GAP Report for 8/31/26
QUESTIONABLE
Helping Flood Survivors Reestablish Safe Housing Without Losing Community
Buncombe County will consider accepting $4.12 million in federal hazard-mitigation funding to acquire and demolish flood-prone homes. The voluntary program can protect residents from repeated danger, and Commissioners should accept the funding. But acquisitions also permanently remove households and housing from a community. The agenda does not explain whether residents will be able to find comparable housing nearby, how tenants will be affected, whether heirs-property owners can participate, or whether some communities could experience disproportionate housing losses and relocations. The program demonstrates why the County needs a consistent anti-displacement analysis framework. Commissioners should approve the funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing that framework.
REPORT BACKS
Why Rush Zoning Changes Before Asheville’s Anti-Displacement Tool Is Ready?
Updated 8/31/26: City Council unanimously approved the duplex, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and parking amendments without waiting for the City’s forthcoming displacement-analysis tool or comprehensive Universal Development Ordinance (UDO) overhaul, as GAPavl requested. Council did preserve proposed ADU height limits after discussing concerns from legacy neighborhoods, but the changes still passed before the City could evaluate their cumulative effects and develop potential protections.
Asheville Needs a Larger Conversation About Police Surveillance
Updated 8/31/26: City Council voted 5–2 to terminate Asheville’s contract for eleven fixed Flock automated license-plate recognition (ALPR) readers, a positive step. However, Council did not extend the review and expansion freeze to Axon and other vendors, close the remaining data-access and deletion loopholes, or establish the structured public process GAPavl and others requested to evaluate ALPR’s claimed safety benefits, evidence, civil-liberties risks, acceptable uses, and limits.
Safety, Second Chances, and HACA’s New Screening Rules
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.
Active Issue Reports
Helping Flood Survivors Reestablish Safe Housing Without Losing Community
QUESTIONABLE
Summary: Buncombe County will consider accepting $4.12 million in federal hazard-mitigation funding to acquire and demolish flood-prone homes. The voluntary program can protect residents from repeated danger, and Commissioners should accept the funding. But acquisitions also permanently remove households and housing from a community. The agenda does not explain whether residents will be able to find comparable housing nearby, how tenants will be affected, whether heirs-property owners can participate, or whether some communities could experience disproportionate housing losses and relocations. The program demonstrates why the County needs a consistent anti-displacement analysis framework. Commissioners should approve the funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing that framework.
The Facts: County staff recommends accepting a $4.12 million federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program award to administer another group of residential property acquisitions.
The program would purchase flood-prone homes from willing owners, demolish the structures, and return the properties to permanent green space. Removing homes from areas subject to repeated flooding can protect residents from future disasters and reduce the public cost of rebuilding in hazardous locations.
Our Assessment: Voluntary property acquisitions can be an essential form of disaster recovery. No one should be expected to remain in a home where repeated flooding threatens their safety, health, and financial security. Commissioners should accept the federal funding and allow the program to move forward.
But moving a household out of danger is not the same as ensuring that the household can recover. The County will make consequential decisions as it determines eligibility, communicates with residents, assists participants, completes individual acquisitions, and monitors the program’s results. An anti-displacement framework could help guide those decisions without delaying acceptance of the grant.
The agenda materials do not provide enough information to understand which areas or types of households may be affected. There may be valid privacy and procedural reasons not to identify individual residents or publish specific addresses, particularly before participation is final. But the County can still provide aggregated information about the neighborhoods involved, the number and occupancy of affected homes, and the program’s potential community-level effects without identifying individual households.
The agenda materials also do not indicate how compensation will be calculated, whether it will be a sufficient amount for participants to obtain comparable housing nearby, or where participating households are likely to relocate. These questions matter because residents may otherwise have to leave their neighborhood, school district, support network, or community altogether.
The County should also determine how the program will affect tenants. A property owner may receive compensation while a tenant must relocate with fewer resources and little control over the timing. Tenants may need adequate notice, relocation assistance, help locating another home, and protection against sudden housing instability.
Some owners may also face barriers because they hold heirs property, meaning their families inherited the property without establishing a clear deed or completing the estate process. Families may have lived in and maintained a home for generations while lacking the documentation normally required to prove ownership. Legal and title assistance may be necessary to ensure that they can participate and receive fair compensation.
The program is voluntary, and property owners may reasonably decide that accepting a buyout is their safest or best option. But the County should still examine the cumulative effects if many owners in the same neighborhood accept offers. The result could be a significant loss of affordable housing, community connections, and locally held property. An anti-displacement analysis would not interfere with owners’ choices. It would help the County and participating households understand the likely consequences, identify whether tenants or others who do not control the decision will be displaced, and determine what additional support may be needed.
