When Asheville residents cast their votes for mayor, they are doing more than choosing between two candidates — they are deciding what kind of local government they want to live under. This election pits nearly 13 years of institutional experience against a call for fresh accountability, and the contrast reveals something important about how voters evaluate democratic representation at the local level.
Incumbent Mayor Esther Manheimer is seeking a fourth term in a rematch against two-term City Council member Kim Roney. When the two last faced off in 2022, Manheimer won by roughly 3,000 votes. Now, with Asheville still recovering from Hurricane Helene and community debates over policing, housing, and government transparency very much alive, voters face a genuine choice about what accountable local governance looks like.
What’s Actually at Stake
Roney is running on a platform centered on greater transparency in government and a different approach to policing — themes that speak directly to voters’ ability to trust and understand the decisions made in their name. Manheimer, by contrast, argues that continuity of leadership is itself a form of accountability, especially in the middle of a long-term disaster recovery that demands institutional relationships and political know-how to navigate.
The tension between those two visions — change versus continuity, fresh scrutiny versus established access — is exactly the kind of question that local elections are designed to answer. And the answer will shape how Asheville’s roughly 90,000 residents experience city government for years to come.
Manheimer came to elected office by a circuitous route that shaped her view of democratic participation itself. Before running for City Council, she spent years as an attorney advising members of the North Carolina General Assembly. The experience stripped away any mystique she had about public office.
“I guess I had this idea that politicians were like geniuses or something. And I quickly learned that they really run the gamut and this was an accessible job for someone who was determined to do it.”
That insight — that elected office is accessible, not reserved for an elite — eventually led her to run herself. In 2008, she applied to fill a vacancy on Asheville City Council and was passed over for the appointment. Rather than walking away, she filed to run in the next election.
“I just got fired up and I thought, ‘Well, I’m going to file and I’m going to run for office.’ And I did. And I beat him,”
she said, referencing one-time council member Kelly Miller.
“Admittedly, I have a little bit of a competitive edge to myself.”
Recovery Funding and the Question of Accountable Governance
Much of Manheimer’s argument for re-election revolves around her ability to deliver for Asheville in a moment of crisis — specifically, her role in securing Hurricane Helene recovery dollars. According to city documents, Helene caused an estimated $1.1 billion in losses to Asheville. So far, federal and state governments have directed roughly $325 million to the city, with more tied up in pending FEMA and EDA applications. Manheimer says she expects roughly $1 billion in total recovery money to flow to Asheville when the process is complete.
Her approach to securing that funding raises questions about how local government actually works — and who gets to participate in it. She has made multiple trips to Washington, D.C. and Raleigh to advocate for the city, serves as co-chair of the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Western North Carolina Recovery, and has worked to give federal officials opportunities to, in her words, “be the hero.”
“I’m just going to be honest. It is political. You’ve got to make the case. You can’t just assume that this application that lands on a desk in Raleigh is just going to get rubber stamped because it’s not.”
For voters trying to evaluate this claim, the question is whether that kind of behind-the-scenes political navigation is a feature of good governance or a symptom of a system that rewards access over transparency. At a May 27 forum hosted by Leadership Asheville, Manheimer called the influx of recovery money
“the silver lining to this horrible storm,”
adding:
“We have the, probably, once in a lifetime opportunity to receive funding to do incredible enhancements that really, honestly, we couldn’t afford to do on our own.”
Roney’s transparency platform, meanwhile, implicitly challenges this model — arguing that residents deserve to understand how decisions get made, not just benefit from their outcomes. That contrast goes to the heart of what voters are being asked to decide: Is effective governance measured by results, or by the openness of the process that produces them?
Policing, Public Safety, and Democratic Accountability
On public safety, the two candidates reflect competing theories of how communities should hold law enforcement accountable. Roney has long been critical of policies and funding that expand police power. Manheimer describes her position as a “Both-And” approach.
