One of the major issues facing the city in the next four years is the overhaul of the UDO. You’ve mentioned that you decided to run because you were concerned about the pace of development in the city. If elected what’s your thoughts about how the changes to the UDO should go?
I’ve got to say that the UDO is not one of my strengths as far as if elected it’s something I’m going to have a lot to learn in a short period of time. I know that there’s proposals talking about going to form-based code throughout the city and I did attend the form-based code meetings here in the River Arts District to learn as much abut it as possible.
But I do want us to slow our development. I’m not generally going to be in favor of large, outside developments at this present time. I think that we need to take a new direction with our growth, that we need to return to the growth that got us here: organic, sustainable growth through investing in local business. So I’m looking for a whole new direction in our growth.
Besides for the business part that you mentioned, what’s that new direction going to look like? Increased density? Less density? What’s going to be the approach to housing, mixed-use, height limits and development on the ground?
I understand that we’ve got to increase density and I know the city has every intention of doing that. When we do increase density, I’d like to see as much of it dealing with the affordable housing issue as possible.
I think that when we are increasing density, we have to address the affordable housing issue and it’s got to be truly affordable housing. I see things like the one taking place in Oakley where we’re going to give 10 percent turned into so-called affordable housing but when I see the prices I don’t think that truly is affordable housing. I don’t even support doing things like that if it’s not going to be truly affordable. If I’m not mistaken, I’ve heard that some of those unit will revert back to market value after five years. To me that does very little to deal with the affordable housing issue.
So on a spot like that, what should the city’s approach be instead to help solve affordable housing?
We made concession on code for those particular buildings for getting these affordable housing units. I think if we’re going to do that, we should demand that they truly are affordable and they must be for either a much longer time – like 20 years — or indefinitely, as long as we’ve got an affordable housing issue which I see no end in sight for that.
One of the proposals put out during this campaign season for possibly, to some degree, addressing the affordable housing issue has been inclusionary zoning. What’s your stance on that and is it something you’d support?
I’ve been reading very mixed bags about inclusionary zoning and what I know to this point I do not think I’m really a fan of inclusionary zoning though to some degree what we were just talking about is inclusionary zoning. So if we are going to have inclusionary zoning we’ve got to really up the demands on what it is, not having it revert back to market value and truly be affordable. But from most of what I’ve read I can’t say I’m a fan of inclusionary zoning.
What are the reasons for your doubts on that, for your issues with it?
I’ve read that it’s not really been successful in most places that have tried and used it.
Such as?
I don’t know that I can name a place, it’s just that I have been reading up on it and just seeing very mixed reviews.
So affordable housing is one of the things you deal with in your career. The Bowen report and other studies that have come out indicate that the city has very low vacancy rates, that this is an increasing issue — some have called it a crisis — what initiatives are going to be necessary to help solving that?
I don’t think that we can solve the affordable housing issue. I think we can only try to keep up with it, maybe gain some ground. Currently we’re losing ground on it. So I think we need to think outside the box, bring in as many different ideas as possible and address it in as many different ways as possible. The affordable issue is intertwined with the wage issue, they go hand-in-hand. Until we deal with wages, we’re probably not really ever going to solve our affordable housing issue. We have so many people making service industry wages in this town that are less than a living wage. If it’s less than a living wage in a destination city like ours with prices of land and rent going up on a daily basis it seems until wages start to increase we’re not going to make a real dent.
So in your words, to ‘keep up’ with the affordable housing issue what initiatives are you going to push for, if elected, to keep up with the issue?
One thing I would like to propose we do, and I know the city has been very hesitant: some of the Council members have been very adamant that affordable housing has to be supplied right here within the city limits and as close to downtown as possible. I don’t think that we can continue to only look at it from that point of view. I think we’re going to have to do, as Habitat has been doing, seeking less expensive property in the outlying regions of Asheville.
Still within the city?
When possible. Habitat’s built some places in Swannanoa. I think Swannanoa may be the only one that’s left the city limits. But land is more affordable at the edges of town and in certain areas a little further from the city center. If you don’t start with affordable land, I don’t know how you end up with affordable housing. It just seems to me that this is one approach we should look closer at.
One of the stated priorities of the city has been to create as many mixed-income neighborhoods inside the city as possible. How does one do that and also take that approach?
I’m only talking this approach as a part of the battle plan, certainly not our main force or our main idea. I just think that it’s something we can look at that can help.
What would that ‘main force’ look like then?
