GAP Report for 9/14/26
QUESTIONABLE
Deaverview Mountain Park could transform the neighborhood – but for whom?
Buncombe County will consider a $1.34 million contract to plan and engineer a major new park on 342 acres at Deaverview Mountain. Living near a beautiful public park could be a tremendous benefit for residents of the surrounding community, but only if they are able to remain and enjoy it. The proposed planning process does not appear to ask whether this investment could also increase housing pressures or unintentionally push residents out. The federal grant that financed much of the acquisition was available in part because the project serves a community designated as “disadvantaged.” As the County plans a park intended to benefit this neighborhood, it should also consider whether existing residents will be able to remain and enjoy it. The County should assess the displacement risk for this project, determine whether closer analysis is warranted, and then take action to ensure that existing residents are protected.
REPORT BACKS
Asheville Should Adopt “No Rent for Slumlords”
Asheville City Council unanimously adopted the “No Rent for Slumlords” ordinance requested by the Asheville Area Tenants Union. The ordinance makes it unlawful for a landlord to collect rent from a home that the City has found unsafe and unfit for human occupancy. This is a meaningful recognition that landlords should not profit while leaving tenants in life-threatening conditions, but it’s important to note that state law limits its practical reach. For example, tenants should not stop paying rent on their own and may withhold it only after an authorized City or court order. The ordinance’s impact will therefore depend on how clearly and assertively the City implements it, and on vulnerable residents understanding and advocating for their rights.
Active Issue Reports
Deaverview Mountain Park could transform the neighborhood – but for whom?
QUESTIONABLE
Summary: Buncombe County will consider a $1.34 million contract to plan and engineer a major new park on 342 acres at Deaverview Mountain. Living near a beautiful public park could be a tremendous benefit for residents of the surrounding community, but only if they are able to remain and enjoy it. The proposed planning process does not appear to ask whether this investment could also increase housing pressures or unintentionally push residents out. The County should assess the displacement risk for this project, determine whether closer analysis is warranted, and then take action to ensure that existing residents are protected.
The Facts: Buncombe County has acquired 342 acres on Deaverview Mountain for what it expects to become its largest public park. The property is currently closed to the public. The County envisions a park focused on conservation, hiking, passive recreation, and environmental education. It has reserved $7.7 million in Open Space Bond funding for the project.
Commissioners are considering a contract with Equinox Environmental for two phases of work: $487,469.50 for master planning and $852,045.90 for engineering and design of access, parking, and trails. Together, the two phases total $1,339,515.40. The planning process will assess the property, solicit community input, and help determine the park’s layout, amenities, costs, and phased development.
Deaverview Mountain is located within an existing residential area that includes public housing, private rental housing, and owner-occupied homes. Although the proposed process includes community engagement and extensive analysis of the park property, the agenda materials do not identify a separate assessment of surrounding housing conditions or the project’s potential effects on housing stability.
You can read the request for Board action here and see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: Deaverview offers a concrete example of why GAPavl has been pushing all year for the County to adopt an anti-displacement analysis framework. The point of such a policy wouldn’t be to prevent positive public investments like a park on Deaverview Mountain. The point would be to ensure that the people already living nearby share in its benefits rather than being unintentionally pushed out as the neighborhood becomes more desirable. An anti-displacement framework would not label every public investment a threat or require mitigation in every case. It would ensure that the County asks a consistent set of questions early enough for the answers to matter.
First: who lives near the project, and who may be vulnerable? The County should establish baseline information about renters and homeowners, household incomes and housing-cost burdens, subsidized and naturally affordable housing, older or fixed-income homeowners, evictions, foreclosures, rents, sales prices, and assessed values. Together, this information (which the County already possesses or has access to) would provide an economic and housing profile of the neighborhood, showing whether residents may be vulnerable to displacement and why. If vulnerability appears low, the County could proceed with the project while keeping this information as a benchmark for tracking future changes. However, if vulnerability is determined to be substantial, protecting and strengthening housing stability should become an explicit objective of the master plan, supported by measures that help existing residents remain in the community.
Second: is this project likely to create meaningful housing-market pressure? The County should examine recent rent and sales trends, land purchases, development activity, and the likely effects of entrances, parking, trails, and major amenities. If vulnerable residents live nearby but the project is unlikely to change housing costs or development pressure, immediate mitigation may not be necessary. The County should still compare neighborhood conditions with its baseline at key stages of the park’s development and reconsider action if rents, property values, evictions, property turnover, or redevelopment activity begin to indicate growing displacement pressure. However, if vulnerability and likely market pressure are both assessed to be substantial, the County should act before land costs rise and options narrow.
