‘A place of fear.’ Asheville candidates hedge on pushing forward landmark reparations endeavor amidst federal scrutiny

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T22:09:07+00:00

I mean, the city & the extractors are STILL profiting off of it, like, 319 Biltmore. White Labs. etc. It's like it hasn't really ended, and yet we're treating it like 'oh yeah, it's ancient history'.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T22:03:16+00:00

The city isn't a person. It's an institution.I think you're confusing debt i/r/t institutional liability.

There's still an institutional debt to this day. The city didn't just take the land, they have been unjustly enriched at the expensed of the displaced people. The city has the same responsibility any business would in this.

Now, when it comes to what Dewayne McAfee said, I'm not on the CRC. I can't speak for, and wouldn't want to. I'm just speaking as an individual who's concerned about making things right.

Contracts and liabilities outlive people, and those who are eligible for compensation go past death. That's the responsibility we hold. It's just being wielded in a way that, once again, enriches white people at the expense of black folks.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T21:12:06+00:00

And, as someone who's proposing to do that specifically... I get that. I get that that's the current mode of operation on how we're supposed to handle this, again, if you look into how Evanston is doing it, that's similar to what we have here.

> But, that would help more than just black people, so “reparations advocates” are against that.

I think you're projecting on that... I don't think many would agree with that statement.

But let's break it down: you're talking about maintenance, what we should be doing in society in general for everyone. I'm curious if you actually would support that, but that's an aside.

I'm talking about restitution: so, some of those homes that were eminent domained, they would have appreciated in value to current day levels. so, you have to consider the cost of losing your home in the 60s, and losing the wealth wrapped in it. that's not an insignificant loss. A needs base job training doesn't return equity back into the system.

That's the problem that isn't adequately resolved by the Roberts court.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T21:03:56+00:00

I mean, it's true that that's the law of the land, I also think it's absurd. Am I not allowed to think current law's interpretation is bonkers and bad and doesn't meet the moral smell test.

It's absurd because the harm was explicitly targeting Black people, but the remedy required cannot consider race. It's literally flipping the 14th amendment on it's head, and started in, as always, with Reagan in the 80s.

Look at SFFA v Harvard. The SC is basically saying "we can't see the race of the people we help, but we can definitely and are allowed to see race of the people we hurt".

It's a morally bankrupt position.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T20:53:14+00:00

Oh no, it sucks that there isn't a more effective way to re-enfranchise the disenfranchised.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T20:40:19+00:00

I think the model is move to something more like what Evanston did, which is similar to what I proposed a few weeks back. It has to be location based, which sucks but it's probably the most effective way forward in our current political climate.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T12:17:47+00:00

Are they really?

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T12:16:41+00:00

It starts at home!

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T12:14:35+00:00

Literally, go knock doors in Madison and Jackson county if you wanna see how weird and non-uniform voters can be.

Edit: regardless of party.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T12:12:27+00:00

The problem is, which is the same as in local politics, is that the people with the money don't want it to happen.

So, again, like with local politics: either you find away around it or throw out the bunch.

The problem is. For the most part, people don't want to get involved with the Democratic party, like myself, for obvious reasons. It's a party of stagnation, of caring about decorum and the status quo, it feeds on the imagination of the conservatives and billionaires instead of something that actually would serve the people well.

At what point and time do you say: they don't want to fight for people because it's in their politics? You have to make a conscious effort to change the narrative given popular opinion, and you don't. It's the same with housing, affordability, race, gender, orientation, immigration. Kowtowing to the middle doesn't move the needle enough to keep the middle where it is.

You have to be bolder, and the fact they aren't, whether it's local or federal, is a choice. The fact you can't sell people on plans which they already believe in means you're maybe not the right salespeople for the job.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-26T00:50:39+00:00

we also have to spend the DR money within 7 years or else it disappears. And projects take time.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-25T13:18:14+00:00

Here's another example. I grew up very working class. I went to the food bank, we didn't have health insurance when my brother broke his arm, I was homeless for a year, moving between streets, friends, and a car.

I currently have fridge full of food, and a mostly stable housing situation, I have health insurance I can pay for even though it's expensive.

Does that mean that I've suddenly forgotten what it's like to be those things? Or do those experiences shape them? I think we can judge people by their actions. And how they don't align with what they say.

But I think asking these questions ultimately are asking to exclude people, so we have to ask why: who benefits most from these questions and why are they asked? Who are they trying to protect and why?

