GAP Report for 6/22/26
QUESTIONABLE
Public land should create the greatest possible public benefit (new)
Overall, we view this as a promising proposal and an example of the City using public resources to address the housing crisis. At the same time, important questions remain about whether the project’s affordability levels are aligned with the residents most vulnerable to displacement. Before transferring public land and investing public housing dollars, Council should clearly demonstrate that it has evaluated opportunities for deeper affordability and explain why the proposed affordability mix represents the greatest achievable public benefit.
Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair (City Council votes on Tuesday)
GAP continues to advocate for transparency from Renew NC before the City commits significant CDBG-DR funds.. While that item is not the focus of this week’s report, we continue to have serious concerns about the proposal to move recovery funds away from multifamily housing and infrastructure and into the Renew NC program without sufficient public information about expected outcomes. City Council will vote on this issue on Tuesday, June 23rd.
POSITIVE
The City’s anti-displacement work is beginning to take shape (new)
Council will receive its most substantial public update to date on the Anti-Displacement and Affordable Housing Project at the Policy, Finance and Infrastructure meeting this Tuesday. The presentation confirms that staff are moving forward with development of a displacement risk assessment tool, preparing an anti-displacement resolution for Council consideration, and identifying mitigation strategies that could be incorporated into future City decision-making. These developments represent meaningful progress toward many of the goals community advocates have been advancing over the past year.
While significant questions remain about implementation, metrics, accountability, and how these tools will ultimately influence decisions, the City’s work is beginning to move from concept to execution. We are particularly encouraged by plans to pilot a public displacement risk assessment tool this fall and by the City’s commitment to developing a formal anti-displacement resolution.
The City is taking time to understand data center impacts before moving forward (new)
Council will consider a one-year moratorium on new data centers while staff develop regulations for that emerging industry. This strikes us as a wise course of action.
Additional housing on vacant land can be part of the solution (new)
Council will consider a rezoning proposal on Deaverview Road that would allow additional housing on a vacant site. This seems like a good move, since Asheville needs additional housing, and vacant sites are often among the most appropriate locations for increasing supply.
REPORT BACKS
Buncombe County still won’t answer questions about displacement (updated)
Buncombe County leaders have begun responding publicly to GAP’s call for a countywide anti-displacement strategy. We recently received responses from Commission Chair Amanda Edwards and Commissioner Terri Wells, and County staff devoted substantial time during last week’s briefing to discussing existing housing and displacement-related efforts. We appreciate the engagement. Next week’s report will take a closer look at what the County is already doing, where we believe important gaps remain, and what a comprehensive anti-displacement strategy could look like.
Active Issue Reports
Public land should create the greatest possible public benefit
QUESTIONABLE
Summary: Council will consider a proposal to use city-owned land and public housing funds to create 42 affordable homeownership units at Oak Hill. We view the proposal as a promising use of public land but believe Council should receive a clear public explanation of what options were considered to serve lower-income households and why the proposed affordability mix represents the best achievable outcome.
The Facts: The City is proposing to sell approximately 3.7 acres of city-owned land at 29 Oak Hill Drive to a development partnership for $1 and provide a $1.6 million construction loan to support development of 42 townhomes for affordable homeownership.
Under the proposal, 10 homes would be affordable to households earning up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI), 10 homes would be affordable to households earning up to 100% AMI, and 22 homes would be affordable to households earning up to 110% AMI. The project would include deed restrictions designed to preserve affordability for 20 years, along with down-payment assistance for qualifying buyers.
The Housing and Community Development Committee recently discussed whether some units could be made affordable to households earning 60% of AMI or below. Staff have indicated they are exploring options and will provide additional information to Council.
You can see the staff report on this issue here and the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: Overall, this proposal deserves support.
The project is notable because it focuses on ownership rather than rental housing. Homeownership remains one of the most important pathways to long-term housing stability and wealth building, yet it has become increasingly inaccessible for many Asheville residents. Creating opportunities for moderate-income households to purchase homes can help keep working families in the community.
At the same time, this proposal involves both publicly owned land and public financing. Whenever public resources are used, residents have a legitimate interest in understanding how affordability decisions were made and who ultimately benefits.
