Lots of folks in a north Asheville neighborhood just off Merrimon Avenue have been talking about Mountain Housing Opportunities’ proposal to build an apartment complex on the site of a former Naval Reserve center that was torn down a few years back.
The classic not-in-my-back-yard reaction is often the first reaction of folks, and frankly, I understand that. But before everyone gets all up in arms, folks need to take some time out to really learn about the proposal, understand it, then make a decision.
And that’s exactly what appears to be happening. Here’s an email I received from someone who reconsidered their position after learning more about it. I’ll keep them confidential. But check out the information provided:
All,
I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction to this issue and for not doing appropriate research before sending out the email below. After I sent this and contacted City Council members, I have received feedback from several City Council members explaining the complexities of this issue. Among the issues I did not understand are the following:
1. MHO says the project won’t work with only 32 units; with that number, the apartments won’t be affordable.
2. There basically is no height limitation in this district except when within 100 feet of a residentially zoned area. I believe that means that, say, if the site were purchased for something like high-end condos, they could build a 10-story building under the current zoning.
3. The difference in traffic/safety between the current zoning designation (which would allow for, among other things, a strip mall) and the MHO proposal may be negligible.
4. As far as I know, the Asheville Fire Department has not voiced any concerns yet.
5. If MHO builds there, many residents will not even have cars and will use public transportation; this might be better for traffic safety than if a strip mall or big condo complex were put there.
So, with these caveats (and I’m sure there are more that I haven’t learned about yet), I retract my initial push against the project and will do more research. I hope you will do the same and that we can all be informed (not knee-jerk, like me) citizens of North Asheville! At least we’ve got a conversation started!
13 Comments
To Unintended Mass Emailer:
A member of Council used your email (without your name), verbatim, to show me how members of the neighborhood who were against the project have come around to support it wholeheartedly. It was in that context as well as the headline post here, that I felt the need to challenge your points. While I still beIieve that my counterpoints were accurate, I hope you can see why my attitude was sour. I also hope you will inform members of Council directly of your true position, which I understand is undecided. I appreciate that you have corrected the misconception given on this site and to Council.
Esther Manheimer put it well during her campaign: "With regard to development, I favor a system where, with the input of citizens, the City codifies all the development standards we want and need to preserve Asheville." This has not happened. Instead, many are pursuing plans in the face of citizen concerns and not trying to address those concerns in any meaningful way.
Recent rezoning efforts on behalf of Mountain Housing Opportunities have not appeared to many citizens appropriate in the context of the preservation of neighborhoods. MHO also has been disingenuous about consulting members of the potentially affected communities. During a December information meeting on the MHO plans for the Naval Reserve site, Scott Dedham specifically asked many, myself and my husband included, to sign in and give our email addresses, because MHO wanted to be in touch. We are far from alone among those who signed in who have never heard from MHO. It is hard not to conclude that MHO either is incompetent, which I do not believe, or never had any intention of further consulting or informing most of the neighbors of the proposed project. Going through the motions of consulting only after having fully conceived the project and then not carrying through is not acceptable in the absence of the citizen-informed policies for which Councilwoman Manheimer forethoughtfully called.
MHO last year failed to get rezoning for a 35 unit complex approved. If 35 units were affordable in that case, why not 32 in this? In the earlier case 20 units would have been allowed under existing zoning. It appears that MHO wants to change zoning that protects the character of neighborhoods. Why? And why keep pursuing such zoning changes when already conditionally approved complexes in West Asheville have not seen construction? It is hard not to suspect another agenda here.
At the Council meeting where MHO failed to get approval last year, Scott Dedham accused those who opposed the rezoning request both of elitism and NIMBYism, just as is happening again. That is irresponsible demagoguery. Instead of listening to neighbors’ concerns about traffic and building scale and the introduction of urban density housing into historically suburban areas, many of MHO’s leadership and friends prefer just to dismiss by mis-labeling people. Such labeling is inaccurate, as the above blog entries make clear. It also is intentionally demeaning and derogatory. Our society has learned to react against racial labels and use of ugly stereotypes in other circumstances. The same standards should apply here. Neither civic health nor civil discourse is advanced by the reduction of people to labels. Responsible public policy is based on consideration and negotiation of the concerns of all the citizenry, not the promotion of conflict among groups.
Build 32 units or drop all zoning. Why have zoning if all we do is break the rules. There is afordable housing near buy, townhouses, not a good idea to put all "afordable housing" together, that makes a slum.
How about putting some affordable housing in Renolds Mountain?
I thank Esther Manheimer who has been hearing the "elitist" neighbors’ concerns. I directed the following letter to her.
First the project is completely out of scale with the surrounding community. MHO points out their 3-story project on Clingman as a comparison, but hey, Clingman adjoins downtown and their are many taller buildings with in a few blocks. So really it is not comparable.
Second in order to make the project a reality, you and the other council members must vote down the decisions of past city leaders and the Unified Development Ordinance, which was devised to protect our city, in order to change the zoning. Not to sound ugly but… I hope you all realize how self-absorbed this makes you guys look as a group (and frankly it may be true for some).
Lastly, I have asked several folks from MHO to please consider altering the plans and scale back the height. They have absolutely no interest in entertaining that what-so-ever. As a matter of fact, they act as if I did not even suggest it! If this was a private, for-profit developer they (I hope) would be jumping through all kinds of hoops to comply. Also, MHO told me a large portion of the apartments would likely be inhabited by elderly. Well, most elderly cannot live anywhere other than the first floor unless there is an elevator, which I believe the Larchmont does not have. It appears to me and many others who do not even live near the project that MHO has you guys in their pocket.
Oops I thought I was done. I was told that the affordable apartments on Clairmont are not full. If that is the case, what does this say for the need to even have this in the first place??
