PART I - BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Asheville, North Carolina, located on a plateau in the mountains of Western North Carolina can best be characterized as a medium size city with a population according to the 1970 Census of 57,681. Asheville was somewhat late in coming to grips with the realization that certain areas were deteriorating to the point that it cost the City more to provide basic services than was collected in ad valorem taxes. Sadder yet was the fact that these same neighborhoods were a few short years ago considered some of Asheville's finest residential areas.

The project was originally proposed to be a non-residential reuse and was called the Civic Redevelopment Project, officially identified by the Federal Government and City as the Civic Redevelopment Project N.C. R-13. The name being derived from potential reuse of the area by mostly municipal entities such as a County Health and Welfare building, Civic Center and Arts Theater.

In December, 1964, a second Urban Renewal Survey and Planning application was submitted to the Federal Government and approved. Again delays held up the project and it was not until August 31, 1966, that the Loan and Grant contract was approved. Following this approval, a referendum was held as required by state law on March 7, 1967, which was defeated and for a time the future of Urban Renewal in the City of Asheville was somewhat questionable. The reasons attributed to this defeat included public apathy, a lack of understanding of the program in general, fear of increased taxes, as well as a general unfavorable attitude toward the first Urban Renewal project which for various reasons lacked any tangible signs of progress after so many years of work.

In analyzing the two Urban Renewal Projects to determine if the original goals and objectives set forth in 1958 and 1959 were realized, it is necessary to consider the criteria apparently used in the selection of these Urban Renewal Projects and further to weigh the selection criteria against the original objectives set forth for the projects to achieve.

ASHEVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY

The oldest organization in the City of Asheville that works exclusively with housing conditions in the City and in particular the housing of low income families is the Asheville Housing Authority. The history of the Housing Authority dates back to the 18th day of April, 1940, when sixty-eight citizens presented a petition to the City Council of the City of Asheville requesting a creation of a housing authority. On May 30, 1940, the City Council of the City of Asheville adopted a resolution declaring a need for an authority to construct low rent public housing. On June 12, of that same year, a charter was issued by the Secretary of State to establish the Asheville Housing Authority. The first meeting of the Authority took place on June 15, 1940.

From this early beginning, the Authority encountered many difficulties in securing from the Federal Government, loans that would enable the Authority to construct the first public housing units in the City of Asheville and it was not until 1951 that the first ninety-six units were constructed at a cost of $894,470. These units were located between Biltmore Avenue and McDowell Street to the south of downtown Asheville and named Lee Walker Heights, officially designated as N.C. 7-2. Lee Walker Heights today are still in use and in fairly good repair having had an additional $282,000 renovation in the last few years. These apartments are still popular to a degree with the tenants occupying them due to the convenient location to downtown Asheville, shopping areas, schools and jobs.

After completion and occupancy of Hillcrest Apartments, the City owned and operated a total of five hundred ninety-two low rent public housing units. It is at this point that the Housing Authority entered another period of inactivity that lasted until 1970. It was also during this time that the Housing Authority lost touch with the problems facing similar authorities across the nation and the waiting list for apartments grew in excess of five hundred families. At the same time, communications between management and tenants deteriorated to the point that in 1967 a rent strike was called by the Tenant Organization. This action ultimately brought attention throughout the City to some problems that had been existing for a number of years. Maintenance of the properties had at best been poor. Morale on the part of the tenants was probably at its lowest since the City had built the first project. As a result numerous changes took place on the Board of Commissioners as well as professional staff and eventually most of the problems were worked out, at least to the point that the strike was called off and a large modernization program was initiated.

In early 1968, the need for public housing in Asheville and surrounding areas was again measured and a determination made that additional units were needed immediately. In 1970, the Erskine and Walton Street Project with one hundred twenty-four units was completed at a cost of $2,434,869 and in 1971 Aston Park Towers with one hundred sixty-two units for the elderly was completed at a cost of $2,828,000 along with the Altamont Apartments which were completed containing an additional fifty-six units at a cost of $792,000. The Altamont Apartments, an elderly complex, were the results of the restoration of an old downtown hotel.