The Housing and Community Development Committee recently asked whether some units could be made affordable to households earning 60% of AMI or below. We know from previous studies, like the one done by Thrive Asheville, that “affordable housing” that targets 80% AMI and above actually increases racial disparities in housing access. With that in mind, the public deserves a clear answer. Before approving the agreement, Council should receive a transparent explanation of what options were considered, what additional resources would be required to reach lower-income households, and why those options were or were not included in the final proposal.
This is not an argument that the project should be rejected. It is an argument that public investments should be accompanied by public accountability. If the proposed affordability mix is the best achievable outcome, residents deserve to understand why. If additional affordability is possible, residents deserve to know that as well.
Things to do: Contact City Council and ask them to publicly explain what options were considered to serve households at lower income levels and why the proposed affordability mix represents the best use of public land and public housing dollars.
Email Template: You can send an email to the members of 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: AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov
CC: or BCC: info@gapavl.org
Subject: Please ensure transparency and accountability at Oak Hill
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am encouraged by the progress being made on the City’s Anti-Displacement and Affordable Housing Project, including development of a displacement risk assessment tool and an anti-displacement resolution. These efforts reflect the importance of carefully evaluating who benefits from public investments and how decisions affect vulnerable residents and neighborhoods.
With that in mind, I appreciate the City’s efforts to use publicly owned land to address Asheville’s housing challenges through the proposed Oak Hill affordable homeownership development. The proposal has many promising elements, including affordable homeownership opportunities, long-term affordability restrictions, and the use of public land for public benefit.
Because this project involves both publicly owned land and public housing funds, I believe residents deserve both a clear explanation of how the affordability levels were determined and an opportunity to understand whether the project is serving the residents most vulnerable to displacement. The Housing and Community Development Committee recently discussed whether some units could be made affordable to households earning 60% of Area Median Income or below. Before approving the development agreement, I encourage Council to publicly explain:
- What options were considered to reach lower-income households;
- What additional resources would be required to achieve deeper affordability;
- Why those options were or were not included in the final proposal; and
- Why the proposed affordability mix represents the greatest achievable public benefit.
This is an important opportunity to demonstrate transparency and accountability in the use of public land and public resources.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
The City’s anti-displacement work is beginning to take shape
POSITIVE
Summary: At this week’s Policy, Finance and Infrastructure meeting, the City will provide its most detailed public update yet on the Anti-Displacement and Affordable Housing Project, including progress on a displacement risk assessment tool, an anticipated anti-displacement resolution, housing policy reforms, and displacement mitigation strategies. We view these developments as encouraging while emphasizing the importance of implementation and accountability.
The Facts: Here are some of the elements in the presentation on this project:
- The project goal is to pair housing production with anti-displacement protections
- An anti-displacement resolution is expected in July
- A displacement risk tool is under development (GAPavl is a collaborator on this project)
- The Legacy Neighborhood Coalition are now recognized as “required stakeholders in Communication and Engagement Plans associated with land use policy actions, housing, and proximate capital projects”
You can see the full presentation here.
Our Assessment: Over the past six months, the Legacy Neighborhood Coalition (joined by GAPavl and other local organizations) has advanced the notion that Asheville needs a more systematic way to identify displacement risks, evaluate the impacts of major decisions, and connect those findings to meaningful mitigation measures.
This presentation confirms that the City is moving in that direction.
Particularly encouraging is the City’s commitment to developing a public displacement risk assessment tool and integrating anti-displacement considerations into broader housing policy discussions.
At the same time, important questions remain. How will risk be measured? Which projects will be evaluated? What mitigation strategies will be required? How will results be reported publicly? And how much influence will the tool ultimately have on City decisions?
Those questions will determine whether this effort becomes a meaningful accountability framework or simply another planning exercise.
Things to do: No action is needed at this time.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
The City is taking time to understand data center impacts before moving forward
POSITIVE
Summary: Council will consider a one-year moratorium on new data centers while staff study their impacts and develop regulations. We view this as a prudent and responsible approach.
The Facts: Asheville’s development regulations currently do not specifically define or regulate data centers. City staff have expressed concerns about the potential impacts of data centers on electrical infrastructure, water systems, neighboring properties, noise, and heat generation.
The proposed moratorium would temporarily pause approval of new data center development while staff research best practices, engage stakeholders, and develop recommendations for future regulation.
You can see the staff report on this issue here and the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: The proposal reflects a common-sense principle: major decisions should be informed by adequate information.
