As Asheville’s government attempts to manage growth, its leaders are mindful of an underlying tension between two groups: those who would like to be residents of the city, and those who already are.
In March of this year, the city began a conscious effort to balance those priorities. Now three months in, Asheville’s Anti-Displacement and Affordable Housing Project has outlined how the municipal government plans to increase residential development while minimizing its challenges for existing neighborhoods.
Assistant City Manager Ben Woody, who is helping to lead the project, said the city’s primary concern is “physical displacement” — existing residents becoming unable to stay in their current neighborhood due to forces beyond their control, such as increased rents, higher property taxes or demolition for redevelopment.
Asheville’s history of racially discriminatory housing practices like urban renewal and redlining, Woody continued, means the city is particularly sensitive to displacement in what it calls “legacy” communities, neighborhoods like Burton Street and Shiloh that have long had large Black populations.
City Council, for example, unanimously denied conditional zoning approval for a 100-unit affordable housing project in Shiloh on May 12, in part due to displacement concerns. “My vote for no is because I feel hyperprotective of our legacy neighborhoods. I feel hyperprotective of Shiloh,” remarked Council member Sage Turner at the time.
Piecing together perspectives
Asheville communications and public engagement director Dawa Hitch is managing the anti-displacement project. Key to the city’s approach, she said, is sharing more information about proposed developments with more people earlier in the process.
To that end, Hitch said, the city has named the Asheville Legacy Neighborhoods Coalition as a “required engagement partner” for land-use policy changes and housing projects near legacy neighborhoods. The group includes community leaders from Burton Street, East End/Valley Street, Emma, Shiloh and Southside. The city also wants to strengthen the notifications it sends to residents and neighborhood groups about new projects in their area.
Asheville wants to better evaluate the displacement potential of projects as well. Since April, the city has been convening a working group of staff, housing advocates, and neighborhood representatives to develop a “Displacement Risk Assessment Tool.” The tool would use criteria such as renter cost burden, home value appreciation and median household income to indicate how vulnerable to displacement the neighborhood around a specific address might be.
Woody stressed that the tool would only provide data to decision makers and would not by itself disqualify any project from being approved. He suggested it could even help some projects with making a case for approval.
“There may be instances where there’s a development proposed, there’s neighborhood opposition.” Woody said. “[The tool] could help you understand the areas where we don’t have to worry about displacement or socioeconomic considerations.”
That approach would be less stringent than how other cities have employed anti-displacement tools. Both San Antonio and Louisville, Kentucky, for example, have passed laws making public support for housing projects conditional on a good anti-displacement score.
In speaking with Louisville staff, Woody said, Asheville learned that the city’s “rigid standards” were making some housing projects financially unviable.
“That’s kind of hard-coded in an ordinance, so if something’s not working or something has outcomes that you didn’t expect, it’s very difficult to change it,” explained Woody.
Policy and people
The city’s anti-displacement plans do include several policy changes that will have to be approved by City Council. The first, tentatively scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, July 28, is an anti-displacement resolution meant to formalize the city’s commitment to the work.
During a June 23 work session, City Attorney Brad Branham affirmed that such a measure would trigger meaningful city action. “There should be a reasonable expectation that, when you pass those types of resolutions, that staff has been given its marching orders and that we will bring something forward to you,” he said.
Another package of policies would tweak Asheville’s zoning ordinances in line with recommendations from the Missing Middle Housing Study completed in 2023. Together, the changes would allow duplexes and townhomes throughout the city, remove off-street parking requirements and allow larger accessory dwelling units. Council plans to vote on those moves Tuesday, Aug. 25.
Some involved in the anti-displacement work, however, have concerns about how the city is setting its priorities. Sekou Coleman, who coordinates the Legacy Neighborhoods Coalition and serves on the city’s working group, believes that Asheville should establish its anti-displacement tool and adopt further anti-displacement strategies before changing the zoning rules.
“Why is there the urgency to get these things presented?” Coleman asked. “If you’re really trying to protect the ability for residents to remain where they are, and to support the community from that perspective, it seems like you would want to err on the side of the residents.”
Hitch said the city’s zoning strategy does represent a measured approach. “This is part of the sequencing we've discussed in presentations — an effort to present early amendments that can support development of affordable housing while taking into consideration community concerns,” she told BPR.
And Andy Paul, a lead organizer with the pro-housing group Asheville for All, suggested the city should be moving even faster with zoning reform. (Paul does not serve on the anti-displacement working group, but others in his organization are involved.)
Paul has noted that previous reports commissioned by Asheville, such as the missing middle study and Affordable Housing Plan, lift up changes like allowing greater density as methods to fight displacement. By easing rules across the city, he said, officials can spread out the impacts of development. That would increase housing supply and bring costs down for everyone, including legacy neighborhoods.
“The more broadly you can allow things to change, the less likely you’re going to get a skyscraper in Shiloh,” Paul said.
