GAP Report for 7/27/26
QUESTIONABLE
Promising Anti-Displacement Commitment Needs a Timeline (new)
On Tuesday, July 27, the Asheville City Council will consider a resolution acknowledging the harm caused by redlining, urban renewal, zoning decisions, and development pressures, and committing the City to a comprehensive anti-displacement strategy. We appreciate both the depth of the resolution’s historical analysis and the direction it gives the City Manager. But the resolution provides no timeline for developing or implementing the promised protections. Before adopting the resolution, Council should amend it to direct the City Manager to return within 90 days with a step-by-step implementation plan, measurable milestones, meaningful community participation, and a schedule for public progress reports.
Home Repair Can Prevent Displacement — But Who Will Receive Help? (new)
On Tuesday, July 27, the Asheville City Council will consider adopting a Home Repair Policy and allocating $3 million from the 2024 Affordable Housing Bond for its implementation. The program could help lower-income homeowners address dangerous conditions, accessibility needs, weatherization, and other critical repairs that might otherwise force them from their homes. But staff estimates that the allocation will serve only 68–108 households, while as many as 4,000 Asheville homes may need repairs. Council should approve the program while requiring a transparent selection system, meaningful priority for households at greatest displacement risk, hardship protections, and public reporting on who receives assistance.
Sweeten Creek Road Project: “100% Affordable” — But Affordable to Whom? (new)
Council will consider a Sweeten Creek Road apartment development whose conditions designate every unit as affordable to households at or below 80% AMI for at least 20 years. That sounds promising, but the presentation does not provide the total unit count, rents, bedroom mix, income distribution, utility costs, or number of homes serving households below 30%, 50%, or 60% AMI.
PROBLEMATIC
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone (new)
City staff will present a proposed redesign of Asheville’s bus network that could improve reliability, increase frequency on important corridors, and expand the number of jobs an average low-income resident can reach by approximately 15%. It would also eliminate direct service to several destinations, including ABCCM’s Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, and West Haywood. Staff recommends the draft network, but Council is not expected to take final action until August. Before that vote, the City should explain why it continues to recommend the proposal despite overwhelmingly negative community feedback, clearly identify what – if anything – changed in response to that feedback, and develop equitable solutions for riders who would lose essential bus access.
Don’t Trade Away the Asheville Mall’s Housing Future (new)
The owner of the Asheville Mall is asking Council to rezone approximately 41 acres from Urban Place to Regional Business without presenting a specific redevelopment project. The change would weaken mixed-use, walkability, and transit-supportive development requirements while allowing unrestricted drive-throughs and broader automobile-oriented commercial uses.
REPORT BACKS
The County’s property-tax dilemma makes the case for an anti-displacement analysis framework
Last week, we asked Buncombe County to explain how it will evaluate the displacement consequences of its recent property-tax decisions and protect residents who may be forced from their homes. We have received no response. GAPavl will develop a next-step advocacy plan and share it before the County Commission’s August 4 meeting.
Active Issue Reports
Promising Anti-Displacement Commitment Needs a Timeline
QUESTIONABLE
Summary: Asheville City Council will consider a resolution acknowledging the harm caused by redlining, urban renewal, zoning decisions, and development pressures, and committing the City to a comprehensive anti-displacement strategy. We appreciate both the depth of the resolution’s historical analysis and the direction it gives the City Manager. But the resolution provides no timeline for developing or implementing the promised protections. Before adopting the resolution, Council should amend it to direct the City Manager to return within 90 days with a step-by-step implementation plan, measurable milestones, meaningful community participation, and a schedule for public progress reports.
The Facts: The resolution would:
- Commit the City to neighborhood stability and helping residents remain in their homes.
- Acknowledge harms caused by redlining, urban renewal, zoning actions, inadequate protections, and development pressure.
- Direct the City to use data to identify neighborhoods particularly vulnerable to displacement and loss of neighborhood identity.
- Call for anti-displacement measures to be integrated into planning, zoning, development review, and housing programs.
- Direct staff to incorporate anti-displacement analysis into the comprehensive rewrite of Asheville’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), so that displacement risks are considered as the City revises its zoning and development rules.
