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]

Report Back

Updated 8/10/26: Last week, we renewed our call for the Buncombe County Commission to explore the development of a practical anti-displacement analysis framework. Using examples from last week’s agenda, we made the argument that such a framework would give the County a consistent way to examine who may be harmed by major tax, budget, land-use, infrastructure, and public-investment decisions—and to identify and institute possible protections that could actually prevent displacement from occurring. The Commission neither responded nor publicly discussed our proposal. We will continue seeking a substantive response and a clear next step.

Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 9

Recipients and Responses:

Buncombe County Commission

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

Summary: Buncombe County Commissioners will consider two public-investment decisions on August 4 that demonstrate the need for anti-displacement analysis: (1) advancing approximately 3.3 miles of greenways and related park improvements in Woodfin, and (2) supporting a $31 million expansion of Enka manufacturer Southeastern Container with up to $185,000 in state and County incentives. Both proposals may offer meaningful public benefits—including recreation, connectivity, jobs, and economic activity—but those benefits will not necessarily be shared equitably. The proposals do not assess whether the greenways could increase housing costs and development pressure or explain how public investment that creates jobs will affect local residents. These are precisely the kinds of questions a practical anti-displacement analysis framework would help the County answer before committing public resources.

The Facts: The County Commission’s August 4 agenda contains two proposals:

Woodfin greenways: The County proposes to amend its agreement with the Town of Woodfin and commit to completing two greenway segments: approximately two miles along Riverside Drive and 1.3 miles along Beaverdam Creek. The County would secure easements, complete engineering and permitting, fund and oversee construction, and eventually transfer the greenways to Woodfin. Woodfin would maintain them for public use, complete the first two phases of Riverside Park – including Taylor’s Wave – and restore Silver-Line Park with new public restrooms. Right-of-way acquisition is expected to begin this year, final design is anticipated in 2027, and construction would take approximately 16–18 months.

Southeastern Container expansion: Southeastern Container, an Enka manufacturer that currently employs 96 people, plans to invest approximately $31.3 million in its facility and create 12 full-time jobs paying an average of $32.90 per hour. The proposed incentives total as much as $185,000: a $100,000 state Building Reuse Grant and up to $85,000 from the County, including a $5,000 County match and a possible additional incentive for hiring commitments. Commissioners are being asked to authorize the County Manager to participate in the grant program. Public hearings and votes on the full economic-development agreement and incentives are scheduled for August 18.

Our concern is not with the projects themselves, but with the absence of a consistent process for ensuring that their benefits are broadly shared and that foreseeable displacement risks are addressed early. An anti-displacement analysis would not presume that either proposal should be delayed or rejected. It would help the County strengthen these investments by identifying who may be affected, connecting existing residents to new opportunities, and incorporating protections before rising costs or other unintended consequences emerge.

The Woodfin greenways offer the clearest example. Public parks, trails, and river access can greatly improve quality of life, but those amenities can also increase nearby land values and attract new development. Before construction, the County should know whether nearby renters, lower-income homeowners, manufactured-home residents, and locally owned businesses are already experiencing housing or commercial displacement pressure. It should also identify measures that would help existing residents remain and share in the benefits.

This concern is supported by research on “green gentrification.” A study of new parks in ten U.S. cities found that greenway parks with walking or bicycling components were associated with more neighborhood gentrification than other park types. A broader Trust for Public Land review similarly found that large greenway parks are consistently linked to gentrification and explained how rising land values, rents, and living costs can displace longtime residents and businesses. These outcomes are not inevitable, but the research shows why displacement risk should be evaluated – and protections developed – while a greenway is being planned, rather than after surrounding costs begin to rise.

The Enka proposal raises a different set of questions. The promised wages appear strong, but the County has not shown whether the 12 jobs will be accessible to nearby residents, how the expansion may affect surrounding properties, or whether public incentives could include commitments related to local hiring, transportation, or other community benefits.

