Council members say no to new hotels for one year

Flatiron building
UNDER THE WIRE: The historic Flatiron Building was the last hotel proposal to be approved by members of Asheville City Council before they implemented a year-long hotel moratorium. Photo by Virginia Daffron

With the unanimous support of Asheville City Council members during their Sept. 24 meeting, the city will implement a temporary ban on new hotel approvals starting Sept. 25. In the same meeting — as if to hammer home their point —  Council members also unanimously denied the proposed mixed-use hotel Create 72 Broadway.

“I hope you all heard a massive sigh of relief in the community when [the hotel moratorium] was proposed. I think there were thousands of people that were relieved,” resident Daren Callahan told Council members during public comment on the issue. 

The ban is scheduled to last one year, and extensions will not be available without extenuating circumstances, City Attorney Brad Branham told Council members during a Sept. 10 meeting. City officials must use the time to develop new policies for considering hotel proposals. Hotel projects of more than 20 rooms, as well as any building over 100,000 square feet, must receive Council approval; however, Council members currently have no standardized criteria for  approval of new hotel projects. 

The first phase of the moratorium, as outlined in a presentation by Branham and Todd Okolichany, the city’s director of planning and urban design, will involve contracting with the Charlotte-based Urban Land Institute. The research nonprofit’s real estate and land use experts will examine hotel industry trends, impacts and best management practices and provide the city with a written report by the start of next year.

The second phase of the moratorium, led by city staff, will include community engagement and public input. Staff members will then begin drafting recommendations and present plans to Council before the ban’s end next September.

Several speakers during the Sept. 24 meeting said that, while they look forward to the city quantifying tourism issues such as hotel saturation and infrastructure demands, Council should make the assessment more comprehensive, with consideration of environmental impacts and changes to the overall character of the city. Speaker Ashley Cooper also displayed skepticism over the notion of the city undertaking a study without implementing new policies.

“Unfortunately, every one of you knows how many plans and research studies have happened in this city that have sat on shelves and not been turned into anything,” Cooper said.

Many speakers echoed a suggestion from Council member Brian Haynes, who said that the city should examine the distribution of the occupancy tax managed by the Buncombe County Tourism Development Authority. The 6% tax, collected on all lodging sales in Buncombe County, generated $23 million in revenue last year, 75% of which went toward advertising and public relations efforts to increase area tourism. The remaining 25% flowed into the Tourism Product Development Fund, which provides grants to capital projects with the potential to boost overnight stays. 

No money from the occupancy tax, however, goes directly to city operations. City property owners foot the bill for police and fire service, road and sidewalk repair and construction and the costs associated with managing and cleaning up after large numbers of visitors.

Council member Julie Mayfield, who also serves on the TDA board as a nonvoting member, noted that the TDA’s ongoing Tourism Management and Investment Plan is examining the role of tourism in the community and will broaden the scope of occupancy tax distribution. Yet she stopped short of saying that the funds could be used for infrastructure or other needs not directly tied to tourism promotion. She also pushed back at the notion that the city should challenge the state law that dictates how occupancy taxes are spent.

“I don’t think it would be possible, certainly with the current legislature, for the city to unilaterally secure a change to that,” Mayfield said. “From my standpoint, this is an opportunity for the city and the TDA to find a way to cooperate so that more of those occupancy tax dollars come to the city to meet the needs of our residents in a way that everybody has expressed tonight.”


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

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.

4 thoughts on “Council members say no to new hotels for one year

  1. SpareChange

    More than anything else, the moratorium underscores the Council’s own inconsistency and often poor decision-making through recent years on the issue of downtown hotel development. Apparently things have gotten to a point where the Council no longer trusts itself and has in effect voted to place limits on its own policymaking authority. It is also intended to provide political cover to some of those members who will either be seeking reelection or who are seeking another office (Julie Mayfield). It’s as if the Council is saying, “We can’t be trusted! Somebody please stop us from voting on another hotel!!”

  2. Enlightened Enigma

    It’s called a total lack of leadership for several decades , which is the kind of control wanted with at large elections in the city. That is exactly why the controlling progressives (all of council) wants to preserve at large voting, even as it oppresses minorities and produces lazy ass non responsive council members.

  3. K Smith

    This has got to be the worst city council ever (even if it does provide laughs (think Keystone Cops and Three Stooges). Really enjoyed Julie Mayfield’s stance for at large voting followed by how they were looking at assigning a specified area to each councilperson so everyone would have a contact. Lol lol lol. They’re called… wait for it….. DISTRICTS!

    • SpareChange

      I lived in Miami-Dade County during the time that they had at large elections for the Metro (County) Commission. Each commissioner technically represented a district, but were elected at large in a county wide vote. The vast majority of citizens had no idea that the “districts” existed, much less which district they resided in or who their commissioner was. It is a foolish idea on the face of it, and is a classic example of a supposed “compromise” combining the worst elements of two sides.

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.