Rather than allowing a new land use to proceed under unclear regulations, the City is proposing to study the issue, engage the public, and develop a framework for evaluating future proposals. That approach reduces uncertainty for residents, staff, and developers alike.
Things to do: No action is needed at this time.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Additional housing on vacant land can be part of the solution
POSITIVE
Summary: Council will consider a rezoning on Deaverview Road that would allow additional residential density on a vacant parcel. We support this proposal.
The Facts: The proposal would rezone a vacant property on Deaverview Road from RM-8 to RM-16, allowing higher-density residential development. City staff argue that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would support the City’s housing goals by allowing additional residential units.
The property is currently vacant and no existing residents would be displaced by the rezoning itself.
You can see the staff report on this issue here and the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: Asheville needs additional housing, and vacant sites are often among the most appropriate locations for increasing supply.
While every development proposal deserves careful review, this project appears fundamentally different from situations where housing construction directly displaces existing residents or businesses. The fact that the property is currently vacant reduces many of the concerns that arise in other development debates.
At the same time, housing decisions should not be evaluated solely on the number of units created. The anti-displacement analysis framework currently being developed by the City and GAP and other community partners should help provide a more complete understanding of how projects affect surrounding neighborhoods and residents over time.
Things to do: No action is needed at this time.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Buncombe County still won’t answer questions about displacement
PROBLEMATIC
Summary (updated 6/22/26): Two County leaders have now responded to our call for a countywide anti-displacement strategy. While we appreciate that engagement, important questions remain about whether existing programs and planning efforts amount to a coordinated framework for identifying, preventing, and mitigating displacement.
Original Summary (6/15/26): Residents have repeatedly asked Buncombe County to address displacement and adopt an anti-displacement framework, yet County leaders continue making major housing and recovery decisions without one and without providing any meaningful public response. Commissioners should explain whether they intend to address displacement and why they have ignored these concerns.
The Facts (updated 6/22/26): Since publication of this report, GAP has received responses from Commission Chair Amanda Edwards and Commissioner Terri Wells, and County staff presented information at a recent Commission briefing regarding housing, affordability, and related County initiatives. These responses point to a variety of existing programs, plans, and investments intended to support housing stability and affordability.
The Facts (original 6/15/26): Over the past six months, a range of residents with diverse interests have repeatedly urged Buncombe County to adopt an anti-displacement strategy or analysis framework. GAP supporters have sent emails, submitted public comments, met with officials, and spoken at County Commission meetings.
At the June 2 meeting alone, multiple speakers urged commissioners to consider displacement impacts when making housing, recovery, and economic development decisions. These requests came from affordable housing advocates, displaced business owners, housing bond supporters, and GAP members.
Meanwhile, the County continues advancing major housing and recovery initiatives, including these on their June 16th agenda:
- A proposed $40 million housing bond
- Affordable housing investments
- Commercial district revitalization projects
- Recovery investments associated with the Helene Recovery Plan
- Hazard mitigation property acquisitions and redevelopment planning
Taken together, these initiatives will shape where people live, whether businesses return, and who can afford to remain in Buncombe County in the years ahead.
Our Assessment (updated 6/22/26): We appreciate that County leaders have now engaged more directly with the concerns raised in this report. The responses we received make clear that County officials recognize displacement as an important issue and view displacement prevention as a key value reflected in the Comprehensive Plan and other County initiatives.
The remaining questions we have regard how the County identifies displacement risks, evaluates the potential impacts of major decisions, and measures whether its policies are actually reducing displacement over time. What we have been advocating for is a more systematic framework for monitoring conditions, analyzing proposed actions before decisions are made, and publicly reporting outcomes so that residents and policymakers can assess what is working and where additional intervention may be needed.
We will explore those questions in greater detail in next week’s report.
Our Assessment (original 6/15/26): We support many of the County’s housing and recovery investments. What concerns us is the County’s apparent unwillingness to engage with residents about displacement.
Over the past six months, community members have repeatedly raised concerns that public investments can unintentionally accelerate displacement if governments fail to track who benefits, who is being left behind, and whether existing residents can afford to remain in place.
County leaders have never publicly explained why they have declined to pursue an anti-displacement framework. They have never publicly discussed the proposal at a County Commission meeting. They have never explained whether displacement is being analyzed in some other way. They have never responded to the central question residents continue asking: How will Buncombe County know whether its housing and recovery investments are actually helping vulnerable residents remain in their communities?