A standardized anti-displacement analysis framework could help the County:
- Identify the residents, properties, and neighborhoods affected
- Determine whether compensation enables participants to obtain comparable housing in the surrounding community, if desired
- Examine how the program affects homeowners, tenants, heirs-property owners, people with disabilities, older residents, and households with limited incomes
- Identify whether acquisitions are concentrated in particular racial, economic, or geographic communities
- Determine whether relocation counseling, tenant assistance, title support, supplemental aid, or replacement housing is needed
- Track where participants relocate and whether they achieve stable housing
- Report the program’s outcomes publicly while protecting residents’ privacy
This analysis would not predetermine whether a particular property should be acquired, nor should it delay the County’s acceptance of funding that can help residents escape dangerous conditions. It would provide information the County could use while designing and administering the program, completing individual transactions, and evaluating its results.
We’re focused this week on flood-related acquisitions because they present a direct and immediate form of displacement. The same decision-by-decision approach could help the County evaluate displacement risks arising from infrastructure, land use, disaster recovery, housing, and other major investments.
GAPavl first asked the City and County to develop anti-displacement analysis frameworks in January, more than seven months ago. In June, Commission Chair Amanda Edwards and Commissioner Terri Wells responded by pointing us toward the County’s Comprehensive Plan and other long-term strategies. Those plans provide an important foundation, but they do not establish the decision-specific process we proposed for identifying risks, comparing options, selecting protections, and monitoring results.
Plans and intentions produce results only when key decisions are evaluated with the information needed to determine whether they will help residents remain in their communities, increase displacement, or do some of both.
We published a detailed response explaining this remaining need. The County has not responded to that report or to later examples involving property taxation, infrastructure investments, and land-use decisions. It’s unclear whether continued outreach will elicit a response or resolve the issue.
We are therefore urging Commissioners to hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis framework. The hearing should examine what information, tools, data, staffing, and funding would be required; which existing County resources could be adapted; where new methods may be necessary; and how residents could help shape the process. Staff should present potential approaches, costs, limitations, and implementation options.
Things to do: Email the Buncombe County Commission asking it to accept the hazard-mitigation funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis 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: Protect flood survivors from danger and displacement
Dear Chair Edwards and Members of the Buncombe County Commission:
I support accepting the $4.12 million Hazard Mitigation Grant Program award on your September 1 agenda. Voluntary property acquisitions can protect residents from repeated flooding and help families leave dangerous conditions.
But purchasing and demolishing homes also permanently removes households and housing from a community. The agenda does not explain whether compensation will support participants in finding comparable housing nearby, how tenants will be affected, whether heirs-property owners can qualify for assistance, or whether acquisitions will disproportionately affect lower-income communities or communities of color.
A standardized anti-displacement analysis framework could help the County answer these questions as it administers the program. It could identify who may be affected, what information is missing, what assistance residents need, and whether the program allows participants to reach safety without unnecessarily losing their community connections.
Such an analysis should not delay acceptance of this federal funding. It should inform program administration, individual acquisitions, resident assistance, and public reporting.
Residents first asked the County to develop an anti-displacement framework more than seven months ago. County leaders responded in June by pointing to the Comprehensive Plan and other long-term strategies. Those plans provide an important foundation, but they do not create a consistent process for evaluating displacement risks as individual decisions are made.
I am asking you to accept the hazard-mitigation funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis framework.
The hearing should consider what tools, data, staffing, and funding would be required; which existing resources could be adapted; where new tools or methods may be necessary; and how residents could help shape the process. Staff should present possible approaches, costs, limitations, and implementation options.
Thank you for your consideration,
[Name]
[Address or neighborhood, if desired]
Why Rush Zoning Changes Before Asheville’s Anti-Displacement Tool Is Ready?
PROBLEMATIC
REPORT BACK STATUS
Resolved Negatively
Report Back
Council Approved Duplex and ADU Changes Without Waiting for the Anti-Displacement Tool
Updated 8/31/26: City Council unanimously approved the duplex, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and parking amendments without waiting for the City’s forthcoming displacement-analysis tool or comprehensive Universal Development Ordinance (UDO) overhaul, as GAPavl requested. Council did preserve proposed ADU height limits after discussing concerns from legacy neighborhoods, but the changes still passed before the City could evaluate their cumulative effects and develop potential protections.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 9
Recipients and Responses:
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer: No response
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: No response
- City Council Member Bo Hess: No response
- City Council Member Kim Roney: No response
- City Council Member Maggie Ullman: No response
- City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
- City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response
Summary: Asheville City Council will vote Tuesday on allowing duplexes in more neighborhoods and permitting accessory dwelling units to be larger and easier to build. These relatively modest reforms are unlikely to produce either a great deal of housing or widespread displacement. But the City is about to begin a comprehensive overhaul of its development rules that is supposed to include displacement-risk analysis and anti-displacement strategies. Council has not demonstrated why these changes must be approved separately before that work is ready. It should postpone the amendments and consider them through the more complete and appropriately cautious process that is about to begin.
