GAP Report for 8/3/26
QUESTIONABLE
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 3.3 miles of greenways and related park improvements in Woodfin, and (2) supporting a $31 million expansion of Enka manufacturer Southeastern Container with up to $185,000 in state and County incentives. Both proposals may offer meaningful public benefits—including recreation, connectivity, jobs, and economic activity—but those benefits will not necessarily be shared equitably. The proposals do not assess whether the greenways could increase housing costs and development pressure or explain how public investment that creates jobs will affect local residents. These are precisely the kinds of questions a practical anti-displacement analysis framework would help the County answer before committing public resources.
SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY
Don’t Mute the Block
On Saturday, August 8, from 2–5 p.m. at the Stephens-Lee Community Center, GAPavl and the Center for Participatory Change will facilitate an interactive community-learning session examining Washington, D.C.’s Don’t Mute DC movement as a case study in culture, public action, and systems change. Featured guests Dr. Natalie Hopkinson, founding chief curator of the Go-Go Museum & Café, and Ronald “Moe” Moten, the museum’s founder and CEO, will discuss how residents defended go-go music as an expression of Black culture, neighborhood identity, and civic power. The conversation is particularly relevant in Asheville as communities consider how development and displacement affect not only who can remain in a neighborhood, but whether its culture and identity can survive. GAP supporters are warmly invited to learn more and register.
This event is part of Bridging the Beat, a three–day cultural exchange connecting Washington, DC’s go-go culture with Asheville’s Black cultural anchors, legacy neighborhoods, youth, public spaces and community leadership.
REPORT BACKS
Promising Anti-Displacement Commitment Needs a Timeline
City Council voted 6–0 to adopt the anti-displacement resolution, with Councilmember Maggie Ullman absent. Before the vote, Council amended the motion to require the City’s forthcoming strategic plan to include measurable milestones, expected outcomes, and a reporting structure. That change responds meaningfully to GAPavl supporters’ requests for accountability, but Council did not adopt the requested 90-day implementation deadline. Despite that, this result is an important policy milestone: the City has formally committed to assessing displacement risk and integrating protections across its work. However, the pace and substance of implementation will still require monitoring.
Home Repair Can Prevent Displacement — But Who Will Receive Help?
Council voted 6–0 to approve the Home Repair Policy and allocate $3 million from the 2024 Affordable Housing Bond. The program can help an estimated 68–108 lower-income homeowners address critical repairs, accessibility needs, and other conditions that could otherwise force them from their homes. Council did not add the more-detailed selection rules, hardship protections, or reporting requirements we advocated for. Approval is nevertheless a positive anti-displacement investment; the central question now is whether implementation reaches households with the lowest incomes and greatest displacement risks. GAPavl will continue to monitor how outcomes take shape alongside the City’s other anti-displacement measures, and report back.
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone
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 and the discussion created an opportunity to seek a revised plan before the final vote.
Sweeten Creek Road Project: “100% Affordable” — But Affordable to Whom?
Council voted 6–0 to approve the conditional rezoning for 130 apartments at 3862 Sweeten Creek Road. All units must be affordable to households earning no more than 80% of area median income for at least 20 years. The nonprofit developer said it typically maintains affordability at its properties for 40 years or longer, but the approved conditions do not guarantee that any particular share of the apartments will serve households at lower income levels, such as 30%, 50%, or 60% AMI. That deeper affordability could emerge through the project’s financing, but it’s unclear whether the developer will pursue that.
Don’t Trade Away the Asheville Mall’s Housing Future
Council voted 4–2 to approve rezoning approximately 40 acres of the Asheville Mall from Urban Place to Regional Business, with Councilmembers Kim Roney and Sage Turner voted against. The decision went against the recommendations of both City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. It removes requirements intended to produce housing, walkability, internal street connections, and transit-supportive redevelopment without securing a specific development plan or enforceable public benefits. Although supporters argued that Urban Place zoning had made redevelopment financially and practically difficult, the vote gave away substantial public leverage over one of Asheville’s largest redevelopment opportunities.
Active Issue Reports
Public investment in Buncombe County should strengthen communities—not price people out
QUESTIONABLE
Summary: Buncombe County Commissioners will consider two public-investment decisions on August 4 that demonstrate the need for anti-displacement analysis: (1) advancing approximately 3.3 miles of greenways and related park improvements in Woodfin, and (2) supporting a $31 million expansion of Enka manufacturer Southeastern Container with up to $185,000 in state and County incentives. Both proposals may offer meaningful public benefits—including recreation, connectivity, jobs, and economic activity—but those benefits will not necessarily be shared equitably. The proposals do not assess whether the greenways could increase housing costs and development pressure or explain how public investment that creates jobs will affect local residents. These are precisely the kinds of questions a practical anti-displacement analysis framework would help the County answer before committing public resources.
