If you’ve never driven Springside Road in South Asheville, it’s a bit of an adventure.
The two-lane road, a popular cut-through between Overlook and Hendersonville roads, is hilly in places, and a little curvy. You don’t want to stop in the road in one of those blind dips, and trying to exit one of the side streets that lead to it can be downright nerve-wracking.
Now a developer wants to put 37 homes on two lots at 93 and 95 Springside, totaling 5.82 acres. Ultimately, it will need a City Council-approved rezoning that allows more density than the current zoning designation.
Not surprisingly, neighbors are not happy about this. About 40 residents filed written comments with the city’s planning and zoning board before its April 2 meeting, and a bunch turned out to speak about it in person.
Now, I know the first thought for some of you is going to be: “Well, there go the NIMBYs again, not wanting anything built in their backyards.”
I get that. We are a city that badly needs more housing, and infill projects where it makes sense.
But what’s interesting to me on this one is this fact: South Asheville has really taken the development bullet for pretty much the whole city over the past decade or so.
This aerial photo provided to the City of Asheville’s Planning Department by the developer, Sage Communities LLC of Hendersonville, shows the nearly 6-acre mostly wooded parcel the company hopes to build 37 homes on. Neighbors say they don’t oppose development on the site; they just want it to be less dense.
Thousands of apartments have gone up in Asheville during that time, as I’ve noted before, and South Asheville, Arden and Skyland have borne the brunt of that development. If you’ve ever had the joy of driving Hendersonville or Sweeten Creek roads at rush hour (which now seems to run from about 7 a.m.-10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.), you know what I mean.
It’s a crowded mess.
At that April 2 meeting, John Maddux, whose backyard abuts Springside, put it nicely. Maddux is a deputy city attorney for Asheville, but he made it clear he was speaking as a resident, not in his official capacity.
“South Asheville has already absorbed multiple large-scale developments very close to the site,” Maddux said. “Hundreds of units are going up on Long Shoals Road. Drive down Sweeten Creek Road. Hundreds of units are going in down there.”
Maddux noted that all of this is since the data went into the city’s “Missing Middle” housing study that suggested Asheville needs much more housing, particularly dense types that include apartments, duplexes, townhomes and more.
His point was that “South Asheville is doing its part.
“The plans that we have put to the city all say that density should be distributed equitably around the city,” Maddux said. “It would be inequitable to keep pushing density into South Asheville. I know this is 37 houses, but this is 37 houses in an area that’s not supposed to take 37 houses.”
To me, that’s the gist here. It’s an already crowded area with a large population, not to mention four schools within a few miles and busy commercial strips nearby.
Residents’ emails repeatedly brought up safety concerns about the lack of sidewalks along Springside and how dangerous that road can already be. Quite a few also said they’re not opposed to development on the vacant, wooded site, but they just want it scaled back.
“I am not opposed to this land being developed, as I understand that Asheville is growing and housing is needed,” Barbara Reeves wrote. “But developing this land needs to be done reasonably, thoughtfully, and responsibly.”
She said she’s spoken with many community members who just want a chance “to work together with the city and with a developer,” so they can “propose a solution that is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods.”
That April 2 meeting lasted more than three hours, and when the planning and zoning board asked the developer to consider changes to the project, its lawyer asked for the meeting to be continued. The board voted to table the matter until the May 7 meeting.
Here’s an interesting point, though, as pointed out by one of the board members: By right and current zoning, the developer can build 31 units on the site “and doesn’t have to ask anyone’s approval.”
‘The balancing act’ and steadily increasing traffic
Planning and zoning board member Jason Seickel was pretty blunt in one other assessment. Regarding traffic, he said he and other board members have been going down to Springside to drive it, especially in the mornings when school traffic is hitting.
“And yes, I agree that it’s bad, but I mean, unfortunately, a lot of Asheville is bad,” Seickel said, noting that he lives in that part of town and lives the traffic every day. But he also mentioned the housing shortage.
“This commission, we have to balance the needs of individual communities with needs of the larger community as well, too,” Seikel said. “There is a housing shortage. There is a cost-of-living crisis that outside of this room, (the board) also has to deal with, too. So, I hope you understand this — the balancing act.”
