Asheville City Council passes Larchmont Project, “Google moment” ***updated 6 p.m.***

In a marathon session, Asheville City Council last night passed the controversial Larchmont development, considered budget cuts, gave URTV another year’s funding and declared a “Google moment.”

Here’s the summary of Asheville City Council’s March 23 session, as reported via Twitter by Xpress staff reporter David Forbes:

Mayor Bellamy leads standing ovation for outgoing CFO Ben Durant.

City Mgr Gary Jackson: City already putting off replacing police cars, “not repairing buildings…going to catch up with us later” Council member Esther Manheimer absent from budget worksession, Bill Russell attending via phone.

City staff recommending cutting overtime, temps, contracts, reducing training, transit subsidy. Jackson: “We have lost flexibility” but cuts will reduce budget gap from $5.6mil to 3.3. Another $1.5 mil in cuts could come from police/fire overtime, 8-10 fulltime staff spots, funds to outside agencies. City could also cut 12-14 part-time spots and cost sharing for co-sponsored events. City staff recommending cutting overtime, temps, contracts, reducing training, transit subsidy. Through addl fees and charges, extra funds from parking fees, budget gap shrinks to $1 million. Staff: City’s $ gap could be filled by cutting more staff, salary freezes – or 1 cent propery tax increase.

Council agrees to first $2.3mil “tier” of reductions, incl cuts in overtime, services, freeze on vacant positions. One proposed measure is having co-sponsored events share cost of necessary police, fire. Mayor concerned about police, fire overtime reductions “there are some services people expect”

City employs about 1,000 people, to put staff cuts in perspective

City Mgr recommends transit service cuts, business license increase, shifting non-emergency offices to 4 days/wk to fill final gap Staff: 1 reason transit needs funds so badly is because fed gov treats Asheville as pop 200,000 city due to flaw in calculations Vice Mayor Newman, Council member Davis: business license fee inscrease should leave small biz unscathed. Council member Bothwell: “Know I’m probably alone here,” but wants to consider property tax increase. Staff: 1 cent tax increase would mean $20 more a year for avg taxpayer. Russell against increasing business fees or taxes. Council balking at proposed transit cuts, wanting more targeted scaling back on less-used routes

Smith: “From what I’ve heard here, we haven’t gotten to 0” will need more tax or funds from reserves if no cuts

Bellamy asking about necessity of social media positions “Do we really need someone to Tweet right here?”

Four council members favor considering cutting $50,000 from housing trust fund, Smith, Newman against. Jackson: “You’ve given [staff] a clear idea of what’s untouchable” property tax rate, taking more $ from reserves. Council considering phasing in 9% water rate increase it had previously balked at. Council continuing budget worksession to April 27

During break, Mayor Bellamy giving tour to school kids: “We have police here because big people don’t always listen”

Children from Evergreen kindergarten classes thronging council chambers to deliver Pledge of Allegiance/Earth Pledge

Council approves 5-0 resolution of support for “Google moment” on 1: 30pm March 25. Ben Teague, Econ Develop Co: #googleavl would bring “green jobs, clean jobs…be a creative boon” “Google moment” is official encouragement for those citizens who haven’t applied to do so.

River District design committee looking to redevelop more of riverfront, make area more livable. Friends of Nature Center presenting gift of $59,400 for renovation of otter exhibit. Missing Council members Esther Manheimer and Bill Russell have entered the chambers.

Council about to consider controversial Larchmont affordable housing apartments. Mountain Housing Opportunities, the Larchmont’s developer, now offering to build sidewalk down to Merrimon Ave.
MHO atty Wyatt Stevens: Institutional zoning meant for office, medical facilities, change to denser res zoning for Larchmont appropriate. Stevens pointing to other housing in area as or more dense to counter suggestions scale of project inappropriate. Stevens: Housing built under current zoning would “not be affordable…and not what you need.” Stevens: APD, fire dept have no concerns. Increase in traffic negligible.

Anti-Larchmont spokeperson Larry Holt: “60 units is excessive,” would support if project scaled down to 36 Holt: “Affordable housing, workforce housing not the issue with us” scale of the Larchmont is. Project too dense, will harm quality of residents’ life, character of neighborhood. Anti-Larchmont rep James Gardner: “Still don’t know why developer can’t make less than 60 units work. Process not entirely transparent.” “Awkward situation, people of good will on both sides,” but project scale not appropriate. Gardner: “Think of us as strange breed of friendly gadflies” trying to draw attention to problem.