- Prioritize engagement with renters, low-income residents, homeowners on fixed incomes, and other people vulnerable to displacement.
- Direct the City Manager to assess existing tools, identify additional protections, and develop operational improvements that balance additional housing with protection of communities at greatest risk.
City staff recommends adoption. You can read the staff report and proposed resolution here, and see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: We are marking this resolution “questionable” not because we disagree with its direction, but because its promises currently have no timetable or accountability mechanism.
GAPavl has been involved in conversations with the City about this policy direction, and we appreciate that the resolution does more than use the word “displacement.” It expressly connects present housing pressures with governmental decisions and historic racial harms. It also recognizes that increasing housing supply and protecting existing communities must occur together.
The steps it outlines are sound, are a meaningful statement of purpose, and are consistent with the recommendations we’ve been making to the City (both publicly and in our direct work alongside staff) for many months. But the resolution does not yet say when the City Manager must present an implementation plan, when the displacement-risk framework will be completed, how residents will shape the work, or how Council and the public will measure progress.
To its credit, Asheville has studied displacement extensively. But without concrete plans and timelines, meaningful action could be delayed indefinitely. Council should adopt the resolution once it has added a requirement that the City Manager return within 90 days with:
- A step-by-step implementation plan
- A list of responsible departments and staff
- Initial deadlines and measurable milestones
- A funded community-engagement process both during the development of the policy and also for regular evaluation of its impact
- A defined role for residents of historically harmed and displacement-vulnerable neighborhoods
- A schedule for regular public progress reports
The plan need not solve displacement within 90 days. It should tell Council and the public what will happen next, who is responsible, and when results can be expected.
Things to do: Email City Council and ask members to adopt the anti-displacement resolution, require a concrete implementation plan within 90 days, and approve the Home Repair Policy with transparent and equitable rules for selecting households (see next issue report below).
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.
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: Strengthen Asheville’s anti-displacement resolution and home-repair program
Dear Mayor Manheimer and Asheville City Council members,
I am writing in support of the proposed anti-displacement resolution and the allocation of $3 million for the Home Repair Program.
I appreciate that the anti-displacement resolution acknowledges the substantial harm caused by redlining, urban renewal, zoning decisions, inadequate protections, and development pressure. Its commitment to neighborhood stability, data-informed decision-making, community engagement, and integration of anti-displacement protections into City policy is an important step.
However, the resolution does not establish a timeline for turning that commitment into action. Please amend it to require the City Manager to return to Council within 90 days with a step-by-step implementation plan. That plan should identify responsible departments, initial deadlines, measurable milestones, a funded community-engagement process both during the development of the policy and also for regular evaluation of its impact, a meaningful role for residents of historically harmed and displacement-vulnerable neighborhoods, and a schedule for regular public progress reports.
I also support the proposed $3 million allocation for home repair. Helping lower-income homeowners address critical repairs is a practical way to prevent displacement and preserve intergenerational stability.
Because the City estimates that this funding may reach only 68–108 households, transparent selection is essential. Please require:
- Clear, publicly available rules explaining how applicants will be prioritized.
- Meaningful preference for households with the lowest incomes and greatest displacement risk.
- Accessible outreach and assistance for heirs’ property owners, people with disabilities, and residents who face language or technology barriers.
- Reasonable hardship protections connected with the program’s five-year loan-forgiveness period.
- Written reasons for adverse decisions and a simple, timely process through which applicants can correct application errors and request reconsideration.
- Public reporting on outcomes by income, race, age, disability, and neighborhood.
Please adopt both proposals while adding the measures necessary to make them meaningfully accountable. Asheville needs an anti-displacement commitment on a concrete implementation schedule, and programs that reach the residents at greatest risk of losing their homes and communities.
Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Neighborhood]
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Home Repair Can Prevent Displacement — But Who Will Receive Help?