Research on economic-development incentives shows that jobs created with public support do not automatically benefit residents of the surrounding community. Southeastern Container is an established local employer, its proposed wages appear strong, and 12 new jobs are unlikely to create meaningful displacement pressure. The relevant issue is therefore not primarily displacement, but whether the County can use its investment to create greater opportunity for people already living in Enka. Before providing up to $185,000 in incentives, the County should identify barriers to local access, consider recruitment, training, childcare, and transportation strategies, and report who is hired and retained. These community-benefit measures would complement anti-displacement work by helping local households gain the economic stability needed to remain and prosper.

For more than six months, GAP has asked the County to develop a scalable anti-displacement analysis framework. We have acknowledged the County’s affordable-housing, recovery, home-repair, and planning efforts, and we carefully reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, growth strategies, recovery plans, and other materials County leaders identified in response to our advocacy. Those plans contain important principles and programs, but they do not provide a decision-specific method for evaluating proposals like these.

A useful framework could be scaled to the decision. It might ask:

• What populations, neighborhoods, or commercial districts will be affected?
• Are housing costs, land values, evictions, tax burdens, or commercial rents already rising?
• Who is expected to receive the project’s benefits?
• Could the decision intensify pressure on renters, lower-income homeowners, manufactured-home residents, or locally owned businesses?
• What protections or community-benefit commitments could be incorporated before approval?
• What data should be reported after implementation to determine whether the project is producing equitable results?

These proposals raise related but distinct questions. The Woodfin greenways demonstrate the direct need for the anti-displacement framework GAPavl has advocated for: a promising public investment could increase nearby property values and development pressure unless the County identifies vulnerable residents and businesses and adopts protections early. The Enka expansion instead raises a complementary community-benefit question about whether residents can access opportunities created with public support. GAPavl continues to call on the County to adopt our proposed anti-displacement framework, while also encouraging consistent standards for ensuring that publicly supported economic development benefits existing communities.

Things to do: Use our email template to ask the County Commission to direct staff to develop a practical anti-displacement analysis framework for major public investments, incentives, infrastructure projects, and real-estate decisions.

Email Template: You can send an email to the Buncombe County Commission by filling out the form below. Our email tool will send an individually addressed email to the recipients, and enable us to track how many emails were sent overall in the campaign. If you prefer to write your own email, you can copy and paste (and adapt) our template text – please cc: or bcc: info@gapavl.org on your individualized email, so we can better track how many emails were sent.

Important: If you receive a response to your email, please forward it to us at info@gapavl.org so we can reflect that in the report back.

To: alfred.whitesides@buncombecounty.org, amanda.edwards@buncombecounty.org, drew.ball@buncombecounty.org, jennifer.horton@buncombecounty.org, martin.moore@buncombecounty.org, parker.sloan@buncombecounty.org, terri.wells@buncombecounty.org

CC: or BCC: info@gapavl.org

Subject: Two promising projects—and a missing framework

Dear Commissioners,

Your August 4 agenda includes two promising proposals: (1) completing approximately 3.3 miles of greenways in Woodfin and (2) supporting Southeastern Container’s expansion in Enka.

The greenways could provide important recreational, transportation, and economic benefits. But by increasing nearby property values and development interest, they could also contribute to higher rents, tax burdens, and displacement pressure. Early analysis could help the County protect nearby residents and businesses while ensuring they shape and share in the project’s benefits.

The Enka expansion appears unlikely to create meaningful displacement pressure, but the proposed incentives raise a complementary community-benefit question. Before committing up to $185,000, the County should explain how existing residents will learn about and gain access to the new jobs and how hiring and retention outcomes will be reported.

These proposals illustrate why the County needs an anti-displacement analysis framework, which could also be understood as a resident-protection framework. Future decisions involving infrastructure, incentives, land use, budgets, and other public investments should be informed by a consistent assessment of who will benefit, who could face unintended costs, and what steps could improve outcomes.

GAPavl has already provided the Commission with a detailed proposal for a practical, scalable framework. Please direct staff to review and respond to that proposal and use it as a starting point for developing a County-wide process that identifies displacement risks, finds opportunities to increase benefits for current residents, considers appropriate protections or community commitments, and establishes ways to measure results.

Developing this framework would not mean opposing or delaying promising investments. It would help ensure that future decisions are more fully informed, equitable, and responsive to the communities they affect.

Sincerely,

[Name]

[Community or neighborhood]