It was during the middle and late '60's that efforts were made to coordinate policies and programs among various agencies in the City of Asheville that dealt primarily with housing conditions and housing for low income families. Of particular concern was the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Asheville and the Housing Authority of the City of Asheville. In 1969, a plan known as "Baby HUD" was initiated and one individual was appointed as executive director of four organizations. These were the Metropolitan Planning Board, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, Redevelopment Commission and Asheville Housing Authority. The plan was for one individual to be the director of the four agencies with a total of three separate staffs and have the responsibility of coordinating the activities of the three staffs while at the same time serving at the pleasure of four different appointed boards.

The "Baby HUD" plan was short lived in that the executive director of the above mentioned agencies resigned as the executive director of the Asheville Housing Authority. However he did continue in his role as executive director of the Metropolitan Planning Board, City Planning and Zoning Commission and Redevelopment Commission until his resignation from all three agencies.

Even though the first attempt at "Baby HUD" had failed, it was still the consensus of those responsible that some type of coordination and communication be effected between the Redevelopment Commission and Housing Authority.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION EVALUATION

Review and Evaluation of Past Experience

1. Code Enforcement

Code enforcement in the City of Asheville is carried out by the Public Safety Department of the City. Of the three principal agencies and/or departments dealing primarily with housing and housing conditions in the City of Asheville, the Public Safety Department effects more citizens of Asheville in that it covers the entire City.

The primary responsibility of the Code Enforcement Department is that of enforcing the various municipal and state ordinances effecting housing conditions in the City of Asheville. These include but are not limited to the current housing code, building code, plumbing code, electrical code and fire prevention code. The effectiveness of this department prior to 1967 simply cannot be measured in that its major activities centered around inspections of new construction, permits and spot inspections that were primarily made to satisfy workable programs requirements set forth by the Federal Government.

Since 1968 this department has become very effective and is now considered one of the city's most important departments with an annual budget of approximately $170,000. The staff has increased from three in 1967 to a total of nineteen; sixteen of which are inspectors. Staff breakdown is as follows:

For the purpose of this report, Code Enforcement and its administrative capabilities will be discussed in two sections, (1) activities prior to 1967 and (2) activities after 1967.

Prior to 1967 efforts on the part of the staff to initiate an effective code enforcement program was a complete failure. Adequate funds to carry out the program were not budgeted and/or not available. Consequently it was simply impossible for a three man staff to carry out a program that could provide tangible results. In addition, adequate legal processes were not enacted that would require property owners to make the necessary repairs needed to bring the property up to minimum standards as outlined by building inspectors in their inspection report. Perhaps most damaging of all was the seemingly unwillingness on the part of the elected officials to initiate a Code Enforcement program that could produce meaningful results. During this period it was the policy of the city not to relocate any families regardless of the condition of the dwelling and consequently all code enforcement efforts were placed on vacant structures.

After 1967 a change in the attitudes of the city fathers as to the necessity for such a program was very apparent and for the first time in the City of Asheville, positive actions were taken to initiate a city wide comprehensive Code Enforcement Program. Presently, the City is divided into four separate sections. All four sections are receiving treatment at the same time with certain staff members being assigned to each of the four areas.

Inspections of structures are made and graded in one of four ways. (1) Standard; (2) Substandard; (3) Deteriorated; (4) Dilapidated. Close follow up on the part of the inspectors is now a routine fact and ordinances have been passed whereby unwilling property owners can be required by law to either make the needed repairs in order to bring structures back to minimum city codes or same can be demolished by the city and the property owner billed for the expense.

Today, results of the program can be readily measured. As an example, during the period of January 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972, a total of 16,782 dwellings were inspected of which 3,610 were found to be in one way or another in violation of the City Housing Code. Of these, 1,997 were brought back into compliance and an additional 341 were demolished. In addition, the department has received a Model Cities grant in the amount of $63,504 which will be used to demolish all vacant, dilapidated structures located within the boundaries of the Model Cities project.

2. Urban Renewal

The Redevelopment Commission of the City of Asheville was established and a charter was issued August 26, 1958. The agency was charged with the responsibility of securing Federal Grants under the Housing Act of 1949, in order to identify and carry out urban renewal projects in blighted areas of the City.

The first project known as the Civic Redevelopment Project N.C. R-13 and was approved by the City and Federal Government on August 2, 1962. A successful referendum on May 14, 1963, enabled the project to go into the execution stage. Except for numerous delays the project has been carried out satisfactorily and is to date within twenty-four months of completion.