I assume our main thrust has to be high density multi-family, multi-unit buildings built on our transportation lines where people have easy access to our transportation. If you started to build these kind of places in the same places I’m talking about, we’d also have to improve our public transportation system to service these new areas.
Where do the funds for this come from, beyond what the city’s already put into the affordable housing trust fund?
I do not, at this point, know. I’ve never dealt with the city budget. I haven’t, after sitting through 5 forums or however many we’ve been through, when asking the same question to our Vice Mayor, who’s currently on Council, they still struggle with where the money comes from. Obviously you just have to set priorities for what you feel like needs to be funded and what you can’t fund. At this point you get a lot of ideas from people but the funding may not be available.
Another idea on the affordability front that’s been going around has been, possibly, an incentive for smaller landlords, whether it’s a tax write-off or access to incentive funds. Based on your experience, what do you think of those proposals?
I’m certainly in favor of that. I think we should give the same sort of incentives if someone wants to build a small add-on unit or a tiny house on the other side of their property to bring into the affordable housing market I’d certainly be open to them receiving the same sort of incentives.
I’d also like to say that I think that tiny houses and micro-apartments are a good way to battle the affordable housing problem. I think there are plenty of people willing to live in a tiny house or a micro-apartment if it was truly affordable. When we’re increasing density at this rate and wages are still low, that’s one way we could try to address the issue.
You’ve mentioned the issue of wages repeatedly. From your view, is there something the city should do about that that it’s not doing right now?
I also talk a lot about changing a direction on growth, about growing more from within. I think when you invest in the local economy and you offer incentives and reasons for growth among your local, independent businesses that you’re going to see an increase in wages. I have read a study that stated that towns that are dominated by locally-owned, independent businesses tend to pay higher wages and have less poverty than those full of chain stores.
Another issue that’s attracted arguments from both sides about the affordability issue has been short-term rentals. You’ve mentioned that you’re opposed to the current Council’s move to raise the fines and tighten the ban on short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. One of the criticisms of that position has been that it opens the door to renters being kicked out. What’s your response to that criticism and what do you see as the problems with Council’s current approach?
Council’s current approach to me is unfair and divisive, it’s pitting neighbor against neighbor, neighbors that are turning in neighbors for doing this, not getting along because of this issue. What I think should happen now, and it may be one of the first things our Council addresses, is to bring all the stakeholders together, everyone involved in the issue and start again on this.
Myself, I believe that if you live in the city and want to operate a short-term rental, you should be allowed to do so under the same sort of fees and licenses and regulations that a bed and breakfast would face or a hotel. We should allow and regulate it.
Now I think we should put a limit on the amount you could own and I’m not saying what that should be. I’m talking about us all coming together and find common ground that works for all the stakeholders. I believe that there’s a solution out there that works for everybody.
So the limits are, in your view, the way to address the impact on affordability?
It’s also an affordability for the people that are doing it. I’ve met with many short-term rental operators in this town and almost every one of them thinks that it’s their means of survival. I haven’t met anybody that’s getting rich off of doing it.
If we have these bad apples that are getting rich off of it or are buying up 10 properties and hiring a property manager and don’t even live in the city I think we should put a stop to that. People that are finding this the means to afford to live here and make their house payments I don’t think we should continue to punish them and I think we should find a way to allow it. I know that some people argue that it’s hurting affordable housing but these are not going to be made affordable housing anyhow.
We talked about incentivizing people who want to make their houses available for affordable housing and we should do so, but people who feel no other way out than to operate a short-term rental I just have to sympathize with them and think we should find a way that works for everybody.
Another thing that’s attracted attention on the tourism front has been the explosion of hotels in downtown. With the reconsideration of the UDO, would you be in support of more restrictions on more hotels and if so, what would that look like?
I wouldn’t care if we put a moratorium on hotels. I think we’ve already got too many in the city center. People like to complaint about the parking and the overcrowded sidewalks. Well what do you think this is adding to? This is only making the problem worse. In my own personal opinion I wouldn’t care if they didn’t build another hotel downtown for quite some time.
That being said, I do think we need to revisit the city master plan and restore the power of Council to be involved in these development decisions. When that was taken out of Council’s hands and put in the hands of the city manager, staff and planning and zoning I think that’s been harmful. I think that’s also been unfair, it’s not allowed public input on these decisions.
I don’t know if it was meant to be a way of taking accountability away from Council but Council should be accountable for the decisions they make like this. If people are not happy with the amount of hotels or the current development plans and Council is approving them, then they should be held accountable.
