GAP Report for 8/10/26
PROBLEMATIC
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 adopted. The proposal could improve frequency, reliability, and access to jobs for many riders, but would obtain those benefits by eliminating direct service to several important destinations and neighborhoods that disproportionately impact marginalized members of our community. Before taking final action, Council should require staff to change the proposed redesign to address community feedback, develop equitable solutions for riders losing essential access, and/or present practical options (like increasing transit funding) to preserve critical connections.
REPORT BACKS
Public investment in Buncombe County should strengthen communities—not price people out
Last week, we renewed our call for the Buncombe County Commission to explore the development of a practical anti-displacement analysis framework. Using examples from last week’s agenda, we made the argument that such a framework would give the County a consistent way to examine who may be harmed by major tax, budget, land-use, infrastructure, and public-investment decisions—and to identify and institute possible protections that could actually prevent displacement from occurring. The Commission neither responded nor publicly discussed our proposal. We will continue seeking a substantive response and a clear next step.
Active Issue Reports
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone
PROBLEMATIC
Summary (updated 8/10/25): At its July 28th meeting, the Asheville City Council reviewed the proposed Asheville Rides Transit (ART) network plan. Community feedback was overwhelmingly negative, but staff still recommended the plan be adopted. The proposal could improve frequency, reliability, and access to jobs for many riders, but would obtain those benefits by eliminating direct service to several important destinations and neighborhoods that disproportionately impact marginalized members of our community. Before taking final action, Council should require staff to change the proposed redesign to address community feedback, develop equitable solutions for riders losing essential access, and/or present practical options (like increasing transit funding) to preserve critical connections.
The Facts: At the July 28th presentation, staff said the draft network would:
- Improve schedules and on-time performance.
- Coordinate transfers more effectively at the ART station.
- Provide 15-minute service between downtown, Hillcrest, and the River Arts District.
- Improve frequency in several higher-growth areas.
- End 90-minute routes.
- Increase the number of jobs an average low-income resident can reach by approximately 15%.
- Maintain or improve service to Housing Authority communities.
The proposal would discontinue direct service to:
- The Outlet Mall, Brevard Road, and Transformation Village — approximately 40 average daily riders.
- MAHEC — approximately 11 average daily riders.
- The Social Security office — approximately eight average daily riders.
- West Haywood — approximately 34 average daily riders.
- The Omni Grove Park Inn.
Staff presented alternatives for restoring some service, but each would reduce frequency, create irregular schedules, or weaken service elsewhere.
The Planning, Economic Development and Environment Committee did not recommend any particular modification to the proposed network. It asked staff to bring the proposal to Council for further discussion and recommended that the eventual Council decision include direction to identify additional, sustainable sources of transit funding.
Staff recommended approving the draft network as proposed. The presentation anticipated final Council action on August 25. You can see the presentation here, see the City’s explanation of proposed changes here, read the full report here, and read the full community engagement report here.
Our Assessment: The systemwide benefits to this plan appear meaningful, but those benefits come with concentrated losses that have not been fully resolved. We are also troubled by the stark disconnect between the community feedback the City received on this plan and staff’s recommendation to approve it without modification.
Survey respondents were not merely divided. They rejected the proposal by wide margins:
- Among all respondents, 52% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the draft network would be better for them, while only 25% agreed or strongly agreed.
- Fifty-nine percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it would be better for people they know, compared with 24% who agreed.
- Fifty-seven percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it would be better for the region overall, compared with 28% who agreed.
- Among frequent ART riders – the people with the most direct experience of the system — 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the proposal would be better for them. Only 27% agreed.
The survey was self-selected and does not necessarily represent every Asheville resident or rider. But 1,350 people participated, including 429 frequent riders. The results are too substantial and too consistently negative to treat as incidental opposition.
Staff’s presentation identified the public’s principal concerns, including the loss of access to Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, West Haywood, and other destinations. Yet despite this acknowledgement, staff continued to recommend the draft network as proposed. The presentation does not clearly identify any significant network changes made in response to the overwhelmingly negative feedback.
Frequency, reliability, timed transfers, and increased job access are important equity benefits. But averages can conceal concentrated hardship. A relatively small number of riders may depend upon a particular stop to reach housing, health care, public benefits, or employment. Riders with disabilities, older adults, and people without flexible schedules may have no realistic substitute when bus service disappears.
