Questions City staff asked the GAP Strategy Team and our answers

Are there specific anti-displacement policies or strategies from the three other referenced municipalities you found to be most impactful or applicable to Asheville? Are there policies or strategies from the COA Affordable Housing Study or Missing Middle Housing Study that should also be considered?

From other North Carolina cities, three ideas stand out:

1. Look at displacement risk early – not after decisions are made

The most helpful thing other cities have done is build in a simple “displacement check” early in the process. Before a major project moves forward, they ask:

• Is this in an area where lower-income renters or homeowners are already under pressure?
• Could this make it harder for current residents to stay?

That early check changes the conversation from reacting to problems later to planning ahead.

2. Focus on the neighborhoods most at risk

Other cities use data to identify which neighborhoods are under the most housing pressure. That way, stronger protections are focused where they’re needed most — not applied everywhere equally.

Asheville could do the same. Growth pressure is not the same in every neighborhood.

3. Connect this work across departments

The strongest examples don’t treat anti-displacement as a side program. It’s built into housing, planning, budgeting, and public investment decisions.

That approach fits well with Asheville’s existing housing and equity goals.

From Asheville’s own studies:

There’s no conflict here – in fact, this policy supports what Asheville has already said it wants to do.

• The Affordable Housing Study emphasizes preserving existing affordable rentals (often called “naturally occurring affordable housing”). Preventing displacement is central to that.
  
• The Missing Middle Housing Study encourages an expansion of housing choice, but also recommends that this shift be paired with safeguards in high-risk areas so added density doesn’t disproportionately displace lower-income renters.

Both studies support the core notion we’re proposing with our draft policy – that we do more to ensure that growth and stability move forward together.

Have you considered (I’m sure you have) what data would underpin or inform the displacement risk screening and tiered response categories?

Yes — the intent is to rely primarily on existing, defensible datasets, updated periodically, rather than creating an overly complex new model. The good news is that most of the data already exists.

The City already uses data for housing reports, equity planning and budgeting that would be relevant here. Data such as:

• How many households rent vs. own
• How many people are cost-burdened (spending too much on housing)
• Income levels
• Age of housing
• Property values and price increases
• Where rezonings and new developments are happening
• Where public money is being invested

What would be new is simply organizing it into a consistent screening tool that helps guide decisions.

We’re not suggesting the City collect a lot of brand-new data — just connect what’s already available in a clearer way.

Over time, the City could also track:

• When older affordable buildings are sold or renovated
• When anti-displacement mitigation tools are used
• How many households are helped by that mitigation and the policy overall

Do you envision the mitigation tools as mandatory, incentive based, or a combination depending on project type and scale (e.g., using the tools would skip a trip to Council similar to the hotel ordinance; what if the project doesn’t require Council level approval to begin with)?

It would depend on the project.

For larger projects (requiring City Council approval, using public land, or receiving public funding) that are assessed to create a high displacement risk, certain mitigation measures should be mandatory. This is consistent with how the City already treats affordability, stormwater, and other public impacts. 

The key here is to make displacement mitigation part of the standard evaluation whenever a project requires Council review, rather than a later add-on. Clear options upfront can actually reduce friction by giving applicants predictable paths forward.

A powerful example is the possibility of building a Performing Arts Center on the lot bordered by Marjorie and Eagle, adjacent to The Block. We would predict that an anti-displacement analysis of this use of public land would come back as a High Displacement Risk.

• There is a significant likelihood that land values and rents would go up in adjacent districts, such as in the East End / Valley Street neighborhood.
• There is also a risk of cultural and economic displacement outcomes for The Block, Asheville’s original Black business district.

If developers knew upfront that mitigation was going to be mandatory, that could be factored in from the start.

For smaller projects that already comply with zoning rules and don’t need Council approval, incentives may make more sense. Examples could be:

• faster review,
• fee reductions,
• or flexible standards in exchange for certain protections.

The goal is predictability.

• Developers should know in advance what’s expected. 
• Communities should know that higher-risk projects will include protections.

Did one of the three referenced municipalities particularly impress you with their monitoring and reporting? From this reporting were you able to determine the effectiveness of their anti-displacement policies and strategies?

Two cities stood out, for different reasons.

Durham impressed us for making displacement visible at the neighborhood level. They publish regular reports showing where housing costs are rising and how investments are distributed. That makes it easier to adjust policy over time.

Charlotte impressed us for embedding anti-displacement into long-term plans and regular updates to City Council. That makes the work durable and part of standard city business.

Neither city has solved displacement — but both show that:

• transparency matters, and
• regular reporting builds trust.

Asheville can scale something similar to fit its size.

How can the city staff effectively work with community based groups like GAPAVL? How do we effectively engage the community at-large around this technically complex topic? How do we bring along elected officials and decisionmakers?

Engaging the broader community

This is the issue we discussed in the most depth in our February 6th meeting, since there are several overlapping challenges. The first is that developing a workable anti-displacement policy gets into technical territory quickly. However, we think that using real examples and plain language could go a long way. Displacement is ultimately about: 

• Can seniors age in place?
• Can working families stay near jobs and schools?
• Can growth happen without pushing people out?

Another challenge is that many community members are skeptical that the City will ultimately listen to and consider their input. If the City is ultimately open to creating an inclusive community/staff collaboration, this could make for a more transparent process as well as providing a range of ways for people to participate

Working with community-based groups

Community groups like the Legacy Neighborhood Coalition and GAPavl can function as a bridge by helping to bring in lived experience to test the picture data is painting, and communicate policy intent back to communities. We can:

• Share what residents are experiencing on the ground
• Help explain policy in plain language
• Provide feedback on whether tools are working

Bringing along elected officials and decisionmakers

We would suggest that this framework:

• creates consistency across decisions,
• reduces last-minute conflicts,
• aligns with adopted housing and equity goals, and
• helps the City be proactive rather than reactive.