This issue report shows all of the earlier versions – to see the most current version, go here.

Summary (Updated 2/9/26): Asheville’s current approach to growth addresses displacement in a piecemeal manner, if at all; we are proposing a consistent anti-displacement policy — modeled on precedents in Mecklenburg, Wake, and Durham Counties — to ensure routine City decisions do not cumulatively push residents out of their homes and communities.

Members of the GAP Strategy Team met with City staff on Friday, February 6th to discuss ways forward toward an anti-displacement policy. It was a constructive first step. They also asked us a series of questions that we responded to, which you can read here.

Summary (Updated 2/2/26): Anti-displacement was not discussed at the January 27th City Council Meeting. However, City staff did respond to our report and we are in the process of scheduling a meeting to discuss next steps.

Summary (Original 1/26/26): Asheville’s current approach to growth addresses displacement in a piecemeal manner, if at all; we are proposing a consistent anti-displacement policy — modeled on precedents in Mecklenburg, Wake, and Durham Counties — to ensure routine City decisions do not cumulatively push residents out of their homes and communities.

The Facts: The following items were on the January 27 Asheville City Council agenda. While distinct in purpose, each involves public decisions and information that shape land use, housing demand, economic activity, or access to public space – factors that directly influence displacement risk.

1. ADUs in Nonconforming Structures: Proposes allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in legally-existing buildings that no longer conform to zoning regulations without having to ask for a “variance” (exception). City staff is recommending adoption of this policy without exclusions, citing the benefits of reduced procedural barriers to increased housing options.
2. Rezoning: 22 Broad Street: Proposes changing the zoning of a parcel of land from residential multi-family (RM-8) to Community Business I to align with corridor planning. City staff is recommending approval.
3. Economic Development Incentive – “Project Vessel:” Proposes a performance-based grant of up to $35,000 over three years to support a manufacturing expansion creating 40 jobs at an average wage of $26/hour. Staff recommends approval.
4. Downtown Improvement District Report: An informational report detailing downtown cleanliness, ambassador activity, and public space management. No action is required.

Our Assessment: Individually, City Council agenda items like these appear modest or technical. Taken together, however, they reveal how displacement often occurs — not through a single dramatic decision, but through a series of incremental actions made without a shared framework for assessing cumulative impact. Without an overarching anti-displacement policy, Council is left to evaluate each item in isolation, if they do so at all, when the combined effect may be to increase housing pressure and instability.

Community leaders have emphasized that displacement is not merely an economic or technical issue, but a social and cultural one. As Sekou Coleman of the Legacy Neighborhoods Coalition has written, decisions about land use and development often unfold without headlines or political noise, yet they determine whether long‑time residents are able to remain rooted in their neighborhoods. Coleman underscores the importance of focusing not just on process, but on whether those with power are willing to use it to help residents remain in their communities – a framing that helps clarify why a comprehensive anti-displacement policy is necessary.

Here are our concerns with each item we are highlighting for this week’s City Council meeting:

ADUs in Nonconforming Structures: Allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be automatically permissible in buildings that are no longer compliant with zoning has the potential to support existing homeowners and aging in place. But it also carries a risk of speculative investment and increased displacement pressure in legacy neighborhoods if not accompanied by safeguards.

Rezoning: 22 Broad Street: This rezoning aligns with broader corridor planning goals but would reduce residential zoning capacity in an area near downtown. Over time, such changes can contribute to cumulative displacement pressure by prioritizing commercial (over residential) uses and increasing nearby rents.

“Project Vessel” Economic Development Incentive: The proposed incentive would support job creation at living wages, which is a positive outcome. However, without complementary housing strategies, new employment growth can increase demand in already constrained housing markets, exacerbating displacement risks for nearby residents.

Downtown Improvement District Report: While focused on cleanliness and management of public space, downtown improvement strategies can result in the spatial displacement of unhoused residents if enforcement-oriented approaches are not balanced with services and housing pathways.

Taken together, these agenda items underscore the limits of addressing displacement on a case-by-case basis. A consistent anti-displacement policy would provide Council with the tools to evaluate cumulative impacts, apply proportional safeguards, and ensure that growth and investment advance racial and social equity rather than undermine it. Precedent for this approach already exists in Mecklenburg, Wake, and Durham Counties, where similar frameworks have been integrated into land use, housing, and economic development decision-making.

Our Proposal: We propose a comprehensive anti-displacement policy for both the City of Asheville and Buncombe County to adopt. You can read our more detailed proposal here. The policy would include:

• Displacement Risk Screening: Early-stage evaluation of potential displacement for all major actions.
• Tiered Response Framework: Categorization of actions by low, moderate, or high displacement risk, with proportional mitigation requirements.
• Required Mitigation Tools: A menu of strategies, including permanent affordability, right-to-return provisions, tenant protections, property tax relief, anti-speculation measures, local hiring, workforce housing contributions, mixed-use requirements, short-term rental limits, and community benefit agreements.
• Monitoring and Accountability: Annual public reporting on displacement indicators, disaggregated by race, income, tenure, and geography, with authority to adjust policies if outcomes indicate increased risk.