Before asking Council to approve the network, staff should:
- Clearly identify what, if anything, they changed in response to public feedback.
- Explain why the principal concerns raised by riders were not incorporated into the recommendation.
- Directly engage the riders who would lose service and assess the effects regarding longer walks, terrain, accessibility, safety, and weather.
- Present equitable alternatives for preserving access to essential destinations.
- Explain what additional funding or community partnerships would be required to avoid forcing one group of riders to bear the impact of improving service for another.
If the City is going to conduct extensive public engagement, it should not then proceed with its original recommendation without clearly explaining how that feedback influenced — or failed to influence — the result. Council should use the period before the anticipated August vote to require that explanation and seek modifications that preserve the proposal’s broader benefits without abandoning riders who depend on the connections it would eliminate.
Things to Do (updated 8/10/26): Email City Council before August 25 and ask members not to approve the proposed network until the City explains what it changed in response to public feedback and develops workable solutions for riders losing access to essential destinations.
Email Template: You can send an email to the Asheville City Council by filling out the form below. Our email tool will send an individually addressed email to the recipients, and enable us to track how many emails were sent overall in the campaign. If you prefer to write your own email, you can copy and paste (and adapt) our template text – please cc: or bcc: info@gapavl.org on your individualized email, so we can better track how many emails were sent.
Important: If you receive a response to your email, please forward it to us at info@gapavl.org so we can reflect that in the report back.
To: AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov
CC: or BCC: info@gapavl.org
Subject: Protect essential transit access while improving Asheville’s bus network
Dear Mayor Manheimer and Asheville City Council members,
I write to you today regarding the proposed Asheville Rides Transit (ART) network redesign, to ask you to address public concerns as they have been presented by the community before it is put to you for a vote on August 25.
I support efforts to make Asheville’s bus network more frequent, reliable, and useful. The proposed ART network redesign could provide important benefits, including more frequent service on major corridors and improved access to jobs for many residents.
However, those improvements would come with serious losses. The drafted plan eliminates direct service to destinations including ABCCM’s Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, West Haywood, and other areas. For riders who rely on public transportation, losing access to housing, health care, public services, and employment is not a minor inconvenience.
The community response on the final survey also deserves a substantive response. Most respondents—including 60% of frequent ART riders—did not believe the proposed network would be better for them. Although the survey was self-selected, its size and consistently negative results should not be dismissed.
Before approving the final network, please direct staff to:
- Clearly identify what, if anything, they changed in response to public feedback.
- Explain why the principal concerns raised by riders were not incorporated into the recommendation.
- Directly engage the riders who would lose service and assess the effects regarding longer walks, terrain, accessibility, safety, and weather.
- Present equitable alternatives for preserving access to essential destinations.
- Explain what additional funding or community partnerships would be required to avoid forcing one group of riders to bear the impact of improving service for another.
Please do not limit the decision to a choice between keeping the existing system unchanged and adopting the draft as presented. Asheville should pursue better frequency and reliability while protecting riders who would otherwise lose essential bus access.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Neighborhood]
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Updated 8/3/26: Council received the transit redesign presentation but took no vote. Staff presented the proposed network, the overwhelmingly negative survey results, and options for retaining service to destinations that could lose direct access, including ABCCM’s Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, West Haywood, and the Outlet Mall. Councilmembers expressed significant concern about the proposed losses and discussed smaller vehicles, partnerships with major employers and institutions, and additional funding. Staff is expected to return for a decision on August 25, so this issue remains unresolved; the discussion created an opportunity to seek a revised plan before the final vote.
Public investment in Buncombe County should strengthen communities—not price people out
QUESTIONABLE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Updated 8/10/26: Last week, we renewed our call for the Buncombe County Commission to explore the development of a practical anti-displacement analysis framework. Using examples from last week’s agenda, we made the argument that such a framework would give the County a consistent way to examine who may be harmed by major tax, budget, land-use, infrastructure, and public-investment decisions—and to identify and institute possible protections that could actually prevent displacement from occurring. The Commission neither responded nor publicly discussed our proposal. We will continue seeking a substantive response and a clear next step.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 9
Recipients and Responses:
Buncombe County Commission
- County Commission Chair Amanda Edwards: No response
- County Commissioner Al Whitesides: No response
- County Commissioner Drew Ball: No response
- County Commissioner Jennifer Horton: No response
- County Commissioner Martin Moore: No response
- County Commissioner Parker Sloane: No response
- County Commissioner Terri Wells: No response
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.
