The dreaded joint annexation commission looks to be a go. The members
of the commission have been appointed. Hackney picked the
individuals that made up the House Select Committee on Municipal
Annexation and then by law picked a rep from the League and one from
the North Carolina Association of Counties (NCAC). There are
probably about 9 pro-reform people and 5 anti-reform people.
The Senate, as I expected, is a complete disaster. There are 14
members, 10 of which are state Senators (8 Democrats and 2
Republicans). Basnight also had to pick a rep from the League and
NCAC. There are probably about 10 anti-reform members and about 4
pro-reform members.
I admit right now that I could be wrong on
who is pro and anti-reform, but it is a decent estimate. I count
there being a majority for the anti-reformers of about 15-13 or
so. When you take into account the fact that many of the
pro-reformers aren’t exactly strong proponents of reform, the numbers
are probably worse. Also, when considering that at the hearings
almost everyone that spoke was in favor of reform, these numbers look
even more skewed.
The Senate appointees include none other than Senator Rand who
single-handledly killed the annexation moratorium bill. Does this
give you a sense of how legitimate this will be?
The Commission will have about 2 months to reform annexation–plenty of time for them to draft sham reform measures.
The legislature doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt–it hasn’t earned
it. Until they show that they are serious about reform, there’s
no reason to think that this commission will be anything but the
disaster that I predicted.
The worst part is when this commission comes up with meaningless
reforms that legislators will sell as being real reform, this will be
as much change as annexation reformers will get for years. The
legislature will be able to point to this joint commission and argue
that it studied the issue and took necessary steps.
The best thing that could have happened for the League is this
commission. These commission members are in the spotlight: Do
they favor the citizens of the state and democracy or do they favor the
interests of greedy local government officials?
I’d recommend cautious pessimism (realism).