A new provision in the North Carolina House budget could end local oversight of development projects at the University of North Carolina-Asheville (UNCA). The amendment exempts state building projects in Buncombe and Watauga counties from local zoning codes, a status already in place in Wake County. This comes amid controversy over UNCA’s plan to develop a wooded campus area, which community members want preserved. The exemption would reduce local review powers, removing projects from Asheville’s Technical Review Committee and city zoning processes, leaving enforcement to the state. Local officials criticize the hidden inclusion in the budget and its symbolic undermining of local control.
A provision tucked into the proposed budget passed by the North Carolina House of Representatives last week could mean the end of local oversight for development projects on the University of North Carolina-Asheville’s campus.
The budget includes an amendment to the state law concerning development and zoning regulations for public buildings. The change would create an exemption from local codes for state building projects managed by the State Construction Office or by the University of North Carolina system. It would apply only to Buncombe and to Watauga County, home to Appalachian State University; such an exemption already exists in Wake County, where North Carolina State University is located.
The potential exemption emerges at a moment of high-profile conflict for UNCA over its development plans: Its announcement earlier this year that it will seek to tear down a wooded area on campus in pursuit of an as-yet-unannounced project has triggered uproar among community members who see the woods as a crucial green space.
The provision to exempt Buncombe first appeared in the House version of the budget, though its provenance is hazy. Rep. Brian Turner, D-Buncombe, said he didn’t know who crafted the amendment.
Rep. Brian Turner, D-Buncombe, said he didn’t know who crafted the amendment. “It just showed up in the budget,” he said.
“It just showed up in the budget,” he said.
He noticed it, he said, when the exemption for Watauga was added as part of a package that went through the House appropriations committee last week. (Turner, a critic of the provision, said he voted for the amendment package because of other elements, such as cancer coverage for firefighters and funding for sexual-assault cold cases.)
The change would likely strip Buncombe of its last bit of local say when it comes to on-campus development, a power that’s already both limited and fairly obscure, said Asheville City Attorney Brad Branham.
The university’s zoning already covers typical campus uses, he said. And four years ago, the UNC system’s Board of Governors approved the designation of more than 200 acres of UNCA, including the woods, as a Millennial Campus, a tag that opens it to even more types of development through public-private partnerships.
On private property, some proposed uses — such as a large housing development — could trigger a conditional zoning review, requiring the approval of the city’s planning and zoning commission and of the City Council. But state law already exempts state property from these conditional processes, meaning that local government has little to no legislative authority over what happens on campuses.
In practice, Branham said, the provision would likely exempt on-campus projects from local zoning rules and allow it to skip over the Technical Review Committee, a city body that ensures projects follow development regulations and city standards. Many of the rules would still be the same — these projects would still have to follow state building codes — but enforcement would be up to the state.
A further lowering of local review
“Right now, there’s already a lower level of review for college-owned properties,” Branham said, emphasizing that the implications would remain up in the air until an actual development proposal puts the law to the test. “This particular legislation, if passed, would broaden the allowance of what they can do and also lower the review even further.”
Turner said he assumed that the Buncombe exemption proposal was prompted by the debate over the future of the UNCA woods. But it mostly looks to be a “belt-and-suspenders” reinforcement for the development powers the school already has, he said, adding that it seems like overkill.
“I feel like it’s somewhat a little ham-handed, and that it’s going to almost (have a) Streisand effect,” he said, referring to a social phenomenon in which an attempt to hide information results in an increase in publicity. “It’s a 500-page document — you put this provision in there, and then when it’s found, everyone is like, ‘Why did you try to hide it?’”
UNCA spokesperson Brian Hart said in an email Tuesday that the school is aware of the proposal and was “reviewing this proposed provision to understand its potential impact.”
Asheville Mayor Esther Manheimer said the exemption, if enacted, would have “probably minimal” effect on the UNCA woods saga — the City Council has already expected to be left out of the process because of its minimal powers when it comes to campus development. But on a symbolic level, she said, it was frustrating.
“Obviously any time the legislature preempts local government control, that is challenging for local government leaders,” she said. “That occurred pretty frequently starting when the Republicans took control of the legislature several years back, and we’ve seen less of that in more recent years, so it’s disappointing to see this pop up now.”
Asheville Watchdog welcomes thoughtful reader comments about this story, which has been republished on our Facebook page. Please submit your comments there.
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. Jack Evans is an investigative reporter who previously worked at the Tampa Bay Times. You can reach him via email at jevans@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s local reporting during this crisis is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to avlwatchdog.org/support-our-publication/.
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: Center-Left
The article critiques a legislative amendment that reduces local oversight over university development projects, emphasizing concerns from local officials and community members about transparency and local control. The tone is cautious and somewhat critical of state-level preemption of local authority, a theme more commonly associated with center-left viewpoints that favor local governance and community input. However, the reporting remains factual and balanced, presenting perspectives from multiple stakeholders without overt partisan language, reflecting a generally moderate but slightly progressive stance on local autonomy versus state control.
