Asheville City Council Candidate Questionnaire Responses

Dan Ferrell

First of all, housing is not a luxury item. I think we need to be straight about that first. Access to housing shouldn’t be as hard as it is here. It’s why I want to work to build missing middle housing on city land, I want to develop a community public developer to develop for the benefit of the city,

Jeffrey Burroughs

While I have not served in elected office, I have consistently supported and advocated for pro-housing approaches through my community leadership, particularly in the River Arts District and in post-disaster recovery work following Hurricane Helene.

In the RAD, I have worked alongside artists, small businesses, property owners, nonprofits, and city partners to stabilize displaced residents and businesses while planning for long-term recovery that includes housing security. Through Unified RAD, a community-led working group I helped found, we facilitated a collaborative planning process that brought together neighbors, developers, residents, and institutions to identify shared priorities, including housing stability and relocation options for displaced artists and workers.

This work reinforced my belief that stabilizing communities and increasing housing supply must happen together, not sequentially.

As Chair of the Economy Recovery Board, I support aligning land use, infrastructure, and recovery investments to ensure housing supply grows in ways that meet local workforce needs and reduce displacement risk. This includes supporting housing near jobs, services, and transit, and recognizing housing as essential infrastructure for economic recovery.

I have consistently supported middle housing options, adaptive reuse, and mixed-use development as tools to increase housing supply while strengthening neighborhood vitality. I also support pairing new development with affordability requirements, public investment, and protections for existing residents.

My pro-housing position is rooted in lived experience. Housing instability undermines economic resilience, workforce retention, and community health. Increasing housing options at multiple price points is not a threat to Asheville’s character. It is essential to its future.

David Moritz

I have been speaking to City Council for the past 5 years about the need to be more supportive of housing within Asheville, particularly in areas near amenities and transit. I have spoken in support of a multitude of housing projects. I was supportive of the most recent changes to the UDO that included higher thresholds for City Council approval. More needs to be done in terms of both policy and action by City Council. I am likely the only candidate who has built single family housing, Craggy Park in West Asheville, as well as obtain approval for affordable multi-family housing in the City, Hilliard Flats. More accessible housing supply is a core pillar of my candidacy.

Jess Young McLean

I want to start by being thoughtful about language. I support housing as a public good, but I’m cautious about “pro-housing” as a standalone label. Too often, it obscures the reality that our housing crisis is rooted in centuries-old systems designed to concentrate wealth, privilege landownership, and exclude communities—particularly communities of color—from stability and opportunity.

My background is not as a developer or housing policy specialist, but as a nonprofit leader focused on youth literacy and family stability. For more than five years, I have worked daily out of an office in Pisgah View Apartments, in deep relationship with neighbors, families, and partners in a public housing community under the Housing Authority of the City of Asheville. I have tutored students in local housing communities, supported summer and afterschool programs through cross-sector collaborations, and worked alongside families navigating the realities of housing instability.

In addition, as Board President of AFP Western North Carolina, I support hundreds of area nonprofits—including many working in housing, homelessness, and recovery—strengthening their capacity and sustainability. Since the first days following Hurricane Helene, I have also been involved in recovery efforts, particularly around food access during power and water outages and coordination with grassroots and long-term recovery organizations working at the intersection of housing, health, and legal compliance.

This proximity shapes how I approach housing policy: with humility, a focus on lived experience, and a commitment to solutions that are equitable, well-located, and designed to support families and long-term community stability—not just growth for growth’s sake.

Nina Ireland

As someone raised in Asheville’s East End Valley legacy neighborhood, the daughter of homeowners and now an aspiring homeowner myself, I understand firsthand how housing stability shapes families and futures. I’ve also experienced how rising costs make it harder for working people to stay in the communities they helped build. That lived experience guides my approach: pro-housing is not truly pro if it causes displacement or harm to existing residents.

I support housing policies that expand supply while protecting the people who already call Asheville home. That means increasing options at all income levels, especially missing-middle and workforce housing, so teachers, service workers, health care staff, and small business employees can live near where they work.

I support using city-owned land strategically for long-term affordability and pairing new housing with infrastructure investments that account for water, transportation, and public services. I also advocate for anti-displacement strategies in legacy neighborhoods while focusing new growth in areas identified as ready for housing with lower displacement risk.

I strongly support zoning and land-use reforms that allow more homes - plexes, townhomes, ADUs, and mixed-use development, while maintaining neighborhood character and environmental responsibility. If elected, I will continue advancing inclusive, sustainable housing policies centered on the people who live and work here.

Drew Ball

As a Buncombe County Commissioner, I serve on the Affordable Housing Subcommittee, where I’ve supported policies to expand housing options across income levels, protect existing affordable housing, and better use public land to lower housing costs. In 2025, I was proud to support unanimously approved zoning text amendments that ended mandatory single-family zoning in all unincorporated parts of Buncombe County, an important step toward allowing more attainable housing types.

I’ve also supported affordable housing development on county-owned land, including the Coxe Avenue project, and worked closely with partners such as Mountain Housing Opportunities, Habitat for Humanity, and other Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developers to deliver deeply affordable homes.

I support, and will work to advance, the recommendations of Asheville’s Missing Middle and Displacement Study, which provides a clear blueprint and data-driven guidance to increase housing supply while taking steps to reduce displacement.

These efforts reflect my belief that housing affordability can be shaped by policy choices. Local governments must act with urgency, intention, and a willingness to move from study to implementation.

Scott Burroughs

I have consistently supported pro-housing policies and projects that increase supply while strengthening neighborhood fabric rather than eroding it. In my professional work as an architect and as a frequent participate in Asheville For All events, I’ve advocated for infill housing, adaptive reuse, and mixed-use development that adds homes in walkable areas close to jobs, transit, and services.

I have publicly supported Asheville’s Affordable Housing Plan, the expansion of ADUs, and reforms that allow greater residential density along transit corridors and near commercial centers. I have also supported and designed multiple projects that combine housing with community-serving uses—such as ground-floor retail, nonprofit space, or childcare—because housing works best when it is integrated into daily life rather than isolated.

