Report Back

Updated 9/7/26: The Buncombe County Commission unanimously accepted $4.12 million to administer the third group of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program property acquisitions, covering 152 properties. We supported accepting these funds, but we also asked Commissioners to hold a public hearing within 60 days on developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis framework. They did not discuss or act on that request, leaving unanswered how the County will help flood survivors reach safety without unnecessarily losing their community connections.

During the discussion, County Manager Avril Pinder acknowledged emails about the program (perhaps from GAP supporters). She emphasized that residents applied voluntarily after Helene, that the County is not selecting homes for acquisition or demolition, and that the state determines eligibility. We appreciate these clarifications. Our recommendation, however, was not for the County to create a new eligibility process or decide whose property should be acquired. We had already recognized that the program is voluntary and urged Commissioners to approve the funding.

GAPavl had asked the County to examine whether participants’ compensation will enable them to obtain comparable housing nearby; how tenants and heirs-property owners will be affected; whether acquisitions are concentrated in particular racial, economic, or geographic communities; and whether relocation counseling, title assistance, supplemental aid, or replacement housing will be made available should residents need them. We also recommended tracking where participating households relocate and whether they achieve stable housing.

None of those issues was discussed, and Commissioners did not commit to the requested hearing or another process for considering the framework. Accepting the funding was an important step toward helping residents leave dangerous conditions, but it does not ensure that they can reestablish safe, stable housing within their communities. 

Because our recommendation was not substantively addressed, we will continue raising it at the next County Commission meeting.

Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 9

Recipients and Responses:

Buncombe County Commission

• County Commission Chair Amanda Edwards: No response
• County Commissioner Al Whitesides: No response
• County Commissioner Drew Ball: No response
• County Commissioner Jennifer Horton: No response
• County Commissioner Martin Moore: No response
• County Commissioner Parker Sloane: No response
• County Commissioner Terri Wells: No response

Summary: Buncombe County will consider accepting $4.12 million in federal hazard-mitigation funding to acquire and demolish flood-prone homes. The voluntary program can protect residents from repeated danger, and Commissioners should accept the funding. But acquisitions also permanently remove households and housing from a community. The agenda does not explain whether residents will be able to find comparable housing nearby, how tenants will be affected, whether heirs-property owners can participate, or whether some communities could experience disproportionate housing losses and relocations. The program demonstrates why the County needs a consistent anti-displacement analysis framework. Commissioners should approve the funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing that framework.

The Facts: County staff recommends accepting a $4.12 million federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program award to administer another group of residential property acquisitions.

The program would purchase flood-prone homes from willing owners, demolish the structures, and return the properties to permanent green space. Removing homes from areas subject to repeated flooding can protect residents from future disasters and reduce the public cost of rebuilding in hazardous locations.

Our Assessment: Voluntary property acquisitions can be an essential form of disaster recovery. No one should be expected to remain in a home where repeated flooding threatens their safety, health, and financial security. Commissioners should accept the federal funding and allow the program to move forward.

But moving a household out of danger is not the same as ensuring that the household can recover. The County will make consequential decisions as it determines eligibility, communicates with residents, assists participants, completes individual acquisitions, and monitors the program’s results. An anti-displacement framework could help guide those decisions without delaying acceptance of the grant.

The agenda materials do not provide enough information to understand which areas or types of households may be affected. There may be valid privacy and procedural reasons not to identify individual residents or publish specific addresses, particularly before participation is final. But the County can still provide aggregated information about the neighborhoods involved, the number and occupancy of affected homes, and the program’s potential community-level effects without identifying individual households. 

The agenda materials also do not indicate how compensation will be calculated, whether it will be a sufficient amount for participants to obtain comparable housing nearby, or where participating households are likely to relocate. These questions matter because residents may otherwise have to leave their neighborhood, school district, support network, or community altogether.

The County should also determine how the program will affect tenants. A property owner may receive compensation while a tenant must relocate with fewer resources and little control over the timing. Tenants may need adequate notice, relocation assistance, help locating another home, and protection against sudden housing instability.

Some owners may also face barriers because they hold heirs property, meaning their families inherited the property without establishing a clear deed or completing the estate process. Families may have lived in and maintained a home for generations while lacking the documentation normally required to prove ownership. Legal and title assistance may be necessary to ensure that they can participate and receive fair compensation.

The program is voluntary, and property owners may reasonably decide that accepting a buyout is their safest or best option. But the County should still examine the cumulative effects if many owners in the same neighborhood accept offers. The result could be a significant loss of affordable housing, community connections, and locally held property. An anti-displacement analysis would not interfere with owners’ choices. It would help the County and participating households understand the likely consequences, identify whether tenants or others who do not control the decision will be displaced, and determine what additional support may be needed.

A standardized anti-displacement analysis framework could help the County:

• Identify the residents, properties, and neighborhoods affected
• Determine whether compensation enables participants to obtain comparable housing in the surrounding community, if desired
• Examine how the program affects homeowners, tenants, heirs-property owners, people with disabilities, older residents, and households with limited incomes
• Identify whether acquisitions are concentrated in particular racial, economic, or geographic communities
• Determine whether relocation counseling, tenant assistance, title support, supplemental aid, or replacement housing is needed
• Track where participants relocate and whether they achieve stable housing
• Report the program’s outcomes publicly while protecting residents’ privacy
  

This analysis would not predetermine whether a particular property should be acquired, nor should it delay the County’s acceptance of funding that can help residents escape dangerous conditions. It would provide information the County could use while designing and administering the program, completing individual transactions, and evaluating its results.

We’re focused this week on flood-related acquisitions because they present a direct and immediate form of displacement. The same decision-by-decision approach could help the County evaluate displacement risks arising from infrastructure, land use, disaster recovery, housing, and other major investments.

GAPavl first asked the City and County to develop anti-displacement analysis frameworks in January, more than seven months ago. In June, Commission Chair Amanda Edwards and Commissioner Terri Wells responded by pointing us toward the County’s Comprehensive Plan and other long-term strategies. Those plans provide an important foundation, but they do not establish the decision-specific process we proposed for identifying risks, comparing options, selecting protections, and monitoring results.

Plans and intentions produce results only when key decisions are evaluated with the information needed to determine whether they will help residents remain in their communities, increase displacement, or do some of both.

We published a detailed response explaining this remaining need. The County has not responded to that report or to later examples involving property taxation, infrastructure investments, and land-use decisions. It’s unclear whether continued outreach will elicit a response or resolve the issue.

We are therefore urging Commissioners to hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis framework. The hearing should examine what information, tools, data, staffing, and funding would be required; which existing County resources could be adapted; where new methods may be necessary; and how residents could help shape the process. Staff should present potential approaches, costs, limitations, and implementation options.

Things to do: No further action needed at this time. We invited you to email the Buncombe County Commission, asking it to accept the hazard-mitigation funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis framework. We will be proposing a new call to action soon.