As outlined in the history and background portion of this report, there is little evidence to indicate that any great amount of planning was given to the site selection of the first project in that while the area itself was blighted to a degree that would qualify the area for urban renewal, it was not the worse area in the City needing treatment.

The Civic Redevelopment Project itself was, as urban renewal projects go, a relatively simple project. The majority of the property was acquired and the existing structures demolished, families and businesses relocated, site improvements installed, and the land sold.

Residing in the area prior to the development were one hundred forty-five families, forty-eight individuals, sixty-four businesses and non-profit organizations. It must be assumed that these families, individuals and businesses were relocated into standard housing throughout the City although there are no records available indicating any follow up being made on relocated families and businesses. This in itself gives no indication as to what effect, if any, the project had on those living and doing business within its boundaries.

One of the additional benefits cited by those interviewed is that traffic circulation within the project area will be greatly improved when completed. Of particular interest is the proposed extension of Charlotte Street through the project connecting with Valley Street which will eventually become the North-South link of the Central Business District Loop that will circle downtown Asheville.

The second project known as the East Riverside Urban Renewal Project N.C. R-48 went into execution in 1968 and is progressing on schedule with approximately 75% of the project completed. The professional staff again has changed and a reorganization took place in 1970 (reorganization and current staff capabilities will be discussed in a following section). The East Riverside Project is one of the more complicated renewal projects in the state and still faces major amendments in order to be completed but with a strong board, competent professional staff and continued municipal cooperation, the project should be completed without additional delays or difficulties.

Basically this large relocation program associated with the project appears to have been accepted by those directly or indirectly affected. This is evidenced by the fact that only a limited number of complaints and protests have been filed with the Redevelopment Commission regarding the program.

3. Public Housing

The Asheville Housing Authority organized in 1940 for the purpose of securing for the City of Asheville low rent public housing financed with Federal funds made available by the Housing Act of 1937. The Housing Authority presently maintains one thousand ninety-eight units of low rent public housing, and have an additional one thousand one hundred units either under construction or in the planning stage that should be completed within the next twenty-four months.

The first two projects were completed in 1951 and in 1952 the City had a total of three hundred fifty-eight units of housing. A third project was completed in 1959 with an additional two hundred thirty-four units. Since 1970 an additional three hundred forty-two units have been completed and occupied.

The need for a certain amount of public housing in the City of Asheville has been evident since early 1940. For the most part this type of housing program has been well received by the citizens of the City and only in recent years, since 1970, has strong opposition been voiced concerning the construction of additional units.

The City Council of the City of Asheville on April 15, 1971, passed a resolution abolishing the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Asheville and at the same time designated the Housing Authority to execute the powers and responsibilities of this Commission. A new executive director was employed to head up the new agency. Primary responsibilities of the new agency, known today as the Asheville Housing Authority, are construction of low rent public housing and implementation of urban renewal programs.

The executive director of the Housing Authority has completely reorganized the agency and has broken down the work activities into the following classifications: (1) Public Housing; (2) Urban Renewal; (3) Relocation and Social Services; (4) Finances. Each department is headed up by a director who answers directly to the executive director of the Housing Authority for his particular responsibility. (Each section and/or department will be broken down and discussed in the following paragraphs.)

1 . Public Housing

This department is headed up by a director whose sole responsibility is to the construction, maintenance, and management of all the low rent public housing units located in and around the City of Asheville.

This particular department is broken down into two functional classifications.

     (1) Construction
     (2) Management and Maintenance

Interviews and on-site inspections indicate that the Housing Department is apparently well organized and well staffed with competent employees. Maintenance of the projects are in better than average shape. Tenant relationships with management are above average. Construction, either under way or in planning, is on schedule and appears to be well under the control of the director in charge of construction.

2. Urban Renewal

This department is headed up by a director whose sole responsibility is to carry out the duties and responsibilities connected with the two urban renewal projects located in the City of Asheville.

This particular department, for the most part, is well organized and well managed. Qualified staff is apparent in each subsection and work is progressing on schedule. The one exception and possible weak spot of the whole organization is that of rehabilitation.

