Involuntary Annexation Moratorium Needed
05/20/2008 | 11:02 PM
Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham)
and House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake) today
discussed proposed legislation for a temporary
moratorium on involuntary annexation. The House
Select Committee on Municipal Annexation voted
yesterday to move forward with a bill that would
impose a statewide temporary moratorium on
involuntary annexation through June 30, 2009.
The next step for the bill is consideration by the
House of Representatives. If passed by the
House, the moratorium bill would then move to the
state Senate for consideration.
Representative Nelson Dollar (R-Wake), a member of the House Select Committee on Municipal Annexation, said, “The temporary moratorium on involuntary annexation will allow for a thorough and thoughtful review of our annexation laws with the goal of proposing reforms to the 2009 Session of the General Assembly. A key reform will be providing a meaningful voice for homeowners in neighborhoods affected by a proposed involuntary annexation. A citizen's rights must be protected when government seeks to impose undue burdens on a person's home and family."
North Carolina is one of only four states that allow involuntary annexation without any opportunity for meaningful consultation with property owners in the affected area. The other states are Tennessee, Idaho, and Kansas. Although North Carolina’s involuntary annexation laws date back to 1959, tremendous growth in recent decades in North Carolina has caused the issue to become more and more contentious in affected areas. In many instances, cities have been accused of taking in high-value property in order to address lagging municipal revenue issues. Research shows tax increases ranging from 60 percent to more than 100 percent for properties brought into municipalities through involuntary annexation. Current law provides citizens with limited recourse when their land is about to be annexed. Generally, they are relegated to speaking before a city governing board made up of members not answerable to affected property owners.
“In locations across North Carolina, citizens are seeing their tax obligations substantially increased through the mechanism of involuntary annexation,” said Senator Berger. “Current North Carolina law totally ignores the property and voting rights of these citizens. Forced annexation makes a mockery of the principle of government by the consent of the governed. We need a time out to take a fresh look at this issue so that a proper balance can be achieved between allowing cities to grow and protecting property and voting rights.”
"We need to look again at involuntary annexation as it is used in the 21st Century," said Representative Stam. "The traditional justifications for the practice, such as filling in donut holes or other gaps, and getting city services to neighborhoods with failing wells or septic tanks, seem to have changed into territorial strategies."
A related bipartisan bill with 96 sponsors, Eminent Domain (HB 878), was overwhelmingly passed in the House on May 24, 2007, by a vote of 114 to15. When the Senate received the bill, it was immediately referred to the Ways and Means Committee. The Senate Ways and Means Committee has not met since June 21, 2001, even though numerous bills have been referred to that committee.
“The issue of eminent domain is one that is of great concern to the people of North Carolina, especially in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. New London case,” said Berger. “The House took action to protect the property of North Carolina’s citizens; now is the time for the Senate to act.”
Republicans in the General Assembly are determined to push forward private property protections. Nevertheless, Stam pointed out annexations issues and Eminent Domain protections are separate issues. "Annexation is a taxing issue and Eminent Domain is a takings issue," concluded Stam.
Representative Nelson Dollar (R-Wake), a member of the House Select Committee on Municipal Annexation, said, “The temporary moratorium on involuntary annexation will allow for a thorough and thoughtful review of our annexation laws with the goal of proposing reforms to the 2009 Session of the General Assembly. A key reform will be providing a meaningful voice for homeowners in neighborhoods affected by a proposed involuntary annexation. A citizen's rights must be protected when government seeks to impose undue burdens on a person's home and family."
North Carolina is one of only four states that allow involuntary annexation without any opportunity for meaningful consultation with property owners in the affected area. The other states are Tennessee, Idaho, and Kansas. Although North Carolina’s involuntary annexation laws date back to 1959, tremendous growth in recent decades in North Carolina has caused the issue to become more and more contentious in affected areas. In many instances, cities have been accused of taking in high-value property in order to address lagging municipal revenue issues. Research shows tax increases ranging from 60 percent to more than 100 percent for properties brought into municipalities through involuntary annexation. Current law provides citizens with limited recourse when their land is about to be annexed. Generally, they are relegated to speaking before a city governing board made up of members not answerable to affected property owners.
“In locations across North Carolina, citizens are seeing their tax obligations substantially increased through the mechanism of involuntary annexation,” said Senator Berger. “Current North Carolina law totally ignores the property and voting rights of these citizens. Forced annexation makes a mockery of the principle of government by the consent of the governed. We need a time out to take a fresh look at this issue so that a proper balance can be achieved between allowing cities to grow and protecting property and voting rights.”
"We need to look again at involuntary annexation as it is used in the 21st Century," said Representative Stam. "The traditional justifications for the practice, such as filling in donut holes or other gaps, and getting city services to neighborhoods with failing wells or septic tanks, seem to have changed into territorial strategies."
A related bipartisan bill with 96 sponsors, Eminent Domain (HB 878), was overwhelmingly passed in the House on May 24, 2007, by a vote of 114 to15. When the Senate received the bill, it was immediately referred to the Ways and Means Committee. The Senate Ways and Means Committee has not met since June 21, 2001, even though numerous bills have been referred to that committee.
“The issue of eminent domain is one that is of great concern to the people of North Carolina, especially in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. New London case,” said Berger. “The House took action to protect the property of North Carolina’s citizens; now is the time for the Senate to act.”
Republicans in the General Assembly are determined to push forward private property protections. Nevertheless, Stam pointed out annexations issues and Eminent Domain protections are separate issues. "Annexation is a taxing issue and Eminent Domain is a takings issue," concluded Stam.