Here is the grand finale!

To get the whole story, please read Part I, Part II, and Part III.? The following is the last major problem with the annexation law:

Problem 4

Under existing law, there is no oversight during the annexation process–municipalities can do whatever they want.? There are two issues regarding oversight: Who provides the oversight and what needs to be reviewed?

Who should provide oversight?

A county should provide the oversight.? There is a lot of talk about how everyone needs to compromise.? County oversight is the very definition of compromise.? The annexation victims want a vote.? The League opposes a vote.

The middle ground is to let the county, which represents both parties, oversee the annexation (the county is like an arbitrator between the parties).? This also gives the citizens the voice that they want–a representative voice, but a voice nonetheless.

Some people have said that this would make the oversight political–yes, of course it would!? That’s the whole point.? County commissioners are accountable to both municipalities and the residents in the unincorporated areas.

As for the argument that counties don’t want this responsibility, who cares? The fact that the counties have sat back and let millions of their constituents get forcibly annexed by municipalities over the last
half-century should be an embarrassment.? I have long argued that the League and municipalities get too much of the blame when it comes to forced annexation.

The only local governmental body that represents the annexation victims isn’t the municipalities, but the counties.? The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) should be thought of the same way as the League–they may even be worse.

What should they review?

Whether an annexation is financially feasible for a city means little to annexation victims.? In simple terms, the oversight body should evaluate the merits of an annexation–is the annexation a good idea or a bad idea?? Is it in the best interests of the municipal residents and the annexation victims?

Is the municipality meeting the requirements of the statute?? The municipality that is initiating the annexation, like someone bringing a lawsuit, should bear the burden of demonstrating that the annexation is a good idea.

There also should be a way for the annexation victims to have their concerns heard through a comment period and a public hearing so that when an annexation is reviewed, both the interests of the municipality and the annexation victims are properly considered.

The PCS: Very limited oversight by the Local Government Commission.? The LGC is not an independent body (four of the five appointed members have direct ties to municipalities).? The LGC is inept when it comes to anything beyond debt management (see the Randy Parton Theater debacle).? It wouldn’t know the needs of a local community like a county.

The LGC also doesn’t provide the critical benefit of allowing the property owners to have a voice.? In terms of reviewing details of a current annexation, the LGC would only review the financial feasibility of an annexation.

HB 645: There’s county oversight and a review on the merits (whether the annexation is good for both the municipality and affected area).

What does it mean to oppose this reform?:? Legislators would have to believe that municipalities should continue to be able to do whatever they want and citizens don’t even deserve a voice in the process that is far inferior to a vote.