QUESTIONABLE
Summary: On Tuesday, July 27, the Asheville City Council will consider adopting a Home Repair Policy and allocating $3 million from the 2024 Affordable Housing Bond for its implementation. The program could help lower-income homeowners address dangerous conditions, accessibility needs, weatherization, and other critical repairs that might otherwise force them from their homes. But staff estimates that the allocation will serve only 68–108 households, while as many as 4,000 Asheville homes may need repairs. Council should approve the program while requiring a transparent selection system, meaningful priority for households at greatest displacement risk, hardship protections, and public reporting on who receives assistance.
The Facts: To qualify, an applicant generally must:
- Have household income at or below 80% of area median income
- Own and occupy the home as a principal residence
- Own no other residence
- Have lived in the home for at least five years, with possible exceptions for Helene damage
- Own a home assessed at no more than $1 million
- Live within Asheville city limits
Manufactured homes would be eligible. Heirs’ property would not automatically disqualify an applicant. (Note: Heirs’ property is a family home or land inherited by multiple relatives without a clear, legally recorded title. This has been a significant source of Black land and home loss, and unclear ownership can prevent families from qualifying for conventional loans or repair programs.)
The program would prioritize:
- Households at or below 60% AMI.
- Seniors, families with children, and people with disabilities.
- Long-term homeowners facing involuntary displacement.
- Residents of neighborhoods identified as vulnerable to displacement.
Eligible work would include critical health and safety repairs, accessibility modifications, weatherization, energy-efficiency improvements, and emergency repairs.
Assistance would be capped at $40,000. Awards of up to $25,000 would be grants. Larger awards would be structured as zero-interest, deferred loans forgiven by 20% annually over five years.
The City’s earlier $1.465 million repair investment served 52 households. Eighty percent had incomes at or below 50% AMI. Staff estimates that the proposed $3 million allocation could serve approximately 68–108 homes.
Staff recommends approving the policy and allocation. You can read the staff report and proposed resolution here and see the presentation slides here.
Our Assessment: This is an important anti-displacement investment whose equitability will depend almost entirely on implementation.
Repair assistance can help established homeowners remain in appreciating neighborhoods, preserve intergenerational wealth, reduce energy costs, prevent code-enforcement problems, and keep homes safe. Recognition of heirs’ property and manufactured housing is particularly important because those homeowners often encounter barriers in conventional loan and grant programs.
The central problem is scarcity. Even if the City repairs 108 homes, the program will reach less than three percent of the people who may need help. The stated priorities do not explain how applications will be ranked, how competing needs will be compared, or whether assistance will effectively become first-come, first-served. An equitable process is especially important because the households most in need often have more difficulties accessing assistance programs.
Council should require the program to answer several questions before awards begin:
- How will the four priorities be weighted?
- Will households at 30% or 50% AMI receive preference over those at 80%?
- How will the City reach residents who lack internet access or struggle with applications?
- What assistance will be available for heirs’ property, title problems, disability access, and language needs?
- What hardship rules will apply if a homeowner dies, becomes ill, or must move during the five-year forgiveness period?
- Does a repair costing slightly more than $25,000 turn the entire award into a loan, or only the amount above $25,000?
- Will applicants receive written reasons for adverse decisions and a simple, timely appeals process to correct errors involving eligibility, priority, ownership, income, or eligible repairs?
- Will results be reported by race, income, age, disability, neighborhood, and type of repair?
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee recommended making occupancy by a senior, family with children, or person with a disability an eligibility requirement. Staff instead retained that as a priority for consideration, but not a requirement. Council should publicly discuss that choice and establish a selection process that does not reduce “priority” to an unenforceable aspiration.
The program also excludes renters, even though deteriorating rental housing can produce displacement through unsafe conditions, condemnation, rehabilitation-related rent increases, or removal from the market. This policy need not solve that separate problem, but Council should identify what strategies will.
Council should approve the funding while requiring transparent selection rules, hardship protections, accessible outreach, and regular reporting.