The Facts: The County Commission’s August 4 agenda contains two proposals:
Woodfin greenways: The County proposes to amend its agreement with the Town of Woodfin and commit to completing two greenway segments: approximately two miles along Riverside Drive and 1.3 miles along Beaverdam Creek. The County would secure easements, complete engineering and permitting, fund and oversee construction, and eventually transfer the greenways to Woodfin. Woodfin would maintain them for public use, complete the first two phases of Riverside Park – including Taylor’s Wave – and restore Silver-Line Park with new public restrooms. Right-of-way acquisition is expected to begin this year, final design is anticipated in 2027, and construction would take approximately 16–18 months.
Southeastern Container expansion: Southeastern Container, an Enka manufacturer that currently employs 96 people, plans to invest approximately $31.3 million in its facility and create 12 full-time jobs paying an average of $32.90 per hour. The proposed incentives total as much as $185,000: a $100,000 state Building Reuse Grant and up to $85,000 from the County, including a $5,000 County match and a possible additional incentive for hiring commitments. Commissioners are being asked to authorize the County Manager to participate in the grant program. Public hearings and votes on the full economic-development agreement and incentives are scheduled for August 18.
- What populations, neighborhoods, or commercial districts will be affected?
- Are housing costs, land values, evictions, tax burdens, or commercial rents already rising?
- Who is expected to receive the project’s benefits?
- Could the decision intensify pressure on renters, lower-income homeowners, manufactured-home residents, or locally owned businesses?
- What protections or community-benefit commitments could be incorporated before approval?
- What data should be reported after implementation to determine whether the project is producing equitable results?
Things to do: Use our email template to ask the County Commission to direct staff to develop a practical anti-displacement analysis framework for major public investments, incentives, infrastructure projects, and real-estate decisions.
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: Two promising projects—and a missing framework
Dear Commissioners,
Your August 4 agenda includes two promising proposals: (1) completing approximately 3.3 miles of greenways in Woodfin and (2) supporting Southeastern Container’s expansion in Enka.
The greenways could provide important recreational, transportation, and economic benefits. But by increasing nearby property values and development interest, they could also contribute to higher rents, tax burdens, and displacement pressure. Early analysis could help the County protect nearby residents and businesses while ensuring they shape and share in the project’s benefits.
The Enka expansion appears unlikely to create meaningful displacement pressure, but the proposed incentives raise a complementary community-benefit question. Before committing up to $185,000, the County should explain how existing residents will learn about and gain access to the new jobs and how hiring and retention outcomes will be reported.
These proposals illustrate why the County needs an anti-displacement analysis framework, which could also be understood as a resident-protection framework. Future decisions involving infrastructure, incentives, land use, budgets, and other public investments should be informed by a consistent assessment of who will benefit, who could face unintended costs, and what steps could improve outcomes.
GAPavl has already provided the Commission with a detailed proposal for a practical, scalable framework. Please direct staff to review and respond to that proposal and use it as a starting point for developing a County-wide process that identifies displacement risks, finds opportunities to increase benefits for current residents, considers appropriate protections or community commitments, and establishes ways to measure results.
Developing this framework would not mean opposing or delaying promising investments. It would help ensure that future decisions are more fully informed, equitable, and responsive to the communities they affect.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Community or neighborhood]
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Promising Anti-Displacement Commitment Needs a Timeline
QUESTIONABLE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Resolved Positively
Report Back
Updated 8/3/26: City Council voted 6–0 to adopt the anti-displacement resolution, with Councilmember Maggie Ullman absent. Before the vote, Council amended the motion to require the City’s forthcoming strategic plan to include measurable milestones, expected outcomes, and a reporting structure. That change responds meaningfully to GAPavl supporters’ requests for accountability, but Council did not adopt the requested 90-day implementation deadline. Despite that, this result is an important policy milestone: the City has formally committed to assessing displacement risk and integrating protections across its work. However, the pace and substance of implementation will still require monitoring.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 14
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 consider a resolution acknowledging the harm caused by redlining, urban renewal, zoning decisions, and development pressures, and committing the City to a comprehensive anti-displacement strategy. We appreciate both the depth of the resolution’s historical analysis and the direction it gives the City Manager. But the resolution provides no timeline for developing or implementing the promised protections. Before adopting the resolution, Council should amend it to direct the City Manager to return within 90 days with a step-by-step implementation plan, measurable milestones, meaningful community participation, and a schedule for public progress reports.