The Facts: City Council will hold a public hearing Tuesday on amendments to Asheville’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
One amendment would allow duplexes by right in the RS-2, RS-4 and RS-8 residential districts and several neighborhood and River Arts districts where they are not currently permitted. Related changes would allow the two units and their land to be divided for separate ownership.
A second amendment would increase the maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, from 800 to 1,000 square feet, provided it remains smaller than the principal residence. It would allow an ADU on a property containing a duplex, permit an ADU in front of the principal building, and cap detached ADUs at 25 feet according to the City’s method of measuring height.
City staff recommends approving both amendments. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the duplex and ADU changes by 6–1 votes. You can see the presentation slides here, and read the staff report on duplexes here, and ADU’s here.
Our Assessment: Duplexes and ADUs can both theoretically help address housing shortages and displacement. They can accommodate extended families, create rental income that helps a homeowner remain in place, and add housing without the disruption associated with much larger developments. However, when other cities have made these particular changes, it typically results in relatively few new units, and is therefore among the least consequential forms of upzoning.
So we have to wonder: if the changes are unlikely to produce much housing, what is the urgency to approve them now?
Later this year, Asheville is expected to begin a comprehensive UDO overhaul that will continue through 2028. That process is intended to examine the cumulative effects of zoning changes and apply displacement-risk analysis and anti-displacement strategies that are not yet fully formulated. Approving development entitlements first and developing protections later puts the cart before the horse.
We recommend that Council postpone the duplex and ADU amendments and consider them through the comprehensive UDO overhaul beginning later this year. The reforms may ultimately be reasonable, but they should be evaluated alongside other zoning changes using the City’s forthcoming displacement-risk analysis and anti-displacement strategies.
Things to do: No action suggested at this time. Last week, we invited you to email City Council and ask members to postpone the duplex and ADU amendments until they can be evaluated through the City’s comprehensive UDO overhaul and informed by its promised anti-displacement analysis.
Asheville Needs a Larger Conversation About Police Surveillance
PROBLEMATIC
REPORT BACK STATUS
Partially Resolved
Report Back
Council Terminated Flock, but Left the Larger Surveillance Question Unresolved
Updated 8/31/26: City Council voted 5–2 to terminate Asheville’s contract for eleven fixed Flock automated license-plate recognition (ALPR) readers, a positive step. However, Council did not extend the review and expansion freeze to Axon and other vendors, close the remaining data-access and deletion loopholes, or establish the structured public process GAPavl and others requested to evaluate ALPR’s claimed safety benefits, evidence, civil-liberties risks, acceptable uses, and limits.
We called for a process centered on residents of neighborhoods most affected by both crime and policing, with an examination of ALPR’s claimed public-safety benefits and supporting evidence, civil-liberties risks, acceptable uses, and appropriate limits. The City Manager’s promise of a future community conversation leaves open who will participate, what evidence will be considered, and how public input will shape the final decision.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 9
Recipients and Responses:
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer: No response
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: No response
- City Council Member Bo Hess: No response
- City Council Member Kim Roney: No response
- City Council Member Maggie Ullman: No response
- City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
- City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response
Summary: On Tuesday, City Council will consider terminating the City’s contract for eleven fixed Flock license-plate readers. Ending that contract seems worthwhile to us, but APD already operates a larger Axon mobile ALPR system and plans further Axon integration. Residents affected by serious crime may value these tools, while others raise legitimate concerns about privacy, misuse, and the tracking of people’s movements. Changing vendors resolves neither perspective. Council should pause expansion, close the proposed resolution’s loopholes, and use an independent review and public engagement process to develop safeguards for the entire ALPR system.
The Facts: On Tuesday, City Council will consider a resolution terminating the City’s Flock license-plate-reader contract and directing a review of the technology’s use, safeguards, and civil-liberties implications. Automated license-plate readers, or ALPRs, photograph license plates and record where and when vehicles are observed. Police can search those records to identify vehicles or reconstruct their movements.
The Asheville Police Department (APD) operates eleven fixed cameras licensed from the Flock Safety corporation. APD also has used Axon mobile ALPR technology on marked police vehicles since April 2024. APD’s August 14 memo says the department plans to reduce its Flock contract and APD-owned Flock infrastructure while expanding and integrating Axon’s ALPR capabilities. APD may retain software-based access to the broader Flock network. APD is also considering a Flock software license that would preserve access to the wider regional Flock network even if the City removes its own cameras.
The proposed Council resolution would terminate the City’s contract with Flock, direct Flock to remove its hardware, and prohibit City employees from querying or sharing data collected through the City-owned cameras. It would require a review of Flock’s uses, retention, sharing, auditing, and civil-liberties protections, with participation from an independent civil-liberties reviewer. It would also prohibit new or expanded Flock technology during that review.
