GAP Report for 11/2/26
POSITIVE
Treatment Court grant could expand recovery and help ensure everyone gets a fair chance
Buncombe County Commissioners will consider accepting a $1 million federal grant to strengthen the County’s three treatment courts, expanding treatment, transitional housing, transportation, and other supports while improving data collection and evaluation. We support the grant. However, because national treatment court research has found racial disparities in who gets referred, admitted, and successfully completes these programs, we also encourage the County to use its expanded evaluation capacity to examine and publicly report whether those disparities exist here.
REPORT BACKS
Asheville City Council Strategic Retreat (10/29/26): Asheville begins defining what its next strategic plan should accomplish
At its October 29 retreat, City Council began developing a new strategic plan intended to clarify the City’s priorities and connect them to budgets, departmental work, and measurable results. No decisions were made. Staff and Council surveys identified recurring themes including affordability, reliable public services and infrastructure, public safety, environmental resilience, fiscal responsibility, public trust, and transparent government. Importantly, the process is supposed to include a performance-management system so the eventual goals can be measured rather than simply adopted and forgotten.
Several parts of the discussion are particularly relevant to issues we have been following. Affordability emerged as a central vision for Asheville, including the idea that people who work here should be able to live here. Council also explicitly wrestled with potential conflicts among housing affordability, neighborhood character, and environmental protection, with members asking for a way to make priorities clear when those goals pull in different directions.
Most notable for our work, one proposed core City value was “respect, dignity and belonging,” which was defined as “protecting against displacement and creating opportunity for all.” Other proposed values emphasized transparency, accountability, equitable and compassionate government, and turning community priorities into actual results. That language is encouraging, but none of it is adopted policy yet. The important question will be whether anti-displacement and other important ideas move from aspirational values into specific goals, decision-making practices, budget priorities, and measurable outcomes.
The process will continue for much of the coming year. Staff will synthesize the retreat work into draft vision, mission, and values statements; Council expects to begin identifying focus areas and goals in January, followed by broader community engagement and eventual development of objectives, implementation plans, and performance measures through the spring and summer. We’ll be watching especially for whether affordability and anti-displacement remain explicit priorities, how conflicts among competing goals are resolved, whether community engagement reaches people most affected by City decisions, and whether the final plan creates measurable accountability for results.
Weighing housing and flood safety on London Road
City Council voted 4–3 to approve the expansion of the London Road apartment project from 208 to 252 units, with Mayor Esther Manheimer, Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley and Council Members Bo Hess and Sheneika Smith voting yes and Council Members Kim Roney, Sage Turner and Maggie Ullman voting no. Much of the debate focused on flood safety. Although the apartments themselves would be elevated well above Helene’s floodwaters, the developer acknowledged that a similar flood could inundate portions of the parking area and lobby. Council members questioned whether such flooding could force residents to leave their apartments even if their units remained dry, a question the developer could not definitively answer.
Bear prevention should be practical for everyone
The BearWise presentation made clear that Asheville’s bear problem is becoming substantially more serious. Buncombe County generates roughly 38% of North Carolina’s bear-related calls, with about 800–1,000 annually; 11 of the state’s 17 reported human injuries since 2017 occurred here. Bears have forced their way into homes about 250 times since 2017, including 143 times in the past three years. Wildlife biologist Ashley Hobbs said human-provided food – particularly unsecured trash – is driving both increased reproduction and increasingly dangerous behavior.
Active Issue Reports
Treatment Court grant could expand recovery and help ensure everyone gets a fair chance
POSITIVE
Summary: Buncombe County Commissioners will consider accepting a $1 million federal grant to strengthen the County’s three treatment courts, expanding treatment, transitional housing, transportation, and other supports while improving data collection and evaluation. We support the grant. However, because national treatment court research has found racial disparities in who gets referred, admitted, and successfully completes these programs, we also encourage the County to use its expanded evaluation capacity to examine and publicly report whether those disparities exist here.
The Facts: Buncombe County Justice Services has received a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, covering October 2026 through September 2030. Commissioners are being asked Thursday to accept the grant and approve the corresponding budget amendment.
The money will support three existing programs: Adult Drug Treatment Court, ASPIRE Court for people with repeat impaired-driving convictions and substance-use disorders, and Veterans Treatment Court. Rather than relying solely on incarceration or conventional probation, treatment courts combine judicial supervision with substance-use treatment, case management, drug testing and recovery supports. Buncombe’s grant will: continue an in-house clinician providing individualized treatment and assessment-driven case plans; expand transitional housing and transportation assistance; strengthen drug-testing capacity; provide staff training; improve data collection, monitoring and referral tracking; and expand program evaluation, with support from American University.
The County expects the investment to increase treatment participation and successful completion while reducing substance use and recidivism. You can read more about the grant here.
