GAP Report for 10/26/26
NEUTRAL
Weighing housing and flood safety on London Road
City Council will consider adding 44 apartments to the previously approved development at 21 London Road. We welcome the potential housing benefit and have not identified evidence that the project would harm nearby Shiloh’s housing stability. At last week’s briefing, however, Council Members raised legitimate questions about flooding, emergency access, and nearby slope stability. Those questions deserve clear answers before the project proceeds.
Bear prevention should be practical for everyone
Council will receive a BearWise update recommending expanded access to bear-resistant trash equipment, continued education, and stronger enforcement of wildlife-feeding rules. We welcome prevention efforts and encourage the City to ensure that residents have practical, affordable ways to comply before increasing penalties.
REPORT BACKS
Buncombe County can turn its Swannanoa plan into an anti-displacement test case
County staff’s October 20 briefing identified useful foundations for preventing displacement as the Swannanoa Small Area and Resilience Plan moves toward implementation: assigned responsibilities, timelines, and existing analysis of ordinance amendments’ effects on vulnerable communities. However, commissioners did not establish the consistent review of significant implementation decisions and subsequent monitoring that we proposed. This item was discussed at a briefing, so no adoption vote occurred; staff announced that the plan would return to the County Commission for an adoption hearing at their formal meeting on November 17.
Active Issue Reports
Weighing housing and flood safety on London Road
NEUTRAL
Summary: City Council will consider adding 44 apartments to the previously approved development at 21 London Road. We welcome the potential housing benefit and have not identified evidence that the project would harm nearby Shiloh’s housing stability. At last week’s briefing, however, councilmembers raised legitimate questions about flooding, emergency access, and nearby slope stability. Those questions deserve clear answers before the project proceeds.
The Facts: Council will consider increasing the London Road development, originally approved in May 2024, from 208 to 252 apartments and six to seven stories, with a largely unchanged footprint. No apartments are designated as income-restricted affordable housing. During the original review, Council discussed traffic toward Shiloh; neighborhood outreach reportedly revealed no significant unresolved objections.
At the October 22 briefing, Council Members questioned flood safety in light of Helene. Part of the property is within the mapped floodplain, although apartments would begin on the third floor above parking. Staff identified concerns about evacuation and nearby slope instability. Possible changes allowing additional elevation were discussed but had not been formally submitted.
You can see the staff report here and the presentation on the plan here.
Our Assessment: Market-rate housing can help moderate overall rent pressure, although researchers disagree about the size and distribution of benefits, particularly for lower-income residents near new development. (You can read some analysis of the impact of market-rate housing on overall affordability conditions here and here.) For this project, additional homes on a vacant site could provide a useful benefit, but might have only a modest effect on wider affordability. The evidence reviewed does not give us a basis to conclude that it is likely to improve or worsen housing stability in nearby Shiloh.
Additional traffic toward Shiloh deserves attention, particularly with more apartments proposed. However, the 2024 discussion suggests neighborhood outreach did not reveal a major unresolved objection. More units likely means increased traffic, but we have not heard any concerns from Shiloh residents about this.
The flood-safety questions are more immediate and substantial. Placing apartments on the third floor, above two parking levels, may protect living spaces from flooding, but does not by itself ensure safe evacuation or emergency access, particularly if flooding and nearby slope failure occur together. Council is right to seek information informed by Helene and to examine whether specific design or operational protections are needed. Any revised conditions should be available for public review, with a clear explanation of how they address those risks.
While there are questions worth asking here, we don’t assess this issue to have the racial or social justice implications that warrant a call to action.
Things to Do: We are not recommending action on this item, but If you feel called to engage, you can write to City Council (ashevillenccouncil@ashevillenc.gov) with your views or questions.
Possible Talking Points for Council Outreach:
- I welcome additional housing. What rents are anticipated, and which households are likely to be able to afford them?
- Does the larger proposal change the earlier traffic findings, and has the Shiloh Community Association been offered an opportunity to comment on the amendment?
- What does Helene’s actual flood extent require of this design, including safe evacuation and emergency access?
- What specific measures will address flooding and nearby slope instability, and which will become enforceable project conditions?
Bear prevention should be practical for everyone
NEUTRAL
Summary: Council will receive a BearWise update recommending expanded access to bear-resistant trash equipment, continued education, and stronger enforcement of wildlife-feeding rules. We welcome prevention efforts and encourage the City to ensure that residents have practical, affordable ways to comply before increasing penalties.
