Summary (Updated 5/11/26): There was little substantive discussion at the May 5th County Commission meeting of displacement risk analysis, neighborhood vulnerability, or mitigation strategies tied to these major development and investment decisions.

You can read a full list of the anti-displacement opportunities missed by Buncombe County in the past 5 months here. 

Original (5/4/26): Buncombe County is considering its FY2027 budget, a new public finance strategy, and updates to its farmland preservation ordinance—each of which will shape housing stability and displacement risk. Yet none of these items include any analysis of who may be displaced or how to prevent it. The County should pause and incorporate an anti-displacement framework before moving forward.

The facts: At its May 5 meeting, the Buncombe County Commission will consider several agenda items related to budgeting, land use, and public investment:

• FY2027 Recommended Budget: The County Manager will present the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget. This budget establishes County spending priorities across departments and functions, including housing programs, public safety, infrastructure, and recovery efforts. The presentation marks the beginning of the Commission’s budget review and adoption process.
• Public Finance Feasibility Study (Trust for Public Land): The Commission will receive a presentation from the Trust for Public Land on a public finance feasibility study. The study evaluates potential funding mechanisms—such as bonds, taxes, or other revenue tools—that could support land conservation, parks, and related public investments.
• Farmland Preservation Ordinance Revision: The Commission will consider revisions to the County’s farmland preservation ordinance. These changes relate to how agricultural land is identified, protected, and managed, and may include updates to eligibility criteria, program structure, or implementation tools.

You can read more about these items in the online agenda packet.

Our Assessment: These are not neutral decisions. Budgets determine who receives support and who is left out. Public investments in land and amenities can increase property values and accelerate displacement. Land use policies shape who has access to land—and who does not.

By moving forward without an anti-displacement lens, the County is effectively choosing not to see the impacts of its own decisions. This creates a predictable outcome: investments that may be beneficial on their own terms can still contribute to housing instability and inequity.

What’s most concerning is the pattern. These are not isolated oversights—they reflect an ongoing failure to incorporate displacement risk into decision-making, despite clear evidence of rising housing pressures and repeated community requests for analysis.

Our Proposal: The County can move forward on these items—but it should first take the basic step of identifying potential displacement impacts and incorporating mitigation where needed. This does not require a lengthy study or major delay. For each of these agenda items, staff could include a brief assessment outlining who may be affected, whether high-risk communities are involved, and what steps could reduce harm or increase stability.

In the near term, this could be implemented as a simple addition to existing staff reports or presentations. Over the longer term, Buncombe County should commit to developing a formal anti-displacement policy that provides clear, consistent guidance for evaluating major decisions. That policy would help ensure that future budgets, investments, and land use changes are aligned with the goal of allowing current residents to remain in their communities, rather than being unintentionally pushed out.

The Ask: We invited you to email the County Commission and ask them to apply an anti-displacement lens to these decisions.

Report Back

Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 9

Recipients and Responses:

Buncombe County Commission

• County Commission Chair Amanda Edwards: No response
• County Commissioner Al Whitesides: No response
• County Commissioner Drew Ball: No response
• County Commissioner Jennifer Horton: No response
• County Commissioner Martin Moore: No response
• County Commissioner Parker Sloane: No response
• County Commissioner Terri Wells: No response