Evicted ACRC tenants speak out
on eviction, gentrification
By Josh Ferguson
Asheville, North Carolina, Mar. 23 (AGR) -- On
Tuesday, Mar. 23, in front of the darkened doors of 63 North Lexington,
collective members of the Asheville Community Resource Center (ACRC)
addressed the community and the local media regarding their current
situation since being evicted from the space earlier in March.
The ACRC had inhabited the Lexington Avenue location for close to one
year before being evicted by the property’s owner. Since the space
had housed several autonomous organizations within its walls, representatives
from each group made a brief statement on what their organization does
and how the recent displacement has affected their ability to serve
the community.
Representatives from the Asheville Bike Recyclery, the Women’s
and Transgendered Health Clinic, the Bountiful Cities Project, The Asheville
Global Report, Asheville Prison Books, and the Asheville Free School
all spoke about the services they provide to the community, including
free bicycles, free health care, free reading material for people in
prison, a free newspaper covering underreported news, and a program
to help communities establish sustainable gardens. All of these organizations
have now been forced to relocate, some to functional new homes and some
to the temporary residence of basements and storage units. Not only
are these organizations finding it difficult to function with no stable
location, but representatives also expressed concerns regarding their
current inaccessibility to the public that they strive to serve.
Warren Wilson student Sage Russo then read a statement prepared by the
school’s student caucus expressing support for the ACRC and the
importance of its continued presence in the downtown community. The
statement affirmed the ACRC’s desire to find a new “adequate
and permanent downtown location.”
A closing statement by collective member Mary Giovanniello summarized
what has been happening with the collective and the space, and how the
issue fits within the context of gentrification in Asheville. Giovanniello
also highlighted the illegality of the eviction and other issues surrounding
the interaction between the group and the property owner, John Lancias.
After the presentation, members of the audience were encouraged to ask
questions regarding the ACRC, its role in the community, and its eviction
from the Lexington Avenue location.
Several questions were raised regarding the center’s relationship
with the local homeless population, a concern that had been a central
criticism of the group while at its Lexington space. ACRC critics have
long accused the group of attracting and making visible people who are
undesirable to the downtown tourist industry.
Collective members addressed these concerns by reminding the audience
that homelessness pre-existed the space on Lexington, and that the ACRC
was never intended as a shelter. However, the group affirmed their commitment
to remaining available to everyone, in which no one would need money
to use the bathroom, the reading, the internet, or to get involved with
any of the organizations housed within the building.
“No one is ever going to be turned away for lack of funds,”
said Jodi Rhoden, a collective member. “By default we became a
resource to people on the street, simply because no one else was.”
In response to allegations that the space may have encouraged a population
to become a public nuisance, AGR editor Eamon Martin affirmed that “there
is a lot that went on behind these [the ACRC’s] doors, but it didn’t
include creating public drunkenness and homelessness.”
After the question and answer session, community members in attendance
had a lot to say about the ACRC. Wednesday, a local high school student,
expressed his appreciation for the Bike Recyclery. “They [the Recyclery]
provided me with two bikes, and that serves as my main transportation
around town. Now the organization is scattered around people’s
houses, and it’s all pretty inaccessible to the public. It’s
sad because they were doing a really good thing.”
One man who identified himself as Little Ian talked about the benefit
the center had to his community. “As far as being a homeless person
in Asheville, it gave us a place to be, gave us a roof and a dry space
to read great books that we couldn’t read other places. It was
definitely one of the best infoshops/libraries that I’ve ever seen
anywhere.”
Some people present also expressed regrets that the eviction was allowed
to happen at all. Robert Martinez, a downtown resident, expressed his
appreciation for the individual organizations housed by the ACRC, but
also reaffirmed that the eviction was merely one element of a process
of gentrification happening citywide. “The rich are pushing the
poor out everywhere, and until that is addressed, it’s going to
be very hard to be downtown for anyone who doesn’t make more than
$30,000 a year,” he said.
Public critical of Downtown Social Issues
Task Force recommendations
By Finn Finneran
Asheville, North Carolina, Mar. 23 (AGR) --- The
Downtown Social Issues Task Force held a community input meeting Wednesday,
Mar. 17 at Pack Place to discuss some of the recommendations for tackling
downtown social issues they had formulated to bring to City Council.
In November of 2002 the Asheville City Council appointed the Downtown
Social Issues Task Force to define downtown problem issues and then
come up with solutions to those problems. The task force has been working
on a set of draft recommendations from the four sub-committees: Conditions,
Graffiti, Panhandling, and Public Drunkenness.
