GAP Report for 5/11/26
URGENT
- Asheville should reject or substantially revise the Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek developments in response to community concerns from Shiloh (new)
- Asheville should reject the proposed RTIC/Axon surveillance expansion until real oversight and accountability exist (new)
PROBLEMATIC
- Buncombe County is advancing budget, land use, and investment decisions without any anti-displacement analysis (updated)
QUESTIONABLE
- 0 Items
POSITIVE
- Asheville should move forward with the proposed CDBG-DR affordable housing investments (new)
Summary of the Report
This week’s City Council agenda contains two particularly significant decisions for Asheville’s future: two large-scale multifamily housing developments proposed in and around the Shiloh neighborhood, and a proposed expansion of police surveillance infrastructure through the Real-Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) and Axon/Fusus system.
The proposed Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek developments have generated organized opposition from the Shiloh Community Association, which argues that the projects conflict with the adopted Shiloh Community Plan 2025, exceed existing infrastructure capacity, threaten neighborhood character and environmental quality, and fail to reflect the community’s long-term vision for growth and development.
Meanwhile, the RTIC proposal raises major concerns about accountability, transparency, and public oversight. Asheville is being asked to move quickly on a powerful new surveillance system before clear civilian guardrails, independent oversight mechanisms, or long-term governance structures are in place. Community advocates, including Sunshine Labs, have warned that once these systems are established, they are difficult to unwind and often expand beyond their original scope.
The agenda also includes one important positive step: nearly $18 million in CDBG-DR affordable housing investments that would create more than 330 affordable units with substantial long-term affordability protections. While not without limitations, these investments appear to represent a meaningful anti-displacement response to Asheville’s post-Helene housing crisis.
Finally, we have a disappointing (but unsurprising) report back from our report focus last week. We raised concerns that Buncombe County was moving forward with major budget, land use, and investment decisions without a clear anti-displacement framework. At the subsequent County Commission meeting there was little substantive discussion of displacement risk analysis, neighborhood vulnerability, or mitigation strategies tied to these major development and investment decisions.
Templates and Links to More Information
Take action with us:
- Email the Asheville City Council about surveillance and Shiloh issues.
Resources:
- Click here to read our full proposed anti-displacement policy proposal.
Asheville should reject or substantially revise the Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek developments in response to community concerns from Shiloh
URGENT
Summary: The City should reject or substantially revise the proposed Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek developments because the Shiloh Community Association argues the projects conflict with the adopted Shiloh Community Plan, exceed infrastructure capacity, and threaten the long-term stability and character of the neighborhood.
The Facts: City Council is considering two major affordable housing developments connected to the Shiloh area:
- Caribou Road – approximately 100 affordable housing units
- Sweeten Creek Road – approximately 126 affordable housing units
Both projects are being advanced as tax-credit affordable housing developments.
At the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, City staff acknowledged significant community concern related to infrastructure, traffic safety, pedestrian conditions, environmental impacts, and neighborhood compatibility.
You can read the Caribou development staff report here and see the presentation slides here. You can read the Sweeten Creek development staff report here and see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: Affordable housing is urgently needed in Asheville. But affordable housing alone does not automatically equal anti-displacement policy or community-centered development.
The Shiloh Community Association has formally opposed both proposals, stating that they are inconsistent with both the Shiloh Community Plan 2025 and the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan. In its letter to City officials, the association raised concerns including:
- incompatibility with existing neighborhood character and scale
- insufficient infrastructure capacity
- traffic and pedestrian safety risks
- lack of sidewalks and traffic calming
- environmental impacts and loss of green space
- cumulative redevelopment pressure
- encroachment of higher-intensity development into residential areas
The association also emphasized that the Shiloh Community Plan specifically calls for development that is “compatible and sensitive to sustainable development” and generally consistent with the neighborhood’s existing residential character.
These concerns are significant because they are grounded not simply in opposition to growth, but in adopted neighborhood planning documents developed through years of collaboration between residents and the City itself.
Shiloh is a historic Black neighborhood that has already experienced decades of redevelopment pressure, infrastructure strain, and displacement concerns. Many residents view these proposals as examples of development happening to the neighborhood rather than with it.
The City should not move forward with projects of this scale without first addressing infrastructure readiness, pedestrian safety, environmental impacts, and meaningful neighborhood alignment. At minimum, these projects require substantial revision and deeper community engagement.
Things to do: We invite you to use our email template to urge City Council to honor the Shiloh Community Plan and reject or substantially revise the Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek proposals. (The template also addresses the other two issues in our report: the expansion of surveillance and the allocation of funding for affordable housing through disaster recovery money.)
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.
To: AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov
CC: or BCC: info@gapavl.org
Subject: Please reject the RTIC surveillance proposal and honor the Shiloh Community Plan
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing regarding several important items on the May 12 City Council agenda.
