{"id":1282,"date":"2015-07-09T13:19:39","date_gmt":"2015-07-09T17:19:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/?p=1282"},"modified":"2015-08-04T16:32:36","modified_gmt":"2015-08-04T20:32:36","slug":"into-the-long-summer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/?p=1282","title":{"rendered":"Into the long summer"},"content":{"rendered":"

A budget, housing and monuments take center stage at the last Council meeting before the summer break, with more on the horizon<\/em><\/p>\n

Above: Asheville City Council member Gwen Wisler. File photo by Max Cooper.<\/em><\/p>\n

The spring and early summer are typically a big time for local politics. City government \u2014 the mayor, six Council members and the much larger bureaucracy that runs day-to-day affairs \u2014 has to decide on an annual budget, with all sorts of key (potentially thorny) matters like services, infrastructure and taxes at stake.<\/p>\n

Then as Ashevillians head into the middle of the summer things calm down a bit, at least on the surface, as Council usually takes about a month off. But before that happens there’s some business, for better or worse, to conclude.<\/p>\n

On June 23 Council had its last meeting until July 28, and wrapped up the budget (though with some big questions remaining), passed a long-mulled proposal aimed at increasing the amount of affordable housing and saw a push for a monument marking Asheville’s African-American citizens come forward.<\/p>\n

While Council’s off the dais for awhile, questions remain about many of its policies coming out of this season. When things resume in late July \u2014 just as elections for three Council seats are heating up \u2014 the summer break may just prove a lull in the storm.<\/p>\n

Decision time<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some years the budget \u2014 despite the city’s ongoing challenges \u2014 is relatively uncontroversial, and doesn’t attract much attention.<\/p>\n

This was not one of those years.<\/p>\n

Attribute it to the range of issues dealt with, more in-depth press coverage, revenue crunches or larger political tensions within the city, but this year’s $154 million budget<\/a> attracted plenty of discussion and debate<\/a>. Everything from a living wage for all city workers to spending on infrastructure, the funds for nonprofits, cash to the Chamber of Commerce, the level of city services and spending came up as issues. Council members had some of their own differences about where funds should go. This was reflected in the concerns, demands and criticism that emerged at the budget hearing two weeks before this meeting.<\/p>\n

On top of all that, state legislation took away local governments’ ability to charge privilege taxes on businesses, meaning the city began the budget process facing about $1.5 million less in funds than the last time it passed a budget. In this case, (most) local leaders opted to support a property tax increase to make up the gap, the city’s second tax increase in since 2013. But there were questions and criticism about that too.<\/p>\n

This has meant multiple work sessions, long meetings and no shortage of debate. But at this meeting, it was decision time for Council, as its members had to decide whether to vote up or down on the budget.<\/p>\n

Following a Blade<\/em> report<\/a> late last year, the fact that over 140 city workers make below a living wage became a source of some controversy. Early this year, a majority of Council committed<\/a> to changing the situation. The budget allocates $250,000 for raises to some of those employees, but it will be unclear for 60 to 90 days how many will be affected or if all workers will get a living wage (there have been some<\/a> indications<\/a> from senior staff that they won’t). A living wage in Asheville \u2014 the amount needed to make ends meet without public or private assistance \u2014 is $12.50 an hour without health insurance or $11 with.<\/p>\n

Bothwell asked if some of these workers, especially those mainly employed during the summer, would get raises retroactive to July 1 so that when those raises were finally passed they wouldn’t miss a higher wage for a major working season.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt hasn’t all been quite worked out yet,\u201d Assistant City Manager Paul Fetherston said. \u201cThat can be one of the items Council directs us to do.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cOk, because otherwise we’re putting off our seasonal employees this year until next summer,\u201d Bothwell said.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the things we need to look at is if and how this [raises to bring pay up to a living wage] applies to seasonal\u201d workers, Fetherson said.<\/p>\n

As of the publication of this piece, none of the city workers making below a living wage have received a raise (other than a one percent cost-of-living raise all city workers received) and it remains uncertain if all of them will.<\/p>\n

Later in the meeting, Council would unanimously adopt new criteria for private companies seeking tax breaks from the city for economic development, requiring that the new jobs they create pay at least a living wage.<\/p>\n

Council member Chris Pelly reiterated that his opposition to the budget due to the proposed tax increase remained and he still felt the city should take funds from its reserves to put off a tax increase.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have no problem with what’s in the budget, it’s more the mechanism for how we’re funding the budget,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

His was the only vote against the budget, which passed 6-1.<\/p>\n

At the prior meeting, Council members had decided to put an additional $50,000 towards funding for non-profits after representatives for some of those groups claimed the initial budget proposals had declined to fund several key programs and would give those that aided low-income communities short shrift.<\/p>\n