This particular activity has not been successful from the very beginning of the East Riverside Urban Renewal Project. After three years in execution, less than 40% of those properties designated for rehabilitation have been completed. Numerous efforts on the part of the executive staff have been made to correct the problem with little apparent success. Reasons attributed to the failure of this particular program include: (1) unavailability of interested contractors to accept rehabilitation work within the project; (2) incompetent staff; (3) lack of understanding of the program by project residents; and (4) unwillingness of property owners to participate in the program and accept assistance offered by the program.

3. Relocation and Social Services

The Relocation and Social Services Department serves not only as the relocation branch of the Asheville Housing Authority but also as a central relocation agency for the entire city.

While this department shows on the organizational chart a position of director of relocation and social services, the position at present is vacant. Interviews are presently underway for a replacement. Both the relocation section and the social service section are well staffed by professional and competent individuals with long years of experience in the business. Communications between this department and other agencies of the City, both public and private, appear to be excellent. It is the responsibility of this department to actually find relocation resources for those displaced by governmental actions throughout the City. The major problem faced by the staff of this section is that of relocation resources but in spite of the apparent shortages of resources the task has been handled well.

The financial section is headed by a qualified comptroller who manages the book of accounts and financing matters of both urban renewal and public housing. The staff in this particular department appears adequate and the fiscal matters of the agency appear in order.

OVERVIEW

Generally the organizational procedures and staff capabilities of the Asheville Housing Authority are adequate. The most apparent weakness in the entire organization is that of rehabilitation. However, efforts are being made to correct this situation and it should be further pointed out that problems in this particular activity are typical throughout the nation.

The consolidation of the Redevelopment Commission and the Housing Authority that took place on April 15, 1971, appears to have been an excellent move on the part of the City. The reorganization is well thought out and executed and for the most part it is working well and is on schedule.

STATE AND LOCAL STATUTES PERTAINING
TO
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT

The City of Asheville on August 21, 1958, authorized the creation of the Redevelopment Commission. The Agency received its charter on August 26, 1958.

The City of Asheville does not have local statutes or ordinances pertaining to Urban Renewal other than the above mentioned enabling resolutions creating the Redevelopment Commission.

Urban Renewal in Asheville, like all other cities in North Carolina, is carried out in accordance with State laws which are uniform statewide and Federal laws.

North Carolina law pertaining to Urban Renewal was passed in 1951 . Found in the General Statutes of North Carolina under Chapter 160, Sub-chapter 7, Article 37, paragraphs 454 through 474.1. The article is known as the "Urban Redevelopment Law."

Federal legislation providing grants for urban renewal projects was enacted in an amendment to the Housing Act in 1949. The North Carolina "Urban Redevelopment Law" was passed in order for cities in the state such as Asheville to participate with the Federal Government in funding urban renewal projects.

It is the author's opinion that the State Law is fairly satisfactory and in general is well thought out and written. Both the "League of Municipalities" and the "Carolina's Council of Housing and Redevelopment Officials" have active legislative committees that continuously work with the general assembly in effecting changes in the law as needed.

From its passage in 1951 until this date, the ultimate result which the "Urban Redevelopment Law" seeks to achieve is to eliminate the injurious consequences caused by a blighted area in a municipality and to substitute from them a use of the area which it is hoped will render impossible future blight and its injurious consequences. This is, in its purpose, a preventive measure.

The State Law pertaining to Federal subsidized low rent public housing is the "Housing Authorities Law" passed by the General Assembly in 1935. Details of the law are found in the General Statutes under Chapter 157, Article I, II, III, and IV, Paragraphs I through 52.

The North Carolina "Housing Authorities Law" was enacted basically in order that municipalities could create housing authorities who in turn could apply for long term subsidized loans under the Federal Housing Act of 1937 as amended.

The legislative purpose of the Act was to authorize the creation of housing authorities as a means of protecting low income citizens from unsafe or unsanitary conditions in urban or rural

Over the years the State Act has proven to be adequate and satisfactory with amendments being made by the General Assembly when and where necessary to keep in step with the ever changing National Act. No changes or additions to the State Act is recommended in this report.