The Facts: City Council will receive a presentation by Ashley Hobbs, Special Projects Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. She will report on the more than 250 bear entries into Buncombe County homes and 11 human injuries in bear interactions since 2017. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recommends more bear-resistant carts and retrofit options, public outreach, continued enforcement, and higher penalties for feeding bears. This is just a presentation; the supplied materials do not include a specific penalty amendment for adoption.
You can see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: Preventing dangerous bear encounters is a positive public safety goal that protects both residents and wildlife. We support education, effective trash storage, and expanded access to bear-resistant equipment.
Our concern is how responsibility would be assigned and enforced if the City pursues stronger penalties. Renters do not control the purchase of City-owned trash containers, the location of shared dumpsters, or the availability of secure storage. Residents may also face financial or physical barriers to following recommended practices. The City should distinguish safety recommendations from enforceable requirements and clarify who would be responsible – and potentially fined – when landlords, property managers, tenants, and other parties control different parts of the solution.
The presentation does not establish that every recommended practice would carry a penalty, and no specific penalty amendment is before Council. As any proposal develops, we encourage clear responsibilities, practical assistance, and enforcement directed toward the party able to correct the problem.
Things to Do: We are not recommending action on this item, but If you feel called to engage, you can write to City Council (ashevillenccouncil@ashevillenc.gov) with your views or questions.
Possible Talking Points for Council Outreach:
- I support efforts to prevent dangerous bear encounters and expand access to bear-resistant equipment.
- Which practices are recommendations, and which are enforceable requirements?
- For rental properties and shared dumpsters, please clarify which responsibilities belong to landlords, property managers, and tenants – and who could be fined?
- How will the City help residents who face financial or other practical barriers to compliance?
Buncombe County can turn its Swannanoa plan into an anti-displacement test case
POSITIVE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Updated 10/26/26: County staff’s October 20 briefing identified useful foundations for preventing displacement as the Swannanoa plan moves toward implementation: assigned responsibilities, timelines, and existing analysis of ordinance amendments’ effects on vulnerable communities. However, commissioners did not establish the consistent review of significant implementation decisions and subsequent monitoring that we proposed. This item was discussed at a briefing, so no adoption vote occurred; staff announced that the plan would return to the County Commission for an adoption hearing at their formal meeting on November 17.
Staff explained that individual plan actions identify a responsible department or agency, anticipated resource needs, and a timeline. Staff said the plan’s Growth and Redevelopment chapter contains recommendations intended to address displacement. In the subsequent discussion of comprehensive-plan implementation, staff also said proposed ordinance amendments routinely receive an analysis of their effects on vulnerable communities. These statements address parts of the approach we have encouraged, although neither transcript explicitly references our recommendations.
The remaining question is how those processes will be applied across significant Swannanoa implementation decisions, including investments and projects beyond ordinance amendments. Commissioners did not establish a consistent process for identifying displacement risks before approval or funding, selecting protections where needed, and monitoring results. Their discussion focused primarily on hazard mitigation, development regulations, and staff capacity. We appreciate the existing work and will continue following whether implementation provides the protections and accountability we proposed.
Staff announced a Planning Board hearing for November 16, followed by the County Commission’s adoption hearing on November 17. Those dates remain subject to scheduling changes. The regular October 20 Commission meeting added no substantive discussion of the plan.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 12
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 receive a briefing Tuesday on the proposed Swannanoa Small Area and Resilience Plan, which will guide growth, recovery and investment in the community for the next 20 years. We support the plan and the extensive community work behind it. As its 140-plus policies and actions move toward implementation, we believe the County should take one additional step: review significant actions individually for potential displacement risks and consider ways to reduce those risks before consequential decisions are made.
The Facts: Buncombe County Commissioners will receive a briefing Tuesday on the proposed Swannanoa Small Area and Resilience Plan, a long-range plan intended to guide growth, recovery and investment in Swannanoa following Hurricane Helene. The planning process grew out of the County’s 2043 Comprehensive Plan and has included a resident/community Steering Committee, studies of existing conditions and vulnerability, community meetings and broader public input.
Residents have played a substantial role in developing the plan, but Swannanoa is an unincorporated community and the plan is ultimately a Buncombe County plan. The Steering Committee is advisory; County Commissioners will decide whether to adopt the plan, and County government will be responsible for many of the decisions that turn its recommendations into action.
The draft contains more than 140 proposed policies and actions addressing housing, transportation, economic development, recreation, environmental protection, disaster resilience and other aspects of Swannanoa’s future. Once adopted, those recommendations could lead to changes in zoning and other regulations, new capital investments, development decisions, partnerships and specific County projects over the next 20 years.
