A long effort at the North Carolina Legislature to amend the state constitution to limit government’s authority in taking private property against an owner’s will is picking up steam. Members of a Senate subcommittee sounded supportive Thursday of placing a proposed constitutional amendment about eminent domain on the ballot. The panel will make recommendations next month as the General Assembly reconvenes. The subcommittee reviewed a bill the House approved asking voters in November to decide whether private property condemnation by state or local governments should be barred except for a “public use,” such as highways or government buildings. Similar proposals passed the House in recent years but died in the Senate. The Legislature changed condemnation laws after a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Amendment supporters say something stronger is needed.
(THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)
4/05/12

Lawmakers are continuing to step up their efforts to give Davidson County some future authority in dealing with annexations of any type by surrounding cities.

N.C. Sen. Stan Bingham, R-Davidson, is preparing to introduce a Senate bill nearly identical to one proposed by Davidson County Commissioners’ vice chairman Larry Potts last month.

The two bills, if approved, will allow county commissioners to ward off or grant annexation attempts by municipalities in and around Davidson County by a simple majority vote.

Potts wants the bill to ensure cities like Winston-Salem and High Point can’t look to incorporate areas near their borders without review. Thanks to redrawn district lines, Bingham is no longer representing High Point at the state level. He said he’s now able to introduce his bill without conflict of interest.

“Because of that (representing High Point) I couldn’t introduce it, and I couldn’t allow it to be introduced,” Bingham said. “Now I’m free to do this. You can’t introduce local bills unless they’re non-controversial.”

Simultaneously, Potts has been in contact with N.C. House Reps Rayne Brown, R-Davidson, and Jerry Dockham, R-Davidson, about drafting his bill to be heard in the House.

Bingham is hoping to have his bill heard in May when lawmakers return for the short session. Potts shares Bingham’s optimism that the bills will hit each chamber’s floor for hearing and said he was pleased to see the senator’s support on this issue. Potts noted recent history and development in pockets of northern Davidson County as reason enough for him to want to better protect county lines.

“For the next three years this would probably have limited impact because there’s not going to be construction,” Potts said. “If we return to the years of 2000 to 2005 when hundreds of homes were being built, and we (Davidson County) were by far coming out on the losing end.”

By David Bodenheimer
(The Dispatch)
Published: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.

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)

After Republicans took control of the General Assembly in the 2010 elections, hostility to the state’s municipal annexation law came to a boil.

A rewrite of the law last year aimed to give more of a say to property owners in areas that cities wanted to bring within their boundaries. Understood was that many such owners would rather not be annexed, and thus avoid tax bills.

Now that rewrite has hit a bump, as Judge Shannon Joseph of Wake County Superior Court has ruled that a key provision violates the state constitution.

More than likely, the issues will continue to be hashed out on appeal. A good outcome would be one that supports a well-established N.C. principle: that as new neighborhoods crop up on the urban outskirts, cities and towns need to be able to bring them under the property tax umbrella in exchange for municipal services.

With a strong annexation law, North Carolina has been able to prevent some of the patterns of urban blight that often bedevil places where municipal boundaries were immovably fixed many years ago.

The revised law blocks an annexation if 60 percent of the people owning property in that zone sign a petition against the change. However, Judge Joseph – agreeing with five cities that challenged the rewrite – found that to gauge public sentiment in that manner amounted to holding an election. It’s unconstitutional to have an election that’s off-limits to non-property owners, the judge ruled.

That makes sense, as did the challengers’ argument that decisions about municipal boundaries shouldn’t be delegated to a certain group of property owners. Indeed, annexations are pursued for the benefit of a city as a whole, and residents throughout the city have an interest in whether they go forward.

If there’s been a valid grievance over annexation, it’s been that sometimes the promised utility installations have been slow to materialize while the town enjoyed higher tax collections.

(Charlotte Observer)
Posted: Sunday, Apr. 01, 2012

Less than a year afterNorth Carolina’s Republican-led legislature corrected the state’s involuntary annexation rules to uphold the ights of property owners, aWakeCountyjudge has single-handedly returned a freedom-robbing power to local governments.