Third: who is at risk, and what can the County do to help them remain? Different residents face different pressures, so the appropriate response will depend on what the County finds.
- If lower-income homeowners face rising property taxes or other costs of remaining in their homes, the County could expand outreach and enrollment for property-tax relief, help families resolve unclear legal ownership of inherited homes, provide home-repair support, and strengthen foreclosure-prevention assistance.
- If private renters or lower-cost rental properties are at risk, the County could support nonprofit or community-land-trust acquisition, preserve existing affordable rentals, provide tenant legal assistance, and help create more permanently affordable housing nearby.
Finally: will the people who already live nearby be able to enjoy the park’s benefits? The master plan should ask whether neighborhood residents, including residents of Deaverview Apartments, will have safe and convenient access without a car, whether entrances and amenities reflect their priorities, and whether they will have a continuing role in shaping the project. If the proposed design does not provide meaningful benefits to the immediately surrounding community, the County should modify it. If residents would benefit but some also face displacement risk, the County should pair those improvements with housing-stability measures that help them remain and enjoy the park.
The purpose of asking these questions is not to stop the development of Deaverview Mountain Park. A major new park could improve residents’ quality of life and become a lasting neighborhood and community asset. The federal grant that financed much of the acquisition was available in part because Deaverview is designated as a disadvantaged community. The purpose of asking these questions is to help ensure that the neighborhood residents whose needs helped justify this public investment can remain to enjoy those benefits. If an anti-displacement assessment finds little risk, the project can proceed with confidence. If it finds meaningful risk, the County will still have time to respond.
Research from other communities shows why these questions should be asked early. Along Atlanta’s BeltLine – a more urban and development-oriented project than Deaverview – homes within half a mile appreciated 17.9 to 26.6 percentage points more than comparable homes farther away between 2011 and 2015. Broader research examining 621 new parks and greenways found that these effects are not inevitable; they vary according to the project’s location, function, and surrounding neighborhood. These studies do not predict what will happen at Deaverview. They demonstrate why the County should examine local vulnerability and likely market effects while it still has time to respond.
Things to do: Email the Buncombe County Commission and ask it to revise the Deaverview Mountain master-planning process to include a displacement-risk analysis and, if such risks are identified, appropriate housing stability measures to protect existing residents.
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: Include housing stability in the Deaverview Mountain plan
Dear Commissioners,
I support the creation of a public park at Deaverview Mountain. I am writing to you today to encourage you to take several key steps to ensure that the residents who already call the surrounding community home are able to remain in their homes and enjoy this beautiful new park.
Because the project’s federal funding was available in part due to Deaverview’s designation as a “disadvantaged community,” the planning process should help ensure that existing neighborhood residents can remain to benefit from the investment. Research from other communities shows that major park investments can sometimes increase nearby housing pressures, so I would urge you to revise the proposed master-planning process to include a displacement-risk analysis. The County should establish baseline housing conditions, identify nearby renters and homeowners who may be vulnerable, assess whether this particular park is likely to increase housing or development pressure, and determine whether any mitigation or monitoring is warranted.
This analysis, which can be completed substantially with existing data, should not presume that the park will cause displacement or delay a beneficial project. If the screening finds little risk, the County can proceed with greater confidence. If it identifies meaningful risk, the County can respond early — when affordable-housing preservation, homeowner assistance, tenant support, or changes to park access and design are still possible.
Please use Deaverview Mountain to demonstrate that Buncombe County is not just committed to making transformative public investments, but also to ensuring that existing residents remain to enjoy them.
Thank you,
[Name]
[Address or neighborhood, if desired]
Asheville Should Adopt “No Rent for Slumlords”
POSITIVE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Positively Resolved
Report Back
Updated 9/14/26: Asheville City Council unanimously adopted the “No Rent for Slumlords” ordinance requested by the Asheville Area Tenants Union. The ordinance makes it unlawful for a landlord to collect rent from a home that the City has found unsafe and unfit for human occupancy. This is a meaningful recognition that landlords should not profit while leaving tenants in life-threatening conditions, but it’s important to note that state law limits its practical reach. For example, tenants should not stop paying rent on their own and may withhold it only after an authorized City or court order. The ordinance’s impact will therefore depend on how clearly and assertively the City implements it, and on vulnerable residents understanding and advocating for their rights.