There does exist in the North Carolina "Urban Redevelopment Law" certain passages that are detrimental to the ultimate success of local urban renewal projects. Changes and additions to the State Law will be discussed in the following paragraph.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1 . Under Chapter 160, Paragraph 464 of the North Carolina "Urban Redevelopment Law" procedures are outlined for the sale of property in Urban Renewal projects. In the case of sale of land to private businesses or individuals the procedure is rather rigid. Property is advertised once a week for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper setting forth the property description, bid date, conditions of sale, etc. After receipt of all bids, the contract for sale is awarded to the highest responsible bidder. This procedure is excellent as far as it goes.

One shortcoming that is of concern to professional staffs managing the projects is that of dealing with those families and individuals and businesses being displaced by the project who wish to purchase lots in the area after redevelopment.

It is recommended that Paragraph 464 of Chapter 160 of the State Statutes be amended to include the provision that priority be given to those families, individuals, and businesses displaced by an urban renewal project to purchase property back in the area without the necessity of bidding against the field. This amendment would further provide that these families, individuals, and businesses shall pay a minimum acceptable bid price for the property based on two reuse appraisals.

2. EMINENT DOMAIN

In Paragraph 465, Chapter 160 of the General Statutes, procedures are outlined as to the Redevelopment Commissions' abilities to exercise the right of eminent domain in accordance with the provisions of Article II of Chapter 40 of the General Statutes along with the various modifications that apply to redevelopment commissions throughout the state. Of particular concern is one section of the statute that provides for the attorney fees of the condemnee to be paid by the redevelopment commissions. This particular section is somewhat unusual and unique to the State of North Carolina in that most states carrying out urban renewal projects in the Southeast portion of the United States do not include such a provision and consequently, all condemnee fees are paid by-the respondent.

It is recommended that the above mentioned provision be modified to relieve the redevelopment commissions of the responsibility of paying the condemnee's legal fees. Results of said modification should decrease the number of condemnation cases faced by the redevelopment commissions and should speed up the execution portion of any given urban renewal project.

METHODOLOGY

It has been the intent of this report to determine if the administrative procedures and staff capabilities of the Asheville Housing Authority are adequate to carry out and implement the Asheville Rehabilitation and Renewal Program (ARRP). Conclusions and analysis contained in this report have been based primarily on a detailed interview technique. Interviews have included the professional staff of the Asheville Housing Authority, other agencies, both private and public, dealing directly or indirectly with the Authority as well as those private citizens being affected by the program. In addition, reviews of available records have been made and checked out for accuracy.

Organizational procedures and staff capability determinations have been based to a large degree on activities relating to the two existing urban renewal projects presently in execution here in Asheville. Organizational procedures, staffing experience, program progress, etc. have been compared with other cities of comparable size and project activity in order to compare Asheville's progress with projects being carried out in other parts of the country. For the purpose of describing methodology regarding the Asheville Rehabilitation and Renewal Program (ARRP), activities have been broken down into four classifications: (1) Administration; (2) Relocation; (3) Real Estate; and (4) Rehabilitation.

1 . Administration

The executive staff is adequate at present to carry out additional workloads with the only staff addition being in the second echelon. So long as these six identified positions are filled with competent professionals, the agency is completely capable at present time of doubling its present workload. It is recommended that for each additional project started, one project manager be added to oversee day to day operations.

2. Relocation

The Department of Relocation and Social Services and the staffing requirements are related directly to the workload at any given time.

At present, the existing staff is adequate to carry out the program to its conclusion. It is indicated that a relocation officer with present secretarial backup can relocate fifty families in a given twelve month period. For planning purposes in initiating a new project in the relocation department, it is recommended that for each fifty families to be relocated in a new project, one additional relocation officer be employed. For every two relocation officers employed, there should be one relocation aide added.

3. Real Estate

At present the acquisition and marketing of all project lands is carried out in-house, as opposed to contracting for outside specialists. It is felt, based on past experience, that this procedure should be continued as results of the existing projects have been excellent.

It is recommended that in addition to the present real estate officer an additional staff member experienced in real estate negotiations should be employed for each additional one hundred parcels to be acquired. For every three real estate officers there should be one additional secretary with basic skills. It is recommended that one real estate officer be charged with the total responsibility of both acquisition and marketing of all lands within the projects, and the additional real estate officers be assigned to various projects as the workload increases.

4. Rehabilitation