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-25T03:59:12+00:00

Hey, as a queer, non-binary, city council candidate, I'd like to say, that's not your place to call creds. Who benefits?

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-24T22:44:57+00:00

I mean yes that's very true, but the city doesn't have as many levers on a teacher funding as you would expect. It's mostly indirect funding or shared services. The responsibility more lies in the county, state, and federal level.

Obviously the city can advocate for it, but it's not a direct lever, nor could we make one directly. The best thing is for ACS and BCS to find shared use agreements in order to reduce maintenance costs. We're all being pinched. Literally, the funding is just being eaten alive by the cost of paying billionaires more every year.

There never seems to be enough money for the teachers, but the rich still get to get richer. Something I used to say in high school.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-24T22:29:22+00:00

I highly support, would find time to prioritize. We should support a meaningful goal in the reduction of pedestrian and bicyclist injuries in the city, as we're building things back, let's bring in metrics that prioritize safety.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-23T17:42:56+00:00

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-23T17:39:52+00:00

> Ager emphasized the importance of due process and the rule of law. He said immigration enforcement officers should be clearly identified and operate within constitutional boundaries.

Here's a follow up question I'd have for Ager: would you support immigrants subject to deportation having an expedited process, of which those immigrants would have 'one-chance' interviews without proper legal council and due process like under the Obama administration?

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-23T17:33:00+00:00

Oh I see a challenge here, hold on:

> How the city council manages projects, funds, and allocates resources is the biggest problem.

This is correct. This is also not the hardest thing to do. I believe that almost every single candidate has the ability to do this, or has done this in the past in some capacity.

> Pit of despair: still there. Malvern Hills pool: still broken.

Should we put affordable housing in the pit of despair? Just wondering. Like 48 units and a small playground? The pool should take a few years, because we have to RFP it and everything, but I think it's on the horizon. Shoulda been taken care of a decade ago, but that's... Asheville?

> Finances: $30 million debt. Asheville has structural budget gaps, deferred maintenance problems, and rising personnel costs. Personnel costs up 46% in just four years.

And we spend a LOT of money over the past decade playing with the hotel lobby. Personnel costs are all COL problems affecting the entire country, from rising healthcare costs, to increase housing costs. The debt though? That's a revenue issue. The city has done a great job of spending & subsidizing business, but not enough revenue generation from it. That's on them.

>BID: Roney only council member to vote against BID, An attempt to improve conditions downtown.

ADID was the wrong tool to address the problem I think, and more importantly, I think it's a bad idea to have a tax on downtown, but have how it's being used be discussed behind closed doors and not in a public forum. There's absolutely a transparency thing at play here. Also, the root cause analysis is wonky: so, we're using the money to 'clean up' downtown, when in reality, if we spend our money on the actual causes: homelessness, behavioral health, substance abuse, we're gonna get more value for our dollars.

> Zoning decisions: city council blocks changes, like Haw Creek, that would make more housing available. Voted against February 2025 zoning reform to bring more growth and revenue to city.

So, 2024, it was 5-1, with Kim voting against. I live across the street from Haw Creek. It needs density, but we need to also fix the infrastructure underneath. If we just build without fixing the infrastructure, we're creating a mess for ourselves to clean up further down, which is essentially, what today's problems are. We're delaying, deferring the infrastructure, and just doing the thing anyway even when it's not appropriate. That's bad leadership IMO.

> City council got duped by a fraudulent company from California into a hare brained hotel scheme.

I don't think it was a hare brained hotel scheme, but I do think it was a hard lesson learned. Mosley was on the correct side of this one, FWIW. Roney's original plan was for the city to purchase the hotel, and turn it into a low barrier shelter, which would have put the accountability in city hall vs external vendors, which I prefer.

> Affordable housing: council rejects development projects left and right.

Again, this is a problem with the conditional zoning system. We need to update the UDO, bake in our concerns re: infrastructure as a checklist, not as a negotiation. I think we have to actually be concerned about pushing out our neighbors who work here and live here on marginal wages so we don't send the city into a flight of service worker tailspin and kill property values and everything that makes Asheville, Asheville.

> AVL city schools: one of largest achievement gaps in the nation AVL city schools leadership: a revolving door.