Just as important, I have supported preservation-based housing strategies: rehabilitating existing buildings, converting underused commercial properties into housing, and allowing incremental density in historic neighborhoods without demolition. These approaches are often faster, lower-carbon, and less disruptive than greenfield or mega-project development, while still meaningfully increasing supply.

In public conversations, writing, and civic engagement, I’ve consistently emphasized that scarcity is the real driver of displacement and rising costs—and that Asheville must build more homes in many forms if it wants to remain livable for working people, families, artists, and seniors.

S. Antanette Mosley

As a member of City Council and Chair of the Housing and Community Development Committee, I work on housing policy every week. During my time on Council, we have approved more than 6,000 housing units across a range of types, including multifamily, workforce, and income-restricted homes. I have supported zoning and land-use changes that expand housing options in appropriate areas, investments through the Housing Trust Fund, and public-private partnerships that deliver long-term affordability.

Before serving on Council, I worked at a nonprofit affordable housing developer, which gives me firsthand experience with what it takes to move projects from concept to completion. That perspective informs my focus on aligning zoning, funding, and permitting so that approved housing actually gets built and serves community needs.

Bobby Smith

No there is not a specific development I support but I do support income-based housing.

Maggie Ullman Berthiaume

Yes! I’m proud of championing the voter-approved $20 million affordable housing bond, advocating for and achieving zoning changes to allow flag lots and cottage courts, and by-right multifamily development up to 100,000 square feet along transportation corridors.

I’m advancing a pro-housing agenda that expands housing choice, increases affordable housing, and removes outdated barriers that limit supply and drive up costs as Council’s liaison to the Planning and Zoning Commission and chair of the Planning, Economic Development, and Environment Committee.

I’m working to modernize zoning to allow townhomes, duplexes, and small multifamily homes, increase housing options downtown, and establish anti-displacement programs supporting people staying in their homes.

My approach combines strategic planning expertise with compassion, curiosity, and collaborative leadership to deliver results that expand housing access for all Ashevillians.

Dan Ferrell

www.ferrellforavl.com/platform

Jeffrey Burroughs

https://jeffreyforasheville.com/issues

David Moritz

www.davidforavl.com Housing is one of 4 pillars to my platform

Jess Young McLean

Yes. My housing priorities are outlined on my campaign website: https://www.votejessmclean.com My platform emphasizes housing stability as a foundation for education, workforce participation, and public health. It centers family stability, prevention, deeply affordable housing, and infrastructure-aligned growth, with a focus on equity and long-term outcomes for Asheville residents.

Nina Ireland

Drew Ball

Yes. My housing platform is outlined on my website in the section “Drew’s Vision for Asheville”, under the heading “Real Affordability” www.ball4yall.com

Scott Burroughs

https://www.votescottburroughs.com/ Please also see my architectural website: https://www.thislandstudio.com/projects

S. Antanette Mosley

Not currently. My housing priorities are reflected in my record on City Council, where I chair the Housing and Community Development Committee and work on housing policy weekly. I plan to continue expanding and clarifying housing-related content on my website during the campaign.

Bobby Smith

No

Maggie Ullman Berthiaume

www.maggie4avl.com

Dan Ferrell

Housing is a net good. Building housing keeps Asheville residents in Asheville. Housing is a community benefit, and should be treated as a community good, not a profit making vehicle.

The goal is to keep residents in Asheville, to reduce rents, and build housing that isn’t a vehicle for speculation, but something that deeply invests in the people in Asheville. We need to upend the system that currently exists, and work to build a new way forward. We talk about needing bold, new plans in our studies, let’s not do the same thing we’ve always done, and do something new.

Jeffrey Burroughs

Pro-housing policies give Asheville the opportunity to become a more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable city.

My vision is an Asheville where teachers, service workers, artists, healthcare workers, and young families can afford to live near their jobs, where neighborhoods are vibrant and walkable, and where growth strengthens rather than displaces communities. Housing should be understood as a shared benefit, not a zero-sum tradeoff between neighbors and newcomers.

When housing supply keeps pace with demand, we reduce upward pressure on rents and home prices. When housing is built near jobs, transit, and services, we reduce traffic, emissions, and household transportation costs. When we allow a diversity of housing types, we create more choices for people at different life stages and income levels.

Pro-housing policies also support economic resilience. Businesses cannot survive without workers who can afford to live nearby. Recovery from Hurricane Helene has made this painfully clear. Housing stability is foundational to recovery, workforce retention, and long-term climate resilience.

A pro-housing Asheville is one that welcomes new neighbors without pushing out longtime residents, invests in affordability alongside growth, and plans intentionally for density where it makes sense. This is how we build a city that works for everyone, not just those who already made it in.

David Moritz

Housing is at the core of many issues for the City. I hear residents say that rent is too high, homeownership feels out of reach, while long-term residents fear displacement. A variety of different housing is important to create an affordable environment for residents. The higher supply of housing has been shown to have a direct impact on lowering the number of homeless residents. Apartments and housing within city limits is important for generating the tax revenue necessary to keep our city running properly. Housing near downtown and along transit can also lessen congestion and help the city operate more efficiently. But the bottom line is housing has to be attainable to new and existing residents so that we maintain a dynamic and growing city for everyone.

Jess Young McLean

Housing policy shapes who gets to stay in Asheville, who is pushed out, and who never gains access in the first place. In our city, those outcomes are not accidental. Redlining, racial covenants, and urban renewal displaced hundreds of Black-owned businesses and roughly 3,000 Black homeowners, stripping families of property and generational wealth while reinforcing barriers that still shape access to housing today.

That legacy shows up clearly in current income and homeownership data. Asheville’s median household incomes vary dramatically by race—white households earn over $70,000 on average, while Black households earn closer to $30,000. When incomes differ that starkly, simply adding housing, no matter how much or where it is built, does not automatically translate into access, stability, or choice.

