Letter: Open-space proposal costs too much to bear

Graphic by Lori Deaton

[Regarding “Welcome, Neighbors: Amendment Promotes Healthy Communities and the Environment,” March 16, Xpress:] Ms. Susan Bean wrote a full-throated defense of the Open Space Amendment. Her main idea is that we must cut the trees we love in our neighborhoods in order to protect the environment. Setting the obvious contradictions in that argument aside, let’s examine the specifics of the proposal in detail.

Open Space Amendment proponents argue that if we don’t densely develop the city of Asheville, then developers will simply build outside the city, leading to urban sprawl. The first problem with this argument is that the proposal would only regulate development within the city limits, and so by definition, its passage would make no changes to sprawl outside of the city.

Second, because Asheville is one of the hottest real estate markets in the country, developers are swarming to build both inside and outside the city. So development will continue unabated in the county regardless of what the city does, but we have a say in how development will be regulated within the city limits. If this proposal is passed, developers will simply run amok both inside and outside the city.

Ms. Bean also suggests that the Open Space Amendment is focused on bringing small housing developments to our neighborhoods, like triplexes or developments of eight-10 units. But the amendment doesn’t apply to developments of fewer than eight units, and it includes developments of 50 or more housing units.

Bean implies that we must accept an unlimited amount of development to make space for anyone who wants to move here, no matter the cost to our community and quality of life. This is like the assumption that Asheville residents must continue to sacrifice tens of millions in tax revenue to the Tourism Development Authority each year to vacuum up as many wealthy tourists as possible, so they can “discover” Asheville and buy a fifth home here. The escalating costs of the TDA and the Open Space Amendment are simply too great for our community to bear.

— Perrin de Jong
Staff attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
Asheville office


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.

About Letters
We want to hear from you! Send your letters and commentary to letters@mountainx.com

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.

3 thoughts on “Letter: Open-space proposal costs too much to bear

  1. Robert

    Thank you for this letter! Ms. Bean certainly seems to be wildly misinformed and misguided. I really hope that her opinion does not represent the stance of MountainTrue, for it seems incongruous to advocate for forests and rivers while not safeguarding the health and safety of communities close to town.

  2. Peter Robbins

    I’ll leave it to those who are pushing for the Open Space Amendment to defend its specifics. But, as I understand it, the proposal merely responds to Asheville’s current housing problems by allowing for greater housing density and infill development, especially where infrastructure already exists and where people have alternatives to commuting by car. These objectives are perfectly consistent with the eco-friendly principles of the New Urbanism.
    see https://www.cnu.org/resources/what-new-urbanism. Before meekly surrendering to urban sprawl and its destruction of our mountainsides, city leaders might be well advised to give the idea some consideration. The loudest voices aren’t always the most thoughtful ones.

  3. indy499

    40 million people will be added to the US population by 2050. They are going to live somewhere. Some of them here. You can either influence that growth or throw your hands up like de Jong and think it won’t happen here. It will.

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.