Council narrows public-solicitation ordinance, adds several business corridors to high‑traffic zones after safety debate

Asheville City Council on Aug. 26 amended its public‑solicitation ordinance to add several business corridors to the city’s designated “high‑traffic zones,” a measure council members described as targeting pedestrian safety rather than criminalizing poverty.

What changed: The ordinance amendment extends the boundaries of zone 1 (the city’s downtown high‑traffic area) to include parts of Merrimon Avenue and the South Slope and creates new high‑traffic designations for commercial stretches of Patton Avenue and Haywood Road. In designated high‑traffic zones the city’s code prohibits verbal solicitation and aggressive or dangerous conduct that interferes with traffic; holding a sign remains permitted on sidewalks outside medians. The city’s statute framework treats violations as misdemeanors in line with state law; courts retain discretion and may dismiss charges when people demonstrate efforts to get services or have not reoffended within a year.

Why it moved forward: City staff and police data presented to council showed frequent calls for service in the proposed corridors, documented pedestrian injuries and two recent fatalities in medians; public safety staff recommended the additional designations in corridors where pedestrian behavior has repeatedly put people in close proximity to fast traffic. Several council members said the measure is intended to reduce catastrophic pedestrian incidents at very dangerous roadway locations and to force safer pedestrian behavior in medians and high‑speed corridors.

Public comment: The council heard more than a dozen speakers in an hours‑long public hearing. Opponents — including housing advocates, service providers and unhoused residents — urged the council to reject the expansion, saying it criminalizes poverty, pushes people into hidden and less safe places, and fails to address root causes (lack of affordable housing, jobs and services). Many suggested alternatives: expanded mobile outreach, more daytime jobs programs, urban‑agriculture job pilots, expanded rest facilities, community paramedicine and funding for hygiene services and case management. Supporters, including many business owners and residents, emphasized repeated 911 calls, neighborhood fear and a need for immediate public safety action at specific high‑risk corridors.

Legal and operational notes: City attorney staff briefed council on the relevant North Carolina statute that authorizes municipal ordinances and allows courts to dismiss local ordinance charges when a defendant shows documented proof of seeking services or no repeat violation in 12 months. Council discussed enforcement practice and alternatives, and several members highlighted the continuum‑of‑care and community‑responder programs as complementary strategies. City staff said the targeting of medians and center strips is separate — an existing city rule already prohibits people from being in median strips where pedestrians are not intended to be.

Outcome: The council voted to expand the high‑traffic zones, with locations identified in the staff memo and ordinance text. Several council members urged that the vote be accompanied by investments in outreach and service pathways and by a review of pedestrian infrastructure (crosswalks, safer pedestrian locations and DOT coordination) in the newly designated areas.

Ending: The vote reshapes where the city can enforce verbal‑solicitation limitations and sets the stage for combined enforcement, outreach and infrastructure work in commercial corridors; opponents said they will continue to press for non‑punitive, housing‑first responses to homelessness and poverty.