GAP Report for 8/24/26
PROBLEMATIC
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 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.
Asheville Needs a Larger Conversation About Police Surveillance
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.
QUESTIONABLE
Safety, Second Chances, and HACA’s New Screening Rules
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.
REPORT BACKS
County Staff Calls for an Impact Analysis – So Why Approve the Rezoning Before It’s Done?
Updated 8/24/26: The Buncombe County Commissioners approved the KOA rezoning 5–1 last week despite our request that they wait for the impact analysis identified in the staff report. Commissioner Terri Wells asked about the analysis, but the planner presenting the item could not discuss its specific findings and provided only a general explanation of how such reviews normally work. The Commissioners never examined the nearby vulnerable populations identified by the Buncombe Community Index or considered potential effects on manufactured-home and RV-park residents. The sole opposing vote came from Commissioner Jennifer Horton, who cited the property’s flood risk rather than the missing analysis.
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone
Updated 8/18/26: This item has been removed from the August 25th agenda and is paused indefinitely, as better solutions are sought. Use our new template to write to Council Members to acknowledge and appreciate this decision.
Active Issue Reports
Why Rush Zoning Changes Before Asheville’s Anti-Displacement Tool Is Ready?
PROBLEMATIC
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: 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. You can use our email template below, within the surveillance issue report, which addresses this issue as well as that one.
Asheville Needs a Larger Conversation About Police Surveillance
PROBLEMATIC
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: 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. You can use our email template below, which addresses this issue as well as the zoning one described above.
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: Put protections and public oversight before expansion
Dear Mayor Manheimer and City Council members,
Please postpone the duplex and ADU amendments and consider them through the comprehensive UDO overhaul beginning later this year. That process is supposed to apply displacement-risk analysis and anti-displacement strategies that are not yet ready.
These relatively modest reforms may ultimately be appropriate, but Council has not demonstrated why they must be approved separately before the City can evaluate their cumulative effects and identify protections for vulnerable residents.
Please also terminate the Flock contract while strengthening the proposed resolution to address the larger ALPR system. Residents affected by serious crime may value these investigative tools, while others raise legitimate concerns about privacy, misuse, and the tracking of people’s movements. Asheville needs a broader public conversation about whether and under what circumstances this surveillance should continue – not simply a change in vendors.
Specifically, please:
- Freeze all new or expanded ALPR cameras, capabilities, integrations, contracts, and database access during the review, regardless of vendor.
- 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.
Thank you for your consideration.
[Name]
[Neighborhood or community]
Safety, Second Chances, and HACA’s New Screening Rules
QUESTIONABLE
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: Email HACA before 11:59 p.m. tonight – 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
Email Template: You can send an email to the Housing Authority for the City of Asheville 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: comments@haca.org
CC: manheimer@avlcouncil.com, antanettemosley@avlcouncil.com
Subject: Questions regarding HACA’s proposed criminal-background screening policy
Housing Authority of the City of Asheville:
I am submitting this comment regarding HACA’s proposed Criminal Background Screening Grid and Procedures.
I understand that residents who have survived rape, stalking, and other serious violence have legitimate concerns about their assailants being approved to move into their housing communities. HACA is right to consider their safety, and the proposal contains important protections addressing violent offenses.
However, the proposal also applies longer lookback periods to conduct that does not necessarily involve violence. For example, felony drug possession and two or more felony theft or fraud convictions would carry 10-year lookbacks.
Before adopting the policy, please explain why these longer periods are necessary for nonviolent convictions, how they advance resident safety, and whether HACA considered shorter periods or a more individualized approach for applicants who no longer present a risk to potential fellow residents.
I am raising this question rather than taking a final position, in the hopes that the proposal ultimately strikes a balance between safety, rehabilitation, and access to housing.. Please include this email in the official public-comment record and publish HACA’s response before the Board takes final action.
Thank you.
