The House did approve an annexation bill yesterday (second reading), but as I have argued, it would do more harm than good.? The “benefits” of the bill also are a charade, particularly the vote provision.? The bill still has to pass its third reading today to get through the House.

Current articles make the bill sound better than it is.

1) The Vote: Annexation victims must get 15% of the total number of registered voters in the municipality and annexed area.? There would be a bit over a year to obtain these signatures.? For an area getting annexed by Raleigh, this would mean getting about 39,000 signatures (not including the extra signatures that would be needed because of “rejected” signatures.)? This would be impossible.

For smaller cities like Goldsboro, an annexed area would need to get about 4,000 signatures–this would be very difficult but there’s a slight chance it could happen.

If the signatures are obtained though, the reward is a vote by both the voters in the municipality and? the annexed area.? The voters in the municipality would dominate the number of voters in annexed areas, making the vote for all practical purposes a vote of the municipal residents.? Note: The vote would take place in general elections which would help to ensure higher municipal turnout.?

Instead of a city council forcing the annexation victims into the city, city residents will perform that function.

The only hope is that somehow the annexation victims can convince the city residents not to annex them.? The annexation victims will be going up against the “education” campaigns of the municipalities and the likely advocacy efforts of other powerful local groups.

The following League action alert was sent to the UNC planners public listserv:

“Third, this divisive referendum requirement would force municipal officials to beg the chamber of commerce or other groups to contribute private funds and run educational campaigns urging voters to approve proposed annexations.”

Just a side issue: If municipalities are currently begging or even approaching local groups to urge voters to approve/reject referenda, then this brings up significant ethical questions due to the influence municipalities can have on these groups.

2) Meaningful Reforms Were All Ignored

There were four key reforms that have been pushed by annexation reformers.? Not one of them was passed–just one of them getting passed could fairly be described as real reform in my opinion.

A) A Real Vote: I already went through the vote charade above.

B) Meaningful Services: The purpose of forced annexation is to promote sound urban growth by having municipalities provide services that offer the annexation victims a meaningful or significant benefit.? This comes from the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Nolan. v. Village of Marvin

HB 524 doesn’t require that municipalities provide even one service that gives a significant benefit to annexed property owners.? In fact, the bill expressly codifies in the law a major abuse by municipalities, and that is the duplication of existing services–the bill would expressly allow municipalities to meet any police protection service requirement by providing one extra police officer to an annexed area (this isn’t a joke).

This horrible language in the bill about services is a key reason why the bill would do more harm than good.? If the bill were never passed, it is highly likely that future legal challenges before the state Supreme Court would make it absolutely clear that duplication of services and other service-related abuses are illegal.? HB 524 preempts any possible improvements that at least could have been made by the courts.

C) County Oversight: Citizens want a vote–the League doesn’t want a vote.? If the county commissioners, who represent both municipal leaders and annexation victims, had the final say on annexations, there would at least be a representative voice for the property owners.? This would have been a true compromise.

D) Water and Sewer Infrastructure: Municipalities initiate the annexations–they should be the ones that pay for the costs of running water and sewer lines to the annexation victims.? Under current law, the annexation victims that don’t need or want the water and sewer are also required to pay for the lines to obtain these meaningless services.? Even if they don’t want to connect, they often are forced to pay availability fees and eventually they will need to pay for these lines? These costs can run well over $10,000, and may be the biggest cost of annexation.

Other issues that have been brought up about the benefits of the bill:

– Municipalities have to provide water and sewer within three years.? First, this is only true for those municipalities that provide water and sewer to their current residents.? Many municipalities though would not have to provide water and sewer at all (because they don’t provide their own residents water and sewer).

More importantly, this three year requirement is actually harmful to property owners because it forces them to pay for the full price of water and sewer lines right from the start of the annexation.? Municipalities also will charge a lot more so that they can meet this water and sewer requirement.

The Tweaks:

– The bill makes shoestring annexations illegal.? They already are illegal!
– The bill nor the law requires anything about density–this is a fallacy (among others) that gets repeated over and over.? A municipality may annex areas based on several factors, including but not limited to factors based on density.

Despite its protests to the contrary, the League will have secured a major victory if HB 524 passes as is.? The only hope is that changes are made to provide real reform.