APD recommends retaining access to Flock’s databases. It says ALPR information has assisted investigations involving homicides, shootings, robbery, hit-and-run incidents, and stolen vehicles. APD reports that it recently reduced the number of authorized Flock users, narrowed outside-agency access, and shortened its Flock search window from 30 to 21 days.
Our Assessment: Terminating the City’s Flock contract seems worthwhile to us, but it does not resolve the larger surveillance issue. APD already operates a larger Axon mobile ALPR system and plans further Axon integration. Without amendments, Asheville could remove eleven Flock cameras while expanding substantially the same surveillance through another vendor.
The debate does not divide neatly between public safety and civil liberties. Many residents – particularly in neighborhoods most affected by shootings, theft, and other serious crime – support technology that may help identify offenders. Their safety concerns deserve substantial weight. At the same time, those communities may experience the greatest concentration of surveillance and the consequences of mistaken alerts, expanded data sharing, and high-risk stops. The challenge is to preserve demonstrated public-safety benefits while preventing unnecessary or unauthorized surveillance.
APD has identified serious investigations in which Flock provided useful leads. But it has not provided comparable information about total searches, confirmed and false matches, resulting stops and arrests, case outcomes, complaints, or policy violations. Without those facts, the public cannot fully evaluate the technology’s benefits and harms.
Mission creep is a central concern. A system introduced to locate homicide suspects or stolen vehicles can gradually gain more users, databases, integrations, and permissible purposes. APD can already access a regional Flock network and plans additional integration through a Real-Time Intelligence Center capable of combining license-plate information with police, municipal, and private camera feeds. Removing City-owned Flock cameras may therefore do little to limit APD’s practical surveillance reach.
Experience elsewhere shows why safeguards matter. In Kenosha County, Wisconsin, prosecutors charged a former deputy after an audit allegedly found that he used Flock to track a coworker for a personal purpose. In Sherwood, Arkansas, a camera reportedly misread one character of a plate, after which officers detained an innocent couple at gunpoint while their infant remained in the vehicle. We’re not alleging any similar misuse by APD, but these cases demonstrate the potential consequences of inadequate controls and verification.
Changing vendors does not remove those risks. The Guardian reports that several municipalities have moved away from Flock and then selected or considered Axon readers, while Axon has actively pursued the resulting business. Our concern is not simply that Axon is the vendor. It is that cities can preserve or expand the collection of residents’ movements without adequate transparency and public review, particularly when Axon’s Fusus platform can integrate numerous public and private camera feeds.
Patrick Conant of Sunshine Labs makes the same vendor-neutral argument in an August 21 letter to Council. He recommends applying the review and expansion freeze to all ALPR and real-time surveillance technology. He also reports that a contract for approximately 20 additional Axon fleet-mounted readers was nearing completion in July.
The proposed resolution leaves two additional concerns. It does not clearly prevent APD from using Flock records collected by other agencies or private cameras after Asheville removes its own cameras. It also does not require certified deletion of the City’s existing Flock data.
The political context for this resolution is difficult to ignore. Council received substantial criticism for approving the Axon contract and Real-Time Intelligence Center grant without adequate public review. Ending Flock provides a visible response as an election approaches, but removing eleven cameras while maintaining and expanding a larger surveillance system could amount primarily to a change in vendors.
We recommend that Council terminate the Flock contract and amend the resolution to:
- Freeze all new or expanded ALPR cameras, capabilities, integrations, contracts, and database access during the review, regardless of vendor. (Patrick Conant has a call to action that does propose a full pause on all ALPR use – if that aligns better with your own position, you can access it here.)
- Require certified deletion of data from the City-owned Flock cameras and prevent APD from using outside Flock networks to circumvent the termination.
- Create a structured public process – centered on residents of neighborhoods most affected by both crime and policing – to evaluate ALPR’s claimed public-safety benefits and the evidence supporting them, along with its civil-liberties risks, acceptable uses, and appropriate limits.
- Following the independent civil-liberties review and public engagement process, require Council – not APD or the City Manager – to decide whether and under what circumstances Asheville should continue using ALPR technology and, if it continues, adopt vendor-neutral safeguards governing searches, verification, retention, sharing, sensitive activities, audits, transparency, and consequences for misuse.
Things to do: No action suggested at this time. Last week, we invited you to email City Council and ask members to strengthen the Flock resolution so that ending one contract does not enable the same surveillance system to expand through Axon or outside networks.
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 8/24/26
Why Rush Zoning Changes Before Asheville’s Anti-Displacement Tool Is Ready? Asheville City Council will vote Tuesday on allowing duplexes in more neighborhoods and permitting accessory dwelling units to be larger and easier to build. These relatively modest reforms...
GAP Report for 8/17/26
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...
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...