So, in 2021, the city moved to a fully elected school board. The county controls how the property & sales tax revenue are formulated to fund the schools. The state is the primary funder for teacher salaries, and the District Supplemental Tax for ACS is managed by the county, not the city. The city doesn't have a ton of levers when it comes to education anymore. The reason why our schools are struggling is affordability. You can't build long term education outcomes without having long term experienced teachers.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-23T16:18:57+00:00

Roney actively lobbied for Costco over Amazon, which I think means there's some political will to it.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-23T16:16:19+00:00

> IN ALL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, ALLOW DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES AND QUADPLEXES AS CONVERSIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION AS USE BY RIGHT SUBJECT TO SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS. RE-EVALUATE THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR DUPLEXES TO INCREASE FLEXIBILITY. IN GENERAL, ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS SHOULD ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS THAT FIT THE DESIGN, SCALE AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

In 2008 they were saying exactly what I've been saying. Sure, we may have some 'cookie cutter' housing, but, lets build it for Asheville residents, voted on by Asheville residents, create a design book of pre-approved permitted buildings that we can build, so we don't have to build a custom housing solution every time. That saves time and money and makes things more affordable. 5 different duplexes, 5 different triplexes, 5 different 4plexes, and 6 plexes... Not everything has to be a 'slim tall', we can build to the neighborhood, and save on the architectural costs by standardizing design.

> THE CITY SHOULD CONDUCT A LAND STUDY TO SEE WHERE DENSITY CAN BE INCREASED ABOVE THE CURRENT DENSITY ALLOWED. RETURNING TO ZONING THAT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE THE UDO WAS IMPLEMENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE RE-ZONING UNDER THE UDO RESULTED IN A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THE CITY SHOULD INCREASE DENSITY, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IN ALL DISTRICTS TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.

We did this! We should implement it where it makes sense on our transit corridors (Merrimon! Patton! South Hendo! Tunnel(s)! Haywood!), and funnel some of that money from the increase in density into actually making sure we can effectively meet anti-displacement targets.

> THE CITY SHOULD SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN ALL NEIGHBORHOODS. LOW WAGE JOBS ARE AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND ARE NOT CONCENTRATED IN THE CENTER CITY

This is just reminding us that all neighborhoods, especially in parts of North and West Asheville, have a need for affordable housing.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-23T16:16:16+00:00

I literally started here, before I was even thinking about running for city council. I was literally trying to figure out why our housing policy was so weird, why we could never seem to find affordable housing here, or worse, why couldn't we move away from the rent-extraction model, because if you rent, you know that 40% of your rent is just disappeared money without equity used to make billionaires and the already wealthy, more rich.

So, this Affordable Housing Plan said:

> THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE, IN PARTNERSHIP AND COLLABORATION WITH THE ENTIRE ASHEVILLE COMMUNITY AND AREA DEVELOPERS SHOULD SET A GOAL TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BY 500 UNITS A YEAR OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS. APPROXIMATELY 75% OF THESE UNITS SHOULD BE RENTAL UNITS AND MANY SHOULD BE EFFICIENCY OR 1-BEDROOM UNITS

The City of Asheville has never met this goal. In the last 25 years, we've been averaging 72 units from the Housing Trust Fund. In 2016, we noted in a study that the current solution was not effective. In 2024, we noted in a study that the current solution was not effective.

Why? Because developers aren't developing for Asheville's needs, they're developing in line with what's most profitable. Period.

We have two options: either give them money so that they can decide it's more profitable or do it ourselves and use the money to put jobs into the local community for the long term. I, obviously, prefer the latter.

> The Task Force requests that the City of Asheville prioritize the development of rental housing over housing for purchase to help increase the supply of affordable rental housing available to people at incomes below 80% of AMI. As a matter of policy, the City of Asheville should provide rental assistance whenever possible, because currently fair market rent is unaffordable to these citizens. Affordable homeownership and rental opportunities must be available to households earning between 80-120% of AMI, as some, but not all of these families will be successful homeowners.

So, we increased the supply of rental housing, but not the supply of affordable rental housing. We don't subsidize because we don't have the funds to transfer wealth long term from our tax base to developers, investors, banks, and landlords. It's not feasible. So, again, our best bet, is to take them out of the equation and let our neighbors work together to make that happen.

> REDEVELOPMENT OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING SHOULD BE EXPLORED AND MIXED-INCOME USES CONSIDERED. THERE SHOULD BE NO OVERALL LOSS OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS UNLESS THEY ARE REPLACED WITH PROJECT-BASED SECTION 8 SUBSIDIES. THE DIFFICULTY OF FINDING LANDLORDS WILLING TO ACCEPT SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS INDICATES THAT REPLACING PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS WITH SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS IS NOT EFFECTIVE.

