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/.
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 21:25:00
(The Center Square) – Authorization of sports agents to sign North Carolina’s collegiate athletes for “name, image, and likeness” contracts used in product endorsements is in legislation approved Wednesday by a committee of the state Senate.
Authorize NIL Agency Contracts, known also as Senate Bill 229, is headed to the Rules Committee after gaining favor in the Judiciary Committee. It would likely next get a full floor vote.
Last year the NCAA approved NIL contracts for players.
Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance
NCLeg.gov
“Athletes can benefit from NIL by endorsing products, signing sponsorship deals, engaging in commercial opportunities and monetizing their social media presence, among other avenues,” the NCAA says on its website. “The NCAA fully supports these opportunities for student-athletes across all three divisions.”
SB229 spells out the information that the agent’s contract with the athlete must include, and requires a warning to the athlete that they could lose their eligibility if they do not notify the school’s athletic director within 72 hours of signing the contract.
“Consult with your institution of higher education prior to entering into any NIL contract,” the says the warning that would be required by the legislation. “Entering into an NIL contract that conflicts with state law or your institution’s policies may have negative consequences such as loss of athletic eligibility. You may cancel this NIL agency contract with 14 days after signing it.”
The legislation also exempts the NIL contracts from being disclosed under the state’s Open Records Act when public universities review them. The state’s two ACC members from the UNC System, Carolina and N.C. State, requested the exemption.
“They are concerned about disclosure of the student-athlete contracts when private universities don’t have to disclose the student-athlete contracts,” Sen. Amy Galey, R-Alamance, told the committee. “I feel very strongly that a state university should not be put at a disadvantage at recruitment or in program management because they have disclosure requirements through state law.”
Duke and Wake Forest are the other ACC members, each a private institution.
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 primarily reports on the legislative development regarding NIL (name, image, and likeness) contracts for collegiate athletes in North Carolina. It presents facts about the bill, committee actions, and includes statements from a state senator without using loaded or emotionally charged language. The piece neutrally covers the issue by explaining both the bill’s purpose and the concerns it addresses, such as eligibility warnings and disclosure exemptions. Overall, the article maintains a factual and informative tone without advocating for or against the legislation, reflecting a centrist, unbiased approach.
SUMMARY: Donald van der Vaart, a former North Carolina environmental secretary and climate skeptic, has been appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner. Van der Vaart, who previously supported offshore drilling and fracking, would oversee the state’s transition to renewable energy while regulating utility services. His appointment, which requires approval from the state House and Senate, has drawn opposition from environmental groups. Critics argue that his views contradict clean energy progress. The appointment follows a controversial bill passed by the legislature, granting the treasurer appointment power to the commission.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 14:47:00
(The Center Square) – Called “crypto-friendly legislation” by the leader of the chamber, a proposal on digital assets on Wednesday afternoon passed the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Passage was 71-44 mostly along party lines.
The NC Digital Assets Investments Act, known also as House Bill 92, has investment requirements, caps and management, and clear definitions and standards aimed at making sure only qualified digital assets are included. House Speaker Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said the state would potentially join more than a dozen others with “crypto-friendly legislation.”
With him in sponsorship are Reps. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, Mark Brody, R-Union, and Mike Schietzelt, R-Wake.
Nationally last year, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act – known as FIT21 – passed through the U.S. House in May and in September was parked in the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Dan Spuller, cochairman of the North Carolina Blockchain Initiative, said the state has proven a leader on digital asset policy. That includes the Money Transmitters Act of 2016, the North Carolina Regulatory Sandbox Act of 2021, and last year’s No Centrl Bank Digital Currency Pmts to State. The latter was strongly opposed by Gov. Roy Cooper, so much so that passage votes of 109-4 in the House and 39-5 in the Senate slipped back to override votes, respectively, of 73-41 and 27-17.
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 factual report on the passage of the NC Digital Assets Investments Act, highlighting the legislative process, party-line votes, and related legislative measures. It does not adopt a clear ideological stance or frame the legislation in a way that suggests bias. Instead, it provides neutral information on the bill, its sponsors, and relevant background on state legislative activity in digital asset policy. The tone and language remain objective, focusing on legislative facts rather than promoting a particular viewpoint.
