Explore Ashvegas
Tags
art (65)
Asheville (2725)
Asheville Citizen-Times (82)
Asheville City Council (202)
Asheville Police Department (102)
bar (63)
beer (279)
Biltmore Estate (61)
Black Mountain (73)
brewery (153)
coffee (60)
comedy (84)
craft beer (330)
crime (66)
Curate (60)
downtown (163)
Esther Manheimer (68)
featured (1728)
film (114)
food (264)
French Broad River (64)
Grey Eagle (108)
grocery store (63)
Haywood Road (177)
Highland Brewing (62)
hotel (114)
Lexington Avenue (78)
Merrimon Avenue (74)
Moogfest (59)
movie (91)
movie review (278)
music (142)
New Belgium Brewing (80)
newspaper (60)
Patton Avenue (59)
photography (68)
restaurant (242)
River Arts District (167)
south slope (127)
Stu Helm (292)
The Mothlight (62)
The Orange Peel (113)
The Week in Film (85)
UNC Asheville (70)
West Asheville (292)
Menu
Gordon,
Thanks for clearing that up about your campaign donations. I was just asking!
It is interesting, however, how the Mountain Housing and developer people contributed to some Council campaigns, and in amounts that for some people would be nearly a month’s rent (and that ain’t diddly) (from an Ashevegas post of July 26 2009):
– Terry Bellamy: The city’s mayor has raised $20,807 and spent $16,000.
Donor’s include: Gallery owner John Cram, $1,000; Scott Dedman of Mountain Housing Opportunities, where Bellamy used to work, $350; Cindy Weeks, developer, $350; Ann Hardman, a Georgia minister, $500; Jan Davis, vice mayor on Asheville City Council, $200; funeral home owner Jesse Ray Jr., $100; Maria Roloff, a Mission Hospitals official, $100; developer Tony Fraga, $4,000; developer Winston Pulliam Sr., $500.
– Esther Manheimer: Has raised $13,669 and spent $11,166.
Donors include: Attorney Fred Barbour, $200; attorney Leah Broker, $100; attorney Jones Byrd, $250; retired businessman Cecil Cantrell, $200; attorney Carolyn Coward, $500; City Councilman Jan Davis, $100; attorney Roy Davis, $500; Scott Dedman of Mountain Housing Opportunities, $100; attorney Bob Deutsch, $250; attorney Stephen Grabenstein, $250.
You can read more about my rationale at this blog post:
http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2010/03/16/affordable-housing-and-corridor-density/
p.s. Red, MHO officials didn’t donate diddly to my campaign. Also, I had the number wrong – it’s 744.
Atone,
I dont have issues its fact, most of the locals that live in Asheville are sick and tired of NORTH ASHEVILLE dictating how Asheville should be ran, North Asheville is just a Neighborhood nothing more and not all is wine in roses either, its most that just turn a blind eye.
Not one part of town should run the entire town, and again how am I a bigot?? I dont agree with you so you just instantly start the name calling, good ol lock step progressive asheville.
Councilman Smith,
Thanks for responding (and for watching the video), but your comment reads like an advertisement for Mountain Housing. Are they your primary campaign contributors or something? Hey, I voted for you too! Why are you shilling for the developer? As for your bullet points:
• From what independently conducted survey did you derive the “factual” 788 number?
• If the current zoning is so ineffective and inconsistent with your values, why WEAKEN it by allowing even taller buildings?
• The Fire Chief may be wrong. Or has that possibility not occurred to you?
• You imply that crime rates will decrease. Seriously?
• “Urban corridor.” Don’t jargonize my neighborhood! Are you calling my neighborhood a “hip-hop hallway”? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
• “Sustainability values”=more jargon! “Pushing affordable housing out of the city.” What about all the affordable housing in the neighborhood that currently exists and which will be threatened by this overblown project?
It’s depressing that you have made up your mind before the hearing (and apparently without being able to answer the questions of those who oppose the plan). Is that a sound m.o. for a representative of the people?
The main question remains: why can’t Mountain Housing develop a plan that is in scale with the site and neighborhood? Nobody is giving us a good answer to that question. The lack of a good response from City Council or from Mountain Housing gets more and more disgusting. This is how you want to join our neighborhood?!
D3J (Larchmont Red)
RE: DEBORAH MILES’ COMMENT
Deborah,
I am shocked to hear that “Mountain Housing Opportunity folks have a proven track record for nurturing the residents of their apartment complexes.”
“Nurture,” I’m sure you know, stems from a Latin word meaning “to suckle.” MOUNTAIN HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FOLKS ARE BREASTFEEDING TENANTS?! Is that legal? Do the licensing authorities know about this!? 🙂
Seriously, you ignore some facts about the very neighborhood in which you have lived FOR A WHOLE THIRTEEN YEARS. (Wow, you must be the oldest resident—no wait, now I remember–there are people, “regular folks,” I dare say, who actually live adjacent to the proposed site and who have been here FOUR TIMES LONGER THAN YOU! Please think again before you play the credibility-by-numbers game.)
