GAP Report for 6/15/26
URGENT
- 0 Items
PROBLEMATIC
- Buncombe County still won’t answer questions about displacement (new)
QUESTIONABLE
- Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair (updated with new template)
POSITIVE
- o Items
REPORT BACKS
- Asheville should complete its affordable housing recovery investments (Resolved positively)
- Asheville should shift public safety funding toward prevention and community stability instead of continued expansion of expensive reactive policing systems (Resolved Negatively)
Summary of the Report
Questions remain about City’s housing recovery plan
This week, Asheville City Council is preparing for a June 23 vote on a proposed amendment that would move $19.2 million in federal disaster recovery funds into the State-administered Renew NC homeowner repair and reconstruction program. We support helping storm-impacted homeowners remain housed. The question is whether this proposal represents the most effective way to do so. City staff have identified approximately 108 low-income households as priority candidates for assistance through Renew NC, yet even with the proposed funding increase, only about 60 households are expected to be served. Before shifting $19.2 million away from affordable housing and infrastructure, Council should be able to demonstrate that this approach represents the best available use of those funds. Unfortunately, Renew NC and City staff have yet to share key information with both elected officials and the public about repair costs, reconstruction decisions, and the relationship between repair costs and home values. Without that information, it is impossible to evaluate whether this proposal is the most effective way to help these families—or whether other approaches might allow Asheville to help more households with the same limited recovery dollars.
Buncombe County’s Silence on Anti-Displacement
At the County level, commissioners continue to advance major recovery, housing, and redevelopment initiatives without adopting a formal anti-displacement framework, despite repeated requests from residents over the past six months. At recent meetings, community members again urged the County to evaluate how its decisions affect housing stability and displacement, yet commissioners have offered no meaningful public response. We believe residents deserve more than silence. If displacement is a serious concern—and all available evidence suggests it is—County leaders should explain whether they intend to address it and how.
Report Back: City approves affordable housing project and budget
Finally, we report back on two important City Council decisions from last week. Council approved Terrace at River Hills, completing the affordable housing investments recommended through the City’s competitive review process. Council also adopted the FY27 budget without significant changes to its public safety approach, continuing investments in surveillance and policing while declining to shift resources toward prevention-oriented community safety strategies.
Templates and Links to More Information
Take action with us:
- Email the Asheville City Council to delay or reject the proposed $19.2 million transfer into Renew NC, until Asheville residents receive clear evidence that this program is the most effective use of those recovery funds.
- Email the Buncombe County Commission urging them to respond to concerned residents’ requests for an anti-displacement policy.
Resources:
- Click here to read our full proposed anti-displacement policy proposal
Buncombe County still won’t answer questions about displacement
PROBLEMATIC
Summary: Residents have repeatedly asked Buncombe County to address displacement and adopt an anti-displacement framework, yet County leaders continue making major housing and recovery decisions without one and without providing any meaningful public response. Commissioners should explain whether they intend to address displacement and why they have ignored these concerns.
The facts: Over the past six months, a range of residents with diverse interests have repeatedly urged Buncombe County to adopt an anti-displacement strategy or analysis framework. GAP supporters have sent emails, submitted public comments, met with officials, and spoken at County Commission meetings.
At the June 2 meeting alone, multiple speakers urged commissioners to consider displacement impacts when making housing, recovery, and economic development decisions. These requests came from affordable housing advocates, displaced business owners, housing bond supporters, and GAP members.
Meanwhile, the County continues advancing major housing and recovery initiatives, including these on their June 16th agenda:
- A proposed $40 million housing bond
- Affordable housing investments
- Commercial district revitalization projects
- Recovery investments associated with the Helene Recovery Plan
- Hazard mitigation property acquisitions and redevelopment planning
Taken together, these initiatives will shape where people live, whether businesses return, and who can afford to remain in Buncombe County in the years ahead.
Our Assessment: We support many of the County’s housing and recovery investments. What concerns us is the County’s apparent unwillingness to engage with residents about displacement.
Over the past six months, community members have repeatedly raised concerns that public investments can unintentionally accelerate displacement if governments fail to track who benefits, who is being left behind, and whether existing residents can afford to remain in place.
County leaders have never publicly explained why they have declined to pursue an anti-displacement framework. They have never publicly discussed the proposal at a County Commission meeting. They have never explained whether displacement is being analyzed in some other way. They have never responded to the central question residents continue asking: How will Buncombe County know whether its housing and recovery investments are actually helping vulnerable residents remain in their communities?