Resident Mike Lewis: “MHO done a superb job, it will be an asset to neighborhood” but traffic situation in dire need of correction. Resident Lawrence Hall: “Not opposed to project, opposed to scale, safety concerns.” Resident Laura Bowers: “Affordable single-family housing, small apartments more in keeping w our neighborhood” than project. Resident Robbie Switzer: Dense affordable housing like project needed along Merrimon to increase access to mass transit. Resident Denise Hauser: “Density makes for a more sustainable city,” project needed in neighborhood. Resident Paul Zurich: Project “the right thing to do to use this site… we all know about the critical housing shortage” in area. Resident Stan Taylor: “A lot of ppl in this country have distrust of the gov,” county didn’t advertise property transparently. HUB board member, resident Steve Cochrane: “this project is almost a textbook perfect example” of good development. Resident Deborah Miles: W/out affordable housing like Larchmont, Asheville could end up like Key West, w workers having to bus in. Resident John Combs: “Deeply disturbed council would strik down” existing rules/zoning “to meet city goals.” Resident Tina Schwartz describing dire state of traffic in area, Larchmont “will overwhelm the neighborhood.” Resident Gary Schwartz: City staff have already decided “the project is a done deal, they’re all but singing kum-ba-ya”

Resident Robert Todd: “city has 2 choices for growth: annexation or density” Project is in good location. Resident George Perry: “This has been openly and transparently discussed,” time for council to approve. Resident Beverly Nivens: “We live in a city, that means density,” project better than other options. Resident George Perry: “This has been openly and transparently discussed,” time for council to approve

Council taking break, chose to extend public comment time on Larchmont approx another 40mins

Barbara Melton touting how project meets city’s plans, esp its location on transit corridor. Neighbor Sharon Molds: “I just think it’s too many people and too much traffic,” would like less units. Resident Andrew Tashie: “whole deal has unsavory smell to it” process was hidden from neighborhood. Resident Dean Pittelman: “Larchmont, Merrimon is a mess… going to be traffic issues.” Activist Steve Rasmussen: This controversy example of why vesting more power in planning and zoning should be reconsidered

Traffic Engineer Ken Putnam: Staff considering various traffic calming measures in area, but need residents’ go-ahead. Manheimer, who lives in N. Asheville, quizzing staff, saying there’s need to solve traffic situation in area. Staff asserting they spent “an enormous amount of time” communicating with residents, developers, opponents

Bothwell: More density on Merrimon will help traffic, project “part of how we have to start building this city out” Smith: Excited about project, voting for it, “will become an integral part of the community” MHO Atty Stevens: “This building will be beautiful,” look better than many in area, raise property values Council member Davis: “Unlike some of my colleagues, I think most people drive cars,” overflow parking important.MHO working to secure overflow parking at neighboring Suntrust bank

Manheimer: “No matter how I vote, 50% of my neighbors will be mad at me” but supporting project. Audible muttering of “vote already” by some in council chambers as discussion continues. Larchmont project passes unanimously

Bothwell making motion to rescind appt of Holly Shriner to planning commish, Newman notes move is against council rules. Russell: “I don’t think this is fair or within our rules.” Rescission of Shriner’s appointment wasn’t on agenda. Davis: “Whether you like Mrs. Shriner or not, she got 4 votes… we had other candidates there just as conflicted”

Activist Steve Rasmussen: Trust in gov damaged by Shriner’s undisclosed conflicts of interest, appt needs to be reconsidered. Newman didn’t vote for Shriner, but defending process as transparent
Bothwell: Shriner didn’t reveal extent of dealings with Merrimon properties. “It should all have been done in a more public way.” Bothwell withdraws motion, will ask Shriner to voluntarily withdraw, reapply.

Consideration of 1-yr agreement w URTV (now known as WNC Comm Media Ctr) now before Council. New agreement: URTV must obey open meetings, record laws, withdraws Council from appointing board members. Manheimer, Russell recuse themselves from URTV decision. Newman, Bellamy think Council should keep appointing URTV board members, Davis believes should treat as a private contractor. Bothwell compares URTV agreement to contract “with utility we’re paying.” Council changes agreement to retain board appointments. Alan Rosenthal reading letter from ex-URTV board member Davyne Dial, asking not to renew deal, saying transparency insufficient. Ex-URTV producer John Blackwell says bad management has led to decline, asking Council not to renew agreement. URTV producer Chris Chiaromonte: Council should sign agreement, URTV doing excellent job, should get more money. Rasmussen: Council should maintain board member, “shouldn’t withdraw oversight of this money… esp in light of controversy” Council passes URTV agreement 5-0

SHARE

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.

