Summary: Buncombe County will consider accepting $4.12 million in federal hazard-mitigation funding to acquire and demolish flood-prone homes. The voluntary program can protect residents from repeated danger, and Commissioners should accept the funding. But acquisitions also permanently remove households and housing from a community. The agenda does not explain whether residents will be able to find comparable housing nearby, how tenants will be affected, whether heirs-property owners can participate, or whether some communities could experience disproportionate housing losses and relocations. The program demonstrates why the County needs a consistent anti-displacement analysis framework. Commissioners should approve the funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing that framework.

The Facts: County staff recommends accepting a $4.12 million federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program award to administer another group of residential property acquisitions.

The program would purchase flood-prone homes from willing owners, demolish the structures, and return the properties to permanent green space. Removing homes from areas subject to repeated flooding can protect residents from future disasters and reduce the public cost of rebuilding in hazardous locations.

Our Assessment: Voluntary property acquisitions can be an essential form of disaster recovery. No one should be expected to remain in a home where repeated flooding threatens their safety, health, and financial security. Commissioners should accept the federal funding and allow the program to move forward.

But moving a household out of danger is not the same as ensuring that the household can recover. The County will make consequential decisions as it determines eligibility, communicates with residents, assists participants, completes individual acquisitions, and monitors the program’s results. An anti-displacement framework could help guide those decisions without delaying acceptance of the grant.

The agenda materials do not provide enough information to understand which areas or types of households may be affected. There may be valid privacy and procedural reasons not to identify individual residents or publish specific addresses, particularly before participation is final. But the County can still provide aggregated information about the neighborhoods involved, the number and occupancy of affected homes, and the program’s potential community-level effects without identifying individual households. 

The agenda materials also do not indicate how compensation will be calculated, whether it will be a sufficient amount for participants to obtain comparable housing nearby, or where participating households are likely to relocate. These questions matter because residents may otherwise have to leave their neighborhood, school district, support network, or community altogether.

The County should also determine how the program will affect tenants. A property owner may receive compensation while a tenant must relocate with fewer resources and little control over the timing. Tenants may need adequate notice, relocation assistance, help locating another home, and protection against sudden housing instability.

Some owners may also face barriers because they hold heirs property, meaning their families inherited the property without establishing a clear deed or completing the estate process. Families may have lived in and maintained a home for generations while lacking the documentation normally required to prove ownership. Legal and title assistance may be necessary to ensure that they can participate and receive fair compensation.

The program is voluntary, and property owners may reasonably decide that accepting a buyout is their safest or best option. But the County should still examine the cumulative effects if many owners in the same neighborhood accept offers. The result could be a significant loss of affordable housing, community connections, and locally held property. An anti-displacement analysis would not interfere with owners’ choices. It would help the County and participating households understand the likely consequences, identify whether tenants or others who do not control the decision will be displaced, and determine what additional support may be needed.

A standardized anti-displacement analysis framework could help the County:

• Identify the residents, properties, and neighborhoods affected
• Determine whether compensation enables participants to obtain comparable housing in the surrounding community, if desired
• Examine how the program affects homeowners, tenants, heirs-property owners, people with disabilities, older residents, and households with limited incomes
• Identify whether acquisitions are concentrated in particular racial, economic, or geographic communities
• Determine whether relocation counseling, tenant assistance, title support, supplemental aid, or replacement housing is needed
• Track where participants relocate and whether they achieve stable housing
• Report the program’s outcomes publicly while protecting residents’ privacy
  

This analysis would not predetermine whether a particular property should be acquired, nor should it delay the County’s acceptance of funding that can help residents escape dangerous conditions. It would provide information the County could use while designing and administering the program, completing individual transactions, and evaluating its results.

We’re focused this week on flood-related acquisitions because they present a direct and immediate form of displacement. The same decision-by-decision approach could help the County evaluate displacement risks arising from infrastructure, land use, disaster recovery, housing, and other major investments.

GAPavl first asked the City and County to develop anti-displacement analysis frameworks in January, more than seven months ago. In June, Commission Chair Amanda Edwards and Commissioner Terri Wells responded by pointing us toward the County’s Comprehensive Plan and other long-term strategies. Those plans provide an important foundation, but they do not establish the decision-specific process we proposed for identifying risks, comparing options, selecting protections, and monitoring results.

Plans and intentions produce results only when key decisions are evaluated with the information needed to determine whether they will help residents remain in their communities, increase displacement, or do some of both.

We published a detailed response explaining this remaining need. The County has not responded to that report or to later examples involving property taxation, infrastructure investments, and land-use decisions. It’s unclear whether continued outreach will elicit a response or resolve the issue.

We are therefore urging Commissioners to hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis framework. The hearing should examine what information, tools, data, staffing, and funding would be required; which existing County resources could be adapted; where new methods may be necessary; and how residents could help shape the process. Staff should present potential approaches, costs, limitations, and implementation options.

Things to do: Email the Buncombe County Commission asking it to accept the hazard-mitigation funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis framework.

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: Protect flood survivors from danger and displacement

Dear Chair Edwards and Members of the Buncombe County Commission:

I support accepting the $4.12 million Hazard Mitigation Grant Program award on your September 1 agenda. Voluntary property acquisitions can protect residents from repeated flooding and help families leave dangerous conditions.

But purchasing and demolishing homes also permanently removes households and housing from a community. The agenda does not explain whether compensation will support participants in finding comparable housing nearby, how tenants will be affected, whether heirs-property owners can qualify for assistance, or whether acquisitions will disproportionately affect lower-income communities or communities of color.

A standardized anti-displacement analysis framework could help the County answer these questions as it administers the program. It could identify who may be affected, what information is missing, what assistance residents need, and whether the program allows participants to reach safety without unnecessarily losing their community connections.

Such an analysis should not delay acceptance of this federal funding. It should inform program administration, individual acquisitions, resident assistance, and public reporting.

Residents first asked the County to develop an anti-displacement framework more than seven months ago. County leaders responded in June by pointing to the Comprehensive Plan and other long-term strategies. Those plans provide an important foundation, but they do not create a consistent process for evaluating displacement risks as individual decisions are made.

I am asking you to accept the hazard-mitigation funding and hold a public hearing within 60 days on the feasibility of developing a standardized anti-displacement analysis framework.

The hearing should consider what tools, data, staffing, and funding would be required; which existing resources could be adapted; where new tools or methods may be necessary; and how residents could help shape the process. Staff should present possible approaches, costs, limitations, and implementation options.

Thank you for your consideration,

[Name]

[Address or neighborhood, if desired]