The Facts: The resolution would:
- Commit the City to neighborhood stability and helping residents remain in their homes.
- Acknowledge harms caused by redlining, urban renewal, zoning actions, inadequate protections, and development pressure.
- Direct the City to use data to identify neighborhoods particularly vulnerable to displacement and loss of neighborhood identity.
- Call for anti-displacement measures to be integrated into planning, zoning, development review, and housing programs.
- Direct staff to incorporate anti-displacement analysis into the comprehensive rewrite of Asheville’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), so that displacement risks are considered as the City revises its zoning and development rules.
- Prioritize engagement with renters, low-income residents, homeowners on fixed incomes, and other people vulnerable to displacement.
- Direct the City Manager to assess existing tools, identify additional protections, and develop operational improvements that balance additional housing with protection of communities at greatest risk.
City staff recommends adoption. You can read the staff report and proposed resolution here, and see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: We are marking this resolution “questionable” not because we disagree with its direction, but because its promises currently have no timetable or accountability mechanism.
GAPavl has been involved in conversations with the City about this policy direction, and we appreciate that the resolution does more than use the word “displacement.” It expressly connects present housing pressures with governmental decisions and historic racial harms. It also recognizes that increasing housing supply and protecting existing communities must occur together.
The steps it outlines are sound, are a meaningful statement of purpose, and are consistent with the recommendations we’ve been making to the City (both publicly and in our direct work alongside staff) for many months. But the resolution does not yet say when the City Manager must present an implementation plan, when the displacement-risk framework will be completed, how residents will shape the work, or how Council and the public will measure progress.
To its credit, Asheville has studied displacement extensively. But without concrete plans and timelines, meaningful action could be delayed indefinitely. Council should adopt the resolution once it has added a requirement that the City Manager return within 90 days with:
- A step-by-step implementation plan
- A list of responsible departments and staff
- Initial deadlines and measurable milestones
- A funded community-engagement process both during the development of the policy and also for regular evaluation of its impact
- A defined role for residents of historically harmed and displacement-vulnerable neighborhoods
- A schedule for regular public progress reports
The plan need not solve displacement within 90 days. It should tell Council and the public what will happen next, who is responsible, and when results can be expected.
Things to do: No further action needed. Last week, we invited you to email City Council and ask members to adopt the anti-displacement resolution, require a concrete implementation plan within 90 days, and approve the Home Repair Policy with transparent and equitable rules for selecting households (see next issue report below).
Home Repair Can Prevent Displacement — But Who Will Receive Help?
QUESTIONABLE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Resolved Positively
Report Back
(Updated 8/3/26): Council voted 6–0 to approve the Home Repair Policy and allocate $3 million from the 2024 Affordable Housing Bond. The program can help an estimated 68–108 lower-income homeowners address critical repairs, accessibility needs, and other conditions that could otherwise force them from their homes. Council did not add the more-detailed selection rules, hardship protections, or reporting requirements we advocated for. Approval is nevertheless a positive anti-displacement investment; the central question now is whether implementation reaches households with the lowest incomes and greatest displacement risks. GAPavl will continue to monitor how outcomes take shape alongside the City’s other anti-displacement measures, and report back.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 14
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, July 27, the Asheville City Council will consider adopting a Home Repair Policy and allocating $3 million from the 2024 Affordable Housing Bond for its implementation. The program could help lower-income homeowners address dangerous conditions, accessibility needs, weatherization, and other critical repairs that might otherwise force them from their homes. But staff estimates that the allocation will serve only 68–108 households, while as many as 4,000 Asheville homes may need repairs. Council should approve the program while requiring a transparent selection system, meaningful priority for households at greatest displacement risk, hardship protections, and public reporting on who receives assistance.
The Facts: To qualify, an applicant generally must:
- Have household income at or below 80% of area median income
- Own and occupy the home as a principal residence
- Own no other residence
- Have lived in the home for at least five years, with possible exceptions for Helene damage
- Own a home assessed at no more than $1 million
- Live within Asheville city limits
Manufactured homes would be eligible. Heirs’ property would not automatically disqualify an applicant. (Note: Heirs’ property is a family home or land inherited by multiple relatives without a clear, legally recorded title. This has been a significant source of Black land and home loss, and unclear ownership can prevent families from qualifying for conventional loans or repair programs.)
The program would prioritize:
- Households at or below 60% AMI.
- Seniors, families with children, and people with disabilities.
- Long-term homeowners facing involuntary displacement.
- Residents of neighborhoods identified as vulnerable to displacement.
Eligible work would include critical health and safety repairs, accessibility modifications, weatherization, energy-efficiency improvements, and emergency repairs.