42 thoughts on “Asheville City Council passes Larchmont Project, “Google moment” ***updated 6 p.m.***

  1. Jeff Fobes

    Ashvegas has some quotes from Council member Manheimer and Mayor Bellamy as they were about to vote on the Larchmont project.

    Manheimer: “I think the politically easy thing to do is say no, but I think the right thing to do is say yes, and that’s what I’ll be doing.”

    Bellamy: “I think this project has been made better because of the dialogue we’ve had.”

    Link to Ashvegas post: http://www.netvibes.com/jeff_fobes#asheville_blog_news

  2. Ben Simpson

    Manheimer, the politically easy thing to do was to play it real concerned then just vote the way you knew you would from the beginning. Your dog and pony show was smooth but unbelievable considering the unprofessional emails you sent to undermine any opposition. Think you looked sincere? Better think again

  3. UNaffiliated Voter

    Its hard to believe they voted unanimously and equally difficult to understand how zoning can just be doubled like this? MHO, Council, and developers have just created animosity and I hope the affected neighborhood will band together in a legal suit that will tie it up for years.

  4. Asheville Dweller

    Good job on the Larchmont Project City Council about time you did something right!

  5. drifter1

    Another joke of a performance by our city officials and this time it was the officials that WE elected. The sincerety and concerns during their performance was a real slap in the face. Their minds were made up way before last nights show. This is nothing but “socialism” in the making. Get ready people because your rights are becoming more and more limited. This was a perfect example of what’s to come in our future.

  6. kanda

    I love the “google moment”. Google will never build that network here in Asheville. The embedded infrastructure will never support it withour massive government investment. The local corporate population is not large enough to justify the expense for Google. It will nver happen here. Look for it to go to the NYC area, Chicago, or LA.

  7. Doug Sahm

    It is downright scary when a petition signed by over 400 residents of the Larchmont area does nothing to persuade even one City Council member. Disgusting and indefensible.

  8. Opie Taylor

    Resident Denise Hauser: “Density makes for a more sustainable city,” project needed in neighborhood.”

    Note: Ms. Hauser concealed that she is the wife of the Chief Engineer for the Larchmont. There were few proponents who were not affiliated with this developer or whose livlihood didn’t depend on their advocacy for ‘affordable housing’ as defined by this developer.

  9. Ben Simpson

    Can anyone buy the council or just certain developers? I have a project in mind and really need this info, got anything on this Julie?

  10. Sage

    Google is a progressive company that treats all their employees equally regardless of sexual orientation.

    I think it’s only honest to point out that Asheville has a bigoted Mayor for a leader who does not believe in treating public employees equally. So we might not be a good fit.

  11. Piffy!

    [b]This is nothing but “socialism” in the making. Get ready people because your rights are becoming more and more limited. This was a perfect example of what’s to come in our future. [/b]

    Can you elaborate on this mr drifter?

  12. Doug Sahm

    Pff, the scale of the project. 60 Units is more than the area was zoned for.

  13. Jason W. Hill

    Kanda
    Asheville sits in the middle of ERC Broadband’s gigabit backbone. The infrastructure is already here. There is plenty of “dark” fiber (read “unused”) in place to handle the traffic that Google would enable. Google is looking to pay for the most expensive piece – from the backbone to the house. That is the piece that is cost prohibitive.
    The cities you name are not in the running because they are too large – it has to be between 50k and 500k people. Of the 112 cities known to be competing Asheville currently ranks 7th in community involvement.
    We could use the extra help from everyone now to help put Asheville over the top by nominating Asheville and getting all their friends to do the same. The website is http://googleavl.com/
    Thanks for considering.

  14. ironhead

    As I’ve mentioned before, Cindy Weeks has a clear conflict of interest in this project, and simply abstaining from voting on it does not make that conflict go away. I am reasonably confident that if this project is challenged in court, the combination of conflict-of-interest concerns and the setting aside of city zoning density standards will be enough to kill the project. Although I’ve been wrong before, and will be wrong again, no doubt.

    Asheville has nearly always rolled over for developers. Let MHO open its books and show us all why it needs to violate standing density rules to make this project go, and why it has to be in this particular location. And let’s see who is going to get the financial benefits.

  15. Opie Taylor

    pff:

    I’m not drifter but did sign the petition to protest up-zoning a 1.65 parcel of useable land to cram up to 246 tenants (as per the developer’s residency formula for the 60 apartments) and their vehicles and amenities adjoining an old modest single family home residential neighborhood – and adjacent to a corridor of already immense traffic congestion.