Typically that balancing act favors development, partly because of the aforementioned ability to build “by right.” Some of this goes back to old English Common Law and property rights, which run strong in our country — you have a lot when it comes to your property.
Traffic in this area, like much of Buncombe, has only increased in recent years. The NCDOT traffic count map doesn’t provide a vehicles-per-day count for Springside Road, but Hendersonville Road just south of Springside carried 30,500 vehicles a day in 2022. That’s up from 23,000 a day in 2010.
Long Shoals Road, now another major corridor down south, carried 28,500 vehicles a day in 2022, up from 18,000 a day in 2010.
Sure, adding 37 vehicles, or maybe twice that if each household has two cars, isn’t going to break the camel’s back. But it adds to the cumulative effect down south that has been building for more than a decade and has made life unpleasant, if not dangerous at times.
Honestly, if I’m in downtown Asheville after 4 p.m., I just opt to go home to Fletcher via Charlotte Highway and Cane Creek Road, which is five miles longer but 20 minutes faster. That’s mainly because I-26 remains a nightmare until you get to the newly opened lanes in Henderson County, and the other two north-south corridors, Hendersonville and Sweeten Creek roads, are parking lots.
Springside Road runs between Overlook and Hendersonville roads in South Asheville. This section is near the T.C. Roberson High School tennis courts and the Buncombe County Schools Aquatics Center. // Watchdog photo by John Boyle
The development does check a lot of the city’s goals
To be fair, it’s not like this proposal is some kind of monstrosity that would make people faint from shock. It is denser than the current zoning allows – it would come out to 6.4 units per acre – but it checks some of the boxes the city wants these days for infill housing.
The developer is listed as Sage Communities LLC of Hendersonville. I reached out for comment but didn’t hear back by deadline.
For the meeting, city planning staff provided a “proposed ordinance change” that states the proposal is consistent with the city’s plan called “Living Asheville — A Comprehensive Plan for our Future.” Staff determined the proposal “to be reasonable, and in the public interest for the following reasons:
a) Prioritizes greater densities of development overall, throughout the city as appropriate
b) Eliminates gaps in the sidewalk network
c) Maintains and enhances buffers and open space preservation along creeks, streams and rivers
The materials also note the subdivision would have three new access points off of Springside Road, and new sidewalks are proposed along the north side of Springside, as well as along both sides of a private road in the development. Additionally, a crosswalk is proposed across Springside Road, although neighbors questioned how safe this would be.
A developer wants to build 37 homes on a 6-acre parcel on Springside Drive in south Asheville. // Watchdog photo by John Boyle
The city’s documents state the development “partially supports” several goals in the Living Asheville plan, including encouraging responsible growth “prioritizing greater densities of development overall,” as that helps achieve more walkable and efficient urban environments.
Also, while the project does propose single-family houses ”at a higher density than the current zoning would otherwise allow, it could reduce the footprint of the development by exploring different building types such as duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale multi-family in order to provide the same number of housing units while disturbing less of the overall site.”
The proposed homes are consistent “with the land use of the surrounding residential neighborhoods,” although they’re more densely packed, the report notes.
The report also says the development will, “Celebrate the unique identity of neighborhoods through creative placemaking — by supporting contextually appropriate infill development and a variety of housing types.”
OK, I coughed up a little lunch on that one. I mean, come on, packing in as many homes as possible is not all that creative.
The planning report dinged the development for not supporting Living Asheville goals including increasing affordable housing, and minimizing the environmental Impact on steep slopes and mature forests and wildlife habitats. It also would increase impervious surfaces.
Further, the report stated: “The proposed project is partially compatible with the surrounding land uses, including: Existing residential neighborhoods to the north, east, and south zoned Residential Single-Family Medium Density District.”
Clearly, neighbors beg to differ on the compatibility issue.
The upshot here is that some version of this development proposal is going to pass, and I suspect it will be one very close to what the developers are pursuing.
Sure, the developer will make some tweaks — save a little open space here, add more buffering there — but the company can build a fair number of units any way you slice it. And will.
And the traffic and safety situation down south, not to mention livability, will get just a little bit worse.
