|
Tuesday, 04 July 2006 14:00 |
By DAVID FORBES
In two cases that elicited intense feeling from citizens ?? mostly in opposition to both projects, Asheville City Council on June 27 unanimously approved a new residential development located on Alexander Drive, while voting 6-1 to reject an attempt by the Grove Park Inn to significantly expand the size of a future condominium building.
In the first case, residents of the surrounding neighborhood asserted
that the Skylofts development, consisting of eight separate buildings,
with condominiums in the $155,000 to $350,000 range, will drive up
property values in the area ?? making it harder for the mostly
African-American working class residents of the neighborhood to remain
there.
Meanwhile, the developer, Mike Parker, said that he has set aside 10
percent of the units at lower prices for affordable housing and is
working to ensure that environmentally friendly construction methods
are used.
Several citizens also spoke in favor of the project, asserting that it
will help give young professionals a place to live affordably in the
city.
?®This is my first development project,?∆ Parker said. ?®We believe that
the project will not only make a positive impact on the entire
neighborhood, but will be good for the Asheville community. We believe
we are establishing a worthwhile model that other developers can
follow. I??m willing to spend money on positive solutions and I think
that as a developer we need to be responsible leaders.?∆
Furthermore, he added, ?®We have worked hard to address all the neighborhood??s issues and come up with some good compromises.?∆
Later, Gerald Green, representing the developer, asserted that he had
spoken with the county tax department and that Skylofts would be
considered a separate community for tax-evaluation purposes.
However, some
members of the community maintained that the project will lead to
increased gentrification in the area and, with increasing property
values and taxes, may harm the existing community.
Glenda McDowell, president of the East End/Valley Street Association,
said that the community is already facing economic pressure.
?®We??ve been before this council many, many times,?∆ McDowell said.
?®We??re not against housing. Never, never believe that. But we want
people to have affordable housing. Asheville??s affordable housing
crisis is legendary, which is causing the real estate prices to
skyrocket. On the other hand, our industries need more low-wage workers
?? the combination is disastrous.
?®Long-time working-class homeowners now face the prospect of losing
their previously affordable homes because of escalating property
values. I??d like to leave my home to our children. The neighborhood
where I live is a fine example of this. It??s made up of working-class
African-Americans, most of whom own their own homes.?∆
A ?®large, upscale development?∆ will have an impact on that community,
she asserted and ?®the community has reacted swiftly in opposition to
this proposal. If this is approved, gentrification will result. The
implications of this type of gentrification affect the entire city.?∆
In separate remarks, resident Liam Young, who noted that his family has
lived in the community for 91 years, asked, ?®Why do they want to build
here? We??re a small residential area and we??re in the heart of the
urban area. We??re not meant for this sort of high density.?∆
In contrast, Merrimon Avenue resident Charlie White said he was ?®just a
young professional trying to find affordable housing in Asheville
that??s in close proximity to downtown. This is a good project that
seems to cater to the middle of the road incomes, not just the very
poor or luxury condos. I hope council will support more projects like
this to integrate more young professionals into downtown.?∆
Mary Elmes, who lives on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, said that the
new development is, ?®simply more than the area can take. Please
consider the average people in this neighborhood who can??t afford to
live in a place like that.?∆
Council, however, found Parker??s willingness to set aside a portion of the development for affordable housing to be convincing.
?®This is just a really good project ?? I like it a lot,?∆ Councilwoman
Robin Cape said. ?®I have to commend you (Parker) on this. Its
refreshing to see a developer who??s going out of their way to help the
city. Density downtown is a good thing. It helps with walkability and
affordability.?∆
Councilman Brownie Newman noted that while the project ?®can influence
property values, it can also help the city grow its tax base in a
positive way.?∆
Mayor Terry Bellamy, who grew up in the neighborhood, said the decision
was particularly hard for her, but that she felt the development will
be good for the city.
?®When I went down the names on the petition against this ??? I have
relatives on that list,?∆ Bellamy said. ?®On developments like this, its
clear that developers are hearing council and including things like
green building and affordable units. But development can change the
fabric of a neighborhood. My own family lived at 35 Weaver St. But I
don??t make decisions up here based on my family members ?? and tonight,
this is a great project.?∆
Earlier, the Grove Park??s proposed Fitzgerald Condominium building, the
first phase in a 10-year plan of expansion and renovation to the
resort, came under fire from residents, who criticized the proposed
expansion ?? from 50,000 to 60,000 square feet on the original master
plan, to 85,000 square feet and an additional floor.
?®This is smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood,?∆
resident Peter Gantley said. ?®We??ve seen the Grove Park Inn go from a
quaint inn to a major resort, but this is just too big, too close.?∆
In addition,
Gantley and many other residents who spoke at the meeting said that the
city would set a bad precedent by allowing the inn to so radically
depart from its original plan.
?®This threatens our trust in the city,?∆ Gantley said. ?®We need to know that these plans and ordinances stand for something.?∆
Green, also representing the Grove Park Inn, said that the increased size would help make the project more viable.
In the end, a majority of council ended up agreeing with the residents.
?®A 25 percent size increase is just too much,?∆ Cape said after hearing
from residents of the area. ?®This is a different-looking building from
the one originally proposed ??? it??s just too much. Why couldn??t the
Grove Park Inn work within the criteria council set??∆
?®I think the general feeling is that this project is just too big,?∆ Bellamy said in separate remarks.
The sole
dissenting vote came from Councilman Carl Mumpower, who originally said
he would oppose the project based on its size, but changed his mind
when informed by Planning Director Scott Shuford that city officials
did not consider the size increase to be large enough to give the
project a negative recommendation.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