Our Assessment: Treatment courts can offer people struggling with substance-use disorders an important alternative to a criminal-justice system built primarily around punishment. Housing, transportation, individualized treatment, and other practical supports can also address some of the barriers that make sustained recovery difficult. For all of these reasons: we strongly support accepting this grant and strengthening these services.
But access to an alternative is equitable only if similarly situated people have a similar opportunity to receive and successfully complete it. National research gives reason to examine that question carefully. The Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards (most recently updated in 2023) reports disparities at multiple stages of the process: Black defendants have been less likely to be referred or admitted to treatment courts in some studies and a large multi-court study found lower successful-completion rates among Black participants than white participants. The standards therefore call on treatment courts to monitor their operations at least annually for racial, ethnic, and other disparities and address disparities they identify. (You can read more in this All Rise Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standard report – see page 36 for the research on disparities, and page 38 for the suggested monitoring practices.)
This also connects to a broader accountability issue Buncombe County has already identified. The City/County Cease the Harm audit, completed in 2024, identified inconsistent collection of racial demographic data across City and County programs as one of its four major findings. The audit warned that these gaps make it difficult to assess who benefits from government programs and whether they are producing equitable outcomes.
The new grant creates an opportunity to address that broader concern within Buncombe County’s treatment courts. It explicitly supports better data collection, monitoring, and evaluation. The County should use that capacity to examine the treatment court pathway from beginning to end: Who is referred? Who is found eligible? Who is admitted? Who receives sanctions or additional support? Who completes the program? Who is terminated, and why? The County should examine each stage by race and ethnicity, identify any significant disparities, and publicly report aggregate findings and corrective actions while protecting participants’ privacy.
Buncombe County already describes addressing racial and ethnic disparities as one of the priorities of its Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. But we have not found current public reporting showing whether referrals, admissions, completion, and termination from the County’s treatment courts differ by race or ethnicity.
We are not assuming that inequities exist in Buncombe County’s treatment courts. But national research gives us good reason to ask whether they do. If the data reveal no significant disparities, that would be reassuring. If disparities emerge, the County and its court partners should investigate where they arise and what changes could address them. That is what meaningful evaluation and continuous improvement should accomplish.
Things to do: Email County Commissioners and ask them to accept the Treatment Court Enhancement Grant while ensuring that the expanded evaluation tracks and publicly reports racial and ethnic disparities in access, participation, and outcomes.
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: Use the Treatment Court grant to strengthen recovery and equity
Dear Chair Edwards and County Commissioners,
I encourage you to accept the $1 million Treatment Court Enhancement Grant and use this opportunity to strengthen both recovery services and accountability.
The proposed expansion of treatment, transitional housing, transportation, and other supports could make a meaningful difference for people struggling with substance-use disorders. I particularly appreciate that the grant will also improve data collection, monitoring, and program evaluation.
National treatment court research has found racial disparities in referral, admission, and successful completion in some programs, and current best-practice standards recommend that treatment courts examine their own results for such disparities.
Please ensure that Buncombe County uses its expanded evaluation capacity to examine the treatment court process by race and ethnicity, including referrals, eligibility and admission, successful completion, and termination. Aggregate results should be reported publicly while protecting participants’ privacy.
This does not require assuming that inequities exist in Buncombe County’s programs. It means examining whether everyone who could benefit from treatment court has a fair opportunity to enter and succeed, and taking corrective action if the data reveal disparities.
Thank you for supporting treatment and recovery while also building the accountability needed to make these programs as effective and equitable as possible.
[Name]
[Address or neighborhood, if desired]
Weighing housing and flood safety on London Road
NEUTRAL
REPORT BACK STATUS
Resolved
Report Back
Updated 11/2/26: City Council voted 4–3 to approve the expansion of the London Road apartment project from 208 to 252 units, with Mayor Esther Manheimer, Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley and Council Members Bo Hess and Sheneika Smith voting yes and Council Members Kim Roney, Sage Turner and Maggie Ullman voting no. Much of the debate focused on flood safety. Although the apartments themselves would be elevated well above Helene’s floodwaters, the developer acknowledged that a similar flood could inundate portions of the parking area and lobby. Council members questioned whether such flooding could force residents to leave their apartments even if their units remained dry, a question the developer could not definitively answer.
The approved conditions allow up to four additional feet of building height to accommodate potential flood-resilience improvements, but do not require the building to be elevated further. That distinction concerned some Council members, who questioned whether the project incorporated sufficient protections against future flooding. The close vote also highlighted a larger policy question that Asheville will need to confront as it rewrites its development regulations: what level of flood risk should the City accept for new construction in the aftermath of Helene?