SUMMARY: A federal judge blocked President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose broad global tariffs, prompting the administration to seek a delay and vow to appeal. The ruling stemmed from lawsuits by states and businesses challenging Trump’s declared emergency as fabricated. The decision boosted financial markets but injected uncertainty into economic forecasts. Trump delayed tariffs on the European Union after they agreed to talks, defending his policy as vital to restoring American jobs and correcting trade imbalances. Some companies, like Macy’s, plan selective price increases due to tariffs. Steel, aluminum, and auto tariffs remain unaffected, being imposed under separate laws.
The court said Trump doesn’t have the power to unilaterally impose some tariffs.
Former President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 2,490 individuals nationwide convicted of federal nonviolent drug offenses, with nearly 300 from North Carolina—the most of any state. The action targets outdated sentencing policies, particularly the harsh disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences, which disproportionately affected Black Americans. Crack cocaine offenses carried much harsher penalties despite chemical similarities to powder cocaine. Efforts to reduce this disparity began in the 1980s and included the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the First Step Act of 2018. The commutations seek to address past injustices, reduce mass incarceration, and acknowledge that many sentenced individuals would receive shorter terms under current laws.
by Lucas Thomae, Carolina Public Press May 29, 2025
In one of the most sweeping clemency actions in U.S. history, hundreds of people convicted of federal nonviolent drug offenses in North Carolina will return home this year. Days before leaving office in January, former president Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 2,490 such individuals nationwide.
The commutations aimed to correct what the administration called “outdated” sentences, particularly those related to crack cocaine — a category where enforcement and sentencing have historically had a disproportionate impact on Black Americans.
Commutation is one of the executive clemency powers granted to the president in the U.S. Constitution. It stops just short of a full pardon, allowing the president to shorten the length of a person’s sentence without fully forgiving the crime.
Everyone granted a commutation would have received shorter sentences under today’s policies, Biden said in his announcement of the action.
The case for clemency
Nearly 300 of those commutation recipients were convicted in North Carolina, more than any other U.S. state, according to an analysis from Carolina Public Press. Of those 292 commutation recipients, nearly half were convicted of possession with intent to distribute “cocaine base”, more commonly known as crack.
Since the 1980s, offenses involving crack cocaine have been treated more harshly by prosecutors than powder cocaine. This is despite no chemical difference between the two forms of the drug.
Under federal law, possession of 28 grams or more of crack cocaine merits the same five-year minimum sentence as possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine.
People sentenced for crack cocaine are more likely to be Black, while people sentenced for powder cocaine are more likely to be Latino or white, according to a data brief authored by Princeton University students in December.
Elissa Johnson, a former attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center who currently leads criminal justice campaigns for bipartisan advocacy group FWD.us, told CPP that 88% of clemency recipients were Black, many of whom were sentenced under the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity.
“Clemency was an opportunity to address those past injustices with an understanding that it doesn’t make sense to keep people in prison longer, when we know that those sentences would be shorter today,” Johnson said.
Reform efforts stretch decades
The crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity was first written into law in 1986 by a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Biden, then the junior senator from Delaware.
The original statute was even more strict — a 100:1 difference in sentencing thresholds between crack and powder cocaine.
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced that disparity to 18:1, and in 2018 Donald Trump signed the First Step Act, which retroactively reduced sentences for people convicted of crack cocaine-related offenses prior to 2010.
Four years later, then-Attorney General Merrick Garlanddirected all federal prosecutors to treat crack cocaine the same as powder cocaine during sentencing. That policy has remained untouched since Trump returned to the White House this year.
Lawmakers have introduced bills to codify the change into federal statute a couple times over the past few congressional cycles, but it has yet to be brought to a vote in either chamber.
A group of current and former Democratic lawmakers signed a letter to Biden in November asking him to use his powers of clemency to reduce the sentences of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. Two members of Congress from North Carolina, Rep. Alma Adams, D-Charlotte, and Rep. Valerie Foushee, D-Chapel Hill, signed that letter.
Foushee commended Biden’s actions in an email statement.
“Mass incarceration attacks the most vulnerable Americans — and these pardons, including 263 people incarcerated in North Carolina prisons, helps keep families together and prevents intergenerational trauma,” she said.
The anatomy of federal drug cases
The vast majority (78%) of the 292 people offered commutations for crimes prosecuted in North Carolina were charged with distribution, manufacturing or possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute.
Crack was the most common drug cited in those charges, with powder cocaine in a distant second, followed by heroin, fentanyl, marijuana and methamphetamine.
The crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity reveals itself in the North Carolina data. Commutation recipients convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute served 13 years, five months on average — nearly two years more than powder cocaine cases.
Other common charges among the North Carolina commutation recipients were conspiracy to commit drug offenses, use or possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, unlawful possession or transfer of firearms and aiding and abetting.
