Despite a Feb. 27 vote supporting a ban on gated communities, City Council narrowly approved a conditional-use permit at its April 10 meeting allowing a 132-unit gated condominium development in North Asheville. The permit was needed because the proposed design calls for clustering the homes, which would exceed the allowable density under current zoning.
April 10 marked the second time the developer, Global Development Resources Inc., had appeared before Council to push for the permit. On Feb. 13, Council had tabled the permit for the proposed Thoms Estate in Beaverdam, to give Global Development time to work out some changes discussed in the Council chamber in response to substantial community resistance (see “Crashing the Gates,” Feb. 21 Xpress).
Two weeks later, Council members voted 6-1 to send a resolution to the Planning and Zoning Commission asking it to consider banning such gates as part of its proposed update of the city’s subdivision ordinance. P&Z is planning to take up that topic when they meet again in May; in the meantime, the city has no policy concerning gated communities.
But this particular project, which had been in the works before Council even considered that resolution, was actually the catalyst that sparked the whole discussion, leading some Council members to question the fairness of stopping the development now. City Attorney Bob Oast was uncertain whether a denial of the permit on the basis of the gates could be challenged in court.
Attorney Craig Justus, representing Global Development Resources, described changes in the plans in response to concerns voiced by both Council members and the general public, such as providing pedestrian access to the development and agreeing to close the gates only at night. Additionally, he said, the total number of units had been reduced by 30, though project opponents noted that the square footage of the remaining units had been increased.
When the developer last left the Council chamber in February, it was unclear which way the project was headed. Global Development Resources CEO Kent Smith had maintained that all the proposed design features—including the gates—were needed for the company to reach its profit target. Smith also pointed out that if Council denied the permit, he could switch to a standard subdivision layout, which would have a greater impact on the property, without requiring Council approval—and he could still include gates.
But instead, the developer decided to tinker with the plans, adding the pedestrian access and eliminating a third entrance on Tsali Trail. “We think the dialogue has led us to a better point than we were at before,” noted Justus, adding, “I will just say, ‘What else can we do?’”
Those concessions didn’t placate unhappy members of the public, however, who focused on the bigger buildings and fretted about increased traffic on Elk Mountain Scenic Highway.
“City growth should be citizen-directed, not developer-directed,” declared Wild Cherry Road resident Brad Brock.
Others continued to take issue with the whole idea of gates, even if they were to be left open during the day. “Developers of gated communities exploit the generalized fear and anxiety,” asserted Elaine Lite. “Walls and gates inevitably lead to more segregation, separation and isolation.”
Council member Robin Cape sounded decidedly lukewarm about the development, though she eventually voted to approve the permit. “It’s been stated loud and clear by this Council that we are against gates of any kind,” she said. “To me, this is not much better than what we saw a couple of weeks ago.”
Meanwhile, Council member Carl Mumpower, who cast the lone vote against the Feb. 27 resolution, scolded project opponents for trying to dictate terms for a private development on private property. “If you have a fence in your yard, then you believe in gated communities,” he continued.
Nonetheless, Mumpower allowed amendments to his motion to grant the permit, including a requirement that future condo owners be responsible for maintaining the mandatory storm-water basins. On that basis, the motion passed by the slimmest of margins, with Council members Brownie Newman, Jan Davis and Cape joining Mumpower in support of the permit; Mayor Terry Bellamy, Vice Mayor Holly Jones and Council member Bryan Freeborn voted no.
Money talks, suspects walk
During separate presentations, Jones posed the same question to Asheville police Chief William Hogan and Buncombe County District Attorney Ron Moore: What’s the best way to keep crime from happening in the first place? Both men gave essentially the same answer: beefed-up law enforcement, in terms of both arrests and convictions.
Pressed by Jones, however, they also mentioned another key element: education. The vast majority of people in jail or prison are high-school dropouts, noted Hogan. And Moore declared, “The strongest deterrent is starting kids with a good education.”
But the DA also painted a bleak picture of the local criminal-justice system, with overcrowding at both the county jail and Craggy Prison leading to ever-shorter prison sentences. The situation, he said, will be exacerbated by Buncombe County’s projected population increase over the next decade.
“We are full at the seams, and a lot of that has to do with population,” Moore maintained. As arrests increase, so does the workload for local police and the DA’s office, he noted, creating a need for more personnel. And as jails and prisons fill up, sentences get shorter or more lenient, because there’s nowhere left to keep prisoners.
“We are about to have a crisis in prison again,” Moore warned, noting that a similar situation in the early 1990s had whittled 10-year sentences down to less than a year served and “basically decriminalized misdemeanors except drunk driving.”
Such penalties—some as short as six to eight months—hardly constitute a deterrent, said Moore, noting that they may even be considered a “rite of passage.”
“We have almost created a system [that] is a joke for people going to jail,” he added, blaming it all on lack of money. “The criminal-justice system is in a mess for funds,” he said, asking Council members to urge state legislators to increase funding for the system.
Meanwhile, Moore gave the APD a favorable review, saying, “Asheville has a good Police Department; they need to be supported, and they need to be supported financially.”
That fit perfectly with Hogan’s subsequent presentation, in which the chief outlined such recent and requested enhancements as adding five patrol officers, two new beats and expanding the Drug Suppression Unit’s staff.
Hogan’s presentation was meant as a prelude to Council’s upcoming budget deliberations. Like the justice system as a whole, said the chief, his department is overworked, with officers often spending less time per case than he would like.
But both Jones and Cape seemed distressed to hear that an increased police presence was the answer to the city’s crime problems, and both tried to nudge the discussion toward prevention-based strategies.
“It is discouraging to think that the only way to deter crime is to put more police on the street,” Jones said to Hogan.
And Cape told Moore, “It is a sad state of affairs that we send more people to prison. You paint a pretty hopeless picture.”
City Council will consider Hogan’s funding requests when it takes up the 2007-08 budget next month.
Revisioning downtown
Asheville needs a new downtown master plan, Downtown Commission Chair Pat Whalen told City Council. After giving a brief history of downtown’s revival over the past 20 years, Whalen said there are are holes in the current vision for the city center.
“We have specific questions that do not have answers in current planning documents,” he explained. Whalen recommended hiring a consultant to help piece together a new plan, noting that the city must first determine what overall direction it wants the consultant to take.
But the cost, which Whalen predicted would be “less than one moderately priced downtown condo,” seemed to put off some Council members.
“I wonder if we could narrow it down a little more,” said Newman.
Jones, meanwhile, noted that she hopes the new budget will include more staff for the Planning and Development Department, which was gutted during the state budget crisis in 2000.
Council members said they may revisit Whalen’s proposal during the budget process.
Before you comment
The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.