Things to do: Use the email template above (combined with the one addressing the anti-displacement resolution) to ask Council to approve home-repair funding while strengthening the program’s selection rules, protections, and accountability.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
A Better Transit Network for Many Riders — But Not Everyone
PROBLEMATIC
Summary: City staff will present a proposed redesign of Asheville’s bus network that could improve reliability, increase frequency on important corridors, and expand the number of jobs an average low-income resident can reach by approximately 15%. It would also eliminate direct service to several destinations, including ABCCM’s Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, and West Haywood. Staff recommends the draft network, but Council is not expected to take final action until August. Before that vote, the City should explain why it continues to recommend the proposal despite overwhelmingly negative community feedback, clearly identify what – if anything – changed in response to that feedback, and develop equitable solutions for riders who would lose essential bus access.
The facts: Staff says the draft network would:
- Improve schedules and on-time performance.
- Coordinate transfers more effectively at the ART station.
- Provide 15-minute service between downtown, Hillcrest, and the River Arts District.
- Improve frequency in several higher-growth areas.
- End 90-minute routes.
- Increase the number of jobs an average low-income resident can reach by approximately 15%.
- Maintain or improve service to Housing Authority communities.
The proposal would discontinue direct service to:
- The Outlet Mall, Brevard Road, and Transformation Village — approximately 40 average daily riders.
- MAHEC — approximately 11 average daily riders.
- The Social Security office — approximately eight average daily riders.
- West Haywood — approximately 34 average daily riders.
- The Omni Grove Park Inn.
Staff presented alternatives for restoring some service, but each would reduce frequency, create irregular schedules, or weaken service elsewhere.
The Planning, Economic Development and Environment Committee did not recommend any particular modification to the proposed network. It asked staff to bring the proposal to Council for further discussion and recommended that the eventual Council decision include direction to identify additional, sustainable sources of transit funding.
Staff recommends approving the draft network as proposed. The presentation anticipates final Council action on August 25. You can see the presentation here, see the City’s explanation of proposed changes here, read the full report here, and read the full community engagement report here.
Our Assessment: The systemwide benefits to this plan appear meaningful, but those benefits come with concentrated losses that have not been fully resolved. We are also troubled by the stark disconnect between the community feedback the City received on this plan and staff’s recommendation to approve it without modification.
Survey respondents were not merely divided. They rejected the proposal by wide margins:
- Among all respondents, 52% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the draft network would be better for them, while only 25% agreed or strongly agreed.
- Fifty-nine percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it would be better for people they know, compared with 24% who agreed.
- Fifty-seven percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it would be better for the region overall, compared with 28% who agreed.
- Among frequent ART riders – the people with the most direct experience of the system — 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the proposal would be better for them. Only 27% agreed.
The survey was self-selected and does not necessarily represent every Asheville resident or rider. But 1,350 people participated, including 429 frequent riders. The results are too substantial and too consistently negative to treat as incidental opposition.
Staff’s presentation identifies the public’s principal concerns, including the loss of access to Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, West Haywood, and other destinations. Yet staff continues to recommend the draft network as proposed. The presentation does not clearly identify any significant network changes made in response to the overwhelmingly negative feedback.
Frequency, reliability, timed transfers, and increased job access are important equity benefits. But averages can conceal concentrated hardship. A relatively small number of riders may depend upon a particular stop to reach housing, health care, public benefits, or employment. Riders with disabilities, older adults, and people without flexible schedules may have no realistic substitute when bus service disappears.
Before asking Council to approve the network, staff should:
- Clearly identify what, if anything, changed in response to public feedback
- Explain why the principal concerns raised by riders were not incorporated into the recommendation
- Directly engage the riders who would lose service and assess the effects of longer walks, terrain, disability, safety, and weather
- Present equitable alternatives for preserving access to essential destinations.
- Explain what additional funding would be required to avoid forcing one group of riders to bear the cost of improving service for another.
The City should not conduct extensive public engagement and then proceed with its original recommendation without clearly explaining how that feedback influenced — or failed to influence — the result. Council should use the period before the anticipated August vote to require that explanation and seek modifications that preserve the proposal’s broader benefits without abandoning riders who depend on the connections it would eliminate.
Things to do: No immediate action is requested; GAP will gather community perspectives and prepare an advocacy plan before City Council’s anticipated August vote.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Sweeten Creek Road Project: “100% Affordable” — But Affordable to Whom?
