• Research Report

    Does Stanly need a sales tax increase?

    posted April 8, 2008 by Dr. Terry Stoops, Joseph Coletti, Dr. Michael Sanera
    The Stanly County commissioners are asking voters to approve a sales-tax increase on May 6. This report identifies $23 million in revenue and savings the county could use to meet its needs — over 16.7 times the amount that the proposed tax increase would produce.
  • Research Report

    Henderson County doesn’t need a land-transfer tax increase

    posted October 4, 2007 by Dr. Terry Stoops, Joseph Coletti, Dr. Michael Sanera
    The Henderson County commissioners are asking voters to approve a 200 percent increase in the real estate transfer tax on November 6. But the county has about $19.6 million over and above its base budget to meet its needs.
  • Research Report

    Davie County doesn’t need to increase taxes

    posted October 3, 2007 by Dr. Terry Stoops, Joseph Coletti, Dr. Michael Sanera
    The Davie County commissioners are asking voters to approve a quarter-cent sales tax increase and a 200 percent increase in the real estate transfer tax on November 6. But the county has about $12.1 million over and above its base budget to meet its needs.
  • Research Report

    Cumberland County doesn’t need a sales tax increase

    posted October 1, 2007 by Dr. Terry Stoops, Joseph Coletti, Dr. Michael Sanera
    The Cumberland County commissioners are asking voters to approve a quarter-cent sales tax increase on November 6. But the county has about $93.3 million over and above its base budget to meet its needs.
  • Research Report

    Flawed and Undemocratic: Forced Annexation Is Good for Municipal Leaders, But Bad for the Public

    posted June 12, 2007 by Daren Bakst
    Municipalities legally can acquire unincorporated areas next to their borders without the consent of the residents living in those areas. This process, called forced annexation, was supposed to promote sound urban development in areas that need municipal services. Instead, it has created a system in which cities ignore the areas most in need of annexation. Even worse, forced annexation is undemocratic and has contributed to the exclusion of minorities from municipalities. Forced annexation needs to be eliminated immediately, and significant annexation reform needs to be adopted.
  • Research Report

    Eminent Domain in N.C.: The Case for Real Reform

    posted May 2, 2007 by Daren Bakst
    Eminent domain refers to the government’s power to seize private property without the consent of owners. In 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in the now infamous case of Kelo v. City of New London, held that the government could seize private property solely for economic development reasons. This policy report explains why North Carolina Needs a Constitutional Amendment to prevent such takings.
  • Research Report

    Your Home Is Their Castle: Ten Simple Ways Government Can Abuse Eminent Domain

    posted May 23, 2006 by Daren Bakst
    Current law does not protect North Carolinians from eminent domain abuse. The state and local governments can seize private property for economic development reasons. However, the potential for eminent domain abuse is far more extensive than these “economic development takings.” From the state’s dangerous urban redevelopment law to the government finding clever ways to seize property for private businesses, North Carolina needs comprehensive protection from eminent domain abuse.
  • Research Report

    A Threat to Private Property: N.C.’s Broad and Subjective Urban Redevelopment Law

    posted February 5, 2006 by Daren Bakst
    North Carolina’s Urban Redevelopment Law is a major threat to private property rights. It is so broad that it would permit the government to seize private property that is not blighted and even to take property for economic-development purposes. Any urban redevelopment law should only permit the government to seize private property if it meets a narrow and common sense definition of blight.
  • Research Report

    A Model Amendment: Protecting North Carolinians’ property rights

    posted January 5, 2006 by Daren Bakst
    North Carolina needs a constitutional amendment to protect property rights that will contain very specific language. This approach will ensure that courts are unable to undermine the rights that the amendment is designed to protect. The amendment should define key terms such as “public use” and expressly prohibit all takings for private use, including those for economic development purposes.

Research Reports by Author

Research Reports by Research Type