After passing the budget, Council voted to allocate funds to Green Opportunities, Asheville Greenworks, One Youth at a Time, Partners Unlimited, Project Lighten Up and Read to Succeed. The grant amounts ranged from $3,500 to just over $17,000, and Council passed them unanimously.<\/p>\n

The house next door<\/strong><\/p>\n

As the housing crisis has worsened, a number of proposals have come forward<\/a> in city government. One made its way to the Council dais that evening, specifically it proposed overhauling the city’s rules to allow more accessory dwelling units \u2014 smaller apartments near or attached to a larger house \u2014 in an effort to allow more housing throughout the city and provide some much-sought increase in supply.<\/p>\n

Planner Vaidila Satvika noted that staff were backing the measure, believing it addressed a major need in a sensitive way.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn recent years, as the city’s housing shortage has become pronounced, there has been renewed discussion about the city’s ADU rules,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The new rules adopt a sliding scale that allows larger accessory dwellings than before depending on the size of the building. For example, under the current rules a 2000 sq. ft. building could only have a 500 sq. ft. accessory dwelling. Under the new rules the accessory apartment could be up to 824 sq. ft. The new rules also allow accessory dwellings on more types of lots and, in an attempt to address concerns of some neighbors, scale back the height limit for such dwellings from 40 feet to 25 feet.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe came to these numbers by balancing neighborhood concerns about compatibility while also allowing ADUs to be a viable size for a family dwelling,\u201d Satvika said, adding that staff endorsed the proposal as it would add affordable housing in a sensitive way as the units would be \u201clocated behind homes and dispersed throughout the city.\u201d<\/p>\n

For its proponents the measure, which emerged out of the city’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and was vetted and crafted by planning staff, was a carefully considered and long overdue way to allow some much-sought supply without any negative consequences.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe first proposed a change to the accessory dwelling units in January 2013 and about every six months or so we bring it back up,\u201d Lindsey Simerly, the committee’s chair and a Council candidate, said during the public hearing on the issue. \u201cThe main reason we brought it forward was we felt like it was one strategy in a whole suite of strategies that could help add some additional unit that wouldn’t cost the city money.\u201d<\/p>\n

She added that the proposal was a \u201cwin-win-win\u201d for residents that would have more affordable places to live, homeowners that could gain a reliable source of income and the city furthering goals of density and affordable housing. \u201cI feel like from our committee’s perspective that we’ve unanimously supported it seven times at this point and we’ve done outreach around it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tito Brown, who works for a company building small homes, claimed there was considerable interest and the rule changes would increase density and affordability.<\/p>\n

Committee member Jayden Gurney, one of the architects\u00a0the ordinance, claimed it was just a matter of \u201cfixing some things that didn’t make a lot of sense\u201d and that the new rules had been extensively reviewed.<\/p>\n

Not everyone was so gung-ho, with representatives of some groups asserting that there still hadn’t been enough discussion or consideration of the measure.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a lot of confusion in the community,\u201d Barber Melton of the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods \u2014 and a housing committee member \u2014 said. \u201cI don’t know that voting on this today is going to be a plus for the community because I feel like we got blindsided. The devil was in the details and we didn’t have the details.<\/p>\n

Melton acknowledged that the Affordable Housing committee had discussed the issue before but \u201cwe never had the ordinance to go over the details.\u201d<\/p>\n

Council member Cecil Bothwell shared those doubts, asserting that \u201cI really think we ought to put this off for another month until the next meeting as far as a vote goes. People in the community are very confused about this and I realize now that I was very confused about this.\u201d<\/p>\n

Council member Gwen Wisler had similar concerns.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe devil’s really in the details and there’s a lot of misconception about this out in the community,\u201d Wisler said. \u201cOne of my big concerns is that we could do a better job with communicating the details out into the community and I think we could get a lot more buy-in.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wisler said that until she saw Satvika’s presentation, she wasn’t even clear how the rules would affect neighborhoods like her own.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a social experiment with my neighborhood,\u201d resident Mike Lewis told Council, requesting that Council put off the issue for three months and hold a public forum.<\/p>\n

But Ashevillian Wendy Dean said she’d had no problem locating the proposed rules changes online. She felt the time had come to pass them and that it would improve things for renters like her struggling to make ends meet.<\/p>\n

\u201cSix years ago we moved to Asheville and could barely afford the rent, just like so many in Asheville,\u201d she told Council. \u201cI’ve worked hard, made more money but every time we manage to increase our income our rent would increase. Our rent is now 150 percent of what it was six years ago. I think most people believe Asheville is a place for everyone and currently their really isn’t.\u201d<\/p>\n

