Summary (Updated 1/19/26): The Asheville City Council unanimously approved the proposed rezoning of 13 Baldwin Street in Oakley. We had raised the concern that Asheville currently lacks a coherent anti-displacement framework for assessing risks in rezoning proposals, especially in neighborhoods like Oakley that are highly vulnerable. We wanted City Council to consider the need for such a framework, and are pleased to report that the issue was discussed at some length, with staff agreeing to further research options and report back on the possibility of adopting such a policy in the future. We will continue to monitor this issue and alert you to future opportunities to take action. Read our more complete report back below.

The Facts: 13 Baldwin Street is a 0.22-acre vacant lot in East Asheville’s Oakley neighborhood. The property is currently zoned “Neighborhood Business” (NB), which permits small-scale commercial uses that serve local residents. The applicant has requested rezoning to “Residential Single-Family High Density” (RS-8), which allows a range of residential types with higher density than NB.

City staff views this rezoning as a way to increase housing capacity but notes that rezoning also removes the ability to provide neighborhood-serving commercial uses. The site lies within an area with “Neighborhood Center” designation for future land use, intended to support mixed uses. (You can read the staff report here.)

The rezoning request does not include any conditions requiring affordable housing, tenant protections, or neighborhood stability measures.

Our Assessment: We agree with Asheville City staff that increasing housing capacity is important, and think it is probably wise to ultimately approve this rezoning request. This rezoning request is for a single .22 acre lot that may have very limited impact on the residents of the neighborhood. However, most development happens a bit at a time, and we believe it is important to pay attention to the implications of this type of rezoning when considering accumulating displacement outcomes. We would like to see this proposal amended before it is approved, as part of a call for the City to handle future rezoning and ordinance changes in a way that systematically accounts for displacement risks.

How and where the City should be expanding housing capacity has been a hot topic recently, with calls for expanded “missing middle” construction to increase housing density. An incomplete and inaccurate narrative has arisen that Asheville’s Black and Brown neighborhoods are somehow against building new housing. (This recent Asheville Watchdog article is a good example of this unfortunate framing.) As we see it, these “legacy neighborhoods” are raising questions that are critical and applicable to the City as a whole. The often referenced Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Study has a whole chapter that outlines the various risks of development without resident protections in vulnerable neighborhoods. Sekou Coleman, a representative of the Legacy Neighborhood Coalition, spoke to this issue in a December 9th public comment before City Council: “We are not asking you to stop work on Missing Middle. We are asking you to pair it with clear, concrete protections for the neighborhoods that have borne the brunt of past displacement and that are most vulnerable to new waves of speculation.” Coleman went on to outline six steps the City could take to strike that balance, one of which is a Displacement Impact Review, which is very similar to what we’re proposing below.

To step back and offer more context, Asheville’s Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan prioritizes housing diversity, affordability, and walkable neighborhood services. However, current rezoning practice lacks a systematic way to evaluate displacement impacts or require mitigation in the process of achieving these objectives.

The City’s MMH — commissioned in 2022, completed in late 2023, and often referenced in recent housing conversations on City Council — includes a Displacement Risk Assessment that found certain neighborhoods, including Oakley, to be among those with high vulnerability to displacement due to factors such as income patterns, tenancy status, and market pressures. This means that policy changes increasing development capacity in Oakley are more likely to accelerate displacement, especially in the absence of protections.

The MMH Study emphasizes that:

• Creating a broader variety of housing types is important, but zoning changes must be coupled with anti-displacement strategies to ensure that they do not worsen gentrification effects.
• Missing middle housing reforms — when implemented broadly — can help reduce displacement pressures if they increase housing supply with targeted safeguards for existing residents.

Even though 13 Baldwin Street is vacant, and therefore won’t trigger any direct displacement, it’s important that the City consider the other potential implications of this change.

Removing Neighborhood Business Uses Can Drive Displacement

Neighborhood business zoning allows small, locally owned services — grocery, cafes, personal services — that make daily life affordable for residents who may have limited mobility, income, or time. Removing this capacity:

• Shrinks walkable access to services and increases transportation burdens.
• Can weaken community social infrastructure that typically benefits low-income households and seniors.
• Removes opportunities for locally-owned microbusinesses, which are important for economic inclusion and racial equity.

Market Pressure and Cumulative Change Impacts

Rezoning increases development potential, which can raise land values and property taxes. In neighborhoods like Oakley — where many residents are already cost-burdened — this can contribute to both direct displacement (rent increases, evictions) and indirect displacement (pressure on long-term homeowners, loss of community fabric). Research across U.S. cities shows that redevelopment and zoning changes in high-value areas are tightly linked with changes in resident composition and displacement risk over time.