We need more transparency in our city government period, so we shouldn’t hear about development decisions when they’re already being decided. Let’s get some transparency back in the process.
Another part of downtown that’s attracted some debate and some controversy has been the plot of land across from the Basilica. You’ve said that you oppose a sale and want to keep that a city-owned space. What’s your reasons for that and what do you say to the criticisms that a park there would cost too much?
I signed on early to the petition to turn that into a greenspace. I do not regret doing that at all. Others have made it into this giant, divisive issue to separate the candidates. I never thought of it in that manner when I decided to sign it.
But I guess it sort of does point out which candidates have a more pro-development stance and which candidates think that maybe we should slow down and take a closer look at our development and plan it out and make a stronger plan of how we’re going to develop it in the future.
That being said, I also have never agreed with the huge number of $4 million that’s been thrown out there. We do own the land and we could seek private investment for this property to work towards a park and we’re in no hurry. We’ve owned this land since 2005 and people have continuously, since 2005, said that what they really want to see there is a park. I don’t see why we dont’ just slow down and go back to the table on this issue again. It’s not going anywhere. We don’t have to sell that property right away.
The argument that we have to increased the tax base, we can’t always look at that argument.
When you look at the tax base increase you get from these things, the tax increase you’d get would be in the $50-60,000 range. To me that barely covers the increases in services the city needs to deal with that hotel or that large building being there. I don’t think increasing the tax base by $50-60,000 really accomplishes a whole lot. With almost every issue I take a stance that we need to have community input and listen to our community as much as possible. So let’s slow down with this issue, bring all the stakeholders back to the table and see where we go from there. Since we own the property, if we just take some time, slow down and the people truly want a park there we can make that happen without this huge cost that’s being thrown out there.
Recently I think people from the other side have begun to put out that if we have this other greenspace there it’s just going to be another Pritchard Park. I know the city is proposing making some planning change on Pritchard Park to deal with some of the issues we have currently. The same sort of planning could be put into a new park at the Basilica so we don’t have the same problems we have at Pritchard Park.
But part of the problem we have at Pritchard Park is that it’s the only center of greenspace we have in the city and it’s not that big a place. If we have more greenspace available throughout the city, maybe that would alleviate some of the problem. It wouldn’t be everyone gathering in this one spot, there would be different places to gather and it wouldn’t seem like such a problem if it wasn’t so full of travelers or whatever word they’re calling people that the downtown residents are having issues with.
Another thing that’s attracted debate on a somewhat larger scale are the proposals for I-26. The state unveiled some recently that have many aspects that run counter to what local leaders have sought for a number of years. What do you think of city leaders approach towards I-26 and if elected, do you think that approach should change?
I just attended another forum today and it was pretty much unanimous among all the candidates that they don’t like the proposed idea as it is. There was plenty of skepticism that we’ll really ever see this happen at all. I certainly don’t like the proposal as it is. Again, I think we need to organize as a community and come up with what we think would work best for us as a city and then fight for that with the DoT but I was a young man when they started talking about this issue and I’m not a young man anymore. I wonder if this will be addressed in my lifetime, though I think it probably will. I’m just skeptical.
The Southside Advisory Board has put out a petition calling for the repair and renovation of the Walton Street pool and for the city to prioritize this. If elected, what’s going to be your approach?
This Walton Street pool issue sort of came out of left field for me. I kept hearing a few candidates throwing it out there. When I inquired about it I was told that it was not even on the city’s radar at this point, that they did not have the funding to deal with this issue and had not prioritized it to deal with it.
I sort of feel like when a new Council gets on this is not really going to happen anyhow, that the city will determine that they don’t have the funds to do this, but I don’t know.
I would be open to this if we did have the funding and if that’s what that community felt like was the biggest need for them. If spending that much money to repair the Walton Street pool and the community felt like that could be spent better elsewhere I would be inclined to go that way.
Such as?
Well I don’t know what the needs of the community are. I would have to go to the Walton Street community and ask them if that’s the best way we can spend $2 million here or can you see us in a wiser fashion or something that’s more beneficial to the community.
With that issue and with the plans for Shiloh and Burton Street, there’s a criticism raised sometime that the city’s historically not paid attention to African-American communities the way it has others. What do you say to that and should the city’s approach to infrastructure in those communities change?