Reasonable people can disagree about policy. But public accountability requires engagement. When residents take the time to write thoughtful emails, prepare public comments, attend meetings, and speak directly to elected officials, they deserve more than silence.
If County leaders disagree with the proposal, they should explain why.
If they support the idea, they should act on it.
What they should not do is continue pretending the issue has not been raised.
Things to do: No action is needed at this time. GAP will continue reviewing the County’s responses and provide a more detailed analysis in next week’s report.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
County Leaders Respond to Anti-Displacement Proposal
Last week, GAP published a report calling on Buncombe County to adopt a comprehensive anti-displacement strategy. Since then, we have received responses from Commission Chair Amanda Edwards and CommissionerTerri Wells, and County staff devoted a significant portion of a recent Commission briefing to discussing housing, affordability, and displacement-related efforts already underway.
We appreciate the fact that County leaders are engaging with these concerns. Meaningful dialogue is an important step forward.
At the same time, the central question raised in our report remains unresolved: do the County’s existing programs and planning efforts add up to a coordinated strategy for identifying, preventing, and mitigating displacement, or is a more explicit framework still needed?
Over the coming week, we will be reviewing the County’s responses in greater detail and formulating detailed replies to each point. We plan to share that analysis in next week’s GAP Report.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 9
Recipients and Responses:
Buncombe County Commission
- County Commission Chair Amanda Edwards: Responded, see below.
- 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: Responded, see below.
Email response from County Commission Chair Amanda Edwards:
Good afternoon,
Buncombe County has been working on this issue since beginning the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 2 beginning on page 40 is titled Growth, Equity, and Conservation. You can read more about the focus on equity here:
I hope you will watch our 3pm meeting today. The planning director will be speaking about growth management strategies.
https://buncombeconc.portal.civicclerk.com/event/61/files/agenda/8927
Respectfully,
Amanda
Email response from County Commissioner Terri Wells:
Hello,
Thanks for your interest in learning more about the ongoing housing and community work that our Commission has championed for several years based on community needs and community input. We have discussed this important work multiple times over the course of several years. We have had multiple community input opportunities and incorporated that feedback into all of our plans. You can view the plans and learn about those processes on the county website. Our staff is focused on implementing this work, especially recovery efforts, for the benefit of our community.
2043 Comprehensive Plan:
Helene Recovery and Strategic Plans:
https://www.buncombenc.gov/809/Helene-Long-Term-Recovery-Projects
Swannanoa Small Area Plan:
https://engage.buncombecounty.org/swannanoasmallarea
During our 3pm briefing, June 16th, planning staff will be providing an update on various strategies that impact growth and housing stability. I welcome you to view the presentation: https://buncombeconc.portal.civicclerk.com/event/61/files/attachment/8038 or watch the meeting: https://www.buncombenc.gov/705/County-Commissioners
It will help you understand how this work is very much included throughout our plans and how it is being implemented. This presentation includes details about our work to Plan, Protect, Preserve and Produce housing.
Respectfully,
Terri Wells
Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair
QUESTIONABLE
Summary (Updated 6/22/26): City Council will vote on this Tuesday, June 23rd, so if you haven’t emailed them yet, we encourage you to do so using our template below.
Summary (Updated 6/15/26): The official public comment period has concluded, but you can still reach out to the Asheville City Council before they vote on this issue on June 23. Our new template is below.
Original Summary: Asheville should help storm-impacted homeowners remain housed, but City Council should delay or reject the proposed $19.2 million transfer to Renew NC unless it can demonstrate that the program is transparent, effective, and the best available strategy for helping the greatest number of families remain housed.
(See our earlier reports on this issue here.)
The Facts (updated 6/15/26): Last week City Council held the required public hearing on the proposed amendment but did not vote. A final vote is currently scheduled for June 23.
During the hearing, City staff provided several new details about the Renew NC program. Staff explained that homes with estimated repair costs above $100,000 are automatically moved from rehabilitation into full reconstruction. Staff also explained that project costs frequently include disaster repairs, code compliance upgrades, health and safety corrections, lead paint remediation, and mitigation measures intended to reduce future disaster risk. The proposed shift of $19.2 million would serve an estimated 53 households, for a total of 60 overall.