Reasonable people can disagree about policy. But public accountability requires engagement. When residents take the time to write thoughtful emails, prepare public comments, attend meetings, and speak directly to elected officials, they deserve more than silence.
If County leaders disagree with the proposal, they should explain why.
If they support the idea, they should act on it.
What they should not do is continue pretending the issue has not been raised.
Things to do: Contact the County Commission and ask commissioners whether they intend to address displacement concerns and why residents have received no meaningful response after months of raising the issue.
Email Template: You can send an email to the members of 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.
Subject: Do you read the emails residents send you?
Dear Commissioners,
For months, residents have been asking Buncombe County to address displacement.
People have sent emails. People have made public comments. People have attended meetings. People have proposed specific solutions.
Yet there has been no meaningful public response.
You may disagree with the proposal for an anti-displacement framework. You may believe another approach would work better. But residents deserve to know whether their concerns are even being considered.
Why has the County not publicly responded to repeated requests for an anti-displacement strategy?
How are displacement impacts currently being evaluated?
If displacement is not being evaluated, why not?
Public participation only works when public officials are willing to engage with the people they represent.
I would appreciate a response.
Sincerely,
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Coming Soon!
Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair
QUESTIONABLE
Summary (Updated 6/15/26): The official public comment period has concluded, but you can still reach out to the Asheville City Council before they vote on this issue on June 23. Our new template is below.
Original Summary: Asheville should help storm-impacted homeowners remain housed, but City Council should delay or reject the proposed $19.2 million transfer to Renew NC unless it can demonstrate that the program is transparent, effective, and the best available strategy for helping the greatest number of families remain housed.
(See our earlier reports on this issue here.)
The Facts (updated 6/15/26): Last week City Council held the required public hearing on the proposed amendment but did not vote. A final vote is currently scheduled for June 23.
During the hearing, City staff provided several new details about the Renew NC program. Staff explained that homes with estimated repair costs above $100,000 are automatically moved from rehabilitation into full reconstruction. Staff also explained that project costs frequently include disaster repairs, code compliance upgrades, health and safety corrections, lead paint remediation, and mitigation measures intended to reduce future disaster risk. The proposed shift of $19.2 million would serve an estimated 53 households, for a total of 60 overall.
The Facts (original): On Tuesday, June 9th, City Council will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Asheville’s CDBG-DR Action Plan that would transfer $19.2 million into the State-administered Renew NC single-family rehabilitation and reconstruction program. In addition to hearing from residents at the meeting, the official federally-mandated public comment period concludes on June 14th.
The proposal would:
- Transfer $9.2 million from the Affordable Multifamily Housing Construction Program.
- Transfer $10 million from Infrastructure funding.
- Increase the Renew NC allocation from $3 million to $22.2 million.
Staff estimate that the current $3 million allocation will serve approximately eight households and that the expanded program would serve roughly 53 additional households, for a total of approximately 60 households served. (Careful readers will note that 8+53 should equal 61, but we presume there are fractions involved and that’s why the total is 60.)
At the Housing Recovery Board meeting last week, Board members raised concerns about the cost of the Renew NC program, the lack of transparency and local oversight, the $100,000 repair threshold that triggers full reconstruction, and the ongoing shortage of affordable rental housing following Helene. After discussion, the board voted 6-4 to recommend against reallocating funds from multifamily housing to Renew NC.
You can see the presentation slides that will be shared at the meeting here and the staff report here.
Our Assessment (updated 6/15/26): The central question is not whether the homeowners served by Renew NC deserve assistance. They do. The central question is whether this is the most effective way to provide that assistance.
The proposed amendment would move $19.2 million into a program expected to serve approximately 53 additional households. That is a significant investment of limited recovery dollars. Before making that investment, City Council should be able to answer a simple question: Is this the best available way to help these families?
The City has identified approximately 108 low-income households as priority candidates for assistance through Renew NC. Yet even if this amendment is approved, staff estimate that only about 60 households will ultimately be served. In other words, nearly half of the currently identified low-income priority households would still remain without assistance. Before spending an additional $19.2 million, Council should have enough information to determine whether this is the most effective way to help these families and whether alternative approaches could stretch limited recovery dollars further.
At present, neither Council nor the public has enough information to know.