Summary: City Council will consider adding 44 apartments to the previously approved development at 21 London Road. We welcome the potential housing benefit and have not identified evidence that the project would harm nearby Shiloh’s housing stability. At last week’s briefing, however, councilmembers raised legitimate questions about flooding, emergency access, and nearby slope stability. Those questions deserve clear answers before the project proceeds.
The Facts: Council will consider increasing the London Road development, originally approved in May 2024, from 208 to 252 apartments and six to seven stories, with a largely unchanged footprint. No apartments are designated as income-restricted affordable housing. During the original review, Council discussed traffic toward Shiloh; neighborhood outreach reportedly revealed no significant unresolved objections.
At the October 22 briefing, Council Members questioned flood safety in light of Helene. Part of the property is within the mapped floodplain, although apartments would begin on the third floor above parking. Staff identified concerns about evacuation and nearby slope instability. Possible changes allowing additional elevation were discussed but had not been formally submitted.
You can see the staff report here and the presentation on the plan here.
Our Assessment: Market-rate housing can help moderate overall rent pressure, although researchers disagree about the size and distribution of benefits, particularly for lower-income residents near new development. (You can read some analysis of the impact of market-rate housing on overall affordability conditions here and here.) For this project, additional homes on a vacant site could provide a useful benefit, but might have only a modest effect on wider affordability. The evidence reviewed does not give us a basis to conclude that it is likely to improve or worsen housing stability in nearby Shiloh.
Additional traffic toward Shiloh deserves attention, particularly with more apartments proposed. However, the 2024 discussion suggests neighborhood outreach did not reveal a major unresolved objection. More units likely means increased traffic, but we have not heard any concerns from Shiloh residents about this.
The flood-safety questions are more immediate and substantial. Placing apartments on the third floor, above two parking levels, may protect living spaces from flooding, but does not by itself ensure safe evacuation or emergency access, particularly if flooding and nearby slope failure occur together. Council is right to seek information informed by Helene and to examine whether specific design or operational protections are needed. Any revised conditions should be available for public review, with a clear explanation of how they address those risks.
While there are questions worth asking here, we don’t assess this issue to have the racial or social justice implications that warrant a call to action.
Things to Do: We did not recommend action on this item, but suggested that if you felt called to engage, you could write to City Council (ashevillenccouncil@ashevillenc.gov) with your views or questions.
Bear prevention should be practical for everyone
NEUTRAL
REPORT BACK STATUS
Resolved
Report Back
Updated 11/2/26: The BearWise presentation made clear that Asheville’s bear problem is becoming substantially more serious. Buncombe County generates roughly 38% of North Carolina’s bear-related calls, with about 800–1,000 annually; 11 of the state’s 17 reported human injuries since 2017 occurred here. Bears have forced their way into homes about 250 times since 2017, including 143 times in the past three years. Wildlife biologist Ashley Hobbs said human-provided food—particularly unsecured trash—is driving both increased reproduction and increasingly dangerous behavior.
Council did not adopt new rules, but its discussion moved in a direction consistent with the concern we raised last week. The City expects to receive 420 additional bear-resistant carts this year, although it still has a waiting list of more than 400 households and limited money for additional carts. Council discussed stronger enforcement of the feeding ordinance, but cautioned that stricter enforcement would be unfair unless residents have the opportunity to obtain bear-resistant carts. We’ll watch for any actual proposal involving additional carts, financial assistance, landlord/tenant responsibilities, or increased penalties.
Summary: Council will receive a BearWise update recommending expanded access to bear-resistant trash equipment, continued education, and stronger enforcement of wildlife-feeding rules. We welcome prevention efforts and encourage the City to ensure that residents have practical, affordable ways to comply before increasing penalties.
The Facts: City Council will receive a presentation by Ashley Hobbs, Special Projects Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. She will report on the more than 250 bear entries into Buncombe County homes and 11 human injuries in bear interactions since 2017. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recommends more bear-resistant carts and retrofit options, public outreach, continued enforcement, and higher penalties for feeding bears. This is just a presentation; the supplied materials do not include a specific penalty amendment for adoption.
You can see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: Preventing dangerous bear encounters is a positive public safety goal that protects both residents and wildlife. We support education, effective trash storage, and expanded access to bear-resistant equipment.
Our concern is how responsibility would be assigned and enforced if the City pursues stronger penalties. Renters do not control the purchase of City-owned trash containers, the location of shared dumpsters, or the availability of secure storage. Residents may also face financial or physical barriers to following recommended practices. The City should distinguish safety recommendations from enforceable requirements and clarify who would be responsible – and potentially fined – when landlords, property managers, tenants, and other parties control different parts of the solution.
The presentation does not establish that every recommended practice would carry a penalty, and no specific penalty amendment is before Council. As any proposal develops, we encourage clear responsibilities, practical assistance, and enforcement directed toward the party able to correct the problem.