A positive vision for Asheville is one where housing policy is designed with that reality in mind. That means prioritizing deep affordability over time, location near transit and services corridors, and protections against displacement. It means recognizing that housing stability is deeply connected to educational outcomes, public health, and workforce participation—especially for children and families.

Thoughtful housing policy can help create a city where families are not forced to move repeatedly, where children can remain in their schools, where workers can live near jobs, and where long-standing communities are strengthened rather than erased. To get there, we must move beyond shorthand labels and design housing strategies that are historically informed, equity-centered, and focused on long-term community well-being, not just unit production.

Nina Ireland

Pro-housing policies give Asheville the chance to be a city where people can put down roots, not just visit. When housing is attainable, families stay together, workers live near their jobs, and neighborhoods keep their character and connection. Teachers, service workers, artists, and first responders shouldn’t have to commute from other counties just to make Asheville function.

More homes also mean healthier competition, steadier rents, and less pressure on existing neighborhoods. Building closer to jobs and services reduces traffic, lowers costs for families, and supports environmental sustainability. My vision is an Asheville where housing supports community, opportunity, and dignity - where the people who make this city run can afford to call it home.

Drew Ball

Asheville is growing, and planning for that growth is not optional. If we fail to increase housing supply, the result is higher costs, displacement, longer commutes, increased traffic, and more pressure on existing residents.

Pro-housing policies allow us to plan for growth in a way that strengthens neighborhoods rather than undermines them. By building more homes, especially near jobs, transit, and services, we can reduce sprawl, improve walkability, support local businesses, and stabilize housing costs over time.

My vision is an Asheville where teachers, service workers, artists, families, and seniors can afford to live close to where they spend their time, work and participate in community life.

Growth, when planned well, can support better infrastructure, safer streets, and more transportation options instead of pushing people farther out. Asheville can have nice things!

I appreciate the Asheville For All coalition’s leadership on these issues and look forward to continuing to partner on solutions that keep Asheville livable, inclusive, and resilient.

Scott Burroughs

Housing is for people and people make up the culture. How and where people live determines what kind of lives people lead and in turn how neighborhoods and cities grow or don’t. We need to be proactive about shaping our housing policies to give Asheville the opportunity to become a city where people at different income levels, life stages, and backgrounds can live near one another—and near opportunity. Housing should be understood as shared civic infrastructure, just like streets, parks, and schools.

With thoughtful pro-housing policies, Asheville can reduce displacement pressures, stabilize neighborhoods, and allow residents to stay rooted as their needs change. More homes in walkable, mixed-use areas mean less traffic congestion, lower transportation costs, and stronger support for local businesses. Density done well creates vibrant streets, safer public spaces, and a more resilient tax base without constant outward expansion.

My positive vision is an Asheville where teachers, nurses, service workers, artists, and retirees can all afford to live here—not just commute here. Where aging in place is possible, young families can find starter homes, and longtime renters have pathways to stability. Where growth strengthens neighborhood character rather than replacing it, and where new housing supports climate goals by reducing sprawl and car dependence.

Pro-housing policies help Asheville move away from zero-sum thinking. When we increase supply thoughtfully and equitably, we reduce competition for existing homes, ease upward pressure on rents, and create room for inclusive prosperity. Housing is not a burden—it is the foundation of a healthy, creative, and humane city.

S. Antanette Mosley

Pro-housing policies help Asheville become a city where people who work here can also afford to live here. They support economic vitality, reduce displacement pressures, shorten commutes, and make transit and walkable neighborhoods more viable. Housing growth is not a burden on our city; it is how we sustain a diverse, creative, and economically resilient community.

Asheville’s own Cease the Harm audit documented how past land-use and housing policies caused lasting harm by limiting housing choice and access to opportunity. Pro-housing reforms are part of correcting that history by expanding options citywide, especially near jobs and services, while pairing growth with protections that help existing residents remain in place.

My vision is an Asheville with more homes in more forms, located closer to opportunity, where housing stability supports education, health, climate resilience, and small business success.

Bobby Smith

Trying to configure policy around average pay scale in the local area. Right now the policies that are in place are hurting folks more than helping. But as a person on council I would need need opinions from everyone to make a better decision.

Maggie Ullman Berthiaume

Pro-housing policies create the foundation for a city where all our residents have dignity, safety, choice, and opportunities to thrive.

When my family toured assisted living facilities for my father-in-law, we were thinking about dignity—whether he could remain in Asheville as his needs changed. I’m also raising an 11-year-old daughter here, and I want her to have a real choice to build a life in this city.

These experiences reinforce what the data shows: Asheville is growing whether we plan for it or not. Pro-housing policies let us shape that growth so it works for people rather than pricing them out.

My vision is an Asheville where people age with dignity, where families and essential workers—teachers, nurses, firefighters—can stay rooted in the community they serve, and where local businesses have stable workforces. That requires enough housing to address rising costs and wider options: homes near jobs and services, more residents downtown and along corridors, choices beyond single-family housing.

By focusing growth where infrastructure exists and pairing it with anti-displacement tools, we reduce sprawl, preserve natural areas, improve walkability, and lower transportation costs. We welcome new neighbors while helping longtime residents stay.

This is about building a complete, inclusive, sustainable community accessible to all.

Dan Ferrell

Honestly, given what I think the city can do, it’s in the city’s best interest long term to build missing middle housing. If we want ‘broad, ambitious, and swift’. It’s going to require money, but it can be done. 2-6 unit housing is the key to density without difficulty, which is what’s sorely needed. To improve affordability, we can use our resources to remove the developer and the bank from developing these units as a social cost. We voted to start building affordable housing, so lets do it. Let’s build long term housing in the form of housing co-ops to give long term stability to housing for existing residents, so that their rents would remain stable even as market rates change. Stability instead of speculation. It’s so hard to put into 300 words the breadth of policy and action that can be done, but every bit of density allows us to keep our neighbors in the city, let’s prioritize them first.

