Buncombe Commissioners preview: Aug. 5 meeting

Coming back from a month-long hiatus, a proposal to institute district elections (and possibly a larger board), tops the agenda for the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners’ Aug. 5 meeting.

If the board approves the resolution, Buncombe County voters will get a chance to vote on dividing the county into districts, each with a commissioner. The proposal, put on the agenda by Chair Nathan Ramsey, might also end up expanding the board to seven members, if approved by voters. Currently, the board is made up of four at-large commissioners and a separately elected chair.

Also on the agenda is the approval of terms for financing Woodfin’s new downtown and a grant application to the state for rural transportation funds for the elderly.

The meeting begins at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 5, in room 204 of the Buncombe County Courthouse. A pre-meeting, including public comment, begins at 4 p.m.

— David Forbes, staff writer

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.

13 thoughts on “Buncombe Commissioners preview: Aug. 5 meeting

  1. Keith Thomson

    Nathan has chosen to push a wedge issue to turn county citizens and taxpayers against each other. At large election of Commissioners require politicians to listen to and represent the concerns of voters county wide. Education, environmental protection, and economic opportunity are not limited to one district vs. another.

    There are those who think that the taxpayers and citizens of Buncombe County who also live and pay taxes in one of our six municipalities–Woodfin, Weaverville, Montreat, Black Mountain, Asheville, and Biltmore Forest– should not be represented, are they are trying to take away our votes.

    Republicans are trying to change the rules in the hope that they can change the playing field to win. Tom Delay did the same thing in Texas, but disgraced himself in trying and left Congress after being prosecuted his finagling. Taxpayers and voters in Buncombe County should not be fooled into letting this happen here.

  2. Diana

    I think I’m smart enough to decide whether or not I want District elections. The proposal Mr. Ramsey put forth is to let us VOTE on it. Not to shove it down our throats – that’s what the Democrats on the Commission are doing if they do NOT let us vote on it. I’m tired of government officials thinking they know better than the people.

    I’d like to see all parts of the county represented. Right now, some areas of the county have no one on the commission who lives in their community. We are one county but the different areas have unique needs and issues.

    Let Buncombe Vote!

  3. Keith Thomson

    Let’s have a referendum to decide if we want to fund our public schools and community college, protect downhill neighbors from having our land flooded by runoff from uphill development, or encourage new businesses to grow jobs and income from new technologies.

    Or, we can have an election to vote for representatives to do those things for us. That is what representative democracy in a republic is all about.

    Let’s not use gimmicks intended to take away representation from people who we happen to not agree with when our candidate doesn’t receive enough votes to win.

  4. Tigerswede

    As usual, Gordo cannot stick to the subject but makes it all about Parkside.

    Its not about Parkside. but about elections, he is obsessed with Parkside!

  5. Tigerswede

    I would be glad to leave you alone if you would back up the claims you make about me, and who I am.

    You make accusations about me and then run and hide on your own little blog where you censor people. That’s real mature.

    I think you’ve tarnished your name enough at this point, people know who you are what you do.

  6. Tigerswede

    Although very fitting, don’t play dumb. I have never mentioned to be privy to formal offers, as you stated on topix (see below)

    From Topix:

    Gordon Smith wrote:

    Thursday Jul 31
    Oh, my bad. What is your tie to the Coleman family again then?

    You mentioned that you were privy to the formal offers coming from the County, so I figured you were in the office there.

    If you’d disclose your ties, then we wouldn’t have these little mix-ups.

  7. Gordon Smith

    You fail to note my correction, but I’ll repeat it to get you to chillax.

    I misinterpreted your relationship to the Coleman family as being a member of it. I was incorrect. You’re attached to them in some other way. What is it again? You’ve mentioned it before, but I can’t be arsed to go dig it up.

    Also, your repeated skeptical insistence that someone produce a hard copy of the multiple offers from the County to Coleman led me to believe that you believe that you were someone who would be privy to those offers when they occurred. I was incorrect.

    The most recent informal offer of $4 million dollars was rejected by Stewart Coleman according to David Gantt in a WPVM radio interview.

    Moving on, of course, nothing has changed about the stinky nature of this sale of public parkland to a private deveoloper, the ferocity of the pushback from devoted Colemanites, the contempt with which Coleman has treated the citizenry, the repeated rejections of generous offers, or the scads of organizations and thousands of people who oppose this project.

    Glad to help you get past your thing with me, T. I’m hoping you can move on.

  8. Tigerswede

    Thanks Gordon, I appreciate you clearing up your mistake.

    But I still have problems with how Vice Commissioner Gantt could make an offer of such a large sum of money without the commission voting on it or passing a resolution. They would not be able to purchase the land over “fair market value” or appraised value.

    To just beleive him because he said it on the radio when 12 or 13 people were listening is not like you. Why won’t he show us a copy, that would be the open and transparent thing to do, right?

  9. Gordon Smith

    Per that interview, Vice Chair Gantt informed the listeners of WPVM that Coleman had been formally offered $2.5 million (I think that was the number) and that he had informally asked if Coleman would accept $4 million. Coleman said no.

    You can go to the WPVM website, find the Making Progress link, and listen to it yourself if you’d like.

    One last thing, using the diminutive (“12 or 13”) is right out of the Stewart Coleman (“80 people”) playbook.

    What’s your relationship to Mr. Coleman, and why are you so reluctant to let people know about it?

  10. Tigerswede

    Gordon,

    I think its rather strange that you simply accept Vice Chair Gantt’s statement as true. I would expect you to be more analytical and ask if that could actually be done and “question authority”

    Just as they cannot sell land without a vote, they cannot buy land or offer to buy land without a vote. Think about that and ask yourself if this could really have happened.

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.