The Facts (original): On Tuesday, June 9th, City Council will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Asheville’s CDBG-DR Action Plan that would transfer $19.2 million into the State-administered Renew NC single-family rehabilitation and reconstruction program. In addition to hearing from residents at the meeting, the official federally-mandated public comment period concludes on June 14th.
The proposal would:
- Transfer $9.2 million from the Affordable Multifamily Housing Construction Program.
- Transfer $10 million from Infrastructure funding.
- Increase the Renew NC allocation from $3 million to $22.2 million.
Staff estimate that the current $3 million allocation will serve approximately eight households and that the expanded program would serve roughly 53 additional households, for a total of approximately 60 households served. (Careful readers will note that 8+53 should equal 61, but we presume there are fractions involved and that’s why the total is 60.)
At the Housing Recovery Board meeting last week, Board members raised concerns about the cost of the Renew NC program, the lack of transparency and local oversight, the $100,000 repair threshold that triggers full reconstruction, and the ongoing shortage of affordable rental housing following Helene. After discussion, the board voted 6-4 to recommend against reallocating funds from multifamily housing to Renew NC.
You can see the presentation slides that will be shared at the meeting here and the staff report here.
Our Assessment (updated 6/15/26): The central question is not whether the homeowners served by Renew NC deserve assistance. They do. The central question is whether this is the most effective way to provide that assistance.
The proposed amendment would move $19.2 million into a program expected to serve approximately 53 additional households. That is a significant investment of limited recovery dollars. Before making that investment, City Council should be able to answer a simple question: Is this the best available way to help these families?
The City has identified approximately 108 low-income households as priority candidates for assistance through Renew NC. Yet even if this amendment is approved, staff estimate that only about 60 households will ultimately be served. In other words, nearly half of the currently identified low-income priority households would still remain without assistance. Before spending an additional $19.2 million, Council should have enough information to determine whether this is the most effective way to help these families and whether alternative approaches could stretch limited recovery dollars further.
At present, neither Council nor the public has enough information to know.
We do not know how repair costs compare to pre-disaster home values. We do not know how many homes could potentially be repaired through less expensive approaches. We do not know whether alternative locally administered programs could help some households at lower cost. We do not know whether the projected cost of serving these households is inherent to the level of damage involved or a consequence of the particular structure of the Renew NC program.
Asheville faces multiple housing challenges simultaneously. Homeowners need assistance repairing damaged homes. Renters need affordable places to live. Families continue to face displacement pressures. Recovery dollars should be used in ways that maximize housing stability across the community.
That does not mean every dollar should go to affordable housing. It does mean that when the City proposes shifting $19.2 million away from other recovery priorities, the burden of proof should be high.
We are not asking City Council to reject homeowner assistance. We are asking Council to insist on enough information to determine whether this investment is the most effective way to help these homeowners and whether other approaches could allow Asheville to help more families with the same limited resources.
That is why we continue to call for the release by Renew NC of anonymized property-level data showing estimated repair costs and pre-disaster home values. Without that information, neither elected officials nor the public can meaningfully evaluate whether this proposal represents the best path forward.
Our Assessment (original): The debate is being framed as a choice between helping homeowners and building affordable housing. We believe that framing is too narrow. City staff are already preparing a separate home repair policy and bond-funded repair program for Council consideration this summer, demonstrating that Asheville has multiple tools available to support homeowners. The question is not whether homeowners deserve help; it is whether reducing affordable housing investments is the best way to provide that help.
Hurricane Helene harmed homeowners and renters alike. Homes were damaged and destroyed. Rental units were lost. Housing costs increased. Homelessness increased. Families across Asheville continue to face displacement pressures and some remain in transitional housing, some 20 months after the storm.
The City’s responsibility is not to decide whose housing needs matter more. It is to use limited recovery dollars in ways that prevent displacement and help as many affected households as possible remain housed.
The current proposal would move funding away from a housing strategy expected to serve hundreds of households and into a program expected to serve approximately 60 households. That does not mean the proposal is wrong. It does mean the burden of proof should be high.
At present, the public has not received sufficient information about Renew NC’s administrative costs, contractor costs, project timelines, repair-versus-reconstruction outcomes, or how many applicants will remain unserved even after the proposed funding increase. Council members and staff have also acknowledged that the City does not have full visibility into all of the data being collected by the State, limiting Asheville’s ability to independently evaluate outcomes and unmet needs. This was one of the key concerns raised by the Housing Recovery Board, which ultimately voted against this amendment.