[Name]
[Neighborhood]
County Staff Calls for an Impact Analysis – So Why Approve the Rezoning Before It’s Done?
QUESTIONABLE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unsatisfactorily Resolved
Report Back
Updated 8/24/26: The Buncombe County Commissioners approved the KOA rezoning 5–1 last week despite our request that they wait for the impact analysis identified in the staff report. Commissioner Terri Wells asked about the analysis, but the planner presenting the item could not discuss its specific findings and provided only a general explanation of how such reviews normally work. The Commissioners never examined the nearby vulnerable populations identified by the Buncombe Community Index or considered potential effects on manufactured-home and RV-park residents. The sole opposing vote came from Commissioner Jennifer Horton, who cited the property’s flood risk rather than the missing analysis.
Last week, we asked County Commissioners to postpone the rezoning of two KOA-owned parcels near US 70 until the impact analysis identified in the County staff report had been completed, published, and discussed.
The analysis did come up—but its substance did not.
Commissioner Terri Wells asked the presenting planner about both the property’s flood risk and the staff report’s reference to an impact analysis. The planner explained that she was filling in for the planner responsible for that work and could not speak to its specific findings. She instead described generally how impact analyses compare existing and potential uses.
The planner suggested that the effects should theoretically be smaller because changing the property from Commercial Services to R-3 residential constituted a “downzoning.” The maximum residential density would remain 12 units per acre, while the number and intensity of permitted commercial uses would decrease.
That explanation may be relevant to the overall rezoning, but it did not answer the questions we raised. There was no discussion of the property’s high Buncombe Community Index score, the vulnerable populations that may live nearby, or potential effects on residents of neighboring manufactured homes and the RV park. Commissioners did not discuss housing affordability, land values, rents, redevelopment pressure, or whether residents own or rent the land beneath their homes.
Staff also did not clearly say whether a complete, written impact analysis existed, explain why it was not included in the public materials, or present any findings from such an analysis.
Most of the discussion instead focused on flood risk. A resident urged the County not to permit additional development in flood-prone areas, describing the effects of Hurricane Helene and warning that severe flooding is part of the region’s changing climate reality.
Commissioners approved the rezoning 5–1. Commissioner Jennifer Horton cast the only opposing vote. She said that, as a lifelong County resident who lost family and friends during Helene and witnessed the devastation along US 70, she could not support changing the zoning to allow building in a known floodplain.
The result illustrates the problem we identified. The County’s own screening tool flagged potential vulnerability and suggested further analysis, but the decision went forward without those findings being presented or used to consider resident engagement, alternatives, or protections.
That does not mean the rezoning was necessarily harmful. Residential zoning may facilitate needed housing, and the change eliminated a range of potentially intensive commercial uses. But if an impact analysis matters, it should inform the decision – not become a box checked in a staff report without meaningful public discussion.
We will continue urging the County to establish a consistent policy requiring displacement-risk findings to be completed, published, and considered before major land-use and public-investment decisions are approved.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 13
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 vote August 18 on a request to change two Kampgrounds of America (KOA)-owned parcels near US 70 from commercial to residential zoning. County staff recommends approval, but its own report says vulnerable populations may live nearby and that an impact analysis is appropriate. Commissioners should not approve the rezoning first and study its effects later; they should require the analysis before the vote and use it as the starting point for a consistent County-wide anti-displacement framework.
The Facts: At its August 18 meeting, the Buncombe County Commission will hold a public hearing and vote on a rezoning request from Kampgrounds of America. KOA wants the County to change two parcels totaling 6.77 acres at 517 Lazy Bear Boulevard and along US 70 from commercial to residential zoning.
The change would make it easier to use the property for housing, including apartments or a manufactured-home park. It would not approve a particular construction plan, and the zoned maximum density would remain 12 homes per acre. Instead, it would change the kinds of projects that KOA or a future owner could propose on the land. The parcels have public water and sewer service, and one lies partly within the regulated 100-year floodplain. Nearby properties include vacant commercial land, manufactured homes, and an RV park.
