PROBLEMATIC
Summary (updated 9/1/25): The Asheville Police Department is requesting an expansion of “high-traffic zones” where panhandlers can be arrested.
This proposal passed City Council by a 6-1 vote (Roney voting against).
The facts: The Asheville City Council’s Public Safety Committee unanimously approved a proposal from the Asheville Police Department (APD) to increase the number of “high-traffic zones” in the City. Right now, only downtown and Biltmore Village are in that category; proposed additional areas are the Haywood Road corridor, Patton Avenue, Tunnel Road and South Tunnel Road. Panhandlers in these areas could be charged with a class-3 misdemeanor, which carries a $500 fine, for asking for money verbally or by gesture. (Solicitation through a sign would still be permitted.)
APD suggested that this change was needed to increase pedestrian safety. APD reviewed locations of pedestrian crashes and found that about 20% happened within 25 feet of where panhandling was taking place. They also noted that about 75% happened within 500 feet of a panhandling spot.
You can watch the committee meeting where this was discussed and voted on here.
The proposal will likely be taken up by the full Asheville City Council at their August 26th meeting.
Our Assessment: The stated rationale for this expansion of the territory where panhandlers can be arrested is to protect them from harm, which rings hollow:
- Correlation ≠ causation: Just because two things happen in the same area doesn’t mean one causes the other. High-traffic intersections naturally have both more pedestrians (including panhandlers) and more crashes.
- No behavioral link: APD has not presented evidence showing that panhandlers caused or contributed to the crashes — for example, by stepping into traffic or distracting drivers.
- Policy leap: Using this stat to justify criminalizing panhandling assumes risk without proving it, while ignoring bigger and more documented safety issues.
It seems more likely to us that this problem is getting attention because panhandling makes people uncomfortable and tarnishes the City’s image with tourists. Further criminalizing panhandling and adding an unpayable fine seems like a strategy for making poverty less visible in our city, not actually addressing the core problem. Over 14% of Asheville residents live below the poverty line, which is one in seven people; criminalizing panhandling punishes survival—not wrongdoing. Research indicates that the vast majority of panhandlers are not criminal offenders and many panhandle out of necessity, using earnings mainly for basic needs like food and shelter. Research shows that punitive approaches don’t reduce panhandling—services, affordable housing, and employment programs are more effective.
Alongside the newly enacted Business Improvement District, which seemed designed to push the unhoused out of downtown, the City continues to focus on making the challenges of poverty, homelessness, and drug addiction less visible rather than addressing them. These problems then increase in the less-visible parts of our City, such as our public housing communities where serious public safety risks are being ignored. Across several public housing communities, children are regularly exposed to:
- Discarded drug paraphernalia in common areas and near playgrounds;
- Prostitution and sexual activity in open view;
- Public intoxication and erratic behavior just steps from their homes.
These conditions create a far greater and more direct threat to community safety than someone asking for change on a street corner. Yet enforcement and resources seem aimed at making poverty less visible to middle- and upper-income shoppers and tourists, rather than protecting the health and safety of children growing up in these neighborhoods.
If the City is serious about public safety and equity, it should:
- Prioritize cleanup and security in public housing communities;
- Address the open-air drug use and sex work occurring near homes;
- Work with Buncombe County and numerous capable partners to provide addiction services and housing supports that reduce harm without ignoring its impact on residents.
Criminalizing panhandling won’t solve poverty — but ignoring the safety of our most vulnerable youth is an unacceptable failure. Let’s demand that public safety resources be directed where they are most urgently needed.
We’d like to see the City Council in general, and the Public Safety Committee in particular, focus its energy on engaging those in public housing and other challenged areas of the city around how to address these challenges, rather than simply pushing problems from more visible areas to more vulnerable ones.
You can read more about this issue at Blue Ridge Public Radio and Mountain Xpress.
The Ask: We invited you to join us in reaching out to the Asheville City Council, encouraging them to reject the expansion of the “high-traffic zones” and further criminalization of panhandling, and instead charge the Public Safety Committee with doing the necessary community engagement to come up with deeper solutions to poverty, homelessness, and addiction.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Negatively Resolved
Report Back
This proposal passed City Council by a 6-1 vote (Roney voting against).
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 42
Recipients and Responses:
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer: No response
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: No response
- City Council Member Bo Hess: Responded, see below.
- City Council Member Kim Roney: No response
- City Council Member Maggie Ullman: No response
- City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
- City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response
Response from Bo Hess:
I want to clarify a few important points and respond directly to your concerns:
- Experience and Assessment
I have not only referred people to places like Copestone or ADATC—I have worked inside these systems for over a decade. My professional background includes over 10 years at the largest psychiatric hospital in WNC, and prior to that years in crisis centers, the jail, methadone clinics, and the VA hospital, serving unhoused individuals struggling with severe mental illness and addiction.
