In a way, it’s the perfect tea party issue. Trying to put annexations by cities to a vote of communities affected would likely stop annexation in its tracks. For one thing, it’s easier to muster opponents than it is proponents. And on its face, annexation and the fees and higher taxes that come with it look like a bad bargain for residents who might be annexed. Vote myself some more taxes and pay thousands of dollars in hook-up fees, etc., to get city utilities? You think that’s a turnip truck in the driveway?
But conservatives who now rule the General Assembly after the Republican takeover tend to see forced annexation as an infringement on individual rights. So there’s a movement on Jones Street to freeze new annexations until July 1 of next year, after which a new and presumably weaker annexation law could be established.
Such a move already has passed the state Senate and the issue is headed to the House. Previous attempts to curb annexation have been flummoxed, but there are different sheriffs, and deputies, in town now when it comes to the legislature, and the small-government, anti-tax tea party movement has a voice.
Growing pains
The advantages of annexation laws that allow a city to bring a community within its jurisdiction are many, but they include letting cities, which are economic engines for the entire regions of which they’re a part, grow population and neighborhoods and business opportunities in an orderly, unified way. That gives birth to suburbs, schools and businesses that enjoy city services. And it helps cities and their residents afford those services, by spreading the cost burden around.
The problem with allowing individual communities to say “no” is that many if not all of their residents enjoy nearby city amenities – parks, kids’ recreational areas, shopping venues, a street network – for which they do not pay. And unfortunately, many of those in such communities like it that way, and boast of having all the advantages of living in the city without – here it comes – the taxes. What a difference a few yards can make. “City address, county taxes,” the real estate listing will proclaim.
If cities cannot expand, and fund their expansion with additional tax revenue from new residents, they’ll be stifled in size and opportunity. New businesses or those looking to move to a business-friendly climate (and North Carolina ranks highly in that category) want places that are vibrant, with a beating pulse and ambition to be better and yes, with it, bigger.
And potential
Size and the potential for growth are part of a city’s draw. If businesses are looking for opportunity, they will look askance at a city that has leveled in population or even diminished.
An annexation moratorium in Virginia has stunted urban growth. Ellis Hankins, a pro-annexation person as director of the N.C. League of Municipalities, notes that the actual city of Richmond has a smaller population now than it did 50 years ago.
Finally, why is it that the new majority in the General Assembly seems preoccupied less with fixing what’s broken (meaning coming up with creative ways to preserve and create jobs, for example) than with taking apart policies that have served the state well? Can annexation laws be improved? Probably. Are there occasional problems that people who are being annexed should at some point be empowered to address? Yes, for example, when a municipality attempts an annexation but fails to deliver services (sewer, water, etc.) in a timely manner. In such a case, those being annexed have a right to raise objections.
But as of now, no huge abuses have been demonstrated in annexation laws that have worked for the betterment of cities, and the outlying communities that exist because of them.
Published Thu, Mar 10, 2011 02:00 AM
Modified Thu, Mar 10, 2011 05:10 AM