Judge Shannon Joseph on Tuesday struck down the state’s new way for property owners in unincorporated areas to block forced annexation. Unless the ruling is overturned on appeal, it’s a return to the same old-same old whereby cities and towns can expand municipal limits to increase their tax base and require property owners to live by zoning rules whether they want to or not.

That flies in the face of individual liberty and the very core of what it means to live inAmerica.

When the Legislature overhauled state annexation laws last year, property rights won a huge victory, one that came a little late for some Burlington residents, but a victory nonetheless.

The new rules said that a proposed involuntary annexation could be stopped if 60 percent of landowners in the targeted area signed a petition opposing it. Property owners had about four months to get the required signatures, a reasonable amount of time, and municipalities were barred from attempting the same involuntary annexation for three years.

Areas aroundLexington,KinstonandFayettevillealready have used the 60-percent rule to halt annexations. In other areas, cases were pending when Joseph dropped her hammer. Without further legal action to stop them, these municipalities can get back to the business of sucking up property to refill their dwindling coffers and enforce their uninvited bureaucratic rules.

As communities grow, new construction — with higher property value — takes place around the outer edges of cities and towns. Older property declines in value, so the taxes municipalities collect decline, too. An easy fix has been to go after new neighborhoods with higher-valued homes so government can keep financing programs.

Elected officials and government employees will argue that these programs benefit the less-fortunate and improve “quality of life” for cities and towns.

In fact, imposing a tax on unwilling residents amounts to nothing more than income redistribution — taking what one person has earned and giving it to those who have done nothing to receive it.

And the laws — zoning is a prime example — that come with living inside municipal limits amount to forcing one person’s will on another.

In 1776,America’s forbearers went to war to keep a government from exerting force on individuals who had no voice in determining what rules applied to their lives. Involuntary annexation is the contemporary equivalent. Individual property owners are forced to accept rules and pay taxes to a government they had no voice in choosing — and do not want to choose.

In 2011, the North Carolina Legislature took a much-needed step in setting up a legal means for property owners to decide whether they would choose to accept the rules of a local government. Joseph turned freedom and individual liberty upside down with her recent ruling.

The residents involved in this case, joined by the Attorney General who sided with them, would do well to fight another day, appeal the ruling and give a higher court the opportunity to right this wrong.

(TheTimesNews.com)
2012-03-30 19:20:13

Earlier this month, North Carolina’s Division of Air Quality and Department of Motor Vehicles recommended exempting newer model cars from the state’s inspection process. Today, legislative auditors are ratifying that finding. From an audit summary released this morning:

“The Program Evaluation Division estimates a three-year exemption would save North Carolina motorists $9.6 million annually. This savings to motorists comes with a corresponding reduction in state revenue estimated at $3.2 million. To address the reduction, the General Assembly could reduce the inspection station portion of the inspection fee, raise the inspection fee, reallocate the portion no longer needed to support the telecommunications account, or allow the reductions to occur.”

Drivers would save $30 per year for the first three years they own a new car. This recommendation has knocked around state government for a while. The thinking is that newer cars are unlikely to have major emission system problems, so inspecting them is a waste of time and money.
The report doesn’t mention getting rid of safety inspections. Gov. Perdue and Sen. Stan Bingham, a Denton Republican, have said have said they would support the move.

By Mark Binker
(WRAL)
Posted: 10:52 a.m. yesterday
Updated: 10:53 a.m. yesterday

RALEIGH – The next time you hear a North Carolina politician talk about the “need” to use tax dollars or public debt to build a new ballpark, convention center, rail line, or similar luxury, ask them this simple question: how much more do you think we can afford?

If North Carolinians weren’t already saddled with massive financial liabilities, it might be reasonable to discuss how much more we should go into debt, and for what. But the fact of the matter is that we are saddled with massive liabilities. Set aside the huge and escalating federal debt. State and local obligations are large and growing, as well.