    The petitioners requested that the current zoning be upheld so that a maximum of 32 affordable apartments would be constructed on the site.

  16. Gordon Smith

    You can read more about the Larchmont controversy here: http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2010/03/16/affordable-housing-and-corridor-density/

    And, for the record:

    – The parcel was 2.29 acres.
    – 32 one-bedroom apartments
    – 23 two-bedroom apartments
    – 5 three-bedroom apartments
    – All units will be for people with incomes between 15k and 40k per year
    – The parcel was zoned institutional because there was a Naval Reserve Center there when the UDO was drafted. That building has since been razed, leaving an empty lot.
    – The project could not be built at less than 60 units due to necessary tax credits to make it affordable.

    It was a great debate, and I’m pleased that Council is addressing so many of the valid concerns of the adjacent residents. Traffic and safety issues in that area would have needed more attention whether or not the development proceeded. I appreciate all of the voices involved.

  17. kanda

    Jason W. Hill write: “Kanda
    Asheville sits in the middle of ERC Broadband’s gigabit backbone. The infrastructure is already here.”

    I wish it were so. What Google proposes building is going to be 100x gigabit speed. Massive throughput to businesses and homes. It will overpower everything available in Asheville. Goggle is going where the money is. NYC, Chicago, LA, maybe Atlanta but not Asheville

  18. NorthAvlResident

    Are the citizens opposed to the Larchmont project planning to bring the matter to court? Has the neighborhood residents association for that area taken a position? Have any of the residents who were so vocal against the “dense” project on the old Deal Buick site enlisted to help oppose the MHO project? Or were they only concerned when it affected their own neighborhood?

  19. bobaloo

    Welcome to Asheville, where the citizens strongly advocate affordable housing (provided it’s not built in their area).

  20. kanda

    Yeah bobaloo. It’s just like trying to put up a windfame anywhere near a Kennedy (RIP) compound on Cape Cod.

  21. Opie Taylor

    The parcel is 2.29 acres with the unbuildable steep slopes and narrow appendage. There are 1.65 useable acres on the site.

    City staff ‘guessed’ that the Institutional zoning was originally determined by the presence of the Naval Reserve but could not confirm.

    None of the valid concerns of adjacent residents have been addressed. In fact, parking, sidewalks, traffic, storm run-off, water and sewer lines, and increasing the bus schedule were all raised by neighbors but no solutions were finalized by the developer or agreed to by Council. Every one of those insurmountable problems was left with the status of ‘being considered;’ none were solved.

  22. Transparent

    Are the citizens opposed to the Larchmont project planning to bring the matter to court? Has the neighborhood residents association for that area taken a position? Have any of the residents who were so vocal against the “dense” project on the old Deal Buick site enlisted to help oppose the MHO project? Or were they only concerned when it affected their own neighborhood?
    NorthAvlResident

    Need to finish reviewing documents from County and City. Haven’t heard from any opponents of high density close to town (Deal) where it already exists and was compatible. Apparently silent about turning Larchmont into Hong Kong.

  23. Opie Taylor

    Bobaloo & Kanda:
    What is it about the neighbors petitioning Council to uphold the zoning so that 32 apartments can be built, to add to the lower-income public housing 1/2 block away, that you dismiss as being anti-affordable housing or ‘not in my backyard’? That seems presumptuous and an unfair attempt at stereotyping.

  24. Opie Taylor

    – 32 one-bedroom apartments
    – 23 two-bedroom apartments
    – 5 three-bedroom apartments
    Gordon Smith

    According to the developer’s occupancy formula,
    they use the 2 + 1 rule: 2 persons for each BR + 1, therefore 1 BR = 3, 2 BR = 5, 3 BR = 7.

    32 x 3 = 96
    23 x 5 = 115
    5 x 7 = 35
    Total occupancy allowed for the Larchmont is 246.

    Based on their data collected in distinctly different locations, the typical occupancy per unit is less.

  25. kanda

    Opie Taylor Wrote: “Bobaloo & Kanda:
    What is it about the neighbors petitioning Council to uphold the zoning so that 32 apartments can be built, to add to the lower-income public housing 1/2 block away, that you dismiss as being anti-affordable housing or ‘not in my backyard’? That seems presumptuous and an unfair attempt at stereotyping.”

