at a future date.
I appreciate your engagement on this matter and hope you’ll stay tuned as we continue the important work to make Asheville’s transit system more efficient and reliable.
With gratitude,
Kim
Council Member Antanette Mosley – August 17
Thanks so much for your advocacy! This matter has been removed from our upcoming agenda.
Best,
Antanette
Mayor Esther Manheimer – August 17
Thank you for writing and for explaining how the proposed ART network changes could affect you and other riders who depend on the system.
I share the concern that improving frequency and reliability should not come at the cost of leaving current riders without meaningful access to work, health care, groceries, education, and other essential services. The personal experiences you described underscore why ridership percentages alone cannot capture the full impact of eliminating service, particularly on riders with disabilities, older adults, workers, and people who do not have another transportation option.
I have asked that the ART network design item be removed from the August 25 City Council agenda. Before Council considers moving forward, I want additional work done on the impacts of the proposed changes, possible alternatives, coordination with Buncombe County, and funding strategies that could allow us to improve frequency without sacrificing essential coverage. Staff will also explore options related to a longer-term growth network.
There is not yet a new date for the proposal to return to Council. I appreciate you taking the time to share this information, and I will keep your concerns in mind as we consider the next steps.
Sincerely,
Esther Manheimer
Mayor, City of Asheville
Council Member Kim Roney – August 11
GAP Team, this is the message I shared with my Council colleagues:
I suggest we pause the vote on the draft transit network. In addition to the survey, multiple community engagement efforts are now underway as awareness grows.
Instead, I suggest we get an update on the Passport program and grow it:
– The partners currently in the program (from my memory – Grove Park, UNCA, AB-Tech, New Belgium, City of Asheville)
– How much partners have paid into the system over the past 5 years
When Elias Matthes was at the City, he put together some outreach to try to grow that program, inviting more employers to pay for their employees to ride the bus.
Before we cut Tanger Outlets and the hotels on Brevard Rd, why not invite them to join as funding partners?
Before we cut MAHEC and the medical park that includes Social Security, a dentist, a pediatrician, and dialysis service, why don’t we invite them to join as funding partners?
Let’s seek deepening partnership in the County’s study. What is our current relationship to the County’s transit study? Is it possible there’s another option for South Asheville to the airport that would relieve congestion that’s impacting commuters from Arden and Fletcher?
Thank you for your consideration,
Kim
PREVIOUS REPORTS
GAP Report for 8/10/26
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders -- But Not Everyone At its July 28th meeting, the Asheville City Council reviewed the proposed Asheville Rides Transit (ART) network plan. Community feedback was overwhelmingly negative, but staff still recommended the plan be...
GAP Report for 8/3/26
Public investment in Buncombe County should strengthen communities—not price people out (new) Buncombe County Commissioners will consider two public-investment decisions on August 4 that demonstrate the need for anti-displacement analysis: (1) advancing approximately...
GAP Report for 7/27/26
Promising Anti-Displacement Commitment Needs a Timeline (new) On Tuesday, July 27, the Asheville City Council will consider a resolution acknowledging the harm caused by redlining, urban renewal, zoning decisions, and development pressures, and committing the City to...
GAP Report for 7/20/26
The County’s property-tax dilemma makes the case for an anti-displacement analysis framework (new) Last week, new state legislation forced Buncombe County Commissioners to choose between reverting to older, less equitable property values to maintain their adopted...
GAP Report for 7/13/26
Buncombe County is confronting a decision that offers no painless outcome Buncombe County Commissioners must choose between preserving County services by continuing to use older, less equitable property values and implementing the new appraisals and reducing County...