We do not know how repair costs compare to pre-disaster home values. We do not know how many homes could potentially be repaired through less expensive approaches. We do not know whether alternative locally administered programs could help some households at lower cost. We do not know whether the projected cost of serving these households is inherent to the level of damage involved or a consequence of the particular structure of the Renew NC program.
Asheville faces multiple housing challenges simultaneously. Homeowners need assistance repairing damaged homes. Renters need affordable places to live. Families continue to face displacement pressures. Recovery dollars should be used in ways that maximize housing stability across the community.
That does not mean every dollar should go to affordable housing. It does mean that when the City proposes shifting $19.2 million away from other recovery priorities, the burden of proof should be high.
We are not asking City Council to reject homeowner assistance. We are asking Council to insist on enough information to determine whether this investment is the most effective way to help these homeowners and whether other approaches could allow Asheville to help more families with the same limited resources.
That is why we continue to call for the release by Renew NC of anonymized property-level data showing estimated repair costs and pre-disaster home values. Without that information, neither elected officials nor the public can meaningfully evaluate whether this proposal represents the best path forward.
Our Assessment (original): The debate is being framed as a choice between helping homeowners and building affordable housing. We believe that framing is too narrow. City staff are already preparing a separate home repair policy and bond-funded repair program for Council consideration this summer, demonstrating that Asheville has multiple tools available to support homeowners. The question is not whether homeowners deserve help; it is whether reducing affordable housing investments is the best way to provide that help.
Hurricane Helene harmed homeowners and renters alike. Homes were damaged and destroyed. Rental units were lost. Housing costs increased. Homelessness increased. Families across Asheville continue to face displacement pressures and some remain in transitional housing, some 20 months after the storm.
The City’s responsibility is not to decide whose housing needs matter more. It is to use limited recovery dollars in ways that prevent displacement and help as many affected households as possible remain housed.
The current proposal would move funding away from a housing strategy expected to serve hundreds of households and into a program expected to serve approximately 60 households. That does not mean the proposal is wrong. It does mean the burden of proof should be high.
At present, the public has not received sufficient information about Renew NC’s administrative costs, contractor costs, project timelines, repair-versus-reconstruction outcomes, or how many applicants will remain unserved even after the proposed funding increase. Council members and staff have also acknowledged that the City does not have full visibility into all of the data being collected by the State, limiting Asheville’s ability to independently evaluate outcomes and unmet needs. This was one of the key concerns raised by the Housing Recovery Board, which ultimately voted against this amendment.
Most importantly, the City has not demonstrated that Renew NC is the most effective available strategy for preserving storm-damaged homes. Before reducing affordable housing investments, Council should be confident that the alternative investment will produce the greatest possible public benefit. The proposed amendment should be delayed or rejected unless Renew NC and City staff can provide:
- Detailed reporting on administrative and contractor costs.
- Data on repair versus reconstruction projects.
- Average project costs and timelines.
- A breakdown of the factors driving program costs.
- Estimates of unmet homeowner need after the proposed investment.
- A clear explanation of how Renew NC fits alongside upcoming locally funded home repair and anti-displacement strategies.
If Renew NC can demonstrate that it is the most effective available strategy for preserving homeownership and preventing displacement, additional investment may be justified.
If it cannot, Asheville should explore partnerships with local contractors and locally administered repair programs that may preserve more homes, help more families, strengthen local economic recovery, and provide stronger public oversight.
Things to do (revised 6/16/26): Contact City Council using our new email template and urge members to delay approval of the amendment until the City obtains and publicly releases sufficient information to evaluate whether the proposed reallocation represents the most effective use of recovery funds.
Email Template: You can send an email to the members of the Asheville City Council 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: AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov
CC: or BCC: info@gapavl.org
Subject: Renew NC must show Asheville the data before we give them $19.2 million more
Dear Mayor Manheimer and City Council Members,
I support helping homeowners whose homes were damaged by Hurricane Helene.
However, before approving the proposed transfer of $19.2 million into Renew NC, I urge Council to require additional information about how these funds will be used and whether this proposal represents the most effective way to help affected families.
The City has identified approximately 108 low-income households as priority candidates for assistance through Renew NC. Yet even if this amendment is approved, only about 60 households are expected to be served. That means nearly half of the currently identified low-income households would still remain without assistance.
Before spending an additional $19.2 million, I believe Council should be able to answer a basic question: Is this the most effective way to help these families?
