Was I too harsh on the visioners of the Never-Never-Land proposal Asheville City Council will likely approve Tuesday? They did, after all, provide a timeframe. In the next two years, the visioners wish mostly to “investigate” potentials for various aspects of the project. They also want to “acquire” (by whom and for whom?) one piece of property and negotiate with the DOT to create the landmark Medieval-looking bridge sporting a signature tower. In the next year, they plan to be relocating, reconstructing, designing, and building various housing developments, community facilities, greenways and parks, a mixed-use district in general, and a main street.

They also explained how they would fund things. Following are excerpts from the Citizens Master Plan.

“Between 10 and 25 percent of the units can be set aside for low- to moderate-income households; however, individual renter and homeowners [sic.] should be subsidized, rather than discounting the rents and prices on the affordable units. This will support the market-rate rents and prices, thereby maintaining the appraised values of the dwelling units for the non-subsidized market.”

“An early retail use along Clingman Avenue could be a corner store, including a contract post office and automated teller machine, with newspapers, cold drinks, snacks and other convenience items for sale. Initially, the corner store may require subsidy; eventually, it could be run by a local entrepreneur as a very small-scale commercial venture.”

“Most successful market-based approaches to community development, even with the inclusion of substantial percentages of affordable housing units, have typically resulted in gentrification: rapidly rising values which price low-income residents, particularly renters, out of an area. However, a number of programs and policies are available that can create permanently affordable housing, as well as enable existing low-income residents to participate in rising real estate values.”

“A potential remedy would be to exempt senior owner-occupant households from tax increases stemming from neighborhood revitalization (as opposed to improvements on their specific properties).”

“A proven approach to maintaining a stock of affordable housing and live-work space for artists is the use of dedicated Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. In addition to household-size income qualification, prospective residents are also subject to a portfolio review to assure that at least one member of the household is a working artist. This program can be augmented with federal and state historic tax credits to redevelop existing buildings within a historic district.”

“Community Development Corporations . . . maintain long-term affordability of the homes they sell to qualified buyers through a ‘soft-second mortgage.”’

“Two other mechanisms which may be used to preserve long-term affordability and promote resident involvement are the Community Land Trust and the Housing Cooperative.”

“The tax program used in New York City since 1955 has two main components: (1) exemption, for 12 years, from increases in property taxes resulting from property improvements; and (2) abatement of 90 percent of the city-certified reasonable cost of improvements at a minimum of 8.33 percent a year for up to 20 years . . .Unfortunately, property tax incentives are currently unavailable in the state of North Carolina.”

Other possible revenue sources cited include federal HOME and CDBG grants, the local Housing Trust Fund, and the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund administered by the NC Housing Finance Agency.