The staff report says the property has a high score on the Buncombe Community Index, indicating that vulnerable populations may live near the rezoning, and states: “Impact Analysis is suggested for this parcel.” The public agenda materials do not include such an analysis. County staff and the Planning Board recommend approval.
Presentation slides and other materials are available at the County’s Agendas and Minutes portal.
Our Assessment: We are not suggesting that the County should reject this rezoning; residential zoning for these parcels could allow needed housing in an area with water, sewer, and access to a major corridor. Commissioners should, however, understand the likely effects of this change before voting to change what can be built on the property.
The staff report on this issue actually makes a clear case for the kind of anti-displacement framework we’ve been recommending all year. The Buncombe Community Index found a concentration of conditions associated with vulnerability in the surrounding census block group, including poverty, lower incomes, food insecurity, limited education, housing-cost burdens, and lack of health insurance. Manufactured housing and an RV park are also among the neighboring uses. These findings do not prove that the rezoning would cause displacement, but they provide an evidence-based warning and should trigger the next step established in the County’s Comprehensive Plan: identify the potentially affected populations and analyze how the proposed change could affect them.
Several possible risks deserve examination. New housing supply could benefit the community, but there is no indication of what would be built, what it would cost, or whether it would serve households already struggling with housing costs. Market-rate development could increase nearby land values, rents, or redevelopment pressure. Manufactured-home residents could be particularly vulnerable if they own their homes but rent the land beneath them. People using RVs or other nontraditional housing as longer-term residences might face similar risks, although the public materials do not establish whether such residents are present. The analysis should determine whether these concerns apply and whether a project-specific zoning process, affordability commitments, resident protections, or other safeguards are warranted.
That is why we are puzzled that staff recommend an impact analysis, but then don’t provide one and instead recommend that the rezoning be approved. If such an analysis was done, Commissioners could use its findings to engage affected residents, evaluate alternatives, and identify appropriate safeguards before making a final decision. If they move forward with a vote now and approve this rezoning, the County will have less leverage to address any risks it subsequently finds.
We think the Commissioners should defer the vote until the impact analysis their staff recommended has been completed, published, and used to inform the decision. They could then formalize this approach through the scalable framework described in GAPavl’s full proposal, use existing County plans and tools to identify displacement risks before major decisions, match the response to the level of risk, monitor the results, and adjust when necessary.
Things to do: Email the Buncombe County Commission, asking them not to approve the KOA rezoning until the impact analysis identified by County staff has been completed, published, and discussed – and to use that process as the starting point for a consistent, County-wide anti-displacement 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: Complete the staff-suggested impact analysis BEFORE approving the KOA rezoning
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing about the proposed rezoning of two KOA-owned parcels near US 70 in Swannanoa. This could be a very beneficial change: the property has water and sewer service, and residential zoning could facilitate needed housing development. I am not asking you to reject that possibility. I am asking you to understand its likely effects before changing what can be built on the property.
The staff report recommends an “Impact Analysis” because the property has a high score on the Buncombe Community Index, indicating that vulnerable populations may live nearby. Nearby uses include manufactured housing and an RV park. Yet staff recommends approval, and the public agenda materials do not show that the recommended analysis was completed. If it was completed, it should be shared before the vote; if it was not, it should be done before the vote.
The analysis may find that the rezoning poses little displacement risk. But it should examine whether new development could increase nearby land values, rents, or redevelopment pressure; whether nearby manufactured-home residents rent the land beneath their homes; whether people use nearby RVs as longer-term housing; and whether the housing construction ultimately enabled by the rezoning would serve people already struggling with housing costs. It should also identify any protections or commitments warranted by those findings.
The County itself flagged the need to ask these questions. If such an analysis is important enough to recommend, it should be completed so it can inform the rezoning decision. Once the rezoning is approved, new development rights will already have been granted and the County will have less leverage to address any risks the analysis identifies.