Things to Do: We did not recommend action on this item, but suggested that if you felt called to engage, you could write to City Council (ashevillenccouncil@ashevillenc.gov) with your views or questions.
Safety, Second Chances, and HACA’s New Screening Rules
QUESTIONABLE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Outcome Unknown
Report Back
HACA Screening Policy Outcome Is Still Unknown
Updated 8/31/26: The Housing Authority of the City of Asheville (HACA) Board met on August 26 after receiving public comments on proposed longer lookback periods for several criminal convictions. Because HACA has not published minutes, a recording, or another account of the meeting, we do not know whether the revised screening policy was discussed, amended, adopted or postponed.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 6
Recipients and Responses:
Housing Authority of the City of Asheville
- Board: No response
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer (appoints all Board members): No response
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley (Council liaison): No response
Summary: The Housing Authority of the City of Asheville (HACA) is accepting comments through 11:59 p.m. tonight (August 24, 2026) on proposed criminal-background screening procedures. The proposal offers applicants stronger procedural protections but would also extend the lookback period for many convictions from five years to seven years, 10 years, or life. We have heard that part of the motivation is concern from residents who survived rape, molestation, or stalking that their assailants could be approved to move into their housing communities. Those safety concerns deserve substantial weight. But the longer periods would also apply to property and drug crimes – including felony drug possession – and HACA has not publicly explained the basis for each change.
The Facts: The proposal would:
- Apply lifetime lookbacks to intentional homicide, kidnapping or human trafficking, and forcible sex or rape convictions
- Apply 10-year lookbacks to felony stalking and many other felonies, including assault, robbery, burglary, drug possession, and drug distribution
- Apply seven year lookbacks to misdemeanor domestic-violence convictions
- Allow consideration of violent patterns outside the stated periods
- Exclude arrests without charges and generally require additional evidence before considering dismissed charges
- Provide an individualized review meeting, consideration of rehabilitation, and up to 30 days to gather supporting evidence
You can read the full proposed policy revision here. The 48-day public-comment period began July 8 and ends at 11:59 p.m. tonight. Comments may be sent to comments@haca.org.
Our Assessment: HACA is right to consider the safety of residents who fear that people convicted of serious violence against them could return to their housing communities. The proposal responds directly to some of those concerns by establishing longer (or lifetime) lookbacks for rape, stalking, homicide, and other violent offenses. (A lookback period is the length of time a past conviction remains relevant when HACA reviews someone’s housing application.)
But the proposal also extends scrutiny to offenses that do not necessarily involve violence or a threat to another resident. For example, felony drug possession and two or more felony theft or fraud convictions would carry 10-year lookbacks. Drug-related crime convictions in particular have a well-documented racial bias. HACA has not explained how these longer exclusions address the resident-safety concern motivating the proposal, how many applicants they would affect, or whether a shorter period or more individualized approach would be sufficient.
The proposal may ultimately strike an appropriate balance between safety, rehabilitation, and access to housing. Before adopting it, HACA should explain why longer lookbacks are necessary for nonviolent convictions and how it will avoid excluding people who no longer present a risk to residents.
Things to do: No action suggested at this time. Last week, we invited you to email HACA before 11:59 p.m. Monday night – and copy Mayor Esther Manheimer (who appoints all HACA Board members) and Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley (who is the City Council liaison to HACA) – asking HACA to explain why the proposal extends lookback periods for nonviolent convictions and how those extensions advance resident safety
PREVIOUS REPORTS
GAP Report for 10/26/26
Weighing housing and flood safety on London Road City Council will consider adding 44 apartments to the previously approved development at 21 London Road. We welcome the potential housing benefit and have not identified evidence that the project would harm nearby...
GAP Report for 10/19/26
Buncombe County can turn its Swannanoa plan into an anti-displacement test case Buncombe County Commissioners will receive a briefing Tuesday on the proposed Swannanoa Small Area and Resilience Plan, which will guide growth, recovery and investment in the community...
GAP Report for 10/12/26
Asheville considers $6 million to prevent homelessness Asheville City Council will consider accepting a $6 million grant to help prevent homelessness among at least 1,000 vulnerable households over three years. We support this investment in keeping people housed and...
GAP Report for 10/5/26
County seeks $290,000 for surveillance technology without explaining what residents are buying Buncombe County Commissioners are being asked Tuesday to approve $290,000 from forfeiture funds for the Sheriff's Office's FY27 FUSUS/Axon contract and a "Camera Project at...
GAP Report for 9/28/26
Clear Safeguards Can Strengthen Asheville’s HOME-ARP Plan On September 22, the Asheville City Council held a public hearing on proposed changes to the HOME-ARP program, which would expand rental assistance and case management while giving preference to people...