Report Back

(Updated 8/3/26): Two weeks ago, we asked Buncombe County to explain how it will evaluate the displacement consequences of its recent property-tax decisions and protect residents who may be forced from their homes. We have received no response, so we are closing this call to action. Please see our latest call to action on this issue in the most recent GAP Report.

Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 15

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

Summary: Last week, new state legislation forced Buncombe County Commissioners to choose between reverting to older, less equitable property values to maintain their adopted budget, and using the updated values and absorbing a $24.8 million revenue loss. Commissioners chose to maintain the budget. The meeting showed that County leaders understood the potential harms of both options, but lacked a systematic way of comparing who would bear those harms and what could be done to reduce them. This is precisely the kind of unexpected, consequential decision that demonstrates the need for an anti-displacement analysis framework.

The Facts: Two state laws enacted after Buncombe County had already adopted its FY27 budget required the County to choose between continuing to use the older 2021 property values or using the updated 2026 values under conditions that would create an approximately $24.8 million budget gap.

Commissioners faced two options, which they explored at a July 14 special meeting:

• Option 1: Use the older 2021 property assessments and adjust the tax rate to preserve the adopted budget.
• Option 2: Use the updated 2026 assessments, creating an approximately $24.8 million budget gap that would have to be eliminated through spending reductions or additional funding.

At the special meeting, the Board unanimously chose the first option, citing the importance of preserving education, public safety, services for vulnerable residents, community investments, and other County functions. Because municipalities use property values established by the County, the decision also required Asheville and other local governments to adjust their tax rates.

County staff reviewed the budget and illustrated how reverting to the older values would affect homeowners differently. For a home valued at $350,000 under the 2021 appraisal:

• A 25% increase in assessed value would result in approximately $264 more in County property taxes under the option selected.
• An increase of approximately 42% would result in about the same tax bill.
• Increases of 60% to 75% would result in approximately $265 to $492 less in County property taxes.

Commissioners acknowledged these differences. Commissioner Parker Sloan described revaluation as essentially the only tool available to North Carolina local governments to make property taxes less regressive or more progressive. Commissioner Jennifer Horton also identified the County’s new General Assistance Program as a resource for qualifying homeowners and renters facing temporary difficulty with housing or utility expenses.

Separately, at their July 21 meeting, Commissioners will consider authorizing two applications for federal commercial-district recovery funding: $10 million for approximately two miles of sidewalks along Highway 70 in Swannanoa and approximately $9 million to remediate storm-damaged commercial properties in unincorporated Buncombe County. The applications identify recovery, safety, accessibility, economic revitalization, and benefits to low- and moderate-income areas among the projects’ purposes.

Our Assessment: The state imposed an extraordinary burden after the County had already adopted its budget and gave officials little time to respond. The July 14 meeting showed that Commissioners understood either option could harm residents and wanted to minimize that harm.

But recognizing potential harm is different from having the data and analysis needed to measure and compare it.

County staff presented concrete examples of how reverting to the older property values would affect homeowners whose appraisals increased by different amounts. Those examples showed that the decision shifts relative tax burdens toward properties whose values increased less and away from properties whose values increased more.

That matters because the effects were not evenly distributed. The Asheville Watchdog reported in March that the steepest property-value increases were concentrated predominantly among higher-value homes, although many lower-value homes also experienced sharp increases. Commission Chair Amanda Edwards also cited studies finding that the older appraisals disproportionately affected low- and moderate-income residents.

The public did not receive an equally detailed analysis of the budget-reduction option. Because no specific $24.8 million reduction package was presented, Commissioners and residents could not see which programs might be reduced, who relies on them, which communities would face the greatest effects, or how the reductions might influence housing stability and displacement.

An anti-displacement analysis framework could have helped the County develop two impact statements:

• For the older-values option: Which homeowners and renters would face higher costs? Where are they located, how many already experience housing-cost burdens, and what assistance could protect those most at risk?
  
• For the budget-reduction option: What combinations of reductions were possible? Who relies on the affected services, and which cuts would pose the greatest risks to housing stability?
  

The resulting analysis could estimate who would be harmed under each option, by how much, and what could be done to reduce that harm.

Such a framework might have supported the decision Commissioners made. The framework’s value is not that it guarantees a different outcome. It is that it provides a more comprehensive and transparent basis for choosing between competing forms of harm.

The July 14 decision also demonstrates the limits of relying on existing planning processes alone. (Buncombe County leaders have previously suggested that they address anti-displacement through their planning process.) The County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Plan, Protect, Preserve, Produce framework each provide important guidance for long-range growth, housing, and land-use decisions. But this most recent dilemma arose suddenly from state legislation and required an immediate decision about taxation, public services, and the adopted budget. It could not have been anticipated through a comprehensive planning process alone.

The need for decision-specific analysis is already arising again: At their July 21st meeting, Commissioners will consider nearly $19 million in proposed commercial-corridor recovery investments. These projects could provide important recovery, safety, accessibility, and economic benefits. They could also affect property values, redevelopment pressure, commercial tenants, and locally owned businesses.

An anti-displacement analysis would not presume that these projects should be delayed or rejected. It would help the County identify potential risks, determine whether existing residents and businesses will share in the benefits, and incorporate appropriate protections. And it would help County residents know that when Commissioners vote “yes,” they are doing so with confidence rooted in careful and transparent analysis.

The County does not need another comprehensive plan or an elaborate new process. It needs a practical framework that can be scaled to the decision: a rapid assessment for an urgent fiscal choice or a more detailed analysis for a major infrastructure investment.

County leaders already understand the importance of protecting residents from displacement. An anti-displacement analysis framework would give them a stronger tool for putting that commitment into practice whenever consequential decisions arise.

Things to do: See our most recent call to action in the August 3 GAP Report. We originally invited you to use our template to contact the County Commissioners to ask them to review and respond to our special report, “Building on Buncombe County’s Commitment to Preventing Displacement,” and consider developing an anti-displacement analysis framework.