The forced annexation debate now resides in the NC Senate after the NC House passed its harmful annexation “reform” bill (HB 524) last year.
This AP article discusses the opposition to the bill and the Senate’s hesitation to take up the issue in the short session.
Some comments related to what was written in the article:
Article: The league’s opposition comes even after the House bill inserted nearly all 20 suggestions the league offered to lawmakers..
Comment: Of course the League is going to oppose this bill–that way, it can look like it is giving up something.? As the article stated, it got nearly everything it wanted.? Municipalities will even get money to help them provide services to areas that really need services–in other words, they are getting paid for what they are supposed to be doing anyway!
By the League “opposing” the bill, legislators can make the hollow argument that since nobody likes the bill, it must be a good bill (as is mentioned in the article).? If this bill were passed in its current form, the League would be doing backflips.
Article: Rep. Nelson Dollar, R-Wake, co-sponsor of the House bill, said one
compromise could require county commissioners to formally approve a
municipal annexation before it can occur, saying it would at least
allow residents in the unincorporated areas to have representation.
Comment: Kudos to Rep. Dollar!? This is a simple compromise that allows the legislature to avoid many of the side issues and is a true compromise.? The Senate should blow up HB 524, and simply draft a half-page bill that creates county approval of annexations.
Article: Nesbitt said there are some
abuses with municipal annexation but he’s not sure lawmakers have fully
figured out how to reduce them.
House
members “worked on it a year and a half and have a bill nobody likes,”
he said. “What makes us think we can fix it in a month?”
Comment: First, let’s be clear.? The House members didn’t work on anything for a year and a half.? There was a study committee that examined annexation reform.? Guess what this study committee recommended that isn’t in HB 524?? That’s right, a true vote of the people living in unincorporated areas.? This is something that gets forgotten.? The House has a study committee and then it ignores the most important recommendation!
Senator Nesbitt is correct that in one month working on a massive reform bill (which is unnecessary) may not be appropriate given time constraints.? However, there certainly is plenty of time to gut HB 524 and insert a true vote provision, or as discussed, in the interim, pass a true compromise by having county approval of annexations.? It doesn’t require any analysis to figure out whether this is the right thing to do.?
It just comes down to political will: Will legislators side with the best interests of city politicians or the citizens of the state?
