Red Clay Citizen

Annexation Moratorium Update

After Tuesday's House Judiciary II Committee recessed yesterday without a vote on a year long ban of forced annexation, there were some heavy "negotiations"  underway.  Reports of a screaming match in the office of the Speaker between unknown parties were soon followed by a reconvened session of the committee.   

Members were presented with a 10 month moratorium instead of a year while larger cities were not exempted from the process.  The effect of shortening the moratorium would allow cities to continue forcible annexation by April, 2009.  Given that the next legislature will only convene in January,2009, three months is hardly enough time to consider any well thought out changes to the way municipalities grow against the wishes of new citizens.

The moratorium still has a long way to go.  The full House would have to approve the measure and so would the Senate in what is rapidly turning into the closing days of the short session.  Despite all the obstacles in the way, a dedicated group of soon-to-be/recently annexed citizen activists continue to defy the conventional wisdom that you can't fight city hall.  Their dedication to making a difference in the legislative process is a guide for anyone who is dissatisfied with how government impacts their lives.

Legislative Lowdown: Forced Annexation

The House Finance Committee on Thursday, June 12th dealt a blow to cities in North Carolina that prefer to annex new territory without the consent of that area's citizens.  North Carolina is one of the few states that allow forcible annexation and anger has been building out in the hinterland for years.  Just last week, hundreds of local activists rallied in front of the Legislature and protested forcible annexation's biggest supporter, the taxpayer supported NC League of Municipalities. 

A study commission was appointed during last year's long session to examine the use of forced annexation in North Carolina.  That commission endorsed a one year moratorium on involuntary annexations in order to take a closer look at the issue.

The House Finance Committee heard testimony from citizens as well as government funded lobbyists and had a robust debate by members.  Rep. Prior Gibson (D-Anson) attempted to gut the moratorium by amending the bill in an attempt to reduce the moratorium from 12 months to 6 months in what was most likely a test vote.    Gibson called on legislators to show "political courage" by turning their collective backs on their constituents and stand up with big government.  The members of the committee soundly rejected Gibson's amendment by a voice vote. 

Ultimately, the committee voted in favor of stopping forcible annexations for one year by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 25 to 4.

Members voting to support stopping forcible annexation:
Curtis Blackwood (R-Union), John Blust (R-Guilford), Becky Carney (D-Mecklenburg), Tricia Cotham (D-Mecklenburg), Bill Daughtridge (R-Nash), Bill Faison (D-Orange), Dale Folwell (R-Forsyth), Larry Hall (D-Durham), Jim Harrell (D-Surry), Dewey Hill (D-Columbus), Julia Howard (R-Davie), Ed Jones (D-Guilford), David Lewis (R-Harnett), Paul Luebke (D-Durham), Danny McComas (R-New Hanover), Bill McGee (R-  Forsyth), Deborah Ross (D-Wake), Mitch Setzer (R-Catawba), Paul Stam (R-Wake), Edgar Starnes (R-Caldwell), Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg), William Wainwright (D-Craven), Trudi Walend (R-Transylvania), Jennifer Weiss (D-Cary) and Larry Womble (D-Forsyth).

Members voting to continue forcible annexation:
Kelly Alexander (D-Mecklenburg), Jean Farmer Butterfield (D-Wilson), Pryor Gibson (D-Anson) and Bill Owens (D-Pasquotank).

House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman (D-Davidson) abstained from voting.

The next stop for the bill is the House's Judiciary 2 Committee.  If successful there, the bill would next go to the floor of the whole House and then onto the Senate.

WhoTube? Complexity and Economics

Wanted to share these video entries to the APEE/MBM Communicators contest. Check 'em out while gnoshing your lunch, maybe learn a lil something:

Part One

Part Two

Thanks,
Max Borders

Another Business Freely Choosing to go Smoke-Free

Without a edict from government, Sheraton Hotels have decided to go entirely smoke-free.

After seeing business after business deciding on its own to set its own smoking policy, can we all now realize this is the best way to go?

Open Space Contradictions

If votDaren Bakst has a great N&O piece about open space and all the silliness involved in that. Check it out:

If voters want to push government control of property that will promote high-density living and higher home prices, then the bond issue is a good idea. However, if voters want to protect property rights, low-density living and affordable housing, then the bond is a bad idea.

See, I told you the market would take care of it...