Jeffrey Burroughs

Yes, I support a missing middle approach that is broad, ambitious, and timely.

The evidence is clear that allowing duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, and small apartment buildings in appropriate areas increases housing options, improves affordability over time, and supports walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods. These housing types once existed throughout Asheville and were integral to its historic growth.

The city has spent too long studying this issue without meaningful implementation. While thoughtful engagement is important, delay has real consequences for people being priced out today.

I support restoring missing middle housing citywide, particularly in areas near jobs, transit, schools, and services, rather than limiting reforms to small pilot areas. These reforms should be paired with anti-displacement strategies, infrastructure planning, and clear, predictable rules so homeowners, builders, and neighbors understand what is allowed.

Missing middle housing is not about forcing change. It is about allowing gentle density and choice. If we are serious about affordability, sustainability, and equity, these reforms must move from concept to action.

David Moritz

I believe that the missing middle housing strategy should be implemented in order to bring more housing options and density to the City of Asheville. We need to build housing in town where our infrastructure costs are lower and where we can create vibrant, dense communities. We need more options for people who want to live in the city, either by renting or by purchasing a home. I believe the missing middle should be voted on by council and then be monitored to see how it impacts the city. All plans that are passed can always be evaluated to be made better in the future but if we just stand still, nothing gets done and that is a choice in itself, and often not the correct one.

Jess Young McLean

Missing middle housing can be one useful tool among many but it is not a universal solution, and how it is implemented matters deeply in Asheville. Duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and small multifamily buildings can expand options in walkable, transit-connected areas and help support local schools, businesses, and services when thoughtfully planned.

At the same time, Asheville’s extreme income disparities mean that increasing housing options alone does not guarantee access or affordability for everyone. When median household incomes vary so widely across race and neighborhood, broad zoning changes (especially in already-vulnerable areas )must be paired with displacement risk assessment, tenant protections, and clear affordability expectations. Ignoring that reality risks repeating patterns of exclusion under a different policy framework. More housing in an economy that glorifies low wages, no benefits, and overworking will also fail to secure healthy longterm growth for our city.

I support advancing missing middle housing in ways that are targeted, infrastructure-aligned, and equity-informed, particularly near centers and corridors where transit, utilities, and services already exist. This approach helps avoid sprawl, reduces long-term public costs, and aligns housing growth with climate and mobility goals.

The next phase of Asheville’s missing middle work should focus on refining implementation: clarifying where these changes will do the most good, ensuring they support families and long-term residents, and measuring outcomes beyond unit counts alone. Success should be defined by stability, access, and community well-being—not speed for speed’s sake.

Nina Ireland

I support missing middle housing reforms that allow for a wide range of housing types and are decisive and timely in addressing Asheville’s housing shortage. Reforms must be implemented with intention and accountability so they expand housing options without causing harm.

The City already has strong guidance to act on. The displacement risk assessment shows that not all neighborhoods face the same risks, and Chapter 6 identifies areas that are ready now for missing middle housing including neighborhoods with lower displacement risk and that are not legacy communities. These areas should be prioritized immediately for streamlined, by-right development that allows plexes, townhomes, and small multi-family buildings.

At the same time, in legacy neighborhoods and higher-risk areas, missing middle housing should move forward alongside anti-displacement strategies and those brought forth by the Legacy Neighborhood Coalition - such as affordability requirements, home repair programs, and protections for long-term residents. Moving at the “speed of the community” does not mean inaction, it means sequencing change so growth happens first where it is most appropriate, while safeguards are strengthened where they are most needed.

The next step for the City is to move from planning to implementation by adopting zoning changes that support a diverse array of housing types, simplifying permitting, and clearly communicating timelines and expectations. This approach allows Asheville to grow responsibly, expand housing choice, and strengthen neighborhoods citywide.

Drew Ball

Yes - I support a broad, ambitious, and expedited approach to missing middle housing reform.

Housing types like duplexes, townhomes, ADUs, cottage courts, and small multifamily buildings are proven tools to increase supply, reduce displacement pressure, and support walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods. Cities across the country have shown that broadly applied missing middle reforms expand housing options and can actually reduce displacement.

Asheville has strong studies and recommendations in hand. The next step is implementation: allowing these housing types in more parts of the city, reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, and aligning zoning with infrastructure capacity. Ultimately, the city needs to make significant updates to our UDO to align a vision to guide growth.

As a County Commissioner, I’ve supported similar reforms and I’ve worked to move policy from study to action. On City Council, I would prioritize timely implementation while ensuring changes are predictable, equitable, and informed by community input.

Scott Burroughs

Yes, I support a “broad, ambitious, and swift” approach to missing middle housing reforms. The data is clear: allowing duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and small apartment buildings in core neighborhoods increases housing options while ameliorating displacement.

Asheville’s missing middle initiative has stalled, and that delay carries real costs—rising rents, overcrowding, and the loss of households who would otherwise stay. Updating our zoning and policies to allow for missing middle solutions is the closest thing we have to a switch that we can turn on to provide affordability to Ashevillians. The city should move quickly to legalize missing middle housing by right in residential districts, especially near transit, schools, and neighborhood centers.

Reforms should be simple and predictable. Overly complex overlays, discretionary reviews, carve outs, or excessive design requirements risk undermining the goal. Missing middle works best when it is widely allowed, not confined to pilot areas or burdened with uncertainty.

Next steps should include: eliminating minimum lot size barriers that prevent small-scale infill; reducing parking requirements that make projects infeasible; and allowing incremental additions to existing homes. The city should also pair reforms with anti-displacement strategies—such as property tax relief for low-income homeowners and support for community land trusts. To ensure existing residents benefit from new flexibility, the City should work with local non profits to provide homeowners supportive services including, design, permitting, alternative funding, and labor to help upgrade their properties.

Missing middle housing is not a radical experiment. It is a return to the kinds of buildings Asheville already has—and loves. We should move forward confidently.