Most drug crimes are prosecuted at the state, not federal level. The commutations involve only federal cases. Federal law enforcement typically becomes involved in instances of drug trafficking across state or national borders.
However, most people convicted of drug trafficking at the federal level did not hold a leadership or supervisory role in the operation. According to the aforementioned Princeton research, only 6% to 7% of all individuals sentenced for crack cocaine trafficking between 2015 and 2022 held a supervisory role in the operation based on data from the United States Sentencing Commission.
What clemency data doesn’t show
Exactly why North Carolina had the most commutations of any other state is difficult to answer.
One possibility is the location of the Butner federal prison complex in Granville County, which houses 5,000 inmates across four facilities of varying security levels. The complex includes the largest medical complex in the federal Bureau of Prisons system, which operates a drug treatment program.
“It’s the largest prison hospital in the federal system with lots of people who are very sick,” Ben Finholt of the Wilson Center at Duke Law explained in an email.
“And many of those people are worthy clemency recipients.”
Of course, such a designation is subjective, and there are no guidelines given to U.S. presidents about who may be offered clemency. People with medical conditions can often make sympathetic candidates for clemency.
Russ Ferguson, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, told CPP in an email that while his office respected the authority of the president to grant clemency, he did not think the sentences that Biden commuted were “unfair or disproportionate.”
Sixty people sentenced in the Western District received a commutation from Biden, although Ferguson prosecuted none of them. He replaced a Biden appointee who resigned her position soon after Trump took office in January.
“We put a great deal of effort into calculating and arguing for appropriate and fair sentences for every defendant we prosecute,” Ferguson said.
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: Center-Left
This article presents a generally factual account of President Biden’s clemency actions focused on nonviolent federal drug offenders, emphasizing racial disparities in sentencing and historical context. It highlights criticisms of past sentencing laws and references bipartisan reform efforts, while including supportive quotes from criminal justice advocates and Democratic lawmakers. The coverage is sympathetic to the clemency initiative and its social justice goals, but also notes opposing views from a U.S. Attorney defending sentencing fairness. The framing and choice of sources lean moderately left by focusing on systemic injustice and reform, without overt partisan language or ideological advocacy.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-29 07:46:00
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein warns that repealing the $891 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could cost the state tens of thousands of jobs by 2030. Highlighting North Carolina’s leadership in clean energy with over 20,000 jobs and $24 billion in investments, Stein urges Congress to protect these tax credits that bolster clean energy growth. The Tax Foundation critiques the Act’s costliness, while Rep. Mike Johnson calls for reforms. New clean energy projects, like Boviet Solar’s $294 million factory in Greenville expected to create 900 jobs, exemplify the sector’s growth. Repeal could also raise electricity costs by $200 annually for families.
(The Center Square) – Repeal of the $891 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could cost North Carolina “tens of thousands of jobs by 2030,” Gov. Josh Stein says.
The first-term Democrat took advantage Wednesday of the annual Emerging Issues Forum at N.C. State University in Raleigh to champion the state’s energy sector.
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein
Governor.NC.gov
“North Carolina is a leader in the clean energy economy, and we are home to more than 20,000 clean energy jobs and $24 billion in clean energy investments,” Stein said. “Our state is well-positioned to continue that success, and I urge Congress to protect the clean energy investments that have contributed to our state’s prosperity.”
The Tax Foundation, a leading nonpartisan nonprofit with mission to examine tax policies leading to greater economic growth, says the tax breaks of the Inflation Reduction Act have proven more expensive than originally forecast. U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., speaker of the House of Representatives, says the reform is “somewhere between a scalpel and a sledgehammer.”
Transcribed, it’s elimination of policies not working and tweaks to those that do work, the Tax Foundation says.
Greenville is the latest new home for the clean energy industry. Boviet Solar celebrated a grand opening of the first phase of its factory there in April enabling annual photovoltaic module output capacity of 2 gigawatts. The second phase is expected to be in operation next year.
The facility is valued at $294 million. State and local incentives over a dozen years are $34.6 million for the Vietnamese solar company. The projection is for the entire project to yield 900 new jobs.
Stein said repeal of the Biden administration act would also cost “billions in clean energy investments spurred by clean energy and manufacturing tax credits.” His office says families in the state would likely have an annual increase of $200 to their electricity costs.
He’s hopeful the congressional delegation of 10 Republicans and four Democrats will retain the clean energy tax credits.
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 offers a straightforward report on the differing perspectives regarding the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and its impact on North Carolina, primarily featuring statements from a Democratic governor advocating for the continuation of clean energy tax credits, alongside references to analyses from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation and a Republican congressional leader expressing a more cautious view of the legislation. The language remains factual and neutral without endorsing either position, presenting both the economic benefits claimed by supporters and the concerns highlighted by critics. This balanced presentation, with no evident framing favoring one ideological position, aligns with neutral, factual reporting rather than advancing a particular political bias.