Our concern is not with the projects themselves, but with the absence of a consistent process for ensuring that their benefits are broadly shared and that foreseeable displacement risks are addressed early. An anti-displacement analysis would not presume that either proposal should be delayed or rejected. It would help the County strengthen these investments by identifying who may be affected, connecting existing residents to new opportunities, and incorporating protections before rising costs or other unintended consequences emerge.
The Woodfin greenways offer the clearest example. Public parks, trails, and river access can greatly improve quality of life, but those amenities can also increase nearby land values and attract new development. Before construction, the County should know whether nearby renters, lower-income homeowners, manufactured-home residents, and locally owned businesses are already experiencing housing or commercial displacement pressure. It should also identify measures that would help existing residents remain and share in the benefits.
This concern is supported by research on “green gentrification.” A study of new parks in ten U.S. cities found that greenway parks with walking or bicycling components were associated with more neighborhood gentrification than other park types. A broader Trust for Public Land review similarly found that large greenway parks are consistently linked to gentrification and explained how rising land values, rents, and living costs can displace longtime residents and businesses. These outcomes are not inevitable, but the research shows why displacement risk should be evaluated – and protections developed – while a greenway is being planned, rather than after surrounding costs begin to rise.
The Enka proposal raises a different set of questions. The promised wages appear strong, but the County has not shown whether the 12 jobs will be accessible to nearby residents, how the expansion may affect surrounding properties, or whether public incentives could include commitments related to local hiring, transportation, or other community benefits.
Research on economic-development incentives shows that jobs created with public support do not automatically benefit residents of the surrounding community. Southeastern Container is an established local employer, its proposed wages appear strong, and 12 new jobs are unlikely to create meaningful displacement pressure. The relevant issue is therefore not primarily displacement, but whether the County can use its investment to create greater opportunity for people already living in Enka. Before providing up to $185,000 in incentives, the County should identify barriers to local access, consider recruitment, training, childcare, and transportation strategies, and report who is hired and retained. These community-benefit measures would complement anti-displacement work by helping local households gain the economic stability needed to remain and prosper.
For more than six months, GAP has asked the County to develop a scalable anti-displacement analysis framework. We have acknowledged the County’s affordable-housing, recovery, home-repair, and planning efforts, and we carefully reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, growth strategies, recovery plans, and other materials County leaders identified in response to our advocacy. Those plans contain important principles and programs, but they do not provide a decision-specific method for evaluating proposals like these.
A useful framework could be scaled to the decision. It might ask:
- 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?
These proposals raise related but distinct questions. The Woodfin greenways demonstrate the direct need for the anti-displacement framework GAPavl has advocated for: a promising public investment could increase nearby property values and development pressure unless the County identifies vulnerable residents and businesses and adopts protections early. The Enka expansion instead raises a complementary community-benefit question about whether residents can access opportunities created with public support. GAPavl continues to call on the County to adopt our proposed anti-displacement framework, while also encouraging consistent standards for ensuring that publicly supported economic development benefits existing communities.
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]
PREVIOUS REPORTS
GAP Report for 8/3/26
Public investment in Buncombe County should strengthen communities—not price people out (new) Buncombe County Commissioners will consider two public-investment decisions on August 4 that demonstrate the need for anti-displacement analysis: (1) advancing approximately...
GAP Report for 7/27/26
Promising Anti-Displacement Commitment Needs a Timeline (new) On Tuesday, July 27, the Asheville City Council will consider a resolution acknowledging the harm caused by redlining, urban renewal, zoning decisions, and development pressures, and committing the City to...
GAP Report for 7/20/26
The County’s property-tax dilemma makes the case for an anti-displacement analysis framework (new) Last week, new state legislation forced Buncombe County Commissioners to choose between reverting to older, less equitable property values to maintain their adopted...
GAP Report for 7/13/26
Buncombe County is confronting a decision that offers no painless outcome Buncombe County Commissioners must choose between preserving County services by continuing to use older, less equitable property values and implementing the new appraisals and reducing County...
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...