S. Antanette Mosley

Yes, I support a missing middle approach that is broad, ambitious, and timely. Asheville cannot address affordability by relying on single-family homes on large lots alone. Duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, and small multifamily buildings are a necessary part of a healthy housing ecosystem.

The Cease the Harm audit makes clear that exclusionary zoning and limited housing choice have contributed to inequity and displacement. Missing middle housing helps expand options in a way that supports walkability, transit, and neighborhood stability. Implementation matters, however. Reforms must be paired with clear standards, predictable processes, and infrastructure planning so they translate into real homes, not just paper changes.

The next steps should focus on simplifying rules, reducing unnecessary barriers, and ensuring that missing middle housing can be built by a range of builders, not only large developers.

Bobby Smith

Depending on the definition of the missing middle. Where 40k a year was considered middle,now that number here in Asheville/Buncombe is almost considered low-income. We need an approach that brings the low income up they can seek better housing.

Maggie Ullman Berthiaume

Yes, I support missing middle housing. Two years is too long. Asheville needs broad, ambitious, and swift action. I’m committed to delivering results that expand housing choice while protecting the communities that make this city home.

I’m committed to breaking Asheville’s culture of delay. Missing middle housing is critical to affordability, walkability, and climate-smart growth.

Part of the slowdown has been around trust. Historically marginalized neighborhoods have seen other planning efforts that led to displacement. Addressing those concerns is essential to moving forward well. We now have stronger alignment around a shared goal: expanding missing middle housing while strengthening anti-displacement protections.

I will push for concrete next steps including a clear timeline, transparent process, and specific actions to advance these reforms.

Dan Ferrell

Absolutely. I have an entire plan on how to do that, I think it’s the best usage of the cities time. If you want to prioritize them, prioritize them. Build a public developer with rules and regulations with a memorandum of understanding, and the expectation that they will behave in a way that prioritizes people first. The public developer would be charged with organizing land, housing co-operatives, and instead of spending our LUIG money on mostly market-rate housing, let’s spend it on the missing middle over and over again. City should increase funding for a land bank, buy land, and lease what currently exists to the housing co-operatives, so that the city maintains the asset of land, but the people have a more resilient asset vs rent.

Jeffrey Burroughs

Yes. Increasing housing supply alone will not meet the needs of Asheville residents earning low and moderate incomes. Investments and subsidies are essential.

I support continued and expanded investment in the Housing Trust Fund, LUIG, land acquisition for affordable housing, and policies that ensure long-term affordability rather than short-term units. Public land should be used strategically for affordable and deeply affordable housing, especially near transit and services.

I also support ensuring that voucher holders have access to homes built with city support and that affordability requirements are enforced consistently. The city should prioritize partnerships with nonprofit and mission-driven developers who are committed to long-term affordability and community outcomes.

These investments should complement, not replace, policies that allow more housing overall. Over the next few years, the focus should be on deeply affordable housing, preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, and preventing displacement. Housing policy should be judged by whether the people who make Asheville work can afford to stay.

David Moritz

Affordable housing is the responsibility of the entire community so I think some of the approaches by the City have been misguided, such as trying to twist the arm of private developers to provide affordable housing at their own cost. This strategy has had the opposite effect intended because it has caused fewer good projects to be proposed to the City and, thus, reduced supply of housing. I am more in favor of incentives to get the housing we think is needed. As a first step, I think City Council needs to make it clear that they are pro-housing and that they are not going to inflict arbitrary demands on good projects. They also have to communicate an openness to evaluating re-zoning along transit corridors. I also think that the City already has land that is very suitable for housing and should explore more sales to developers provided that it must be used for housing. As far as LUIG, I have mixed feeling about it. I actually went through the process of getting LUIG approval for two projects and I’m very familiar with it. Although it could be an incentive, I think the City also needs to the tax revenue, which could be used for other incentives. I think now cost loans via the Trust Fund (Dogwood) are also good options.

Jess Young McLean

Yes, I support continued and strategic investments to increase the number of homes that are deeply affordable over time and that improve stability for Asheville residents. Incentives and subsidies are essential tools, especially as inflated market rates continue to be a barrier for families, seniors, and workers to access housing.

As a Council member, I look forward to diving deeper into the details and outcomes of the city’s existing tools, including the Housing Trust Fund, the Land Use Incentive Grant (LUIG) program, and the Affordable Housing Plan. Understanding how these policies are working in practice—and where they can be strengthened—is critical to making smart, accountable decisions with limited public dollars.

At the same time, I believe affordability cannot be separated from infrastructure. Increasing housing supply alone is a short-term fix if we do not plan for the long-term demands on stormwater, sewer, electric, transit, and public services. Asheville has significant opportunity to focus growth downtown and along major corridors where infrastructure already exists. Sprawling development patterns not only strain city systems but also make future affordability harder to sustain.

This perspective is personal as well as professional. I am the daughter of a surveyor who worked for decades in construction across Asheville and Western North Carolina, and I grew up understanding how much care, coordination, and planning go into responsible development. When we move too quickly with output goals alone, we risk missing outcomes—fewer families safely housed, less access to living wage jobs and public services, and avoidable infrastructure failures.

Over the next several years, the city’s focus should be on pairing affordability investments with infrastructure-aligned growth, long-term affordability requirements, and clear measures of success rooted in stability, access, and resilience . . . not just unit counts.

Nina Ireland

Yes, I support continued investment in the Housing Trust Fund and LUIG because affordability doesn’t happen by accident—it requires intentional public investment. Incentives should prioritize projects that deliver long-term affordability and are located near transit, schools, and jobs.

I support leveraging public land, partnerships with nonprofit and mission-driven developers, and tools like bonds or tax abatements to stretch local dollars further. We should also ensure voucher holders have real access to these homes. The focus should be measurable outcomes: more units, deeper affordability, and lasting stability for working families.