Please direct staff to:
- Postpone the rezoning decision until the recommended impact analysis has been completed and published.
- Engage residents identified as potentially affected and discuss the findings at a public meeting before voting.
- Use this process as the starting point for the County-wide framework described in GAPavl’s full proposal: identify risks BEFORE major decisions, scale the response to the risk, monitor results, and adjust when necessary.
Buncombe County should know who may benefit, who may be harmed, and what protections are possible before it makes major land-use and public-investment decisions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Community or neighborhood]
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone
REPORT BACK STATUS
Positively Resolved
Report Back
Updated 8/18/26: According to multiple members of City Council, this item has been removed from the August 25th agenda and is paused indefinitely, as better solutions are sought. Use our new template to write to Council Members to acknowledge and appreciate this decision.
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.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 23
Recipients and Responses:
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer: Responded, see below
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Bo Hess: No response
- City Council Member Kim Roney: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Maggie Ullman: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
- City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response
PROBLEMATIC
Summary (updated 8/18/26): City Council is pressing pause on this issue, removing it from their August 25 agenda. We encourage you to use our updated template to appreciate and acknowledge this move, which is in direct response to community advocacy.
Update 8/17/25: Council Member Kim Roney responded to our report last week by suggesting that Council pause the vote while additional community engagement is underway and explore whether expanding the Asheville Rides Transit (ART) Passport program could help preserve service to destinations that would otherwise lose it. She also asked how the City is participating in Buncombe County’s transit study and whether that study might offer another option for service between South Asheville and the airport. Her question raises a broader one for us: what opportunities have the City and County explored for a more coordinated transit strategy? (You can read Roney’s full response below.)
Update 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 (updated 8/17/26): Council Member Roney’s recommendations reference the ART Passport program and the Buncombe County transit study.
- ART Passport allows businesses, private organizations, and public agencies to pay for their employees to ride ART without paying a fare when they board. Participating organizations are billed quarterly at a discounted rate of 52 cents per trip, and businesses of any size have been eligible since May 2025. The City’s current list of participating organizations includes Buncombe County, the City of Asheville, the Grove Park Inn, MAHEC, New Belgium, Biltmore organizations, Deerfield, Dope Dharma Media, and UNCA students. (You can read about ART Passport and see the current partners here).
- Buncombe County’s Community Transportation Service Plan is a five-year examination of public-transit conditions, options, needs, and the allocation of resources for Mountain Mobility. The County says NCDOT requires the plan for Mountain Mobility to receive state funding. Mountain Mobility provides demand-response transportation, ADA paratransit for ART, and three public Trailblazer routes that connect with ART or Haywood Public Transit. The County’s planning materials identify the Trailblazer routes and ART’s airport route as important corridors and note that congestion and capacity constraints can affect service. (You can read about the County study here.)
Original 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 (updated 8/17/26): Councilmember Roney’s response strengthens the case for pausing the vote and assessing funding alternatives before accepting the proposed service losses. Council should request an accounting of ART Passport participation and revenue, examine whether existing partnerships can be expanded, and recruit additional employers and institutions at destinations facing cuts. Passport may not close the funding gap, but its potential should be established rather than assumed.
Roney’s question about the County transit study also deserves an answer. The City should explain how it is participating, what joint service or funding options have been considered, and whether closer coordination could improve connections beyond the city limits. Depending on the answers, a more coordinated City-County strategy may deserve serious consideration.
Original 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 8/18/26): Use our email template to offer appreciation to the Asheville City Council for listening to the concerns of their community and pausing this proposed change to the transit system.
Update 8/17/26: Use our new email template, informed by Council Member Roney’s response, to ask Council to pause the August 25 vote, examine whether ART Passport partnerships can help preserve service, and explain how the City is participating in the County transit study. We encourage you to send an email even if you already did already, as these new questions and possible alternatives deserve consideration before the vote.