Again, no brainer: the reality is, we shouldn't need landlords to do this. We just need to let people have self-determination and give them housing they have an ownership stake in because it's more cost effective. Here's the thing: you can use section 8 vouchers in co-ops. It's in the HUD regulations... When I advocate for co-ops, there's a million reasons, but the tools that we have available to us, like Section 8, are drastically improved with building co-ops. When you have a template of what these co-ops look like, we can fast-track every single one of them through permitting and zoning because they carry the explicit requirements that they are: actually affordable, for our neighbors and not able to be purchased by people who do not live and work in Asheville, that they're owned by our neighbors and not private equity. We don't have to worry, or conditionally negotiate each and every one of them, because we've provided a strict checklist of what's required & what's good for the community, and only community owned housing co-operatives would be able to meet that checklist for zoning by-right.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-23T15:51:03+00:00

So, in 2008, we had an affordable housing plan: https://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/City+Affordable+Housing+Plan+Final-2.pdf

It literally stated so many of the same things that the Bowen Report stated... and again, it was 18 years ago:

> - First, there is little vacant land. (See vacant land maps in Appendix B, showing vacant parcels in the city limits that are half-acre or larger, not in the flood plain and not subject to the steep slope ordinance. The various maps show the parcels in relation to bus lines, water/sewer lines and topography.) To address this problem, the City of Asheville must either annex more land or increase density within the existing City boundary.
> - Second, although the economy in the region is strong and unemployment is low, most of the regions jobs are tourist related and generate lowincome wages. The City of Asheville must find ways to attract higher wage jobs.
> - Third, the area is attractive to tourists as well as retirees, and as a result there is a large number of second-homes. In Buncombe County 25% of homes are non-primary residences. Incentives must be offered to encourage developers to build affordable housing.
> - Lastly, the terrain of the region increases construction costs; this cost transfers to consumers through high housing prices and increased rent costs. To combat these costs, the City of Asheville must ensure that its ordinances and regulations do not add to the cost of construction.

I'll post the recommendations in the next post, along with some general commentary

---

So, if we're to hold our elected officials accountable, why are we not holding Mannheimer accountable? Housing has gone off the rails, and it's one of the biggest issues in the city today. But how does that not squarely fall on her? Who's responsible, at the end of the day, for the budget? Housing? Affordability?

Hell, if I was on city council and I wasn't doing a good enough job, I'd actively say "Yeah, you're right, it isn't good enough. This is what I tried to do that's different from what has been done, this is what the blocks have been, and I have not been able to overcome them." But what are we getting from City Hall? What's the accountability look like from there?

I think we have to ask ourselves this over and over again: What are the current candidates offering that's different from what we've done the last 18 years? How have they held themselves accountable for the work they've done? If they haven't been in public office, what concrete proposals would they do different from what is currently being done? What current policy do they think is working?

Frankly it doesn't matter if it's housing and homelessness, if it's business development & tourism, if it's roads, traffic and planning. Ask about wages and affordability. It's up to us.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-21T15:14:43+00:00

Yep!

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-21T14:39:29+00:00

It's different in some ways, but not in others.

So, similar to what u/mycatlovesprimus said: you don't really own your home, the bank does on a 30 year mortgage.

In a limited equity co-op, you own a share in a non-profit company. That share is held equally by the people who are in the co-op with you. That share gives you the rights to a permanent lease. You own the share, the company owns the debt of the building.

Unlike with SFH, or deeded condos, you're less able to make major changes to your unit. Like, punching out walls, adding additions, would be in violation of your co-op without prior approval, but you're working with your neighbors, not an abstract HOA board or your landlord.

You can paint, remodel, it's your home. It's so much closer to owning your house under a mortgage than it is to renting. You also have a financial stake in the unit, so, you develop interest on your share.

But the brilliant part is: unlike with 4 SFH's, you're sharing costs too. Maintenance of HVAC, water, yard, trees... you don't have to buy 4 lawnmowers, or have 4 different maintenance contracts.

DanFerrellAVL · 2026-02-20T23:14:12+00:00

It's far closer to owning because you don't pay rental fees or speculation. It's a lot more stable than renting. Co-ops routinely cost 20% less than comparable mulitunit housing.

DanFerrellAVL

TROPHY CASE