Drew Ball

Yes. Increasing housing supply alone is not enough. Investments in below-market housing are essential for stability and equity. We also must encourage developers to build housing that’s affordable.

The fact is, thousands of Asheville residents with housing vouchers are on a waitlist because they cannot find homes due to limited supply. That is a policy failure. I support continued investment in the Housing Trust Fund, LUIG, use of local government property for affordable housing development, and ensuring voucher access to homes built with public support.

As a member of the county’s Affordable Housing Subcommittee, I’ve worked on these tools directly, including public-land development and partnerships with nonprofit providers. I also support pathways to homeownership, which help families build long-term stability and wealth.

When rents rise faster than wages, people are pushed into housing instability and homelessness. Prevention, through affordable housing, rental assistance, and supportive services, is more thoughtful and cost-effective than focusing solely on crisis response.

Scott Burroughs

Yes, I support investments that increase the number of homes rented or owned at below-market rates, but we have to remain vigilant of overall budget concerns and cannot rely on government to bankroll everything. Market-rate supply needs to be the focus, government’s role should be to ease the edges, soften any negative impacts, and be the extra bit of encouragement that gets otherwise reasonable projects and plans over the finish line.

The city should continue—and expand—funding for the Housing Trust Fund and LUIG through a mix of property taxes, bonds, and targeted abatements. These tools are proven and appropriate. Over the next few years, the focus should be on acquiring land in high-opportunity areas, leveraging underutilized public land for affordability, and ensuring long-term affordability through deed restrictions or land trust ownership.

Priority should be given to projects near transit, jobs, and services, where housing costs and transportation costs can both be reduced. Incentives should reward deeper affordability, family-sized units, and projects that integrate supportive services.

Finally, Asheville must ensure that voucher holders can access all housing built with city support. Public investment should come with clear expectations around inclusion, access, and accountability.

Housing stability is economic development, climate policy, and public health policy all at once. Investing here pays dividends across the city.

S. Antanette Mosley

Yes, I strongly support continued investment in below-market-rate housing. Increasing supply alone is not sufficient for households with the greatest needs, which is why tools like the Housing Trust Fund and LUIG are essential. These investments help ensure that growth includes homes affordable to workers, seniors, and families at a range of income levels.

Over the next few years, the City should focus on leveraging public dollars to attract private and nonprofit investment, acquiring land in high-opportunity areas, and ensuring that homes built with public support remain affordable long-term. We should also continue removing barriers for voucher holders and aligning incentives with transit and job centers.

A successful housing strategy uses both supply and subsidy to create stability and choice.

Bobby Smith

What is market rate? Who fits into the market rate and how does it help them if they never have a chance to own a home?

Maggie Ullman Berthiaume

Yes. I strongly support investments to increase below-market-rate housing and stability for struggling residents. I’ve championed the $20 million affordable housing bond and increased Housing Trust Fund investments, and I will continue effectively advocating for recurring bond funding to provide reliable, long-term resources.

Over the next few years, my focus will include:

Fully implementing the Affordable Housing Plan. Proactive redevelopment of city-owned land for mixed-income and deeply affordable housing. Public land is one of our strongest tools to deliver lasting affordability in high-opportunity neighborhoods near jobs and transit. I support expanding the Land Use Incentive Grant (LUIG) program to unlock development in strategic locations.

Ensuring voucher holder access in all developments supported by city dollars. This is both a fairness and supply issue—public investments must serve people who need them most.

Expanding rental assistance, especially for people transitioning out of shelters. Preventing returns to homelessness requires bridge funding that keeps people stably housed as they rebuild.

Homeowner repair programs to prevent displacement as neighborhoods change. Property taxes, bonds, and strategic tax abatements are appropriate mechanisms for funding these programs. We must use public resources strategically to deliver housing stability and expand options for all residents.

Dan Ferrell

If the city spends the next two years making incremental updates to the UDO, I’d be ecstatic. It’s so old, and basically built for the Asheville that we’re seeing now, which is one that’s causing gentrification, pushing current residents out, and feeling out of touch with what the city actually needs.

So, should the UDO prioritize past the missing middle right now? No. The city needs to focus on the things that are going to have the greatest impact on current residents. These large scale developments aren’t getting residents from our community, because the wages aren’t there to support those rent rates. Sure, if we’re reducing displacement and gentrification, we can talk about what helps with these developments, but focusing on these units feels like focusing on tourists.

Jeffrey Burroughs

Yes. I support UDO reforms beyond missing middle that align with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

To meet housing demand, Asheville needs more multi-family housing in high-opportunity areas near downtown, along commercial corridors, and in mixed-use centers. Recent corridor reforms were a step forward, but additional changes are needed.

I support revisiting Urban Centers requirements that have proven too restrictive to produce housing, reducing unnecessary parking mandates, and reexamining landscape buffer standards that limit mixed-use, walkable development.

The UDO should enable housing where infrastructure already exists and where people want to live, while maintaining clear standards that provide predictability for communities and builders. Reforming outdated rules is essential if we want real housing outcomes, not just plans.

David Moritz

The current zoning is outdated and creates many challenges to building housing in the City of Asheville. It’s important that we vastly simplify our UDO to have fewer suburban zoning districts and more Urban zoning districts. This could also include expanding the CDB zoning further beyond downtown to include further parts of Biltmore, McDowell, Asheland and Merrion. Also the parking requirement for all types should be removed on Haywood Rd, which is meant to be a walkable neighborhood. I think the Urban Center going like Urban Village and Urban Place could work but they are very complicated and the City seems to have put them in arbitrary places and with properties owned by companies that don’t want to follow them. And the zoning still requires a master plan that is quite subjective, as evidenced by the two developers that tried to build something at the Sears on Tunnel Road. Zoning that allows for City veto and are too prescriptive can often have a negative consequence and stifle development. So the changes that are made have to be pragmatic and be reviewed for their impact. For example, the form based code on Haywood has been a failure and yet the City hasn’t reviewed this zoning to make changes.