The plan is not yet final. County materials describe the current version as a working draft under review, with final adoption by the Board of Commissioners scheduled for November. That means Tuesday’s briefing provides an opportunity for Commissioners to clarify not only what the plan recommends, but also how the County will evaluate the consequences of each policy as it is implemented.
You can see the staff presentation on the plan here.
Our Assessment: We appreciate the extraordinary amount of work that Swannanoa residents, Steering Committee members and County staff have put into creating this plan. We also appreciate that affordability, equity, and community resilience are woven through many of its recommendations.
But adopting a good plan is only the beginning. The real consequences will come later, as Buncombe County decides which of its 140-plus policies and actions to implement, when to implement them, and how.
A new sidewalk, zoning change, commercial investment, housing initiative, or infrastructure project might strengthen Swannanoa while having little effect on displacement. Another action might increase land values, housing costs or redevelopment pressure in ways that make it harder for existing residents or businesses to remain. Some actions may actively reduce displacement risk; others could inadvertently increase it.
The County can’t possibly predict all of those effects today. Instead, each significant action should receive an anti-displacement review when County staff begin moving it toward implementation.
That review could ask a few basic questions: Who is likely to benefit? Who might face increased housing, property-tax, rental or commercial displacement pressure? What evidence tells us whether the risk is significant? If a meaningful risk exists, what could the County do to reduce it? And what should the County monitor afterward to learn whether its assumptions were right?
The final plan should therefore identify which County department or staff team is responsible for moving each major action forward and require that significant implementation decisions be screened for displacement risk before they are approved or funded.
This is especially important because residents’ role changes once the planning process ends. Community members have had substantial opportunities to help shape the vision and recommendations, but the County will have much of the authority and responsibility for turning those recommendations into actual government decisions. An implementation-level anti-displacement review would help the County consider how its decisions affect the people and businesses already rooted in Swannanoa.
This would not require the County to abandon or delay beneficial investments. It would help the County make those investments more successfully, allowing Swannanoa to recover and improve while paying attention to whether existing residents and businesses are able to remain and share in the benefits.
We’ve been encouraging Buncombe County for almost a year to expand and connect its existing planning and analytical tools into a countywide anti-displacement decision-support and learning system. The Swannanoa plan offers an ideal opportunity to demonstrate how one could work in practice.
Things to Do: No action is suggested at this time. Last week, we invited you to email County Commissioners and ask them to make item-by-item anti-displacement review part of the implementation process for the Swannanoa Small Area and Resilience Plan.
Safety, Second Chances, and HACA’s New Screening Rules
QUESTIONABLE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Outcome Unknown
Report Back
HACA Screening Policy Outcome Is Still Unknown
Updated 8/31/26: The Housing Authority of the City of Asheville (HACA) Board met on August 26 after receiving public comments on proposed longer lookback periods for several criminal convictions. Because HACA has not published minutes, a recording, or another account of the meeting, we do not know whether the revised screening policy was discussed, amended, adopted or postponed.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 6
Recipients and Responses:
Housing Authority of the City of Asheville
- Board: No response
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer (appoints all Board members): No response
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley (Council liaison): No response
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: No action suggested at this time. Last week, we invited you to email HACA before 11:59 p.m. Monday night – 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
PREVIOUS REPORTS
GAP Report for 10/19/26
Buncombe County can turn its Swannanoa plan into an anti-displacement test case Buncombe County Commissioners will receive a briefing Tuesday on the proposed Swannanoa Small Area and Resilience Plan, which will guide growth, recovery and investment in the community...
GAP Report for 10/12/26
Asheville considers $6 million to prevent homelessness Asheville City Council will consider accepting a $6 million grant to help prevent homelessness among at least 1,000 vulnerable households over three years. We support this investment in keeping people housed and...
GAP Report for 10/5/26
County seeks $290,000 for surveillance technology without explaining what residents are buying Buncombe County Commissioners are being asked Tuesday to approve $290,000 from forfeiture funds for the Sheriff's Office's FY27 FUSUS/Axon contract and a "Camera Project at...
GAP Report for 9/28/26
Clear Safeguards Can Strengthen Asheville’s HOME-ARP Plan On September 22, the Asheville City Council held a public hearing on proposed changes to the HOME-ARP program, which would expand rental assistance and case management while giving preference to people...
GAP Report for 9/21/26
Clear Safeguards Can Strengthen Asheville’s HOME-ARP Plan Asheville’s proposed HOME-ARP amendment could help more people move out of homelessness by expanding rental assistance and case management. We support the proposal and believe City Council should approve it....