Assistance would be capped at $40,000. Awards of up to $25,000 would be grants. Larger awards would be structured as zero-interest, deferred loans forgiven by 20% annually over five years.
The City’s earlier $1.465 million repair investment served 52 households. Eighty percent had incomes at or below 50% AMI. Staff estimates that the proposed $3 million allocation could serve approximately 68–108 homes.
Staff recommends approving the policy and allocation. You can read the staff report and proposed resolution here and see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: This is an important anti-displacement investment whose equitability will depend almost entirely on implementation.
Repair assistance can help established homeowners remain in appreciating neighborhoods, preserve intergenerational wealth, reduce energy costs, prevent code-enforcement problems, and keep homes safe. Recognition of heirs’ property and manufactured housing is particularly important because those homeowners often encounter barriers in conventional loan and grant programs.
The central problem is scarcity. Even if the City repairs 108 homes, the program will reach less than three percent of the people who may need help. The stated priorities do not explain how applications will be ranked, how competing needs will be compared, or whether assistance will effectively become first-come, first-served. An equitable process is especially important because the households most in need often have more difficulties accessing assistance programs.
Council should require the program to answer several questions before awards begin:
- How will the four priorities be weighted?
- Will households at 30% or 50% AMI receive preference over those at 80%?
- How will the City reach residents who lack internet access or struggle with applications?
- What assistance will be available for heirs’ property, title problems, disability access, and language needs?
- What hardship rules will apply if a homeowner dies, becomes ill, or must move during the five-year forgiveness period?
- Does a repair costing slightly more than $25,000 turn the entire award into a loan, or only the amount above $25,000?
- Will applicants receive written reasons for adverse decisions and a simple, timely appeals process to correct errors involving eligibility, priority, ownership, income, or eligible repairs?
- Will results be reported by race, income, age, disability, neighborhood, and type of repair?
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee recommended making occupancy by a senior, family with children, or person with a disability an eligibility requirement. Staff instead retained that as a priority for consideration, but not a requirement. Council should publicly discuss that choice and establish a selection process that does not reduce “priority” to an unenforceable aspiration.
The program also excludes renters, even though deteriorating rental housing can produce displacement through unsafe conditions, condemnation, rehabilitation-related rent increases, or removal from the market. This policy need not solve that separate problem, but Council should identify what strategies will.
Council should approve the funding while requiring transparent selection rules, hardship protections, accessible outreach, and regular reporting.
Things to do: No further action needed. Last week, we invited you to use the
email template above (combined with the one addressing the anti-displacement resolution) to ask Council to approve home-repair funding while strengthening the program’s selection rules, protections, and accountability.
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone
PROBLEMATIC
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
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 and the discussion created an opportunity to seek a revised plan before the final vote.
Summary: City staff will present a proposed redesign of Asheville’s bus network that could improve reliability, increase frequency on important corridors, and expand the number of jobs an average low-income resident can reach by approximately 15%. It would also eliminate direct service to several destinations, including ABCCM’s Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, and West Haywood. Staff recommends the draft network, but Council is not expected to take final action until August. Before that vote, the City should explain why it continues to recommend the proposal despite overwhelmingly negative community feedback, clearly identify what – if anything – changed in response to that feedback, and develop equitable solutions for riders who would lose essential bus access.
The facts: Staff says 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 recommends approving the draft network as proposed. The presentation anticipates 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: 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 identifies the public’s principal concerns, including the loss of access to Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, West Haywood, and other destinations. Yet staff continues 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, 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 of longer walks, terrain, disability, safety, and weather
- Present equitable alternatives for preserving access to essential destinations.
- Explain what additional funding would be required to avoid forcing one group of riders to bear the cost of improving service for another.
The City should not conduct extensive public engagement and 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: No immediate action is requested; GAP will gather community perspectives and prepare an advocacy plan before City Council’s anticipated August vote.
Sweeten Creek Road Project: “100% Affordable” — But Affordable to Whom?
QUESTIONABLE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Resolved Positively
Report Back
(Updated 8/3/26): Council voted 6–0 to approve the conditional rezoning for 130 apartments at 3862 Sweeten Creek Road. All units must be affordable to households earning no more than 80% of area median income for at least 20 years. The nonprofit developer said it typically maintains affordability at its properties for 40 years or longer, but the approved conditions do not guarantee that any particular share of the apartments will serve households at lower income levels, such as 30%, 50%, or 60% AMI. That deeper affordability could emerge through the project’s financing, but it’s unclear whether the developer will pursue that.