Most importantly, the City has not demonstrated that Renew NC is the most effective available strategy for preserving storm-damaged homes. Before reducing affordable housing investments, Council should be confident that the alternative investment will produce the greatest possible public benefit. The proposed amendment should be delayed or rejected unless Renew NC and City staff can provide:
- Detailed reporting on administrative and contractor costs.
- Data on repair versus reconstruction projects.
- Average project costs and timelines.
- A breakdown of the factors driving program costs.
- Estimates of unmet homeowner need after the proposed investment.
- A clear explanation of how Renew NC fits alongside upcoming locally funded home repair and anti-displacement strategies.
If Renew NC can demonstrate that it is the most effective available strategy for preserving homeownership and preventing displacement, additional investment may be justified.
If it cannot, Asheville should explore partnerships with local contractors and locally administered repair programs that may preserve more homes, help more families, strengthen local economic recovery, and provide stronger public oversight.
Things to do (revised 6/16/26): Contact City Council using our new email template and urge members to delay approval of the amendment until the City obtains and publicly releases sufficient information to evaluate whether the proposed reallocation represents the most effective use of recovery funds.
Email Template: You can send an email to the members of 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: Renew NC must show Asheville the data before we give them $19.2 million more
Dear Mayor Manheimer and City Council Members,
I support helping homeowners whose homes were damaged by Hurricane Helene.
However, before approving the proposed transfer of $19.2 million into Renew NC, I urge Council to require additional information about how these funds will be used and whether this proposal represents the most effective way to help affected families.
The City has identified approximately 108 low-income households as priority candidates for assistance through Renew NC. Yet even if this amendment is approved, only about 60 households are expected to be served. That means nearly half of the currently identified low-income households would still remain without assistance.
Before spending an additional $19.2 million, I believe Council should be able to answer a basic question: Is this the most effective way to help these families?
To answer that question, I urge the City to obtain and publicly release anonymized information showing estimated repair costs and pre-disaster home values for evaluated Asheville properties. This information would protect applicant privacy while allowing both Council and the public to better understand how reconstruction decisions are being made and whether alternative approaches might help more households with the same limited resources.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Updated 6/15/26: See updates above under “The Facts” and “Our Assessment” for a rundown of what we learned at last week’s City Council meeting.
Updated 6/8/26: Last week, community members responded to our initial call to action around the proposed CDBG-DR amendment that would shift $9.2 million from affordable multifamily housing to the Renew NC homeowner recovery program. At its June 3 meeting, the Housing Recovery Board held an extensive discussion about the tradeoffs between preserving affordable rental housing and funding single-family home reconstruction. As we shared above: Board members raised concerns about the cost of the Renew NC program, the lack of transparency and local oversight, the $100,000 repair threshold that triggers full reconstruction, and the ongoing shortage of affordable rental housing following Helene. After discussion, the board voted 6-4 to recommend against reallocating funds from multifamily housing to Renew NC. The board also unanimously approved a separate motion urging the City to pursue all available avenues to secure access to state CDBG-DR housing funds for eligible Asheville households. Public comments echoed many of the same themes, emphasizing the need to support both homeowners and renters while preserving long-term affordable housing opportunities.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 30
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
PREVIOUS REPORTS
GAP Report for 6/15/26
0 Items Buncombe County still won’t answer questions about displacement (new) Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair (updated with new template) o Items Asheville should complete its affordable housing recovery investments...
GAP Report for 6/8/26
0 Items Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair (still time to act) 0 Items Asheville should complete its affordable housing recovery investments (approved!) Buncombe County’s housing investments need an anti-displacement strategy...
GAP Report for 6/1/26
0 Items Buncombe County’s housing investments need an anti-displacement strategy (new) Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair (new) 0 Items Asheville should shift public safety funding toward prevention and community stability...
GAP Report for 5/25/26
0 Items Asheville should shift public safety funding toward prevention and community stability instead of continued expansion of expensive reactive policing systems (new) 0 Items 0 Items Buncombe County’s proposed revitalization initiatives and FY2027 budget lack...
GAP Report for 5/18/26
0 Items Buncombe County’s proposed revitalization initiatives and FY2027 budget lack meaningful anti-displacement safeguards (new) 0 Items 0 Items Asheville should reject or substantially revise the Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek developments in response to community...