Jess Young McLean

Asheville’s Unified Development Ordinance is a powerful tool that shapes housing, infrastructure, and neighborhood outcomes across the city. While I am still building deeper technical familiarity with the full scope of the UDO and recent initiatives like Urban Centers, I approach land use decisions the same way I approach budgeting and governance in my nonprofit leadership: with curiosity, diligence, and accountability.

For more than five years, my work has centered on listening closely to community members, especially families and neighbors most impacted by housing instability, while pairing lived experience with research, data, and cross-sector expertise. I believe good policy is built with a Star Trek approach - by asking careful questions, studying what has and hasn’t worked, and making decisions with creative problem-solvers; decisions informed by both evidence and the people who live with the outcomes.

I am interested in learning more about how UDO reforms can better align with our Comprehensive Plan, climate goals, and infrastructure capacity, particularly in centers and along major corridors where growth can be more sustainable over time. I also want to understand why certain approaches, including Urban Centers, have not produced the intended results and how they might be improved.

Importantly, zoning and land use decisions are never neutral. As the Government Accountability Project of Asheville has highlighted, displacement is often the cumulative result of many small, technical decisions made without a consistent framework for assessing impact. I am interested in how Asheville can strengthen displacement-risk analysis across land use and development decisions—asking, each time, whether a policy or project makes it harder for current residents to stay rooted in their communities.

Any updates to the UDO should be guided by equity, transparency, and accountability, with clear data, community input, and long-term outcomes informing decisions—not just speed or theoretical unit counts. Done thoughtfully, UDO reform can help Asheville grow in ways that are fiscally responsible, climate-resilient, and supportive of families and long-term residents.

Nina Ireland

Updating the UDO is essential. Our current code is outdated and often makes housing harder and more expensive to build, which limits supply and raises costs.

I support reforms that allow more multifamily housing in centers and corridors, modernize Urban Centers standards so they actually produce homes, and remove unnecessary barriers like excessive buffers or parking requirements. Clear, predictable rules benefit everyone - residents, builders, and the City. Smart zoning should match where infrastructure already exists and make it easier to create the homes Asheville needs.

Drew Ball

Yes. I support updates to the Unified Development Ordinance beyond missing middle housing to better align with Asheville’s Comprehensive Plan; which I also support updating to better align with our values, long-term infrastructure needs, and affordability goals.

That includes improving incentives for housing in population centers and transit corridors, supporting multifamily housing near public transit and jobs, revising overly restrictive Urban Center standards, and reducing requirements that add cost without clear public benefit.

My approach to land-use reform focuses on:

• Expanding housing options at multiple price points
• Reducing regulatory barriers that add cost and delay
• Aligning zoning with infrastructure capacity
• Streamlining and standardizing approval processes

Smart growth policies saves taxpayers money over time, supports walkability and transit, and helps Asheville grow in a more sustainable and equitable way.

Scott Burroughs

I support UDO changes well beyond missing middle housing. My opinions of how the UDO should be revised are informed by over 15 years working professionally as an architect in jurisdictions as diverse as Philadelphia, Austin, Charlotte, Shanghai and Melbourne, Australia.

Asheville needs more medium- and large-scale multifamily housing in our urban core and corridors where infrastructure, jobs, and amenities already exist. Recent commercial corridor reforms were a positive step, but they are not enough. Reforms to encourage growth need to simplify rather than complicate and encourage rather than restrict. The quickest way to do both would be through replacing envelope restrictions for all non RS zoning districts with Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) restrictions.

FAR keeps density even through all our varied mountainous lots. It would also encourage development on lots that are current considered unbuildable by poor entitlements. It would also give designers freedom to design more economically to the contemporary building methods and materials. Our current zoning is a legacy of ordinances that were initiated in the last century when car culture and a lack of environmental understand encouraged excesses. Its past time to bring them up to date to meet contemporary challenges and values.

Landscape buffer standards and other legacy requirements should also be updated. While well-intentioned, these rules often undermine walkability and reduce buildable area in mixed-use contexts. We should prioritize street-facing buildings, active ground floors, and human-scaled design over excessive separation.

A holistic UDO update is overdue. By modernizing parking, stormwater, and use standards together—and aligning incentives with affordability and sustainability—Asheville can unlock housing capacity while improving design outcomes.

Done right, these reforms will help Asheville grow inward, not outward, and remain a city for all surrounded by bucolic valleys and verdant mountains.

S. Antanette Mosley

Yes, I support UDO changes beyond missing middle that align with our adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Cease the Harm audit highlighted how outdated zoning and development rules have reinforced inequity and limited housing choice. UDO updates should directly respond to those findings.

That includes revisiting Urban Centers, reducing barriers in centers and corridors, and modernizing standards such as parking and buffer requirements that limit housing in walkable, mixed-use areas. If we are serious about affordability, we must allow more multifamily housing near jobs, transit, and amenities. UDO reform should prioritize clarity, predictability, and outcomes so that good projects can move forward.

Bobby Smith

I do not agree with putting more housing directly downtown considering the changes that have to be made and or changed and the challenges of private vs public use.

Maggie Ullman Berthiaume

Yes. I not only support but will fight to modernize Asheville’s UDO to deliver more housing—especially medium and large-scale multifamily buildings—in the high-opportunity areas our Comprehensive Plan identifies for growth.

The March 11 commercial corridor reforms were a good start, allowing by-right multifamily up to 100,000 square feet. But there is more to do. The Urban Centers initiative has proven too restrictive to produce any housing. I support revising it to make housing development feasible in these walkable, transit-rich locations. Beyond these specific fixes, we need a comprehensive UDO update that removes outdated 1990s-era rules and aligns zoning with our 2018 Comprehensive Plan goals. This includes reducing parking minimums, streamlining approval processes, and allowing more housing types across more of the city. But perfect should not be the enemy of good.