After the public hearing Bothwell said that while he broadly supported the changes, he would oppose the attempt to pass them that evening because he felt the public hadn’t been adequately informed.<\/p>\n

\u201cI agree with the need, I think the idea is really good,\u201d \u201cWhat I’m hearing from the community again, as I’ve heard over and over again in the five-and-a-half years I’ve been here is that they’re feeling ambushed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Council member Gordon Smith called the proposed changes \u201ca great improvement\u201d and asserting it was a key step in a bevy of measures city officials hope will decrease the city’s housing crisis.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis crisis is happening now, it’s happening right this second,\u201d Smith said. \u201cIt’s been building for some time to this point.\u201d<\/p>\n

Development matters are confusing, he acknowledged, adding that he understood the trepidation of some pushing for a delay, but \u201cI would ask everyone in the city to understand the anxiety of people right now who can not afford a place to live, who are moving out of the city, who are trying to figure out how they’re going to make rent this month.\u201d<\/p>\n

On that basis, he supported moving forward, though he mentioned that a \u201croadshow\u201d of community meetings to explain these policies might be in order.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt’s clear to me there’s broad support,\u201d Vice Mayor Marc Hunt said, noting the ordinance would be a \u201cwork in progress\u201d and Council could revisit or adjust it as needed in the future.<\/p>\n

Wisler said she’d vote for this if Council and staff would commit to events explaining the ordinance changes to property owners. Mayor Esther Manheimer concurred, though claiming the changes aren’t \u201cdramatic,\u201d and their colleagues agreed about the need for more presentations to locals about the ordinance.<\/p>\n

The rules passed 6-1, with Bothwell the sole dissenting vote.<\/p>\n

The writing on the wall<\/strong><\/p>\n

During its open public comment period representatives of the city and county’s African American Heritage Commission to come forward and assert it was time to add a monument marking the contributions of the city’s African-American population. The push has built for months since its launch<\/a>, with over two thousand people signing paper and online petitions.<\/p>\n

James Lee, a member of the commission, came to present those signatures to Council and call for their help.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere have been a lot of contributions made by African-Americans in our city ,\u201d Lee said. \u201cBut that story isn’t being told. The story that is being told in our community is a very slanted, disproportionate history. \u201d<\/p>\n

Asheville, like many other cities throughout the Southeast, has streets and monuments still devoted to slave owners<\/a>\u00a0and Confederate leaders like Augustus Merrimon, Nicholas Woodfin and Zebulon Vance. In Pack Square, at the heart of the city’s core, there are five Confederate markers but none to the city’s African-American population, a fact some local historians have pointed to<\/a> as the relics of a very specific political agenda.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat we want to do is revive a more even, balanced history,\u201d Lee said. \u201cWe encourage you to really support the efforts of the African-American Heritage Commission to build a marker that recognizes the efforts of African-Americans within our community.\u201d<\/p>\n

The stone obelisk commemorating Vance, recently renovated, has become a particular point of contention. The night before Council met, someone painted<\/a> the words \u201cBlack Lives Matter\u201d on it.<\/p>\n

In the wake of the killing of nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C. in a terrorist attack the symbols of the Confederacy \u2014 like the flag white supremacist shooter Dylan Roof displayed \u2014 have come under increasing fire\u00a0as markers of racist violence and segregation. The wake of the tragedy has also seen \u201cBlack Lives Matter\u201d and similar slogans painted on multiple Confederate monuments as acts of protest.<\/p>\n

In this case Vance was a Confederate governor and U.S. Senator who played a major part in North Carolina’s politics and the region’s development throughout the 19th century. He was also an avowed racist who opposed the rights of African-Americans to vote and used convicts, many of them African-Americans convicted on trivial charges like vagrancy, as forced labor to build the railroad into WNC. While 125 died in the process, Vance insisted work continue at the same pace.<\/p>\n

His legacy has come under increasing<\/a> scrutiny<\/a> as awareness of Asheville’s own problems with segregation increase.<\/p>\n

Advocates of the new monument emphasized that they didn’t approve of the tagging the night before. They also said the time had come to address the imbalance at the city’s core, and that they needed the city’s support to do so.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are committed to leading the effort,\u201d Sasha Mitchell, the commission’s chair, said, noting the many groups, as well as individuals, that are supporting the effort. \u201cWe don’t condone any kind of vandalism. We love this city, this is our home.\u201d<\/p>\n