To answer that question, I urge the City to obtain and publicly release anonymized information showing estimated repair costs and pre-disaster home values for evaluated Asheville properties. This information would protect applicant privacy while allowing both Council and the public to better understand how reconstruction decisions are being made and whether alternative approaches might help more households with the same limited resources.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
REPORT BACK STATUS
Unresolved
Report Back
Updated 6/15/26: See updates above under “The Facts” and “Our Assessment” for a rundown of what we learned at last week’s City Council meeting.
Updated 6/8/26: Last week, community members responded to our initial call to action around the proposed CDBG-DR amendment that would shift $9.2 million from affordable multifamily housing to the Renew NC homeowner recovery program. At its June 3 meeting, the Housing Recovery Board held an extensive discussion about the tradeoffs between preserving affordable rental housing and funding single-family home reconstruction. As we shared above: Board members raised concerns about the cost of the Renew NC program, the lack of transparency and local oversight, the $100,000 repair threshold that triggers full reconstruction, and the ongoing shortage of affordable rental housing following Helene. After discussion, the board voted 6-4 to recommend against reallocating funds from multifamily housing to Renew NC. The board also unanimously approved a separate motion urging the City to pursue all available avenues to secure access to state CDBG-DR housing funds for eligible Asheville households. Public comments echoed many of the same themes, emphasizing the need to support both homeowners and renters while preserving long-term affordable housing opportunities.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 24
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
Asheville should complete its affordable housing recovery investments
POSITIVE
Summary (Updated 6/11/26): This item passed 6-1 (Turner opposed).
Original Summary: City Council should approve funding for Terrace at River Hills and complete the affordable housing investments recommended through the City’s competitive CDBG-DR process.
(See our earlier report on this issue here.)
The Facts: Last month, City Council approved funding for District East Commons and 319B Biltmore, which together will create 205 affordable rental homes.
Council did not approve funding for Terrace at River Hills, despite the project receiving the highest ranking through the City’s competitive evaluation process.
Staff have now returned with a renewed recommendation to award $9.5 million in CDBG-DR funds to Terrace at River Hills.
The project would:
- Create 126 affordable housing units.
- Include 14 deeply affordable units serving households at 20% and 30% AMI.
- Provide 86 units (68% of total) affordable to households below 60% AMI.
- Maintain affordability for at least 35 years.
- Be ready to move forward immediately if approved.
You can see the presentation slides that will be shared at the meeting here and the staff report here.
Our Assessment: Affordable housing remains one of Asheville’s most urgent recovery needs.
While much attention has been paid to damaged homes, renters have also experienced the consequences of Hurricane Helene. Reduced housing supply, rising rents, increased housing instability, and growing displacement pressures continue to affect families throughout the community.
Terrace at River Hills represents exactly the type of investment recovery funds were intended to support. The project was ranked highest through the City’s published evaluation process, recommended by staff, and includes both deeply affordable units and long-term affordability protections.
Approving this project would help address immediate housing needs while preserving affordability for future generations of Asheville residents.
Things to do: No further action needed. We invited you to contact City Council and urge members to approve funding for Terrace at River Hills and continue investing in affordable housing as part of Asheville’s recovery.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Positively Resolved
Report Back
Report Back (updated 6/15/26): City Council voted 6-1 (Turner opposed) in favor of this project.
Original Report Back: City Council partially approved the proposed CDBG-DR affordable housing awards on May 12, 2026, voting to fund District East Commons and 319-B Biltmore while declining to move forward with Terrace at River Hills after a motion (by Council Member Ullman) to fund the project failed for lack of a second.
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 46
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
Asheville should shift public safety funding toward prevention and community stability instead of expanding expensive reactive policing systems
PROBLEMATIC
Summary (updated 6/15/16): The budget passed 4-3 (Mosley, Roney, Turner opposed). There was no discussion of revising the public safety components of the budget.
Update 6/1/26: Last week, we advocated for Asheville to reconsider its budget priorities – instead of adding more officers and continuing to invest in surveillance, we suggested serious investment in Community Violence Intervention techniques that have a powerful track record of being more cost effective and getting better results. There was no discussion of this proposal at the meeting, nor any substantive response from most of City Council — Council Members Hess and Roney did respond to GAP Supporter emails indicating agreement with our position. City Council will vote on the budget at their next meeting on June 9th, so this is still an active call to action. See our template below.
