Summary: Buncombe County will consider a $1.34 million contract to plan and engineer a major new park on 342 acres at Deaverview Mountain. Living near a beautiful public park could be a tremendous benefit for residents of the surrounding community, but only if they are able to remain and enjoy it. The proposed planning process does not appear to ask whether this investment could also increase housing pressures or unintentionally push residents out. The County should assess the displacement risk for this project, determine whether closer analysis is warranted, and then take action to ensure that existing residents are protected.

The Facts: Buncombe County has acquired 342 acres on Deaverview Mountain for what it expects to become its largest public park. The property is currently closed to the public. The County envisions a park focused on conservation, hiking, passive recreation, and environmental education. It has reserved $7.7 million in Open Space Bond funding for the project.

Commissioners are considering a contract with Equinox Environmental for two phases of work: $487,469.50 for master planning and $852,045.90 for engineering and design of access, parking, and trails. Together, the two phases total $1,339,515.40. The planning process will assess the property, solicit community input, and help determine the park’s layout, amenities, costs, and phased development.

Deaverview Mountain is located within an existing residential area that includes public housing, private rental housing, and owner-occupied homes. Although the proposed process includes community engagement and extensive analysis of the park property, the agenda materials do not identify a separate assessment of surrounding housing conditions or the project’s potential effects on housing stability.

You can read the request for Board action here and see the presentation slides here.

Our Assessment: Deaverview offers a concrete example of why GAPavl has been pushing all year for the County to adopt an anti-displacement analysis framework. The point of such a policy wouldn’t be to prevent positive public investments like a park on Deaverview Mountain. The point would be to ensure that the people already living nearby share in its benefits rather than being unintentionally pushed out as the neighborhood becomes more desirable. An anti-displacement framework would not label every public investment a threat or require mitigation in every case. It would ensure that the County asks a consistent set of questions early enough for the answers to matter.

First: who lives near the project, and who may be vulnerable? The County should establish baseline information about renters and homeowners, household incomes and housing-cost burdens, subsidized and naturally affordable housing, older or fixed-income homeowners, evictions, foreclosures, rents, sales prices, and assessed values. Together, this information (which the County already possesses or has access to) would provide an economic and housing profile of the neighborhood, showing whether residents may be vulnerable to displacement and why. If vulnerability appears low, the County could proceed with the project while keeping this information as a benchmark for tracking future changes. However, if vulnerability is determined to be substantial, protecting and strengthening housing stability should become an explicit objective of the master plan, supported by measures that help existing residents remain in the community.

Second: is this project likely to create meaningful housing-market pressure? The County should examine recent rent and sales trends, land purchases, development activity, and the likely effects of entrances, parking, trails, and major amenities. If vulnerable residents live nearby but the project is unlikely to change housing costs or development pressure, immediate mitigation may not be necessary. The County should still compare neighborhood conditions with its baseline at key stages of the park’s development and reconsider action if rents, property values, evictions, property turnover, or redevelopment activity begin to indicate growing displacement pressure. However, if vulnerability and likely market pressure are both assessed to be substantial, the County should act before land costs rise and options narrow.

Third: who is at risk, and what can the County do to help them remain? Different residents face different pressures, so the appropriate response will depend on what the County finds. 

• If lower-income homeowners face rising property taxes or other costs of remaining in their homes, the County could expand outreach and enrollment for property-tax relief, help families resolve unclear legal ownership of inherited homes, provide home-repair support, and strengthen foreclosure-prevention assistance.
• If private renters or lower-cost rental properties are at risk, the County could support nonprofit or community-land-trust acquisition, preserve existing affordable rentals, provide tenant legal assistance, and help create more permanently affordable housing nearby. 

Finally: will the people who already live nearby be able to enjoy the park’s benefits? The master plan should ask whether neighborhood residents, including residents of Deaverview Apartments, will have safe and convenient access without a car, whether entrances and amenities reflect their priorities, and whether they will have a continuing role in shaping the project. If the proposed design does not provide meaningful benefits to the immediately surrounding community, the County should modify it. If residents would benefit but some also face displacement risk, the County should pair those improvements with housing-stability measures that help them remain and enjoy the park.

The purpose of asking these questions is not to stop the development of Deaverview Mountain Park. A major new park could improve residents’ quality of life and become a lasting neighborhood and community asset. The federal grant that financed much of the acquisition was available in part because Deaverview is designated as a disadvantaged community. The purpose of asking these questions is to help ensure that the neighborhood residents whose needs helped justify this public investment can remain to enjoy those benefits. If an anti-displacement assessment finds little risk, the project can proceed with confidence. If it finds meaningful risk, the County will still have time to respond.

Research from other communities shows why these questions should be asked early. Along Atlanta’s BeltLine – a more urban and development-oriented project than Deaverview – homes within half a mile appreciated 17.9 to 26.6 percentage points more than comparable homes farther away between 2011 and 2015. Broader research examining 621 new parks and greenways found that these effects are not inevitable; they vary according to the project’s location, function, and surrounding neighborhood. These studies do not predict what will happen at Deaverview. They demonstrate why the County should examine local vulnerability and likely market effects while it still has time to respond.

Things to do: Email the Buncombe County Commission and ask it to revise the Deaverview Mountain master-planning process to include a displacement-risk analysis and, if such risks are identified, appropriate housing stability measures to protect existing residents.

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: Include housing stability in the Deaverview Mountain plan

Dear Commissioners,

I support the creation of a public park at Deaverview Mountain. I am writing to you today to encourage you to take several key steps to ensure that the residents who already call the surrounding community home are able to remain in their homes and enjoy this beautiful new park.

Because the project’s federal funding was available in part due to Deaverview’s designation as a “disadvantaged community,” the planning process should help ensure that existing neighborhood residents can remain to benefit from the investment. Research from other communities shows that major park investments can sometimes increase nearby housing pressures, so I would urge you to revise the proposed master-planning process to include a displacement-risk analysis. The County should establish baseline housing conditions, identify nearby renters and homeowners who may be vulnerable, assess whether this particular park is likely to increase housing or development pressure, and determine whether any mitigation or monitoring is warranted.

This analysis, which can be completed substantially with existing data, should not presume that the park will cause displacement or delay a beneficial project. If the screening finds little risk, the County can proceed with greater confidence. If it identifies meaningful risk, the County can respond early — when affordable-housing preservation, homeowner assistance, tenant support, or changes to park access and design are still possible.

Please use Deaverview Mountain to demonstrate that Buncombe County is not just committed to making transformative public investments, but also to ensuring that existing residents remain to enjoy them.

Thank you,

[Name]
[Address or neighborhood, if desired]