This framework would ensure that growth and development in Asheville and Buncombe County can proceed responsibly, preventing avoidable displacement and advancing racial and social equity while drawing on proven precedents in other North Carolina counties. 

Our full proposal can be reviewed here. You can read a summary of what other North Carolina cities and counties have implemented here.

The Ask: Please check the most recent report on this issue for the latest call to action.

Template (Updated 2/9/26)

Subject: Encourage City Staff to Develop an Anti-Displacement Policy

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

I understand that City staff have expressed interest in developing a comprehensive anti-displacement policy. I strongly encourage City Council to formally support and prioritize this effort.

As Asheville continues to grow and invest in housing and redevelopment, we need a clear framework to ensure that existing residents — especially renters, low-income homeowners, and historically marginalized communities — are not displaced. If you haven’t already reviewed it, GAPavl.org has prepared a comprehensive anti-displacement policy proposal that you can read here – http://gapavl.org/anti-displacement-policy-proposal-for-asheville-and-buncombe-county/. 

I respectfully urge you to:

• Publicly affirm support for the development of an anti-displacement policy
• Direct staff to bring forward recommendations and a timeline
• Ensure that housing investments and redevelopment projects include anti-displacement safeguards

City staff’s interest is encouraging. Council leadership and direction can help move this from conversation to action.

Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

[Your Name]

Template (Original 1/26/26)

Subject: Please Explore an Anti-Displacement Policy for Asheville

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

I am writing to urge you to actively explore the establishment of a comprehensive anti-displacement policy for the City of Asheville.

Several items on your January 27 agenda — including the ADU zoning amendment, the rezoning of 22 Broad Street, and the Project Vessel economic development incentive — highlight how City decisions can unintentionally contribute to displacement of established residents when impacts are not evaluated consistently.

Each of these actions may be reasonable on its own. Taken together, they could have substantial impacts. This highlights the need for a clear framework that helps Staff and Council assess displacement risk, apply appropriate safeguards, and ensure that growth benefits existing residents — especially renters, Black households, and people with low incomes.

Other cities in North Carolina (Durham, Raleigh, and Charlotte) have adopted policies that treat displacement as a predictable outcome of public investment and require mitigation for this impact upfront. If Asheville cares about preventing displacement of established residents, it should do the same.

GAPavl has prepared a comprehensive anti-displacement policy proposal in their latest report, and also has a more detailed proposal you can review here. I respectfully ask you to direct staff to explore this proposal and bring forward an anti-displacement policy that can work for our City to guide future land use, housing, and economic development decisions that will support established residents to remain in their communities. Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

Report Back (Updated 2/9/26)

Recent City Council meetings have underscored why an overarching anti-displacement policy is so necessary: without it, displacement risks remain largely invisible in Council deliberations, even in the accumulation of decisions that shape who can afford to live and stay in Asheville. Our work remains to press Council to move from shared values to explicit policy commitments that address displacement proactively rather than one agenda item at a time.

We plan to continue meeting with City staff to work toward the development of a community-led process for developing an anti-displacement policy.

Report Back (Updated 2/2/26)

At the January 27 City Council meeting, there was little direct engagement with the anti-displacement concerns raised in our GAP Report. Council’s attention was largely consumed by other pressing matters, particularly firefighter compensation, budget constraints, and a lengthy presentation celebrating the first-year performance of the Downtown Improvement District. While these discussions touched on equity, workforce stability, and recovery priorities, none of the councilmembers explicitly referenced displacement, housing insecurity, or the need for a comprehensive anti-displacement policy, despite the fact that several agenda items intersect with those issues in concrete ways

That absence was notable. The meeting illustrated exactly the dynamic our report warns about: decisions with real displacement implications are being handled piecemeal, framed as isolated operational or budget questions rather than acknowledging their impact together on whether Asheville residents remain housed and rooted in their communities. Even where council members expressed strong values – about dignity for workers, fairness, or economic recovery – those values were not connected back to a broader policy framework that could guide consistent action across departments and agenda items to maintain people in their communities.

In short, City Council did not reject our analysis – but neither did it meaningfully grapple with it. The meeting underscored why an overarching anti-displacement policy is so necessary: without it, displacement risks remain largely invisible in Council deliberations, even in the accumulation of decisions that shape who can afford to live and stay in Asheville. Our work remains to press Council to move from shared values to explicit policy commitments that address displacement proactively rather than one agenda item at a time.

We did receive responses from Council Member Ullman, who asked for more information about other Cities’ anti-displacement policies, and City staff, who expressed an interest in meeting to discuss next steps.

Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 15

Recipients and Responses:

Asheville City Council

• Mayor Esther Manheimer: No response
• Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: No response
• City Council Member Bo Hess: No response
• City Council Member Kim Roney: No response
• City Council Member Maggie Ullman:  Replied, asking for more information
• City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
• City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response