    My comment to bobaloo was intended to show the contrast where some people are for something like the Kennedy family on Cape Cod supporting green wind power as long as the windfarms are nowhere near their own property. In other words it is hypocrical to support something then fight like the dickens against it when it affects them.

    I support low income housing in any area. It is necessary. There is no reason to oppose something good for the community because it impacts you personally. Think of the greater good. Where is the love for thy neighbor? All in all this should be built as planned.

  26. Opie Taylor

    “In other words it is hypocrical to support something then fight like the dickens against it when it affects them.” Kanda

    Haven’t heard any of the opponents fight like the dickens against it. Not a peep about being against the site being used for 37 affordable apartments. Please cite.

    Again, the issues are the density and scale (as per the up-zoning) that will now allow 246 to live in massive structures on the small parcel, not the legitimacy of the project or the need of its tenants.

  27. Carrie

    I have a feeling if the building was going to be 37 units the residents would still try to stop it.

  28. Piffy!

    no one is going to move to asheville if they have to live near poor people.

    just send em all to gafney, the’ll fit in perfect.

  29. Opie Taylor

    “I have a feeling if the building was going to be 37 units the residents would still try to stop it.”
    Carrie

    Ah, an expert has weighed in with compelling evidence and the score is now settled.

  30. Carrie

    Wow. Ok. What score? I was unaware my statement represented anything more than my opinion. It is my opinion that SOME people do not want low-income housing in their neighborhood at all. That they would come up with another PC argument to try and stop it. That’s my opinion.

  31. NorthAvlResident

    Thanks to Opie Taylor for providing facts. And a word of advice, if I may: Opie, you’re not going to change the minds of people who are in favor of the project, so please don’t weaken your cred by arguing with them. Just keep presenting the facts for those who might still be undecided. Let the judge decide when the case comes to court.

  32. Ben Simpson

    My God some people are so naive. The County, City and developer are like 1st Cousins that sleep together, however, We are the only ones getting screwed. This project was preapproved posiibly back in 2008 or before and all the pertinent City Staff were on board (City Planner, Traffic Engineer and Fire Chief). Yhe fix was in before any of the public knew and thats the way they like it. Watch what they do next! Should be entertaining and educating!

  33. tb123

    This entire deal is tainted.

    1. The designed project is too big for the piece of land. That is why the land was originally zoned for a smaller number of units. Go figure? The are stuffing this thing down everyones throats. Maybe MHO has dome sort of financial stake in it the whole thing seems strange and forced?

    2. This deal has been conceived, designed, and stamped for approval well before it reached Planning and Zoning and the City Council meeting. City Council new the outcome of their vote before they even stepped into the hearing. The hearing was a joke. Why even have the hearing? No one on City Council challenged the deal or requested any special conditions. One of the City Council Members sat and rolled their eyes through the oppositions presentation.

    3. It is hard to believe that the 400 people that signed a petition against the conditional zoning request are going to be totally ignored by their elected officials. Those 400 people reflect a large tax base for the City . These citizens have no re-course of action they just have to eat what City Council gives them. Not Cool! Imagine if you were to quantify how much these people paid in property tax, on average they probably pay @ $2500 per household, that would total around $1,000,000 dollars that the city receives from the 400 in opposition to the project, this tax base is being totally ignored.

    4. The area where they are proposing building this development is already saturated with rental properties, section 9 housing, and I believe some mho properties. Why is it City Government responsibility to provide housing for people any way, socialism? O.K. fine, Urban Density is going to save the world and make people stop driving cars I get it.

    5. And whomever called me a “Nimby” you are right, wait actually I am not even that acronym, the reality is I don’t want the project in my backyard at all, nothing, zilch, nada.

  34. tb123

    This entire deal is tainted.

    1. The designed project is too big for the piece of land. That is why the land was originally zoned for a smaller number of units. Go figure? The are stuffing this thing down everyones throats. Maybe MHO has dome sort of financial stake in it the whole thing seems strange and forced?

    2. This deal has been conceived, designed, and stamped for approval well before it reached Planning and Zoning and the City Council meeting. City Council new the outcome of their vote before they even stepped into the hearing. The hearing was a joke. Why even have the hearing? No one on City Council challenged the deal or requested any special conditions. One of the City Council Members sat and rolled their eyes through the oppositions presentation.

    3. It is hard to believe that the 400 people that signed a petition against the conditional zoning request are going to be totally ignored by their elected officials. Those 400 people reflect a large tax base for the City . These citizens have no re-course of action they just have to eat what City Council gives them. Not Cool! Imagine if you were to quantify how much these people paid in property tax, on average they probably pay @ $2500 per household, that would total around $1,000,000 dollars that the city receives from the 400 in opposition to the project, this tax base is being totally ignored.