You imply that there is no affordable housing in the area. What about, to name just a few examples, the Winston Heights townhouses on Long Street (right across from the Larchmont site) or Gracelyn Gardens two blocks to the north, both with current affordable vacancies ? Or don’t you go by that part of the neighborhood on your daily walk to the bus stop?
If affordable housing is so important to you, why don’t you and other neighborhood homeowners who support the plan rent out a room or an attic or a basement or a garage apartment to one of those many teachers or nurses who just can’t seem to find a place? (Perhaps you already do this—if so, please pardon the question and accept my thanks for doing your part to solve the problem. If you don’t, however, or if you have at least not talked with local landlords and realtors about other options, then you’re simply buying a dubious MHO pitch hook, line, and sinker.)
The neighborhood has been “sustainable” long before Mountain Housing arrived on the scene. If City Council lets them proceed with this oversized, illogical plan, however, who knows how long it will remain so?
D3J
(aka Larchmont Red)
P.S. The “great neighborhood” sidewalks you mention have seemingly disappeared from most of Long Street and Larchmont. Will you please let Ashevegas readers know if and when you find them? We walkers and bus riders surely need them!
The Larchmont property is already zoned for 32 units of affordable housing. The issue before city council is SIZE. Why must the project be SIXTY units at SIXTY ONE feet in height? All proponents of the project gloss over the fact that the opposition is to a change in zoning, NOT affordable housing. This is another Staples fiasco in the making. SIXTY units at SIXTY ONE feet in height on less than TWO acres. Too big for Merrimon.
"It all boils down to North Asheville believes they are too good for this, and guess what they are not." Asheville Dweller
It’s disheartening, but revealing, to hear such blatant bigotry from one who professes to be an advocate for those in need, especially considering that many in the immediate neighborhood who oppose the rezoning would qualify to live at the Larchmont.
Got issues?
Ms. Miles,
I recognize your comments as being earnest and your concern, real. However, to claim that our neighborhood has everything except ‘affordable housing’ is to define it narrowly by only that which this particular developer builds. I am surrounded by affordable rental vacancies and the number contines to grow. I also realize that there are some in the neighborhood who support the Larchmont because they don’t like the idea of young people joining together to rent houses as ‘dormitories’ but those tenants are living affordably — with their multiple vehicles and their dogs, and some, with their band practice in their basements — in a lifestyle which the Larchmont does not appear to be designed for.
As for your commitment to reducing the ‘carbon footprint of sprawl,’ I think we all agree. However, as an advocate for neighborhood diversity you might also consider the real, not theoretical or potential, neighbors and the impact of having the exhaust from 73 cars and trucks wafting up into the sanctuary of the back yard garden that you’ve nurtured for so many years, since moving to this neighborhood as immigrants 55 years ago. Yes, just beyond their back yard border will be the ‘Big Foot’ carbon impact of construction and 100+ people and their vehicles, day and night. By your argument, the theoretical needs of future tenants supersede the interests of those already living here. And by your’s and the developer’s design, it must be at least 100 people in 60 apartments or none at all. That’s really a false dichotomy intended to promote rezoning, and one that does not promote the best interests of future tenants as well as current neighbors. We should not have to make that choice; it’s unnecessary — but we are being forced to.
To my thinking, making the complex smaller is a fair and just compromise to allow for the construction of additional ‘affordable housing’ as well as to allow adequate space for parking and wider buffers, and reduce potential traffic congestion. As a neighbor astutely argued, ‘No one development should bear the disproportionate burden of meeting the affordable housing goals in North Asheville.’ It does appear that’s the goal — one that is unrealistic and disallowed under the current zoning established by the UDO.
In your passionate essay, you don’t address the only objections in the neighborhood: size, scale and density. Thus far, no one has, and that’s the only point of debate.
I’ve lived a few blocks from the proposed Larchmont Apartments since 1997. What a great neighborhood! Many research studies refer to indicators of a vital, healthy community – we’ve got just about all of them: libraries, grocery stores (no food desert there!), schools, houses of worship – Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, businesses, sidewalks, parks, and so much more.
The one thing we lack is affordable housing and this is a perfect spot. It is close to a large corridor and walkable to many places. The site is clear so no tree removal required (always a big issue in Asheville). We need more affordable housing on this end of town.
Who is going to live there? New teachers, teacher assistants, nurse’s aides, folks who work the lines at the grocery stores and other businesses, single parents who are students at UNC Asheville, retirees who are downsizing and on a limited income, 20 somethings who are just starting out. Many of us were those folks 30 years ago – when it didn’t cost so much to live here. All of this "AsheVegas" and "adult Disney land" acclaim has made it very difficult for regular folks to be a part of this community.
Years ago our family visited the Florida Keys. We met a young man who had grown up there. He couldn’t afford to buy or rent a house so he and his family lived on a party barge at a near by dock. Most folks who worked there drove on and off the islands each day. Is this Asehville’s future? I’ve talked to several nurses and teachers over the last few months that do that now. That is not a sustainable community – especially as we consider the carbon foot print of sprawl.
Mountain Housing Opportunity folks have a proven track record for nurturing the residents of their apartment complexes. I welcome MHO and the would – be neighbors to our community. I hope once the wrangling is over that we all will.