When policymakers talk about North Carolina fiscal policy, they tend to focus primarily on the income statement (annual state and local budgets) rather than on the balance sheet (total assets accumulated minus total liabilities incurred). They ought to be paying close attention to both.

North Carolina used to be known for its cautious approach to government debt, but in recent years the situation has changed. In 2012 the cost of servicing state debt will be nearly $900 million – an amount larger than the annual budgets of many of the state’s best-known agencies and departments. Add in the rising obligations of many cities and counties, and you find that North Carolina’s total government debt exceeded $53 billion in 2009, the last year for which I can find a comprehensive accounting.

Furthermore, an increasing share of it was never approved by voter referendum. Policymakers have evaded the state constitution’s referendum requirement by issuing certificates-of-participation and other “special obligations” that do not technically pledge government’s full faith and credit, but in practice offer an implicit promise to tap general revenues. Special-obligation debt now far exceeds general-obligation debt on North Carolina’s balance sheet.

Unfortunately, even this official balance sheet understates government liabilities. Consider the state’s promise to provide health benefits for retired public employees, a promise for which legislators have set aside no assets. According to a 2010 estimate, this one unfunded liability exceeded $33 billion. It is surely larger than that today.

There are other liabilities. Most analysts now rate North Carolina’s pension fund for teachers and public employees as underfunded, although they differ widely about the extent of the problem. While the official estimate is only a few billion dollars, a 2011 analysis found that adopting a somewhat-lower projection of future investment return would boost the unfunded liability to $12 billion. And an earlier study co-written by Northwestern University’s Joshua Rauh went even further, arguing that states should use federal treasuries as the benchmark. By that measure, North Carolina’s unfunded pension liability would be a staggering $58 billion. Even the midpoint between these two estimates would put the state’s pension exposure as roughly equal to its retiree-health exposure.

Nor is the problem limited to financial liabilities. Many departments and localities have managed their physical capital poorly, failing to keep their buildings and infrastructure networks in good repair. About 30 percent of North Carolina’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. More than a quarter of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. The liability for deferred maintenance in North Carolina’s transportation assets alone exceeds $1 billion, and similar liabilities exist in other state and local agencies. For example, to repair or replace all the deficient water and sewer systems across the state would cost more than $10 billion over the next two decades, according to a recent estimate.

In order to build up enough reserves to meet all these obligations, North Carolina governments would have to set aside more than $2 billion a year for many years – more than tripling our current state spending on debt service. Does that sound realistic to you?

In truth, some of the obligations will never be met. Others will have to be met by cutting spending elsewhere. At the very least, North Carolina policymakers need to stop making the problem worse by issuing new debt for low priorities, such as entertainment and passenger rail, while failing to devote sufficient attention to fulfilling the promises and maintaining the critical public assets already on the government’s books.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.

By John Hood
(John Hood’s Daily Journal)
Mar. 28th, 2012

A judge on Tuesday struck down a 2011 state law that provided for the undoing of recent annexations around Lexington and other cities.

The ruling potentially strips away a key element of laws that property-rights activists sought for years.

Wake County Superior Court Judge Shannon Joseph issued a written order Tuesday throwing out the petition process authorized last year by the Republican-led General Assembly. The measure halted a municipality’s effort to expand its borders if enough property owners in the targeted area said no. The case is likely to be settled in the appellate courts.

(Winston-Salem Journal)
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Updated 5:49 am

RALEIGH-Major portions of the new law designed to restrict municipal annexations in North Carolina were declared unconstitutional Tuesday by a Wake County Superior Court judge, undercutting a major policy plank of the GOP-led legislature.

Judge Shannon Joseph agreed with the arguments of five North Carolina towns, which asserted that the legislature overstepped its authority last year when it passed a law making involuntary annexations possible only if most affected landowners agreed.

The ruling was a setback for annexation opponents who have passionately fought to overhaul North Carolina’s 1959 annexation law, saying it was undemocratic for residents to be forced to become part of a town or a city against their wishes.

Opponents said they would likely appeal the ruling.