Summary: Council will consider a Sweeten Creek Road apartment development whose conditions designate every unit as affordable to households at or below 80% AMI for at least 20 years. That sounds promising, but the presentation does not provide the total unit count, rents, bedroom mix, income distribution, utility costs, or number of homes serving households below 30%, 50%, or 60% AMI.
The Facts: The applicant seeks conditional rezoning from Residential Multi-Family High Density to Residential Expansion–Conditional Zone. The project includes internal sidewalks and pedestrian improvements along Sweeten Creek Road. Planning and Zoning recommended approval 6–1, and staff recommends approval.
Our Assessment: We are marking this “questionable” because a 100% affordability commitment is valuable, but an 80% AMI ceiling could allow every unit to be priced beyond the reach of Asheville’s lowest-income residents. Twenty years is also short compared with the permanent development rights granted by rezoning. Council should require a deeper income mix, longer affordability, enforceable monitoring, voucher acceptance, and protections for tenants when restrictions expire.
Things to do: Residents who contact City Council (AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov) may wish to emphasize:
- The commitment to make 100% of the apartments affordable is valuable, but “at or below 80% AMI” does not guarantee housing for residents with the greatest needs, who are disproportionately residents of color.
- Council should require a meaningful share of units for households below 30%, 50%, and 60% AMI: mixed-income development supports long-term mobility.
- The affordability period should be longer than 20 years, because the rezoning permanently increases the property owner’s development rights.
- Before voting, Council should obtain clear information about the total number of units, proposed rents, bedroom mix, utility costs, voucher acceptance, and enforcement of the affordability requirements.
- Council should ensure that current and future tenants are protected when the affordability protection approaches expiration.
Don’t Trade Away the Asheville Mall’s Housing Future
PROBLEMATIC
REPORT BACK STATUS
Resolved Negatively
Report Back
(Updated 8/3/26): Council voted 4–2 to approve rezoning approximately 40 acres of the Asheville Mall from Urban Place to Regional Business, with Councilmembers Kim Roney and Sage Turner voted against. The decision went against the recommendations of both City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. It removes requirements intended to produce housing, walkability, internal street connections, and transit-supportive redevelopment without securing a specific development plan or enforceable public benefits. Although supporters argued that Urban Place zoning had made redevelopment financially and practically difficult, the vote gave away substantial public leverage over one of Asheville’s largest redevelopment opportunities.
Summary: The owner of the Asheville Mall is asking Council to rezone approximately 41 acres from Urban Place to Regional Business without presenting a specific redevelopment project. The change would weaken mixed-use, walkability, and transit-supportive development requirements while allowing unrestricted drive-throughs and broader automobile-oriented commercial uses.
The facts: The property contains an approximately 198,000-square-foot mall building and extensive surface parking. Current zoning is intended to transform sites like this into mixed-use town centers containing housing and commercial space. Regional Business zoning would still allow multifamily housing, but it would remove requirements intended to produce a walkable, connected development—such as standards governing building placement, block size, street-facing buildings, internal sidewalks and trees, and the location of drive-through lanes. Planning and Zoning recommended denial 4–3, and staff recommends denial.
Our Assessment: We are marking this “problematic” because by approving this request, the City would surrender leverage over one of Asheville’s largest redevelopment opportunities without receiving a site plan, housing commitment, affordability requirement, street network, transit improvement, or other enforceable public benefit. Council should deny the straight rezoning and invite the owner to return with a conditional, mixed-use proposal.
Things to do: Residents who contact City Council (AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov) may wish to emphasize:
- Council should reject the request to replace Urban Place zoning with Regional Business zoning.
- The owner has not presented a specific redevelopment plan or offered enforceable commitments involving housing, affordability, transit, walkability, or other public benefits.
- The current zoning preserves the possibility of transforming approximately 41 acres of mall and surface parking into a mixed-use, transit-supportive town center.
- Rezoning now would give away the City’s leverage while permitting more automobile-oriented development, including drive-through businesses without the current requirement that they have only one lane located behind the building..
- When the owner has a viable redevelopment proposal, it should return with a conditional rezoning application that allows Council and the public to evaluate the actual project and secure enforceable community benefits.
PREVIOUS REPORTS
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...
GAP Report for 7/6/26
Community advocacy helped preserve funding for 126 affordable apartments On June 23rd, the Asheville City Council approved an amendment to the housing recovery portion of the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery action plan. They shifted $19.2 million...
GAP Report for 6/29/26
Building on Buncombe County’s Commitment to Preventing Displacement (new) Last week, Buncombe County responded to GAP’s earlier report, explaining that it already has a number of policies and programs intended to reduce displacement. We agree that the County has taken...