In a victory for the free-market, and what many will call a pretty big risk considering the clientèle and industry, the N&O reports that the Buffaloe Lanes bowling alleys around Raleigh will go completely smoke-free.

The customers asked and they responded.  The owners of the business didn't need some overbearing big-brother government regulation to step in and tell them how to run their business. They made a choice that they feel is what is best for them, and kudos to them.

Will it help or hurt their bottom line?  Time will tell, but at least they were able to make the decision for themselves.

But really, no smoking at a bowling alley?  Can you imagine The Dude and Walter not being able to smoke while they bowled?

Property Rights: Still No Eminent Domain Bill in NC

While members of the Democrat-controlled General Assembly are patting themselves on the back for their "compromise budget", no one seems to be moving on a Constitutional Amendment to ban use of eminent domain for private ends.

Non-presidential candidate Fred Thompson has a blog post on the problem that's getting lots of attention, and a Google News search reveals quite a few municipalities raising hell about megalomaniacal bureaucrats in bed with developers. According to Thompson's post, California just used eminent domain to develop condos -- a plan that will have the government taking over 600 properties and giving them to private moguls. North Carolina is not immune to such possibilities, either, unless the General Assembly acts. But they are sitting on their hands. (I wonder why.)

Another Kelo Anniversary Passes: No Action in NC

Thomas Stith audio on the NC General Assembly's failure to act on a state constitutional amendment protecting private property rights from developers colluding with government.

Highest and Best Use

Jack Betts outlines the political (i.e., non-market) measures to "save urban spaces." Under the ambiguous rubric of the "common good", vocal interest groups willing to picket and put up signs in their yards are hardly willing to come up with the investment capital needed to match their stated preferences for the property. (Read: We won't buy it, but we're willing to apply state coercion to get what we want.)

That land go to its highest and best use is something that only a real estate market can determine. Moreover, efforts to conserve urban spaces actually results in more sprawl. Such efforts are thus totally at odds with the usual, eh hem, "smart growth" aspirations. All this goes to show that planning doesn't work, that people have conflicting and contradictory values, and that markets do the best job of reconciling those diverse values. People who lay claim to the "common good" are justifying expropriation.

(I argued in another post that Dix, for example, should be auctioned.)

Why Calls for the Public Landgrab?

If these people want to conserve land, why don't they form a land trust and buy it themselves?

Should We Be Suspicious, Senator Basnight?

Whenever you see a curious environmental regulation plugged randomly into a state budget, you have to ask: who benefits?

Consider this latest curiosity ... a special provision of the proposed Senate budget bill (shoved between a section on funding for cancer research and a subsection about the powers of the House and Senate appropriations committees). It reads:

“At least twenty percent (20%) of any area designed to be used for vehicular parking, except for a covered area or multilevel area, shall be a pervious surface.”

A pervious surface. Okay. What’s a pervious surface? Why is it so important to the state of North Carolina that twenty percent of our parking lots be pervious? In short, pervious parking lots would contribute to the expansion of wetlands, the enlargement of old growth forests, and an increase in carbon offsets. No, seriously: pervious substances permit the flow of water, which should help control problems associated with storm water runoff. Sounds reasonable enough on the face of it.

But you start doing a little digging and you find out that some Raleigh company called the Rose Group has won awards for their designs using porous pavement... Fine. UNC got a green award for paving some of its lots that way. Not terribly suspicious... But when you Google “pervious” “concrete” “north carolina” – what’s the first thing that pops up?  The website for Dare Concrete, aptly named for Dare County. Now this amendment came from someone within the N.C. Senate.

Who is the most powerful senator in North Carolina? Senator Pro Tempore Marc Basnight, a Democrat from – you guessed it – Dare County.

As it turns out, Dare Concrete is eager to take advantage of such opportunities. According to their Web site:

”Never has the opportunity been so great for Town officials and commissioners, the concrete industry and developers to work together to create a win-win solution that will benefit the community and the environment.”

So a major supplier of pervious concrete in North Carolina clearly stands to gain when it comes to this new regulation. Does Senator Basnight stand to gain something, too?

Eminent Domain Legislation : It's About Time

Our reluctant legislature is making overtures about finally protecting us from improper - and unconstitutional - applications of eminent domain. Protecting private property should have been the first thing they undertook this biennium. The lag-time suggests that their motivations now are largely political and that many still buy into this utilitarian/corporate welfare argument about economic development and the so-called "greater good."

In short: you and your corporate cronies had better keep your grubby mits off of our property.