Charles George VA Medical Center to close, or is that just a rumor? Upcoming development in Fletcher? Will other towns get HUD funds? • Asheville Watchdog
Today’s round of questions, my smart-aleck replies, and the real answers:
Question: Employees were told this week that the Asheville VA will close by the end of year. This is considered one of the best VA’s in the country. It is thought this is another scare tactic. What is your scoop? Thanks!
My answer: From here on out I think we can expect solid rumors on every single federal agency in our area possibly shutting down. President Musk, ahem, Trump, is on the prowl, you know.
Real answer: The rumor mill is indeed running overtime.
“These allegations are unfounded,” Charles George VA Medical Center spokesperson Kathie Ramos said via email. “There has been no official communication disclosing the closure of our VA facility. The Western North Carolina VA Health Care System will continue to provide excellent care to all patients.”
Ramos said the VA’s executive leadership team did conduct an employee town hall meeting last week “to discuss the recent federal policy changes and address questions employees may have.”
“The Western North Carolina Veterans Affairs Healthcare System is considered one of the best VA medical centers in the country, thanks to the dedication and commitment of every member of our organization,” Ramos said.
Readers have asked what’s going on with a sizable grading project in Fletcher on Hendersonville Road. // Watchdog photo by John Boyle
Question: What is going on with the work on a lot at the Hendersonville Road entrance to the Southchase neighborhood in Fletcher? A lot of grading work and fill dirt coming in and being spread out. What’s it going to be? And did the property owner have to do any kind of study on what impact all that fill dirt might have on future flooding?
My answer: I’m thinking of changing my Answer Man slogan from, “Answering your burning questions since 1999,” to, “Answering your dirt-moving questions since the dawn of time.”
Real answer: This topic has come up several times over the past few weeks, as the grading is on a highly traveled section of U.S. 25 through “downtown” Fletcher.
For the time being, it’s just grading.
“There is no proposed development of this site at this time,” Teresa Ralya, a planning technician with the Town of Fletcher, told me via email. “A couple of years ago permits were approved for Dodge’s Convenience store; however, they did not move forward with development. It is my understanding that they have cleared the property of old structures and are preparing/grading the land to advertise it for sale.”
On the flooding front, Ralya said, “There is no study required, as the property is not in an area of special flood hazard.
“Once sold, a new owner will have to present a development plan and structural designs for review/approval by the Town’s Planning Board, because the parcel is in the Heart of Fletcher overlay district,” Ralya continued. “Future development will also go through staff review. The Henderson County Engineering Department will review for stormwater and drainage design of the site when building permits are applied for.”
Question: In light of the recent announcement from HUD awarding $1.4 billion to North Carolina in 2025 — with $225 million specifically for the City of Asheville, what other western North Carolina cities and towns have funding designated for them? What are these amounts?
My answer: It may be wise to double check on this federal funding to make sure it’s still there and hasn’t been rerouted to video game purchases by some of Elon Musk’s teenaged Treasury trolls.
Real answer: Republican U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards, who represents NC District 11, announced Jan. 6 that western North Carolina will receive $1.65 billion in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds to help communities rebuild after Helene. The lion’s share of the funds will be administered to most of western North Carolina through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Edwards noted in the news release.
Asheville will receive and administer $225 million in separate CDBG-DR funds.
Maria Kim, Edwards’ communication director, said Asheville received its own grant “as it already does business directly with HUD and has the infrastructure in place to administer that money.
“The rest of WNC will receive $1.43 billion, 80 percent of which, by law, must go to the most-distressed/most-impacted ZIP codes,” Kim said. “HUD gives those funds to the state of North Carolina to administer, and the state will disburse those funds to the affected counties after the counties come up with an approved spending plan.”
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. Got a question? Send it to John Boyle at jboyle@avlwatchdog.org or 828-337-0941. His Answer Man columns appear each Tuesday and Friday. The Watchdog’s reporting is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to avlwatchdog.org/support-our-publication/.
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