The ordinance applies to the most serious housing-code violations, including raw sewage, lack of potable water or adequate winter heat, unsafe electrical systems, missing smoke detectors, blocked exits, structural failures, and immediate danger of collapse. It also prohibits an owner from placing a new tenant in a dwelling the City has found unsafe. Council’s unanimous vote sends an important message: the obligation to provide a minimally safe home is not optional, and rent collection should not continue as usual when an owner fails that basic duty.
However, the new protection is not an automatic license for a tenant to stop paying rent after discovering dangerous conditions. North Carolina law says tenants may not unilaterally withhold rent before a judicial determination. City Attorney Brad Branham has said the City’s power to halt rent payments would take effect only through an order issued in compliance with state law. Tenants should therefore report dangerous conditions, request an inspection, and obtain legal advice rather than withholding rent independently; otherwise, they could still face eviction for nonpayment.
The ordinance is a powerful step in spite of this limitation. A formal City finding and order can strengthen a tenant’s position, create financial pressure for a negligent owner to repair dangerous conditions, and support a claim for rent abatement or other relief. But the protection will work only if tenants know how to invoke it and the City has a prompt, dependable process for inspections, notices, orders, follow-up, and complaints about continued rent collection or retaliation.
Council members also discussed mold, which is not itself included as a qualifying condition because City staff said there is no legally recognized federal or state standard that inspectors can apply to determine unsafe mold levels. That leaves a significant gap for residents facing serious moisture and mold problems.
The City should now publish clear, multilingual guidance explaining what the ordinance covers, when rent may legally be withheld, where payments should go while a dispute is pending, how quickly inspections and orders will occur, and where tenants can obtain legal or relocation assistance. We will watch how the ordinance is implemented and whether it produces real repairs and relief for tenants living in dangerous homes.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 10
Recipients and Responses:
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer: No response
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: No response
- City Council Member Bo Hess: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Kim Roney: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Maggie Ullman: No response
- City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
- City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response
Email from Council Member Bo Hess
Absolutely!
Bo
Email from Council Member Kim Roney
Friends at GAP AVL, I appreciate the work of the Asheville Area Tenants Union, have supported the resolution throughout the process, and will vote in favor tonight.
Thank you for taking time to reach out!
With gratitude,
Kim
Summary: At the request of the Asheville Area Tenants Union, Asheville City Council will consider a “No Rent for Slumlords” ordinance on September 8. The proposal would empower tenants living in unsafe homes by prohibiting landlords from collecting rent while serious dangers remain uncorrected. Council should adopt it.
The Facts: The ordinance would make it unlawful for an owner to collect rent from a tenant occupying a dwelling that is unfit for human occupancy, unsafe, and a threat to life or property. It would also prohibit an owner from allowing a new tenant to move into such a dwelling.
Qualifying conditions include raw sewage, inadequate water or winter heat, unsafe electrical systems, missing smoke detectors, blocked exits, structural failures, and an immediate risk of collapse.
City code-enforcement officers would determine whether a dwelling meets the standard and prioritize enforcement on properties deemed unsafe. Charlotte, Pineville, Pittsboro, and Durham have adopted similar protections. The ordinance would take effect immediately upon adoption.
You can read the proposed ordinance here.
Our Assessment: We’re proud to stand with the Asheville Area Tenants Union, who requested this ordinance. Tenants should not have to keep paying a landlord who leaves them in dangerous living conditions. Yet renters often have far less power than property owners: they may fear retaliation or displacement, lack the money to move, and have few practical ways to compel a negligent landlord to act.
This ordinance would begin to correct that imbalance. If a landlord cannot collect rent while leaving a home unsafe, tenants gain meaningful leverage and owners gain a powerful financial incentive to make urgently needed repairs.
The proposal is also appropriately focused. It applies when a dwelling meets Asheville’s existing standard for being unsafe, unfit for human occupancy, and a threat to life or property, not whenever a tenant and landlord disagree about a repair.
Council should adopt the ordinance and direct staff to give tenants clear, accessible information about requesting an inspection, documenting unsafe conditions, receiving notice of a determination, reporting unlawful rent collection or retaliation, and finding legal or relocation assistance.
Things to do: There is no further action suggested at this time. Last week, we invited you to email City Council to recommend that they approve the “No Rent for Slumlords” ordinance.
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 9/7/26
Asheville Should Adopt “No Rent for Slumlords” At the request of the Asheville Area Tenants Union, Asheville City Council will consider a “No Rent for Slumlords” ordinance on September 8. The proposal would empower tenants living in unsafe homes by prohibiting...
GAP Report for 8/31/26
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...
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...