The state legislature enacted annexation reform last year, declaring “that sound urban development is essential to the continued economic development in North Carolina.”
Continue Reading Advertisement | Advertise with Us Despite that positive statement, the legislature went on to make it harder for cities to grow and promote “continued economic development.”
By reforming annexation laws, the Republican majority really meant to prevent involuntary annexations. It took the upper hand in a long struggle between cities and residents outside cities who don’t want to have their homes overtaken by expanding municipal boundaries.
For decades, North Carolina cities benefited from the state’s liberal annexation laws. They had the ability to push their borders into outlying areas that had taken on an urban character, where residents worked, shopped and enjoyed cultural activities in the cities — but didn’t pay city taxes.
That changed abruptly last year. The new Republican majority, whose members tend to represent suburban and rural residents, enacted steep barriers for cities to clear before they could annex unwilling property owners. The biggest hurdle was an opportunity for property owners to stop annexations by petition. If 60 percent of affected property owners indicated opposition, an annexation would be stopped for at least three years. Counties were even directed to seek out those property owners and present them with petitions.
This provision took a hit, but not a fatal wound, in Wake County Superior Court this week. Judge Shannon Joseph ruled in favor of several cities challenging the law on the basis of a flawed petition mandate. The law makes an impermissible distinction between people affected by annexation. Only property owners count, according to the law. Residents who don’t own property don’t count. But they should.
That ruling will have to withstand a likely appeal to higher courts, but the legislature can easily fix the flaw as soon as next month when it reconvenes. More troubling is talk of extreme reactions, including de-annexations and denial of any authorization for cities to carry out annexations at their own initiative.
Often, businesses and industries request annexation to gain access to city services. Sometimes, residents also ask to be absorbed into the city for the same reason. Cities are strongest, though, when they can use forward-looking annexation policies to plan for sound urban development. Extending infrastructure to areas ripe for development is a good way to ensure that growth is appropriate, orderly and sustainable.
Greensboro has set a sensible policy of linking water and sewer service to annexation. That approach facilitates growth without having to initiate involuntary annexations. There are other times, however, when residential areas are so closely associated with a city that they ought to be made a part of it through annexation.
The N.C. League of Municipalities greeted this week’s ruling with a call to compromise. Cities are resigned to giving up some annexation power despite the victory in court because they know the legislature will have the last word, and it’s not likely to favor sound urban development.
(News & Record).
Friday, March 30, 2012 (Updated 3:00 am)