I encourage our City Council members to remember the carefully calculated strategic goals for affordable housing and vote for the development of Larchmont Apartments.
Deborah Miles
Mr. Gordon Smith, I think you meant to say "Mountain Housing Opportunities wants to build 788 units in North Asheville". That would have been too bold for you to say though. The profits for building 32 units instead of 60 just wouldn’t compare. Any ding dong could tell you that. I guarnatee I will not vote for you next time no matter what you say your campaign is based on. You have had your mind made up on this topic since before you even heard about it. Gordon, you are missing the big picture here.
It all boils down to North Asheville believes they are too good for this, and guess what they are not.
The first comment on YouTube says,
"Great video! …. I’m actually becoming against ANY housing unit on that land instead of a smaller project. A dog park would be much better. Or maybe just a storage area for the city."
Yes, that’s what it says.
And the guy who talks on the video says, "Might make a nice dog park."
Here’s what’s interesting. Some of my neighbors say, "We embrace affordable housing, we welcome working families. But not so many."
But now this: "A dog park. Or maybe just a storage area."
Translation: "Anything but new neighbors."
They say it’s off limits to question their motives. And some of my neighbors may have different motives than others.
But are you all getting this?
I welcome new neighbors to my neighborhood. Especially open-minded ones.
While we appreciate the guidance offered to us by our council members, there are a few facts that are not clear in Councilman Smith’s posting.
The zoning sought for this property is Urban Residential, which has a height restriction of 54 feet. The neighborhood zoning height restrictions are 40 feet. The height restrictions on Merrimon are 40 feet. The argument "if we don’t build this developer’s building, something really tall could go in there" is a non-starter, because a 61 foot (at its tallest) is going in there. That’s pretty tall, I would dare say it does not fit into the character and scope of the neighborhood.
Reduced density still provides for workforce housing, as well as creating a building more in scope with the neighborhood.
Nonetheless, we do appreciate the Councilman’s outreach.
"We need to confront honestly the issue of scale. Bigness has a charm and a drama that are seductive, especially to politicians and financiers; but bigness promotes greed, indifference, and damage, and often bigness is not necessary." – Wendell Berry
Councilman Smith,
First, your responsiveness is always appreciated. That was a promise of your campaign that you have vigorously upheld.
With that said…
Are you saying that you ran for Council on the values of ignoring zoning ordinances and opposing compromise? And, the only way to meet your estimated need is to over-crowd? If you wish you were on the neighbors’ side of the debate, perhaps you should be.
At the P&Z hearing, we heard about another plan that had been proposed for the site — to use the existing Naval Reserve building and grounds for a small school — which was rejected in order to accommodate a pre-selected developer instead. His was not the only ‘sustainable’ proposal that was rejected for the same reason. When a skyscraper is proposed, the neighbors would likely protest, too — to you — since it is Council that will allow it or not.
Your ‘sustainability’ and ‘corridor’ jargon seems well-rehearsed (and frankly, over-used) but does not address any of the issues we raise. Larchmont RED tells me he has lived here all his life but never thought of his homeplace as being on an ‘urban corridor’ until advocates for subsidized rental housing started saying so.
The video obviously didn’t attempt to address everything in the City’s reports to TRC and P&Z. That’s not art. Since the time the Naval Reserve was being torn down, I have spoken with my neighborhood fire fighters, some of whom tell me 1) They had hoped to expand and upgrade their facility on the site; 2) The water pressure is already low and infrastructure inadequate; and 3) This public comment, which can be found on the petition: "I work at the Larchmont Rd. Fire Station and am very concerned about this development. The issues of traffic and illegal parking on Larchmont are huge concerns for our response from Asheville Fire Station 7." I make it a point to listen to the soldiers in the trenches, not the brass.
The main point of the video and the neighborhood protest is that no one is able to answer the question ‘Why can’t we compromise and build it smaller?’ Your lecture on urban planning doesn’t do so either.
This is a great video. I have great respect for all of the folks who have banded together around the opinion that 37 units is acceptable and 60 units is not. I imagine it’s done quite a lot for neighborhood unity, and I wish I weren’t on the other side of the issue.
While I disagree with the protesters on this one, it’s my hope we’ll agree on many others.
Some of the facts that weren’t clear in the lyric are:
– There’s an estimated need for 788 more affordable housing units in North Asheville.
– The site is currently zoned to allow taller buildings, strip malls, and other less desirable uses.
– The Fire Chief has made it clear that he doesn’t see a problem with the density.
– MHO properties have crime rates far below the Asheville average.
– The property is on an urban corridor, adjacent to an existing neighborhood.
– If we don’t allow more density on our corridors, then we’re sacrificing sustainability values and pushing affordable housing out of the city.
For any of you who have tried to email me using the email given in the video, please try again. My real email address is [email protected]. I have made an effort to respond to each and every email I have received.
I ran for Council on exactly the values this project exemplifies, so I hope the neighborhood residents can respect the fact that it would be unethical to abandon my campaign promises when thousands of Asheville voters cast their ballots for the set of principles I espoused.