“Even though the trial judge’s decision is a setback, I think it’s not the end of the story,” said James Eldridge, a Wilmington attorney who argued on behalf of the new law for homeowners, along with the attorney general’s office, which represented the state. “We will continue forward with our defense. I will recommend to our clients that we appeal the matter.”

But it was a victory for towns and cities that say the annexation law has allowed for orderly growth and healthy cities for decades. In particular it was a victory for five cities that had brought suits to challenge the law. The five were either in the middle of the annexation process or had recently completed it. Those five – Kinston, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Lexington and Fayetteville – saw their annexation processes suspended or even faced de-annexation.

“The communities did everything required of them by state law,” said Anthony Fox, a Charlotte attorney who represented the cities. “To inject a new process into this annexation after they complied with the law as it existed didn’t seem fair.”

After growing complaints about annexation, the legislature overhauled the old annexation law last year. The new law would bar annexations if 60 percent of residents of the affected areas signed a petition saying they did not want to become part of the town or city.

The cities argued successfully that the petition process created under the law was an election. But the election process violated several provisions of the state constitution, the cities argued, because it allowed only property owners to cast ballots, excluding other people such as renters from voting, while allowing non-resident property owners to vote.

Landowners’ privilege

The cities also argued that the law unconstitutionally delegated to a group of landowners the power to set municipal boundaries and that it ran afoul of the constitution by according certain citizens the right to stop or reverse annexations, but not those in every community.

While striking down the petition process and the measures singling out the five cities, the judge’s decision does not affect other parts of the new annexation law that deal with issues such as when services must be provided to annexed areas.

The annexation changes were passed with strong Republican support, including from some anti-tax groups that are part of the GOP coalition that helped win control of the legislature in 2010. Anti-annexation sentiment played an important role in some races, such as Republican Rayne Brown’s defeat of Democratic House Majority leader Hugh Holliman, both of Lexington.

Senate Leader Phil Berger sent a bluntly worded letter to municipal officials in December warning them to back off their lawsuits. He wrote that the legislature could consider a number of bills, including those that would roll back previously passed annexations, when it returns in May.

“If necessary, these matters will be heard by the legislature to ensure North Carolina taxpayer money is not wasted on frivolous and abusive legal maneuvers,” Berger wrote.

On Tuesday, Berger reacted cautiously, saying he understood that the attorney general’s office planned to appeal. (A spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy Cooper said no decision had been made.)

“I want the lawyers who represent the state to give me some additional information as to the basis of the appeal, the arguments, that sort of thing,” Berger said. “We’ve still got another month before we get back to the short session. We will figure out what we need to do, if anything, as we move forward.”

‘A hollow victory’

Dallas Woodhouse, director of Americans for Prosperity – North Carolina, a conservative activist group, said the legislature had ultimate authority over the boundaries of towns, and he urged the Senate to enact seven or eight pending bills that are essentially de-annexation bills.

“They have already shown some willingness to do so and make the court decision moot,” Woodhouse said.

“They (the municipalities) are now at risk at having the legislature come in and decide what their boundaries are for a long time,” Woodhouse said. “That happened in Fayetteville, which had a moratorium on annexation for 30 years. I think it’s a hollow victory for them today. I believe they will regret doing this. I believe the Senate will move these bills. The cities exercised their constitutional right to sue. The legislature will exercise their constitutional right to decide what the boundaries are.”

Kelli Kukura, lobbyist for the N.C. League of Municipalities, which she noted was not part of the lawsuits, said she hoped the parties could work out a compromise.

“We have a lot of respect for the General Assembly’s need to have reasonable annexation reforms that are obviously constitutional and fair to what I call the in-town residents and the near-town residents,” Kukura said. “We are ready to continue to work with the General Assembly leadership and others to reach that goal and are really interested in reaching out to them to have further discussion about how we resolve this issue.”

By Rob Christensen
(News& Observer)
Published Wed, Mar 28, 2012 12:00 AM
Modified Wed, Mar 28, 2012 05:52 AM