QUESTIONABLE
Summary: Council will consider a Sweeten Creek Road apartment development whose conditions designate every unit as affordable to households at or below 80% AMI for at least 20 years. That sounds promising, but the presentation does not provide the total unit count, rents, bedroom mix, income distribution, utility costs, or number of homes serving households below 30%, 50%, or 60% AMI.
The Facts: The applicant seeks conditional rezoning from Residential Multi-Family High Density to Residential Expansion–Conditional Zone. The project includes internal sidewalks and pedestrian improvements along Sweeten Creek Road. Planning and Zoning recommended approval 6–1, and staff recommends approval.
Our Assessment: We are marking this “questionable” because a 100% affordability commitment is valuable, but an 80% AMI ceiling could allow every unit to be priced beyond the reach of Asheville’s lowest-income residents. Twenty years is also short compared with the permanent development rights granted by rezoning. Council should require a deeper income mix, longer affordability, enforceable monitoring, voucher acceptance, and protections for tenants when restrictions expire.
Things to do: Residents who contact City Council (AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov) may wish to emphasize:
- The commitment to make 100% of the apartments affordable is valuable, but “at or below 80% AMI” does not guarantee housing for residents with the greatest needs, who are disproportionately residents of color.
- Council should require a meaningful share of units for households below 30%, 50%, and 60% AMI: mixed-income development supports long-term mobility.
- The affordability period should be longer than 20 years, because the rezoning permanently increases the property owner’s development rights.
- Before voting, Council should obtain clear information about the total number of units, proposed rents, bedroom mix, utility costs, voucher acceptance, and enforcement of the affordability requirements.
- Council should ensure that current and future tenants are protected when the affordability protection approaches expiration.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Don’t Trade Away the Asheville Mall’s Housing Future
PROBLEMATIC
Summary: The owner of the Asheville Mall is asking Council to rezone approximately 41 acres from Urban Place to Regional Business without presenting a specific redevelopment project. The change would weaken mixed-use, walkability, and transit-supportive development requirements while allowing unrestricted drive-throughs and broader automobile-oriented commercial uses.
The facts: The property contains an approximately 198,000-square-foot mall building and extensive surface parking. Current zoning is intended to transform sites like this into mixed-use town centers containing housing and commercial space. Regional Business zoning would still allow multifamily housing, but it would remove requirements intended to produce a walkable, connected development—such as standards governing building placement, block size, street-facing buildings, internal sidewalks and trees, and the location of drive-through lanes. Planning and Zoning recommended denial 4–3, and staff recommends denial.
Our Assessment: We are marking this “problematic” because by approving this request, the City would surrender leverage over one of Asheville’s largest redevelopment opportunities without receiving a site plan, housing commitment, affordability requirement, street network, transit improvement, or other enforceable public benefit. Council should deny the straight rezoning and invite the owner to return with a conditional, mixed-use proposal.
Things to do: Residents who contact City Council (AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov) may wish to emphasize:
- Council should reject the request to replace Urban Place zoning with Regional Business zoning.
- The owner has not presented a specific redevelopment plan or offered enforceable commitments involving housing, affordability, transit, walkability, or other public benefits.
- The current zoning preserves the possibility of transforming approximately 41 acres of mall and surface parking into a mixed-use, transit-supportive town center.
- Rezoning now would give away the City’s leverage while permitting more automobile-oriented development, including drive-through businesses without the current requirement that they have only one lane located behind the building..
- When the owner has a viable redevelopment proposal, it should return with a conditional rezoning application that allows Council and the public to evaluate the actual project and secure enforceable community benefits.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
The County’s property-tax dilemma makes the case for an anti-displacement analysis framework
QUESTIONABLE
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Report Back: Last week, we asked Buncombe County to explain how it will evaluate the displacement consequences of its recent property-tax decisions and protect residents who may be forced from their homes. We have received no response. GAPavl will develop a next-step advocacy plan and share it before the County Commission’s August 4 meeting.
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: Last week, new state legislation forced Buncombe County Commissioners to choose between reverting to older, less equitable property values to maintain their adopted budget, and using the updated values and absorbing a $24.8 million revenue loss. Commissioners chose to maintain the budget. The meeting showed that County leaders understood the potential harms of both options, but lacked a systematic way of comparing who would bear those harms and what could be done to reduce them. This is precisely the kind of unexpected, consequential decision that demonstrates the need for an anti-displacement analysis framework.