Before this ordinance was considered, I spent more than five months conducting what you rightly call an “assessment” before intervention. This included ride-alongs with our co-response teams, meetings with service providers, conversations with residents and business owners, visits to shelters, outreach in encampments, and direct dialogue with those who fly signs. My approach and believe the city’s approach has been deliberate, not reactive.
- Boundaries and Safety
It is okay for a city to have boundaries. This ordinance is not about criminalizing poverty or homelessness—it is about keeping people safe in our most high-intensity traffic zones, where three of the last five pedestrian fatalities involved individuals asking for help.
Not one person I spoke with said, “Please make it easier for me to risk my life while asking for help.” People can still panhandle anywhere in Asheville except in these dangerous corridors. This is not a homelessness policy—it is a pedestrian safety and safe streets policy.
- Collaboration with Partners
I agree fully that community partners who hold trust with those who panhandle must be central. That’s why I continue to work alongside them (I still volunteer weekly at ABCCM and every three months with Street Dog Coalition where I get to connect with our unhoused or unstably housed community) and why we’ve invested over $800,000 in syringe clean-up, peer support integration with our Fire Department’s outreach team, and expanded shelter and treatment options.
In recent months I’ve also helped shape the vision for our new emergency shelter, which is becoming a reality soon! My colleagues who oppose or mischaracterize this ordinance have not been part of those conversations, and so I understand why it is easy to overlook the bigger picture. Either, they don’t know about these efforts or are deliberately trying to spin a narrative that does not tell the full picture. Either way, concerning.
I also participate in community cleanups—such as the one coming in October (you should join!)—and I value collaboration with leaders who are doing the work on the ground.
- Housing Authority and Residents
I must respectfully push back on the notion that Housing Authority residents are disengaged or unseen. I’ve been in those neighborhoods this summer delivering water, fans, and supplies, and speaking directly with residents. They are some of our most engaged and active voices in civic life—and yes, they certainly vote.
Their concerns about safety mirror what we hear from business owners, housed neighbors, and public safety officials: no one wants to see people killed while asking for help.
- Broader Safety and Planning
This ordinance is just one tool in a much larger toolbox. At the same time, we are reducing speed limits, improving crosswalks, working with NCDOT on better lighting, expanding bike lanes, and advancing multi-modal transportation options.
And importantly, we are leading the development of a 24/7 integrated drop-in care center with 130+ beds, on-site prescribers, peer support, family spaces, and pet-friendly facilities—so that law enforcement, hospitals, and outreach teams finally have a true alternative for people in crisis. We are addressing this issue at every entry point, both upstream and downstream.
- Data and Misconceptions
You are correct—panhandling itself does not cause accidents. The issue is correlation: when vulnerable individuals stand in high-speed corridors, the risk of serious injury or death increases dramatically. We would never ignore a dangerous crosswalk design in other parts of the city; we cannot ignore this either.
If this level of danger were happening anywhere else, people would rightly demand immediate action to protect lives. In fact, the overwhelming majority of messages I’ve received from residents have been supportive and appreciative of the steps we’re taking. I’m not sure why my colleague thinks the effective spin is to say the lives of our most vulnerable residents don’t have value. I strongly reject the notion that our unhoused residents’ lives don’t have value, we know they do and that’s why we are taking decisive action to protect them and our drivers. We know that if this were any other population we would be demanding action for safety. So, it’s odd to me that when our unhoused/most vulnerable are in danger some of us are just fine with allowing that.
- Long-Term Commitment
I share your commitment to addressing root causes: housing, treatment, prevention, and recovery. I work closely with Habitat for Humanity, Mountain Housing Opportunities, Grace Covenant Presbyterian, Vaya Health, first responders, and others to expand housing access.
I also serve on our Continuum of Care board, the Crisis Response Collaborative, the county Health and Human Services Collaborative, the Harm Reduction NC board, and helped found The Connectivity Project, which gives unhoused people access to technology.
We and the city are doing the long, slow work and the urgent safety work at the same time—because we cannot afford to do otherwise. Boundaries are part of building the safe, compassionate community we all want to see.
Thank you again for engaging in this conversation. I deeply respect your perspective as a fellow clinician and community member. I will continue to listen, collaborate, and move forward with urgency and compassion—because the people of Asheville are counting on us to keep our streets safe while lifting up our most vulnerable neighbors.
With gratitude,
Bo