First, I urge you to reject the proposed Real-Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) and Axon/Fusus surveillance expansion unless meaningful public oversight, transparency requirements, and enforceable guardrails are established first. Asheville should not move forward with expanded real-time surveillance infrastructure without strong civilian accountability, independent oversight, and explicit protections against future misuse or expansion of these technologies.
Second, I urge you to honor the Shiloh Community Plan 2025 and the concerns raised by the Shiloh Community Association regarding the proposed Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek developments. While affordable housing is urgently needed, residents have raised serious concerns about infrastructure capacity, pedestrian safety, environmental impacts, neighborhood character, and cumulative redevelopment pressure in this historic Black neighborhood.
I respectfully ask you to reject or substantially revise these proposals in genuine partnership with the Shiloh community.
Finally, I encourage you to continue supporting the proposed Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) affordable housing investments, which would create hundreds of long-term affordable homes and help reduce displacement pressures after Helene.
Please prioritize accountability, transparency, and community-centered decision-making in your votes on these proposals.
Thank you for your consideration.
[Your Name]
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Asheville should reject the proposed RTIC/Axon surveillance expansion until real oversight and accountability exist
URGENT
Summary: The City should reject the proposed Real-Time Intelligence Center and Axon/Fusus surveillance expansion unless it first establishes meaningful transparency, public oversight, and enforceable guardrails around how surveillance technologies are used.
The facts: City Council is being asked to approve funding and purchasing authority connected to a new Real-Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) and Axon/Fusus surveillance platform for the Asheville Police Department.
The proposal includes approximately $1.14 million in federal funding and would expand the Asheville Police Department (APD)’s ability to integrate:
- body and dash cameras
- drones
- public and private camera feeds
- live-streaming systems
- mapping and intelligence tools
APD describes the system as a tool for faster emergency response and improved situational awareness. City materials state that participation in camera integration programs is voluntary and that the system does not currently use facial recognition.
You can read the two staff reports on this issue here and here and see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: The core issue is not whether technology can sometimes assist emergency response. The issue is whether Asheville is prepared to create a centralized surveillance infrastructure without strong civilian oversight, transparency requirements, independent auditing, explicit bans on facial recognition, and meaningful public governance.
Community advocates, including Sunshine Labs, have raised significant concerns about the proposal, including:
- lack of public oversight
- absence of a final negotiated contract for Council review
- long-term vendor lock-in with Axon
- future AI and facial recognition expansion
- insufficient guardrails around data use and sharing
- risks of disproportionate surveillance in Black, immigrant, unhoused, and activist communities
(You can read Sunshine Labs’ more detailed analysis here. You can join their Community Forum on the surveillance issue from 6-8 pm tonight, Monday, May 11. Here is the link.)
We agree with Sunshine Labs that once these systems are established, they are extremely difficult to scale back and often expand beyond their original purpose. Asheville is moving faster on surveillance expansion than on the accountability structures needed to govern it responsibly. Across the country, surveillance technologies initially introduced for limited purposes have steadily expanded into broader monitoring systems with disproportionate impacts on historically over-policed communities.
The City should pause this proposal until robust oversight and public accountability measures are established.
Things to do: We invite you to use our email template to urge City Council to reject the RTIC/Axon/Fusus proposal unless meaningful public oversight and enforceable surveillance guardrails are adopted first. (The template also addresses the other two issues in our report: the proposed Shiloh developments and the allocation of funding for affordable housing through disaster recovery money.) Scroll up or click here to access the template.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Asheville should move forward with the proposed CDBG-DR affordable housing investments
POSITIVE
Summary: The City should approve the proposed CDBG-DR affordable housing awards because they would create hundreds of long-term affordable homes and help reduce displacement pressures during post-Helene recovery.
The Facts: City Council is considering nearly $18 million in CDBG-DR disaster recovery funding for three affordable housing developments that would collectively create 331 affordable housing units.
The recommended projects are:
- Terrace at River Hills – 126 units
- District East Commons – 93 units
- 319-B Biltmore – 112 units
The City’s presentation notes that eligible projects must reserve at least 5% of units at rents affordable to households at or below 30% Area Median Income (AMI). The majority of the units proposed will be at or below 50% AMI.
The City explicitly frames these investments as part of a broader anti-displacement strategy intended to stabilize residents, preserve generational wealth, and reduce housing insecurity after the storm.
You can read the staff report here and see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: No affordable housing proposal is perfect, and Asheville still faces enormous housing affordability challenges. But on balance, these investments represent a meaningful and constructive use of disaster recovery funding.
The projects provide long-term affordability protections, leverage additional state and federal funding, and create housing at affordability levels that are increasingly difficult to build in Asheville’s current market.
Just as importantly, the presentation reveals that the City plans to pair renter-focused multifamily housing investments with expanded homeowner repair programs intended to help existing residents remain in place after Helene. (It’s worth noting that there are several available strategies for the City to address both the need for more multifamily rental housing and single-family home repair. It’s unclear to us that the City has landed on the best available strategy that will maximize returns on both of these critical needs. We will have more analysis on this issue in future reports.)