The site has particular significance, Mitchell continued.<\/p>\n

\u201cSlaves were sold nearby that location, historically there was an entrance to colored restrooms. Those are both sad things, but it’s also our city center,\u201d she said. \u201cDoing something in that city center to bring that history to light will really be a boost to our community\u201d and a signal to students, locals and to visitors \u201cto see that we are progressive, forward-looking, inclusive city.\u201d<\/p>\n

She encouraged city leaders to look at resources like the Congressional Black Caucus’ guide<\/a> for how cities \u201cmight transform areas that have had a nostalgic look at Confederate heroes as their focus into areas that focus on the fight for freedom and justice for people of all races.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBroad municipal support,\u201d she emphasized, \u201cwould got a long way toward making positive changes for us. We want the story that we tell in the center of town and in our public spaces to represent all of our community and our highest ideals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mitchell said that knowing such support was there would be key as the commission devised plans, gathered input and followed the process to \u201cmake this happen with all deliberate speed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Manheimer noted that she’d met earlier in the day with Mitchell, City Manager Gary Jackson and Parks and Rec Director Roderick Simmons along with other city staff about the effort.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe city is eager to partner with your efforts and we stand ready to help support your efforts,\u201d she said. \u201cWhat we’re hoping to see is some momentum now. I understand fundraising is going to be a hurdle but once that gets moving along and plans start coming together we’ll be there and be ready to meet with y’all to see how we can best support your efforts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Council member Jan Davis noted that, speaking at the re-dedication of the Vance Monument alongside Buncombe County Commission Chair David Gantt, \u201cboth of us made comments that day that the county and city are on board with that chapter of history being represented there too, it’s very important that story be told. We’re all in agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pelly, who serves as the Council’s liaison to the heritage commission, noted that \u201cthe thing I look to you all to provide is leadership on what the message is that you want to get across to the greater community. We can support it in a lot of institutional ways but ultimately the message about what you think the community needs to hear, we look to you to bring that forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

Before the summer ends<\/strong><\/p>\n

But if you think that the summer vacation heralds a slow-down in city politics, a lot’s going on and there will be plenty on board when Council reconvenes in late July.<\/p>\n

In August, Council’s set to tackle short-term rentals and the degree to which they should be allowed or banned within the city. This issue has proven incredibly controversial, with critics<\/a> asserting that STRs worsen an already-dire housing shortage and can hollow out neighborhoods. Proponents see it as a way to make more money off the tourism trade.<\/p>\n

In May, Council gave a pretty clear indication<\/a> of where they’re heading: allowing people to offer rooms or part of their own homes as short-term rentals, but banning and increasing fines and enforcement on those offering homes they didn’t live in as short-term rentals in residential areas. That’s not going to be popular with those who want to be able to put their second or third homes out on AirBnB, and when the changes come forward in late August, expect plenty of renewed debate.<\/p>\n

There’s also the issue of the living wage for city workers. At the public hearing on the budget several speakers, including the director of Just Economics, which certifies Living Wage businesses, called on the city to extend a living wage to all workers. But even into the fall, those raises may still not be forthcoming, and some city workers may still be left out.<\/p>\n

Later this month new Asheville Police Department Chief Tammy Hooper, currently the deputy chief of Alexandria, Va., takes office. The APD has seen divisions in recent years, with two chiefs<\/a> resigning<\/a> and major public disputes between commanders, the rank-and-file and city management, as well as major issues<\/a> with morale and the internal operations of the department. If those divisions over the direction of the department and local law enforcement will continue under Hooper’s watch remains to be seen.<\/p>\n

And of course, there’s ongoing issues like the housing crisis and development.\u00a0Amid all that, there’s an election going on, one that promises to be a lot more competitive than the last one. Given all that, local politics’ long summer may well end up less quiet than it seems.<\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

The Asheville Blade is entirely funded by its readers. If you like our work,\u00a0donate directly to us<\/a>\u00a0on Patreon.\u00a0Questions? Comments?\u00a0Email us<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A budget, housing and monuments take center stage at the last Council meeting before the summer break, with more on the horizon Above: Asheville City Council member Gwen Wisler. File photo by Max Cooper. The spring and early summer are typically a big time for local politics. City government \u2014 the mayor, six Council members […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1283,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,6],"tags":[135,45,31,25,69,12,24,111,86],"class_list":["post-1282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-government","category-news","tag-affordable-housing","tag-asheville-city-council","tag-budget","tag-development","tag-history","tag-housing","tag-politics-2","tag-segregation","tag-wages"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/WislerCouncil.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1282"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1286,"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282\/revisions\/1286"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashevilleblade.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}