We must also integrate flood resilience into our land use strategy. If we’re protecting river corridors by limiting development in high-risk areas, the UDO must allow significantly more housing capacity in safer locations. A modern UDO should advance affordability, walkability, climate resilience, and housing supply together.

Dan Ferrell

We need to hire more permitting & code enforcement. Period. If we build a public developer that works with code and permitting, have more standardized architectural plans of these missing middle units that exists in the in this co-operative housing should be able speed up permitting as well, the majority of issues then become with land complications.

If you’re unfamiliar with how co-ops work, just to clarify: the residents are shareholders of a non-profit. Instead of paying a landlord, they pay the non-profit. The non-profit pays the mortgage. The co-op pays the maintenance together. So, co-ops aren’t subject to the same rent changes that market rate housing tends to be, because it’s more like ownership and less like renting.

Lastly, so much of this is bound in the idea that there’s a community co-operative credit union that can provide the funding glue to make these projects work. Money that exists in Asheville, used in Asheville, for Asheville, instead of sending it out to banks in Charlotte, Atlanta, NYC, places that aren’t here.

Jeffrey Burroughs

Housing policy must be treated as core infrastructure.

That means streamlining permitting, reducing unnecessary delays and costs, aligning zoning with infrastructure capacity, and coordinating housing decisions with transit, climate resilience, and economic development. It also means using data to evaluate what is working and adjusting policies accordingly.

David Moritz

I think much of what the City needs to do is simply become pro-housing and communicate it clearly to the Asheville and developer community. The City Council also needs to instruct staff to be more cooperative with developers in trying to find solutions to make housing projects happen, rather than be gatekeepers. It’s often not even clear what staff is trying to gatekeep or trying to accomplish. Clarity goes a long way to making the city welcome to the groups that want to provide housing. In addition, we have to encourage housing near town and along transit by changing our zoning and approval process. And that includes flexibility with the more stringent permitting requirements.

Jess Young McLean

Nina Ireland

Asheville can improve its housing policies by better aligning budget decisions, land use, and permitting reforms around a shared goal: expanding housing options without displacing the people who already live here. Housing policy works best when these systems move together instead of in silos.

Permitting reform is also critical. Clear timelines, early guidance, and predictable processes reduce costs and uncertainty, particularly for local builders and nonprofit developers. When the City misses its own timelines, transparency and corrective action are necessary so delays don’t compound affordability challenges.

Ultimately, treating housing as essential infrastructure will help Asheville expand supply, stabilize neighborhoods, and remain a place where people who live and work here can afford to stay.

Drew Ball

Asheville can improve housing outcomes by better using public land, strengthening partnerships with organizations like Habitat for Humanity and Mountain Housing Opportunities, and fully leveraging tools such as LIHTC.

Housing affordability requires coordination across zoning, infrastructure, permitting, and budget decisions. With steady leadership and a willingness to act on the plans we already have, Asheville can make meaningful progress toward a more affordable and inclusive future. That is the kind of leadership I’ve developed on County Commission and hope to bring to City Hall.

Scott Burroughs

Planning, innovation and creativity are core to building a better city. Asheville needs to start planning now for the city we deserve.

As we look towards the future, Helene’s true damage will be felt in its ripple effects and the indirect death toll will far exceed the immediate effects. Good governance and planning for a city that provides for all of us will alleviate that burden. If we don’t change course now, we run the risk of our urban core emptying out to replace our farmland and natural spaces with suburban sprawl. Our only way out of this fate is to build our way out.

The City of Asheville needs to encourage sustainable growth within our urban core and along our existing commercial corridors. Density bonuses for the developments we want to see including microgrids, renewable energy, affordable housing, mixed uses, neighborhood resilience and transit oriented development are the best cost free ways to incentives developers

I also believe in Community First Design, not just in words but in deed as well. Last year, I led a Community Visioning Workshop to propose alternatives to the ill conceived Soccer stadium proposal by UNCA. (You can see more at www.thislandstudio.com/uncawoods ) One of the great ideas that came out of that open dialog was A Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). I feel a CBA should be a standard requirement for any project seeking a variance. A simple document that can force developers and design teams to put community needs front of mind could save so much frustration later on. A standardized CBA would also create a record of best practices that would allow community members to better understand their own agency to participate in the growth of their neighborhoods.

S. Antanette Mosley

Housing policy is not just about zoning; it is about follow-through. Approved projects must be able to get built. That means aligning land use, funding, infrastructure, and permitting so that policy decisions translate into real homes.

I approach housing with urgency and balance. We must grow our housing supply while also helping existing residents remain housed and stable. The Cease the Harm audit reminds us that housing policy is not neutral, and pro-housing reform is one of the tools we have to do better going forward.

Bobby Smith

With the question of reparations still in the air along with the promises of returning former Black owners property back I think we could benefit in the years coming. In turn you can reform some permitting,help with the budget and also be able to create incentives to the ones that are having their property returned and residents who are making long-term investments in Asheville.

Maggie Ullman Berthiaume

Hurricane Helene has intensified our housing crisis, making swift action more urgent than ever. My experience working across systems on infrastructure, resilience, and long-term planning positions me to deliver integrated solutions that our recovery demands.

Budget Priorities: Despite our $30 million budget gap, we must protect affordable housing investments as core infrastructure. I support recurring bond funding for predictable revenue, strategic deployment of federal recovery dollars for housing, and innovative tools like land banking and public-private partnerships.

Permitting Reforms: We need streamlined development review timelines and reduced administrative barriers, especially for small developers and ADUs. This requires investing in staff capacity and breaking our culture of delay with clear timelines and accountability. I support form-based codes and pre-approved housing designs to accelerate approvals.

Integrated Approach: Housing can’t be solved in isolation. We must connect housing to transit, jobs, and services while pairing anti-displacement protections with supply increases. This is a regional challenge requiring regional coordination. Post-Helene, we have an opportunity to integrate climate resilience—building where infrastructure exists reduces costs and protects natural areas.

I’m committed to action over process and delivering results that expand housing access for all residents during this critical moment.