“Now we need to hear from the community so that we can go forward
knowing that we’re on the right track,” said Pat Whalen, task
force chair, in an announcement about the public input meeting.
The meeting lasted from 4-6pm, but was broken into two presentations
of the recommendations to be accommodating of people’s schedules.
This format, however, proved to be limiting and redundant, as the recommendations
that were being presented twice in a two hour meeting were also provided
in writing for all present to have as well as written on the wall on
poster-sized paper. After each presentation people were given time to
write suggestions under the recommendations written on the wall. Time
was not allocated for group discussion of the recommendations until
the last 15 minutes of the meeting.
In the Conditions Sub-committee a 10-Year-Plan to End Homelessness was
introduced. This plan seemed rather far-fetched to some, but Kristy
Carter, a Conditions committee member, claims that the plan’s name
is a bit misleading. What they really hope to do is eradicate homelessness
among the chronically homeless who have disabling conditions or are
homeless for six months or more.
Responses to the Graffiti committee included sentiments over whether
graffiti was an issue that needed to be addressed at all. One written
comment under the recommendation that building owners remove graffiti
that appears on their property asks, “When did building owners
lose the right to allow who they want to decorate their walls?”
The Panhandling sub-committee defined three incentives for panhandling:
need-based, substance addiction-based, or professional. The committee
chose to focus on “professional panhandlers” whom the comittee
claims victimizes the people who are helping them by asking for money
through false pretenses. They recommended that the city augment the
current panhandling ordinance to include a 30-day-sentence for those
convicted of panhandling through deception. “I hear the word ‘victim’
used several times,” says Sharon Martin, a participant in the meeting.
“I really want the folks on this committee to think about who the
victims really are.”
Another participant, Jodi Rhoden, concurs, “People don’t choose
to panhandle as a viable option for employment. If people had a living
wage it would not be a problem. That is the type of social issue we
should be addressing, not how to punish the people that are a victim
of the social issues that arise from the system in place.”
The Public Drunkenness sub-committee claims that there is a “revolving
door problem” in downtown where 15-20 people are repeatedly arrested
for public drunkenness. Their solution to this problem is 30 days in
jail. They have also pin-pointed “problem containers,” as
committee representative Brett Breitschwerdt refers to 40 oz. beer containers
and fortified wines, and recommended that they be banned in certain
“Alcohol Impact Areas.” Written underneath this recommendation
was this comment: “Banning 40oz. containers is racist and classist.
Who drinks 40’s? Poor people!”
Recommendations from Downtown Social
Issues Task Force
Conditions Committee:
* City and County develop a “10-Year Plan to End Homelessness”
which would give the chronically homeless a choice to move into free
housing.
Graffiti Committee:
* Require building owners in downtown to remove graffiti within 48 hours
of being reported to a graffiti hotline or allow volunteers to remove
it for them. Failure to remove graffiti would result in a fine of $25
per day.
* Incorporate The Asheville Mural Project
* Initiate school programs such as Keep America Beautiful’s “Graffiti
Hurts” program.
Panhandling Committee:
* Initiate a campaign where tourists are discouraged from giving money
to panhandlers and instead give to local social service organizations.
* Place lock boxes downtown for donations to social service organizations.
* Ask that judges give harsher sentences to those who are panhandling
“through deception.”
Public Drunkenness Committee:
* ½% sales tax on beer and wine with funds going to detox and
rehabilitation programs.
* State provide Asheville Police Department with regular ABC enforcement
powers
* City establish a Housing First program for alcohol-dependent homeless
people
* City and County establish a detox/recovery center.
* City recognize “Alcohol Impact Areas” where consistent public
drunkenness problems have occurred
* Outlaw sale of 40oz. beer containers and fortified wines (i.e. Wild
Irish Rose, Night Train, etc.) in “Alcohol Impact Areas.”
* Prohibit individuals who have more than 10 convictions over a 12-month
period from entering the “Alcohol Impact Area.”
* Prohibit possession of open or closed alcohol containers on city property
or in city parks without permission from the Parks and Recreation or
Public Works directors.
* Pass ordinance allowing city to cancel licenses of establishments
which have, create, or attract repeated and chronic criminal activity
in their immediate vicinity. After 20 alcohol related convictions of
patrons of an establishment over a 12-month period would result in cancellation
of that establishment’s license.
* Recommend that the District Attorney’s office push for the longest
available jail sentence for repeat offenders.
