Asheville – It was as if members of the Asheville City Council had learned a lesson. In recent months, while raising alarms about the city’s affordable housing crisis, councilmembers have felt free to nitpick affordable housing projects that have come before them on the grounds that they did not offer enough affordable housing, or maybe they weren’t green enough. More than once, developers have had to tell the council that no bank would finance a project costing as much as the council’s green features were demanding while keeping rents as low as the council wanted.
Coming before the council Tuesday was a rezoning request to accommodate the construction of 72 townhomes on largely undeveloped land behind Northern Tool and Equipment in West Asheville. The idea was to subdivide the land so each home sat on its own parcel. Site improvements included a new road and off-street parking. Amenities included sidewalks, a gravel walking path, a community area, and a “proposed” playground. No bike lanes would be constructed, but the developer agreed to stripe the access road with sharrows. The developer also offered to rent-control four units for 20 years and accept vouchers for two of those units, but was prevailed upon to double those amounts. He also agreed to improve the design and use higher-quality materials.
Principal Planner Will Palmquist explained that staff overall supported the project. The reason went something like, “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need.” The site, after all, had limited access and somewhat difficult topography, and the developers were attempting to provide housing for the missing middle, something the council wanted so badly, the city has invested in a study to figure out how to do it.
Following the formal presentation, Councilwoman Kim Roney, who is running for mayor, said the plans looked “very car-centric.” She did not like how each unit had its own garage yet there was not enough sidewalk, and the project had no bike lanes. A bus stop was nearby, but there was no neat path for people to walk to it. Neighbors, she said, deserve resilient options for transportation, and she asked what the council was doing wrong to fail their neighbors like this. She would cast the lone vote against the proposal.
Derek Allen, an attorney representing the developers, said they had committed to adding vehicle charging stations. In addition, they were working with Trilogy, a solar consultant, to explore options for all their projects. Furthermore, they were not asking for a Land Use Incentive Grant from the city, and so they would be paying all due taxes. This was not enough. Roney still wanted to remand the project to Planning & Zoning until somebody could figure out how to make it less car-centric and how to integrate solar power into the design.
Mayor Esther Manheimer, who is running for reelection, addressed those who had come to the meeting to oppose the project. She said she considered all on the council to be experts on housing. They have traveled the country seeking ideas, attending seminars, and, in many ways, are consulted as leaders in the field of municipally-enabled housing. She then recalled the first hard vote she had to cast as mayor. It was for the Larchmont project back in 2009. It was going up in her neighborhood, right by her mother’s house.
A lot of people spoke against it. They didn’t want “that kind” of housing in their community. It didn’t fit. It would add too much congestion to roads that already have too much traffic. After the project was built, however, the council never heard a single complaint. The neighbors’ worst fears never came to pass.
She said the project at hand was not perfect. She didn’t want anybody to assume she would be voting for it, “because it was the most amazing project I have ever seen.” Her greatest objection was that it was suburban. People had to drive into it; it was not blended with the surrounding neighborhoods. This was, however, infill development on a challenging parcel. The homes would be close to a grocery store and a school. The proposal offered no bike lanes, but cyclists would have to approach the community via Patton Avenue, which has no bike lanes either. Manheimer described Patton Avenue as a “classic, old-style road” that was poorly designed.
Manheimer did not think the stigma should be affixed to townhomes. She said she and her husband lived in one as their starter home. She didn’t think the adjacent neighbors had vociferously opposed its development because it was next to an enormous cemetery. The joke fell flat. Manheimer then contrasted the proposed project to a key presentation ceremony she recently attended nearby. She said the new home had no sidewalk and no bike lanes, even though it was her wish that all homes at some point would be serviced by bike lanes.
Manheimer said she knew she would disappoint some people with her decision, but balancing is a challenge. It was her job as mayor to be brave enough to say “yes” when projects came forward to solve the city’s problems, even in the face of heated opposition.
Councilwoman Sage Turner expressed appreciation for the mayor’s comments and added, “I’m a little taken aback by the opposition to this project.” She suggested it could be either, “because I see so clearly the dire need for housing and for all the different types of housing,” or because she’d been helping people move all month, people who struggled to find a place with low enough rent.
“We need supplies,” she said. Locally, there was a shortage of condominiums and townhomes that people could use as starter homes. In the midst of such a housing crisis, she said, “I really struggle to hear folks say, you know, ‘I walk my dog over there,’ because I think hundreds of people need to live here as well.” She added the developer could have proposed a five-story, 300-unit development instead of trying to conform to the neighborhood. “I’m concerned when I see us fighting projects,” she said.