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. John Boyle has been covering Asheville and surrounding communities since the 20th century. You can reach him at (828) 337-0941, or via email at jboyle@avlwatchdog.org. 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: Centrist
This article presents a balanced perspective on the issue of housing development in Asheville, considering both the need for increased housing and the concerns of local residents about density, traffic, and safety. It highlights the challenges of urban growth without strongly favoring either the developer’s or the neighbors’ viewpoints. The tone remains factual and measured, reflecting an attempt to inform rather than advocate for a particular political agenda, which aligns with a centrist bias.
SUMMARY: Wegovy, a popular weight loss medication by Novo Nordisk, will soon be available via telehealth companies such as Hims and Hers, LifeMD, and Ro, marking a significant shift in accessibility. The drug, provided in injectable pen form, will be offered at around $600, including 24/7 clinician support and nutritional guidance. This collaboration aims to make Wegovy more affordable and accessible, especially for those without insurance. Following FDA restrictions on compounded GLP-1 drugs, telehealth providers and drug makers are now cooperating to simplify treatment. Competitors like Eli Lilly sell alternatives less conveniently. Wegovy’s use may expand to chronic disease patients.
Consumers looking to start the popular weight loss drug Wegovy but lacking insurance coverage will soon have a new option. Wegovy will soon be available to telehealth companies for a reduced price.
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 10:28:00
(The Center Square) – North Carolina needs a statewide policy regulating the use of student cellphones in public schools, a top state educator said Tuesday.
Two bills are pending in the Legislature. Cell Phone-Free Education, known also as House Bill 87, requires school boards to “adopt a cellphone-free education policy to eliminate or severely restrict student access to cellphones during instructional time.”
It allows exceptions if a teacher authorizes the use for educational purposes, if a cell phone is required for a students’ individualized education program or for the student’s health care.
Student Use of Wireless Communication Devices, known also as Senate Bill 55, contains similar language.
In North Carolina and nationally, there is a “wide disparity” in how school districts handle cellphone use in the classroom, Michael Maher, chief accountability of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, told The Center Square.
“There is emerging evidence on the negative impact of not only on instruction but on student long-term outcomes on mental health,” Maher said.
Social media in particular is “highly addictive,” Maher said.
“If there is a way for us to help remove that, it would absolutely help instructional practice,” said Maher, a former high school teacher. “Student performance is actually tied to student attention. Phones are attention grabbing. You have this device that is drawing their attention.”
A classroom ban would likely require teachers to collect cellphones in the morning as class begins and return them at the end of the school day, said Maher.
“There are pouches and other types of solutions to store student devices,” he said. “The teacher would just make that part of their daily routine.”
Collecting student cellphones early in the day before instruction begins might be easier for teachers than having to constantly be on the lookout for students secretly using them throughout the day in the classrooms, Maher said.
“We already ask teachers to do too much,” he said. “I don’t think it’s fair to them.”
It is important to provide adequate funding for school districts to pay for storage devices, Maher added.
The North Carolina School Board Association has not taken a position on the two pending bills, spokesman Ben Christoph told The Center Square.
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 information about proposed legislation regulating student cell phone use in North Carolina public schools in a straightforward and factual manner. It quotes a state education official explaining the rationale behind the bills, including concerns about student attention and mental health, without using emotionally charged or partisan language. The piece also notes the positions and actions of legislative bodies and impartial organizations, avoiding taking a stance or advocating for or against the bills. Overall, the tone and content align with neutral reporting on policy proposals rather than expressing an ideological bias.
by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press April 30, 2025
RALEIGH — There’s never an off year for elections. At least not in the state legislature. This session, dozens of election-related bills have been filed, but a few have sped to the front of the pack: local measures making school board races partisan and those shifting municipal contests from odd to even years, when state and presidential elections take place.
Meanwhile, other legislation — including bills making Election Day a state holiday and changing the way voter registration drives work — has stalled.
In order for these bills to make it across the finish line, they’ll need a boost to meet the May 8 crossover deadline — the day legislation has to be approved by at least one chamber to move forward.
Making election boards partisan
When the Jackson County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on a resolution asking the General Assembly to make school board elections partisan, there was no warning. The proposed change wasn’t even on the agenda.
Rather, during its February meeting, Commissioner John Smith moved to amend another resolution, which was on the agenda, with the proposal to add party affiliations next to the names of school board candidates.