The Facts: Two state laws enacted after Buncombe County had already adopted its FY27 budget required the County to choose between continuing to use the older 2021 property values or using the updated 2026 values under conditions that would create an approximately $24.8 million budget gap.
Commissioners faced two options, which they explored at a July 14 special meeting:
- Option 1: Use the older 2021 property assessments and adjust the tax rate to preserve the adopted budget.
- Option 2: Use the updated 2026 assessments, creating an approximately $24.8 million budget gap that would have to be eliminated through spending reductions or additional funding.
At the special meeting, the Board unanimously chose the first option, citing the importance of preserving education, public safety, services for vulnerable residents, community investments, and other County functions. Because municipalities use property values established by the County, the decision also required Asheville and other local governments to adjust their tax rates.
County staff reviewed the budget and illustrated how reverting to the older values would affect homeowners differently. For a home valued at $350,000 under the 2021 appraisal:
- A 25% increase in assessed value would result in approximately $264 more in County property taxes under the option selected.
- An increase of approximately 42% would result in about the same tax bill.
- Increases of 60% to 75% would result in approximately $265 to $492 less in County property taxes.
Commissioners acknowledged these differences. Commissioner Parker Sloan described revaluation as essentially the only tool available to North Carolina local governments to make property taxes less regressive or more progressive. Commissioner Jennifer Horton also identified the County’s new General Assistance Program as a resource for qualifying homeowners and renters facing temporary difficulty with housing or utility expenses.
Separately, at their July 21 meeting, Commissioners will consider authorizing two applications for federal commercial-district recovery funding: $10 million for approximately two miles of sidewalks along Highway 70 in Swannanoa and approximately $9 million to remediate storm-damaged commercial properties in unincorporated Buncombe County. The applications identify recovery, safety, accessibility, economic revitalization, and benefits to low- and moderate-income areas among the projects’ purposes.
Our Assessment: The state imposed an extraordinary burden after the County had already adopted its budget and gave officials little time to respond. The July 14 meeting showed that Commissioners understood either option could harm residents and wanted to minimize that harm.
But recognizing potential harm is different from having the data and analysis needed to measure and compare it.
County staff presented concrete examples of how reverting to the older property values would affect homeowners whose appraisals increased by different amounts. Those examples showed that the decision shifts relative tax burdens toward properties whose values increased less and away from properties whose values increased more.
That matters because the effects were not evenly distributed. The Asheville Watchdog reported in March that the steepest property-value increases were concentrated predominantly among higher-value homes, although many lower-value homes also experienced sharp increases. Commission Chair Amanda Edwards also cited studies finding that the older appraisals disproportionately affected low- and moderate-income residents.
The public did not receive an equally detailed analysis of the budget-reduction option. Because no specific $24.8 million reduction package was presented, Commissioners and residents could not see which programs might be reduced, who relies on them, which communities would face the greatest effects, or how the reductions might influence housing stability and displacement.
An anti-displacement analysis framework could have helped the County develop two impact statements:
- For the older-values option: Which homeowners and renters would face higher costs? Where are they located, how many already experience housing-cost burdens, and what assistance could protect those most at risk?
- For the budget-reduction option: What combinations of reductions were possible? Who relies on the affected services, and which cuts would pose the greatest risks to housing stability?
The resulting analysis could estimate who would be harmed under each option, by how much, and what could be done to reduce that harm.
Such a framework might have supported the decision Commissioners made. The framework’s value is not that it guarantees a different outcome. It is that it provides a more comprehensive and transparent basis for choosing between competing forms of harm.
The July 14 decision also demonstrates the limits of relying on existing planning processes alone. (Buncombe County leaders have previously suggested that they address anti-displacement through their planning process.) The County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Plan, Protect, Preserve, Produce framework each provide important guidance for long-range growth, housing, and land-use decisions. But this most recent dilemma arose suddenly from state legislation and required an immediate decision about taxation, public services, and the adopted budget. It could not have been anticipated through a comprehensive planning process alone.