Update 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: Appreciation for pausing the transit vote
Dear Mayor Manheimer and Asheville City Council members,
Thank you for hearing so many community voices with concerns about the proposed transit overhaul, and removing this issue from your August 25th agenda so better solutions can be pursued. I believe we can find an approach that better serves our City and region, and I’m glad you do as well.
Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Neighborhood]
Responses from City Council
Council Member Maggie Ullman – August 18
Thank you for weighing in on the transit plan. Your input helped clarify what matters most to our community: expanding access to frequent, reliable bus service while continuing to serve the riders who depend on every part of our current system.
I wanted to share that Council has pasued consideration of the current draft network and asked staff to develop a transit revenue strategy. The goal is to identify sustainable funding to provide service every 15 minutes along key corridors while maintaining all existing routes. This is an important next step toward making transit more useful and accessible to more people without leaving current riders behind.
Thank you again for making your voice heard.
Many thanks,
Council Member Kim Roney – August 17
Friends at GAP AVL, the draft transit network has been pulled from the August 25th Council agenda.
The draft network included needed service on major corridors but at the expense of cuts to affordable housing, jobs, the Social Security office, a library & voting location, and several health & human service locations.
The message Council received today included: “Staff will explore options related to the growth network and a path to various funding strategies. Since this research requires time due to staff capacity, there is no definite time when the item will come back before City Council.” This message is important because it notes that the draft plan with transit cuts could return at a future date.
I appreciate your engagement on this matter and hope you’ll stay tuned as we continue the important work to make Asheville’s transit system more efficient and reliable.
With gratitude,
Kim
Council Member Antanette Mosley – August 17
Thanks so much for your advocacy! This matter has been removed from our upcoming agenda.
Best,
Antanette
Mayor Esther Manheimer – August 17
Thank you for writing and for explaining how the proposed ART network changes could affect you and other riders who depend on the system.
I share the concern that improving frequency and reliability should not come at the cost of leaving current riders without meaningful access to work, health care, groceries, education, and other essential services. The personal experiences you described underscore why ridership percentages alone cannot capture the full impact of eliminating service, particularly on riders with disabilities, older adults, workers, and people who do not have another transportation option.
I have asked that the ART network design item be removed from the August 25 City Council agenda. Before Council considers moving forward, I want additional work done on the impacts of the proposed changes, possible alternatives, coordination with Buncombe County, and funding strategies that could allow us to improve frequency without sacrificing essential coverage. Staff will also explore options related to a longer-term growth network.
There is not yet a new date for the proposal to return to Council. I appreciate you taking the time to share this information, and I will keep your concerns in mind as we consider the next steps.
Sincerely,
Esther Manheimer
Mayor, City of Asheville
Council Member Kim Roney – August 11
GAP Team, this is the message I shared with my Council colleagues:
I suggest we pause the vote on the draft transit network. In addition to the survey, multiple community engagement efforts are now underway as awareness grows.
Instead, I suggest we get an update on the Passport program and grow it:
– The partners currently in the program (from my memory – Grove Park, UNCA, AB-Tech, New Belgium, City of Asheville)
– How much partners have paid into the system over the past 5 years
When Elias Matthes was at the City, he put together some outreach to try to grow that program, inviting more employers to pay for their employees to ride the bus.
Before we cut Tanger Outlets and the hotels on Brevard Rd, why not invite them to join as funding partners?
Before we cut MAHEC and the medical park that includes Social Security, a dentist, a pediatrician, and dialysis service, why don’t we invite them to join as funding partners?
Let’s seek deepening partnership in the County’s study. What is our current relationship to the County’s transit study? Is it possible there’s another option for South Asheville to the airport that would relieve congestion that’s impacting commuters from Arden and Fletcher?
Thank you for your consideration,
Kim
PREVIOUS REPORTS
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...
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...