Original Summary: Asheville’s proposed FY2027 budget continues expanding policing and surveillance infrastructure while considering reductions to community resources like recreation center hours, despite growing evidence that prevention-oriented strategies may reduce violence more effectively and at a significantly lower cost.
The Facts: The City of Asheville is currently considering a FY2027 budget that includes continued allocation of resources toward policing technology, surveillance infrastructure, and staffing growth tied to the City’s developing Real-Time Intelligence Center (RTIC). At the same time, the City is considering reductions to community center operating hours amid broader budget pressures.
You can read the latest City budget draft here.
Our Assessment: The current budget approach places greater emphasis on reactive systems — surveillance, technology expansion, and long-term policing obligations — than on the community conditions that may help prevent violence in the first place.
The proposed reduction in community center hours is especially concerning because these facilities provide more than recreation. They create safe gathering spaces, youth engagement opportunities, and neighborhood stability. Research demonstrates that these are conditions that actually contribute to public safety. Meanwhile, evidence that surveillance expansion and increased police staffing substantially reduce violence remains mixed at best. If our budget resources are truly limited, we literally can’t afford to keep pouring money into an approach that won’t be certain to substantially improve public safety, while ignoring an approach to public safety that could prevent more harm and crime at a fraction of the cost.
You can learn more about the evidence supporting community violence prevention and our policy arguments in our special report: Preventing Violence Before it Happens: Why Asheville Should Rebalance Public Safety Priorities in FY2027.
Our Proposal: Asheville should use the final weeks of the budget process to rebalance public safety priorities toward prevention and community stability.
- The City should slow further surveillance expansion, which means pausing or limiting additional investment in new camera systems, license plate readers, software integrations, and long-term surveillance contracts until the City can demonstrate clear evidence that these systems meaningfully improve public safety relative to their long-term cost.
- The City should also carefully manage future policing growth through attrition. This doesn’t mean eliminating Asheville’s existing public safety capacity. Instead, it suggests that we stop adding new sworn officers – the current budget draft calls for 24 additions – so that the City can balance enforcement needs with greater investment in prevention-oriented public safety approaches.
- With the resources liberated by this approach, the City can preserve community center operations, and create a modest Community Violence Intervention pilot focused on youth outreach, mentorship, conflict mediation, and trauma-informed support. This could strengthen communities and reduce the strain on our existing public safety systems (that may be leading the City to believe we need more restrictive and reactive strategies).
For readers who want more detail, our full recommendations are outlined in the “Proposed FY2027 Budget Adjustments” section of our special report here.
Things to do: No further action needed. We invited you to use our email template to contact Asheville City Council and urge the City to prioritize prevention-oriented public safety investments and preservation of community infrastructure.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Negatively Resolved
Report Back
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 47
The budget passed 4-3 (Mosley, Roney, Turner opposed). There was no discussion of revising the public safety components of the budget.
Recipients and Responses:
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer: No response
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: No response
- City Council Member Bo Hess: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Kim Roney: Responded, see below
- City Council Member Maggie Ullman: No response
- City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
- City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response
Email Response from Council Member Bo Hess:
I agree.
Bo
Email response from Kim Roney:
Thank you for providing input on the budget and for your request to pursue public safety strategies focused on prevention, healing, and community well-being.
With shared concern,
Kim
PREVIOUS REPORTS
GAP Report for 6/8/26
0 Items Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair (still time to act) 0 Items Asheville should complete its affordable housing recovery investments (approved!) Buncombe County’s housing investments need an anti-displacement strategy...
GAP Report for 6/1/26
0 Items Buncombe County’s housing investments need an anti-displacement strategy (new) Asheville should support both affordable housing construction and home repair (new) 0 Items Asheville should shift public safety funding toward prevention and community stability...
GAP Report for 5/25/26
0 Items Asheville should shift public safety funding toward prevention and community stability instead of continued expansion of expensive reactive policing systems (new) 0 Items 0 Items Buncombe County’s proposed revitalization initiatives and FY2027 budget lack...
GAP Report for 5/18/26
0 Items Buncombe County’s proposed revitalization initiatives and FY2027 budget lack meaningful anti-displacement safeguards (new) 0 Items 0 Items Asheville should reject or substantially revise the Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek developments in response to community...
GAP Report for 5/11/26
Asheville should reject or substantially revise the Caribou Road and Sweeten Creek developments in response to community concerns from Shiloh (new) Asheville should reject the proposed RTIC/Axon surveillance expansion until real oversight and accountability exist...