Just so you know, my tone and words are not meant to attack. I’m just upset that this need to re-zone is even being considered.
I am the author of the "mass email" quoted anonymously (thank you) by the blogger and derided by Atone in the comments, and I sent it originally only to my N. Avl friends and neighbors after I had at first sent them an email promoting the petition. I never intended it to be forwarded as a "mass email," and if you read it closely, I never endorsed EITHER position. I simply laid out some of the issues I had heard from several City Council members that made me reconsider my knee-jerk acceptance of the petition position and said: "I retract my initial push against the project and will do more research." I have not made up my mind on this issue and will consider all details before doing so, just as all responsible members of this community should.
I find it fascinating that Murphy and West is the Best accuse the protesters of being afraid of affordable housing and not wanting this project in our back yards. Apparently, they didn’t bother to learn that many in the adjacent neighborhood, including some of the most outspoken protesters, would qualify as MHO residents at The Larchmont.
According to West, "I wish more citizens would take the time to listen and learn about development processes and proposals before knee-jerking NIMBY stances."
Pot, meet kettle.
Merrimon Avenue is a major roadway running through Asheville. It’s similar to Patton Avenue, Tunnel Road, Hendersonville road, etc. Building takes place along major roadways in cities. While the height of the project on the hilltop is a valid point, it’s no worse than the bank and sandwich shop project on the former Burger King lot which is right on top of the sidewalk and roadway. Adding housing is in many ways a welcome addition to the types of commercial and office development which routinely happens along major roadways. Access to public transportation will allow many of these residents to still live in the city. Many of them have been forced out of downtown because of conversions of affordable housing into higher priced condominiums.
As a candidate I ran on increasing density on our existing transportation corridors and incentivizing affordable housing there. By moving in this direction we will preserve open spaces and increase the number of working people who live in proximity to downtown. We can utilize existing infrastructure, costing taxpayers less. The difference in traffic between 32 and 60 units, while it exists, does not in my mind disqualify the project. It’s currently zoned to contain, among other uses, a strip mall, which would bring quite a lot more traffic than what’s currently proposed.
The neighborhood backs up to an urban corridor, and my view is that we must utilize our corridors for increased density rather than creating the sprawl that comes with forcing affordable housing to the margins.
Having received nearly a hundred emails from people on both sides of this issue, I’m very glad to see so many people engaging their government. It’s my firm belief that the project is a big win for affordable housing, corridor density, open space preservation, and public transit usage.
Ash,
Thanks for the due diligence of covering Asheville.
I think you’ve pretty well misstated the concerns of those involved, which is too bad. Their concerns are with the density, not with MHO, the project, or future residents. Nothing stops MHO from building 32 units of housing, and it’d be great to see that.
People are opposed to the plan to build 60 units of housing in a 4 story, 61 foot tall building that will stand on top of hill with no buffering facing Merrimon, and add traffic to an area that sees 20,000+ cars a day.
For the real story, see the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/785-merrimon-ave/
As a resident who lives very close to the site, I have received this same mass email repeatedly, which attempts to convert the neighborhood to Mountain Housing’s position. The arguments seem to have been advanced by someone without serious thought:
1. If MHO can’t make enough profit by complying with the existing zoning that is required under the UDO, then they should find a site that is able accommodate the up-sized project. The zoning that exists for the site actually protects the neighborhood from this type of encroachment.
2. Actually, MHO is attempting to REMOVE the restrictions that the current zoning imposes, in order to construct their apartments. The zoning restrictions that exist were adopted by Council; Council is now being asked to LESSEN the more restrictive zoning for this project. If MHO doesn’t use the site, the neighborhood could always petition Council to even further restrict the zoning for any large-scale project that would be out-of-character, such as the ones cited. And finally, the millions of dollars it would cost to upgrade the insufficient infrastructure (water, sewer, road, etc) for any large-scale development would also be prohibitive, making the site unusable by any dastardly developer. Oh, by the way, parks and greenways are allowed under the current zoning, but not under the zoning MHO is requesting.
3. The traffic wouuld be doubled from what is currently allowed in the existing zoning designation. The Larchmont intersection and Merrimon corridor are already extremely congested and dangerous.
4. With an average of more than 3 calls per day, and with the on-street parking being recommended for the project on the only narrow egress for the fire trucks, this is a disaster waiting to happen. As an adjacent neighbor, I am very concerned. Has the writer asked the fire chief about this?
5. It is interesting that people will be expected to walk down a narrow street without sidewalks, cross Merrimon at a most dangerous intersection, then catch a bus that comes once per hour in order to get to work every day. And, of course, the families who live there will be expected to give up their cars and cross Merrimon with their children in tow, to take them to child care before work – for that once an hour bus. Don’t mean to sound snarky, but really, what are they thinking? Maybe the tenants can just cruise safely down Merrimon Av. during rush hour on their bikes, with their kids.
If the author of this mass email and blog entry was truly concerned about the environment and workforce housing, she might consider that rental subsidies for existing vacancies in the neighborhood and around Asheville – which are plentiful – would be a much more environmentally sound and practical solution to the alleged shortage of affordable housing in Asheville – and one that prevents environmental damage and irreversible harm to the community.
Thanks for posting this persons’ thoughts and reactions to the E Larchmont St apartment project. This person has educated themselves. They better understand what the UDO does and does not do for land development in and around Asheville. I wish more citizens would take the time to listen and learn about development processes and proposals before knee-jerking NIMBY stances. Change can be a a good thing.
Why are people so afraid of affordable housing?
It is not subsidized, it’s not Section 8, it is AFFORDABLE!
As far as the traffic situation goes, it’s Merrimon Avenue for petes sake!