    4. The area where they are proposing building this development is already saturated with rental properties, section 9 housing, and I believe some mho properties. Why is it City Government responsibility to provide housing for people any way, socialism? O.K. fine, Urban Density is going to save the world and make people stop driving cars I get it.

    5. And whomever called me a “Nimby” you are right, wait actually I am not even that acronym, the reality is I don’t want the project in my backyard at all, nothing, zilch, nada.

  35. kanda

    Opie Taylor wrote:

    “Haven’t heard any of the opponents fight like the dickens against it. Not a peep about being against the site being used for 37 affordable apartments. Please cite.

    Again, the issues are the density and scale (as per the up-zoning) that will now allow 246 to live in massive structures on the small parcel, not the legitimacy of the project or the need of its tenants.”

    May understanding is the orignal project did not inclue the area occupied by the former Naval Reserve center. I understand the new progect does inclued that area. As a result the project was scaled up. Do I misunderstand about that? If my understanding is correct then 60 units seems appropiate for the space IMHO.

  36. kanda

    I am no expert either. I am a compassionate and unselfish person. It is great that those who oppose 60 units might support 36 units. There seems to be wiggle room to negotiate as necessary to settle the community down about this issue. An example is both sides could move 10 units it brings the numbers to 50 vs 46. move two more and you get 48 units agreed upon. That seems to me that is a fair number that would make most everone happy.

    Overall, I want to see more low income housing throughout Asheville. Our regional population is aging and real per capita income is shrinking as inflation consumes a higher percentage of the income of the working poor and elderly. These are the people below or slightly above the poverty line.

    Compared to many areas, Asheville is unique in having a housing authority that is dedicated and responsive to the needs of the community. Think of the jobs that will be created. Good private or government jobs. This also will create highly paid (viewed against the local average wage)staff. Good for the local economy.

    It’s time for us stop bickering and start listening to one another. Then we can get on with doing the right thing. Support low income families who need good quality affordable housing. Asheville can provide it if we work together. There is no downside to this. Everybody wins when everybody works together.

  37. Opie Taylor

    “May understanding is the orignal project did not inclue the area occupied by the former Naval Reserve center. I understand the new progect does inclued that area. As a result the project was scaled up. Do I misunderstand about that? If my understanding is correct then 60 units seems appropiate for the space IMHO.” Kanda

    Not correct. The only part of the parcel that is useable is the Naval Reserve site (plateau) itself; the rest is steep banks that will be walled-up. Appreciate your quest for compromise. That’s what the neighbors asked for but didn’t get.

  38. I voted on Google to put their fiber pilot in Carson City Nevada, which has legal prostitution and medical marijuana that Asheville represses, as well as a far higher proportion of overpopulation activists.

    It’s an outrage for any homebuilder, but the flying outrage is that a nonprofit, affordable homebuilder on a bus line would face ANY unit desity limit, ANY height limit or ANY parking requirement from govenment repressors in total violation of their basic property rights.
    As for sprawl, most of my neighbors, 35 minutes out by car, are not out here to hug the coyotes, they are out here paying for gasoline because it is cheaper out here and it is cheaper out here not because of susidies, but because of zoning regulation.
    There may be a crime problem with Larchmont, but it is not caused by unit density or alleviated by density limits. It is caused by the fact that it has too many 3 bedroom units and not enough (or any) 0 bedroom studio units. This creates enough room for too many kids per unit and much neighborhood street crime is juvenile. The cause of neighborhood crime is not too many units but too many bedrooms per unit, and that is aggravated, not alleviated, by unit density limts.

  39. hauntedheadnc

    We’re going to miss you terribly when you move to Nevada, Ditmore. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is better for comic relief than you.

  40. Ben Simpson

    Developer cannot build it with only 32 units? BullshiX. How about in emails received that the County offered to lower the price but the developer said no because then they wouldn’t get the $8 million plus in PUBLIC FUNDING! Hell, Wylie Coyote could have ordered it from Acme for that kind of money. The truth is that the developer knew the City would approve this turkey before they put the first plan down and true to form, not one thing slowed it down. The grand finale was City Council stumbling around trying to make it look like they had an open mind, what a freaking JOKE! Watch the tape and see how poorly they did with that illusion. corruption is CORRUPTION no matter what spin you put on it.
    Wait to see the STAPLES of the north take shape, the City has no concerns or integrity!

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.