The need for decision-specific analysis is already arising again: At their July 21st meeting, Commissioners will consider nearly $19 million in proposed commercial-corridor recovery investments. These projects could provide important recovery, safety, accessibility, and economic benefits. They could also affect property values, redevelopment pressure, commercial tenants, and locally owned businesses.
An anti-displacement analysis would not presume that these projects should be delayed or rejected. It would help the County identify potential risks, determine whether existing residents and businesses will share in the benefits, and incorporate appropriate protections. And it would help County residents know that when Commissioners vote “yes,” they are doing so with confidence rooted in careful and transparent analysis.
The County does not need another comprehensive plan or an elaborate new process. It needs a practical framework that can be scaled to the decision: a rapid assessment for an urgent fiscal choice or a more detailed analysis for a major infrastructure investment.
County leaders already understand the importance of protecting residents from displacement. An anti-displacement analysis framework would give them a stronger tool for putting that commitment into practice whenever consequential decisions arise.
Things to do: Use our template to contact the County Commissioners to ask them to review and respond to our special report, “Building on Buncombe County’s Commitment to Preventing Displacement,” and consider developing an anti-displacement analysis 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: Please consider an anti-displacement analysis framework
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your work during the difficult property appraisal and budget decision created by the recent state legislation.
The July 14 meeting showed that you understood both options could harm Buncombe County residents. Commissioners acknowledged that delaying the revaluation would make the property-tax system less fair, while reducing County revenue by approximately $24.8 million could jeopardize schools, support for older adults and vulnerable residents, and other programs people rely on every day.
The meeting also demonstrated why a scalable anti-displacement analysis framework would be valuable. County staff explained how returning to the older property values would affect homeowners with different appraisal increases. But because no specific budget reduction package was presented, Commissioners and the public did not receive a comparable analysis of who would be most affected by $24.8 million in potential cuts, how those effects could influence housing stability, or what protections could reduce the harm under either option.
This is not a criticism of the decision the Board made. The state imposed an extraordinary burden after the County had completed a lengthy, public budget process. An anti-displacement framework would not have made the choice painless or dictated the outcome. It would have provided another layer of information to help the Board compare the human consequences of both options.
The need for this kind of analysis is continuing. On July 21, the Board will consider applications for nearly $19 million in commercial-corridor recovery investments, including sidewalks along Highway 70 in Swannanoa and remediation of damaged commercial properties. These projects could bring important benefits while also affecting property values, redevelopment pressure, tenants, and locally owned businesses. An anti-displacement analysis could help the County identify risks and incorporate protections without delaying needed recovery investments.
Please review and respond to GAPavl’s special report proposing such a framework: https://gapavl.org/building-on-buncombe-countys-commitment-to-preventing-displacement-full-report/
I encourage the Commission to direct staff to explore a practical anti-displacement analysis framework for major budget, tax, land-use, infrastructure, and public-investment decisions. Existing plans and policies are important, but the decisions of July 14—and those already appearing on the July 21 agenda—show why an additional, decision-specific tool is needed.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
PREVIOUS REPORTS
GAP Report for 7/20/26
The County’s property-tax dilemma makes the case for an anti-displacement analysis framework (new) Last week, new state legislation forced Buncombe County Commissioners to choose between reverting to older, less equitable property values to maintain their adopted...
GAP Report for 7/13/26
Buncombe County is confronting a decision that offers no painless outcome Buncombe County Commissioners must choose between preserving County services by continuing to use older, less equitable property values and implementing the new appraisals and reducing County...
GAP Report for 7/6/26
Community advocacy helped preserve funding for 126 affordable apartments On June 23rd, the Asheville City Council approved an amendment to the housing recovery portion of the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery action plan. They shifted $19.2 million...
GAP Report for 6/29/26
Building on Buncombe County’s Commitment to Preventing Displacement (new) Last week, Buncombe County responded to GAP’s earlier report, explaining that it already has a number of policies and programs intended to reduce displacement. We agree that the County has taken...
GAP Report for 6/22/26
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...