Equity Gap in Current Practice

Under current practice, rezonings are evaluated for plan consistency and land use compatibility, but staff reports generally do not include a structured analysis of displacement impacts. This leaves Council without a consistent way to understand and respond to equity concerns that disproportionately affect Black, Brown, and low-income residents — who historically have had less access to homeownership and are more vulnerable to displacement due to rising costs.

The 13 Baldwin Street rezoning case illustrates a broader policy gap in how Asheville evaluates land-use decisions. In neighborhoods already identified as vulnerable — like Oakley — changes in zoning that increase development capacity without a structured assessment of displacement risk and mitigation can unintentionally harm low-income and historically disenfranchised residents. By adopting a required anti-displacement analysis and coupling approvals with targeted mitigation strategies, Asheville could align zoning practices with its stated housing equity goals and ensure that growth benefits all residents, not just future homebuyers or investors. The city’s own Missing Middle Housing Study provides the conceptual and analytic foundation for this approach and we recommend that it be integrated into formal policy and decision-making processes.

Our Proposal: The Asheville City Council can take the following actions to address these issues:

1. Require an Anti-Displacement Analysis for Rezoning and Ordinance Changes

Before approving any rezoning or land-use change that allows more housing, larger buildings, or the loss of neighborhood-serving uses, the City should require a simple anti-displacement analysis. This analysis should identify whether the affected neighborhood is already vulnerable to displacement and explain how the proposed change could increase pressure on existing residents or small businesses. The City’s own Missing Middle Housing Study provides a strong foundation for this analysis and should be used consistently in staff reports and Council decisions.

2. Pair High-Risk Rezonings with Concrete Protections

When a rezoning affects a neighborhood identified as vulnerable to displacement, City Council should require reasonable, site-specific protections as a condition of approval. These may include permanent affordability commitments, limits on short-term rentals, preservation of neighborhood-serving uses, or other measures that help ensure existing residents can remain in the community. In these areas, adding housing should go hand-in-hand with preventing displacement.

3. Apply the Policy Consistently and Transparently

The City should adopt clear rules about when an anti-displacement analysis is required so expectations are predictable for residents, staff, and applicants alike. This will help ensure that decisions are guided by shared equity goals rather than handled on an ad-hoc basis, which would be vulnerable to inequitable impacts.

4. Use 13 Baldwin Street as a Starting Point

Because Oakley has already been identified by the City as highly vulnerable to displacement, the rezoning of 13 Baldwin Street presents an appropriate opportunity to apply this approach now. Strengthening this rezoning through amendments — while moving toward a citywide policy — would align Council’s action with the City’s stated housing and equity commitments.

City Council could:

• Request a supplemental anti-displacement analysis for this rezoning
• Amend the rezoning to include site-specific protections, such as:
  • Permanent affordability commitments (e.g., requiring that project proposals include deed-restricted units or affordable Accessory Dwelling Units);
  • Limits on short-term rentals or speculative use;
  • Preservation of neighborhood-serving uses or flexible community space;
  • Relocation assistance or stabilization measures, where applicable.
• Direct staff to return with a formal policy or ordinance amendment based on this framework

Using this case as a pilot would allow the City to refine the policy before applying it more broadly.

The Ask: We invited you to join us in calling on the Asheville City Council to amend this rezoning request before approving it and to develop a more comprehensive anti-displacement policy.

Report Back

City Council unanimously approved the rezoning of 13 Baldwin Street from Neighborhood Business (NB) to Residential Single-Family High Density (RS-8), largely on the grounds that the request was consistent with the site’s Future Land Use designation, supported housing production, and responded to the applicant’s specific circumstances. Council was persuaded by testimony that the rezoning would enable the construction of one or two modest homes and help a long-time Oakley resident remain in her family home, reframing the rezoning as potentially preventing displacement rather than causing it.

At the same time, the discussion that preceded approval surfaced broader and unresolved policy tensions. Several Council members raised concerns about displacement risk in Oakley – identified by the City’s own Missing Middle Housing Study as vulnerable – and questioned the absence of a formal anti-displacement analysis in the staff report. Council members explicitly asked what such an analysis would look like and whether it should be required for rezonings and ordinance changes in vulnerable areas. Staff acknowledged that no standardized displacement analysis tool currently exists and that, while conversations are underway, there is no established framework or requirement in place.

Bottom Line: Our primary goal was to reframe the debate and to shift Council’s focus toward the need for a clear, consistent anti-displacement policy. While no immediate action resulted, the discussion made visible a shared concern and a clear policy gap, setting the stage for future staff direction and Council action.

Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 6

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: No response
• City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
• City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response