We have to prioritize our infrastructure needs according to the greatest need. If these areas have the greatest need for infrastructure repairs then that’s where we should go. I’ve said oftentimes that I feel like the highest priority with infrastructure should be dealing with issues of safety, dangerous streets without sidewalks where lives are in danger everyday with people walking in the streets. These would be my highest priority. But ignored communities such as Shiloh and Burton Street should be at the top of the list as well. I know it’s true that we tend to ignore some areas and put other areas ahead of them.
Another issue the city’s going to be involved in over the next four years is the probable development of Lee Walker Heights. Of course that comes at a time when some residents of public housing have raised concerns and had disagreements with the housing authority over evictions and what they say is a lack of transparency. If elected, what’s going to be your approach to that development going forward?
I know that current Council really wants to do this. I’ve got say I’m highly skeptical of it. I do not confident that when we take people out and put them in other places that they’ll all be returning. I’m not sure that this is not just going to be a further gentrification of our city. I’m highly skeptical of it and this is anther area that we need more community involvement here. I think the African-American community needs to weigh in heavily on this issue. I’m not sure everyone’s viewpoint has been listened to here. When I talk to people within the African-American community here, they’re highly skeptical of taking each of our housing projects and turning them into mixed-income housing.
I think for most of our African-American community they’re afraid it’s just going to be another way to displace them.
Would you support making the city’s cooperation in any deal require the approval of the Residents Council?
Yes, absolutely. If this sort of thing is going to happen there, I think there has to be a written contract saying ‘you will have the right to return to your home.’ There needs to be something in writing that they can come back to their homes. But again I’m just highly skeptical of the whole idea at this point, I’m going to need some convincing that this is going to work.
Since 2012 and the departure of Diane Ruggiero, the city’s not had a staffer devoted just to the arts and to public art. Is that something the city should change and going forward what other parts of its approach to the arts should the city change?
I would have to do a lot of research on this. I don’t know where to take a stance on it. DO I support the arts? I definitely support the arts. That doesn’t mean that we haven’t wasted some money in arts from time. I’m not a fan of wasting money but I’m definitely an advocate of supporting arts in this city. The arts are a huge part of what makes this city what it is and makes it the destination that it is and made it grow to be what it is. This is an artists’ town. It was created by an artists community when we grew from the ’90s to the early 2000s it was artists that created the whole mood and businesses and everything about it. I’m a supporter of the arts, absolutely.
How should the city deal with the arts then?
We certainly should deal with the artists and not forcing the artists out of our city for affordability issues. We’re going to be looking at that problem in the River Arts District soon when all the development comes in. Is it going to remain affordable for artists to keep a studio? I think we’re going to have to be real careful going forward with the development of the River Arts District to protect the artists and the arts or we could do the same thing to the artists and force them out of here. That’s another reason to be really careful with your development. If you’re not really careful, we’ll force the people most vital to this city art: the neighborhoods that have been here forever, the artists that have been here forever. It gets unaffordable for these people, I dont’ know I’d want to be here anymore.
One of Council’s main responsibilities is to oversee the conduct of the city manager and the city staff. Gary Jackson’s been in office for 10 years and that’s included everything from the city getting a AAA bond rating to major problems with the Asheville Police Department. What’s your assessment of Jackson’s conduct and if elected, what’s going to be your approach to scrutiny on him and on staff as a whole?
I do think it’s the job of Council to scrutinize him and make sure that they’re doing the job we want them to do. At this point in time I have no real comment or opinion on Gary Jackson’s performance. That’s something I would evaluate as a new Council member and at this time I don’t feel like that’s anywhere I need to go.
Who else are you voting for in this election?
You see the two slates out there, I certainly prefer one slate over the other. That being said, I’ve also said that I’d like see Asheville natives on Council and there’s only two of us. So I am supporting the other Asheville native [Keith Young].
There’s people out there that like the slates, then there’s people who like every other combination you can think of. I just want people to decide themselves, look at all the candidates, see what they stand for, go with your heart and go for the ones you want to see on there.
Any other issue you’d like to bring up?
It’s a grueling campaign for me, I dont’ know if it’s that way for everyone. I’m not afraid of the job. I have no concerns I can do the job. But I am not a fan of campaigning and I’m happy that’s drawing to and end.
I’ve also gotten to know each of these candidates. I wouldn’t say it’s gotten to the points where we’re actually friends but we’ve certainly become friendly over this time and I respect them all. I’m more in line with some than others but I have respect for any of them and would serve on Council with any of them.
—
The Asheville Blade is entirely funded by its readers. If you like our work, donate directly to us on Patreon. Questions? Comments? Email us.