The bottom line is that this is a positive step. While the City needs to continue strengthening anti-displacement protections and community accountability, these housing awards move Asheville in the right direction.
Things to do: We invite you to use our email template to urge City Council to continue prioritizing deeply affordable housing and anti-displacement recovery investments. (The template also addresses the other two issues in our report: the proposed Shiloh developments and the expansion of surveillance.) Scroll up or click here to access the template.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Buncombe County is advancing budget, land use, and investment decisions without any anti-displacement analysis
PROBLEMATIC
Summary (Updated 5/11/26): There was little substantive discussion at the May 5th County Commission meeting of displacement risk analysis, neighborhood vulnerability, or mitigation strategies tied to these major development and investment decisions.
You can read a full list of the anti-displacement opportunities missed by Buncombe County in the past 5 months here.
Original (5/4/26): Buncombe County is considering its FY2027 budget, a new public finance strategy, and updates to its farmland preservation ordinance—each of which will shape housing stability and displacement risk. Yet none of these items include any analysis of who may be displaced or how to prevent it. The County should pause and incorporate an anti-displacement framework before moving forward.
The facts: At its May 5 meeting, the Buncombe County Commission will consider several agenda items related to budgeting, land use, and public investment:
- FY2027 Recommended Budget: The County Manager will present the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget. This budget establishes County spending priorities across departments and functions, including housing programs, public safety, infrastructure, and recovery efforts. The presentation marks the beginning of the Commission’s budget review and adoption process.
- Public Finance Feasibility Study (Trust for Public Land): The Commission will receive a presentation from the Trust for Public Land on a public finance feasibility study. The study evaluates potential funding mechanisms—such as bonds, taxes, or other revenue tools—that could support land conservation, parks, and related public investments.
- Farmland Preservation Ordinance Revision: The Commission will consider revisions to the County’s farmland preservation ordinance. These changes relate to how agricultural land is identified, protected, and managed, and may include updates to eligibility criteria, program structure, or implementation tools.
You can read more about these items in the online agenda packet.
Our Assessment: These are not neutral decisions. Budgets determine who receives support and who is left out. Public investments in land and amenities can increase property values and accelerate displacement. Land use policies shape who has access to land—and who does not.
By moving forward without an anti-displacement lens, the County is effectively choosing not to see the impacts of its own decisions. This creates a predictable outcome: investments that may be beneficial on their own terms can still contribute to housing instability and inequity.
What’s most concerning is the pattern. These are not isolated oversights—they reflect an ongoing failure to incorporate displacement risk into decision-making, despite clear evidence of rising housing pressures and repeated community requests for analysis.
Our Proposal: The County can move forward on these items—but it should first take the basic step of identifying potential displacement impacts and incorporating mitigation where needed. This does not require a lengthy study or major delay. For each of these agenda items, staff could include a brief assessment outlining who may be affected, whether high-risk communities are involved, and what steps could reduce harm or increase stability.
In the near term, this could be implemented as a simple addition to existing staff reports or presentations. Over the longer term, Buncombe County should commit to developing a formal anti-displacement policy that provides clear, consistent guidance for evaluating major decisions. That policy would help ensure that future budgets, investments, and land use changes are aligned with the goal of allowing current residents to remain in their communities, rather than being unintentionally pushed out.
The Ask: We invited you to email the County Commission and ask them to apply an anti-displacement lens to these decisions.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unsatisfactory
Report Back
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
PREVIOUS REPORTS
GAP Report for 5/4/26
0 Items Buncombe County is advancing budget, land use, and investment decisions without any anti-displacement analysis (new) Appeal deadline for property tax reappraisals is too early (resolved) The 50 Coxe Avenue affordable housing development should do more to...
GAP Report for 4/27/26
0 Items Buncombe County is advancing major decisions that impact displacement without clear analysis or a coordinated policy response (updated) Appeal deadline for property tax reappraisals is too early (updated) The 50 Coxe Avenue affordable housing development...
GAP Report for 4/20/26
0 Items Buncombe County is advancing major decisions that impact displacement without clear analysis or a coordinated policy response (new) Appeal deadline for property tax reappraisals is too early (updated) 0 Items 0 Items Buncombe County still not taking action on...
GAP Report for 4/13/26
0 Items 0 Items Appeal deadline for property tax reappraisals is too early Buncombe County needs to adopt an anti-displacement policy 0 Items Help Expand Government Accountability in Asheville We’ve had some of our most significant successes lately, with the...
GAP Report for 4/6/26
0 Items 0 Items Appeal deadline for property tax reappraisals is too early (new) Buncombe County needs to adopt an anti-displacement policy 0 Items New Item: Buncombe County’s May 5 deadline for filing formal appeals of the recent property tax reappraisals is too...