Without discussion or public input, Smith and his fellow commissioners voted to approve the amended resolution.
A week later, the Jackson County Board of Education voted unanimously to approve an opposing resolution declaring its intent to keep school board elections nonpartisan.
Board of Education Chairwoman Gayle Woody felt blindsided.
“It was obvious that they had had discussions behind closed doors because there was unanimous agreement with no comment, reason given or discussion,” she said.
Although Woody shared her concerns with the county’s Republican state House Rep. Mike Clampitt, he prioritized the commissioners’ wishes. In early March, Clampitt filed a bill to make Jackson County’s school board elections partisan. Since then, that bill has passed the House along party lines and is awaiting a second round of review in the state Senate.
Woody hopes that never happens. She sees a potential ally in Jackson County state Sen. Kevin Corbin, whose opposition could kill the bill. Thus far, Corbin has been “very responsive” to the education board’s concerns, she said, but votes are never certain until they’re tallied in the state legislature.
Woody doesn’t want the school board to become another “political football” in her community.
“I’m obviously aware that political things come up in every aspect of community life, but that should not be the driving force behind decisions made by school boards,” she said. “It should be what’s best for our students.”
A partisan pattern
Jackson County is not the only battleground where the fight over elections is being waged. According to an EdNC analysis, the number of partisan school districts in North Carolina has quintupled since 2013 when only 10 districts held such elections.
In 2024, 52 of the state’s 115 school districts held partisan elections. Before those elections, 31 of those boards had Republican majorities. Afterward, it was 38.
“In a state like North Carolina, where we have roughly the same number of Democrats and Republicans, but we have more Republican counties than Democratic counties, moving to partisan ballots is likely to help the Republican Party,” said Chris Cooper, a Western Carolina University political science professor.
He added that it also helps build Republican talent which can be used to fill out candidate slates for higher levels of political office later.
Bills to make school board elections partisan in Gaston, Columbus and Pitt counties, as well as the city of Asheboro, are also on the table this legislative session. Each have made it past the House and await Senate action.
During a committee meeting discussing one of these bills, state Sen. Brad Overcash, R-Gaston, explained that voters want more information on the ballot. Right now, they just have a list of names, he said.
Even when parties aren’t listed on the ballot, partisanship comes into play because local Democratic and Republican parties tend to make endorsements in nonpartisan races, Overcash added.
“This is a much more fair way to conduct elections because if you have multiple people from the same party running, you have an open public election process rather than an internal party process where they’re identifying who should go on what slate card,” he said.
While the Jackson County Board of Commissioners has five Republicans, the current school board has three Democratic members and two unaffiliated members. To Woody, it’s proof that voters chose individuals, not a party, in a county that went for President Donald Trump by nine percentagepoints the past two election cycles.
Odd or even?
During China Grove’s last mayoral election, 377 people voted out of a population of about 4,500 in the Rowan County town.
In the Pitt County village of Simpson, just shy of 100 voted.
And in Vance County’s Kittrell, a measly 26 showed up at the polls for the mayor’s race.
What do these races across North Carolina have in common? They all took place in 2023, an off year for state and federal elections when voter turnout is typically much lower.
That’s why these small burgs, as well as Madison, Faith and all of Pamlico County’s townships, want to change that. Each asked their state representative to file a bill changing their elections from odd to even years.
For China Grove Mayor Rodney Phillips, there was an additional motivation: to save money.
The same holds true in Kittrell, where the town clerk said the 2023 election cost $2,500 even though only a few dozen showed.
Also, when fewer people vote, it’s easier for special interest groups to sway a result, Cooper said. But off-year elections have different patterns than on-year elections in that the issues may be more nationalized when the mayor’s race is on the same ticket as the presidential and congressional contests.
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 content reports on several legislative proposals in North Carolina concerning election-related changes, such as making school board races partisan and shifting municipal elections to even years. The article presents facts about the various proposed bills and their progress through the state legislature, without endorsing a specific position. It includes perspectives from both supporters and opponents of the bills, such as Republican officials advocating for more transparent elections and Democratic officials concerned about the political implications for school boards. The tone remains neutral, presenting both sides of the debate in a straightforward manner.