“We’ve got to build out other and different ways to be able to respond to these types of crises, but we don’t need to abandon the use of police officers. What we need to do is make sure we have the right responder to each 911 call. And sometimes that’s going to be somebody who’s more of a health worker or an EMT.”
To that end, Manheimer has backed the Asheville Police Department’s new co-responder unit, staffed with one full-time mental health professional, and the Asheville Fire Department’s Resource and Engagement Support Team (REST) program, which deploys firefighters and peer support specialists to calls related to homelessness. She also supports rebuilding the police department, which has struggled with a staffing deficit for years.
“I just swore in 20 new officers this summer, rebuilding the ranks in our police department so that we have sworn officers out there in the community to help keep people safe,”
she said at an October 6 WLOS debate.
On surveillance technology, Manheimer recently joined Roney and other council members to terminate the police department’s contract with Flock over privacy concerns — though she stopped short of opposing surveillance cameras categorically. Her reasoning reflects a broader point about whose voices shape public safety policy:
“When I’m talking to folks who live in public housing, they are not asking us to reduce the police force. They are not asking us to get rid of cameras. So, I think everyone needs to be mindful that the conversation you’re having in your neighborhood might be very different in another neighborhood.”
Housing and the Mechanics of Local Democracy
On affordable housing, Manheimer has pursued a dual strategy of zoning reform and public investment — both of which directly affect which residents can afford to remain in Asheville and participate in its civic life. She has supported a series of changes to local zoning rules that reduce regulatory barriers to new construction, and the city is now undertaking a broader zoning code rewrite.
“What we know in communities where building housing is expensive it’s because, in part, regulations are onerous and it’s harder to build or repair homes even. So we need to address that and make sure that those are not barriers to people getting into housing,”
she said at the October 6 debate. While the Asheville Watchdog reports that the overall supply of apartment units has surged and vacancies have increased, “deeply affordable housing” — units for households earning at or below 30% to 60% of area median income — remains scarce.
Manheimer points to two rounds of affordable housing bonds — $45 million approved in 2016 and 2024 — as the primary vehicle for addressing that gap. The first round created hundreds of affordable units. The second is intended to support more such projects and fund home repairs for lower-income homeowners.
“Maybe their home’s paid for, but they can’t afford to put a new roof on it or a new HVAC unit. Those are the types of policies that I want to see furthered and I think we’re doing a good job of investing in that kind of future for Asheville.”
The Democratic Argument for — and Against — Experience
Nearly 13 years into the job, Manheimer is the second-longest serving mayor in Asheville’s history, behind only Earl W. Eller, who held office from 1951 to 1969. She argues that longevity in office is not the same as being out of touch — and that in the middle of a major disaster recovery, changing leadership carries real democratic costs.
“Changing the mayor after a major event like Helene, with a few more years to go to really, fully rebuild our city in a way that is resilient and robust and ready to go for the future is not the change that we should be making in this community.”
One governing philosophy she says she’s developed over time is resistance to “knee-jerk” decisions driven by political pressure.
“One of the mistakes a politician can make, especially if you’re new, is you feel like every decision you make is sort of a do-or-die moment. And I think you have to just steady yourself and remember that you know how to make good decisions, you know how to listen, you know how to learn…and you’re looking at a long game and not an Instagram game.”
Roney, for her part, frames the longevity of Manheimer’s tenure as itself a democratic problem — not a credential.
“I am literally offering you new leadership after 12 years of dissatisfaction. If you want to get different results, try something different,”
she said at a September 11 campaign event hosted by the Council of Independent Business Owners.
That argument — that democratic accountability sometimes means replacing even a capable incumbent — reflects a fundamental tension in how voters think about local government. Asheville residents now have the opportunity to weigh that question directly. For those looking to follow local election coverage and related civic issues, BPR’s politics and government coverage has tracked this race closely, including what Western North Carolina voters need to know as early voting gets underway.