First, see if you can spot any real differences between these three recent editorials:
Editorial from today’s Charlotte Observer:
Editorial from yesterday’s Wilmington Star-News
Editorial from last Friday’s Raleigh News & Observer
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say they were working off the same
script. I haven’t included other papers parroting the same
talking points.
Let me address a couple of “points” from the Charlotte editorial:
Opening Line:
“It sounds as American as apple pie: Let
residents in line to be annexed into a city vote on whether that
happens. After all, it’s their property. They should have a say in what
happens, right?”
My Response
I love how they acknowledge annexation reform is about rights, but then
use the rest of the editorial to explain why cities should be able to
ignore those rights. The problem is the Charlotte Observer
equates fundamental rights with baked goods.
Editorial:
“Few such referendums [allowing a vote for property owners] would ever pass. That would kill involuntary annexation..”
My response:
I can’t believe the League has the audacity to send out this talking point. Let’s get some facts:
Between 1950-1958 (a period of time when NC allowed votes), 60 percent
(PDF–page 9 of this biased report) of referenda were approved! A
lot has changed since the 1950’s so we can’t necessarily assume that
rate would still apply, but if municipalities offer services of value
and target the areas properly, then there is no reason why that number
couldn’t be higher.
The bigger question though is
this: Why would the League and these papers think the 60% number
wouldn’t apply now? Could it be that municipalities have a lot
less to offer people–that the primary purpose of the law (provision of
meaningful services) is difficult for cities to meet because other
private and public sources provide those services?
If they admit that, then they are admitting that the very purpose of
the law no longer exists. People don’t need municipalities to
receive “urban” services like water and sewer, police, fire, etc.
So, go ahead, argue that nobody would want to be annexed–you therefore
are admitting that cities have nothing to offer and admitting that the
law is outdated (which it is).
There’s more: According to the League, 84% of annexations are
voluntary, only 14% are forced annexations. Granted, we need to
look at the land area and population brought in as well, as opposed to
just the total number of annexations. These are difficult numbers
to come by. The League did a survey, from what they told me, and
admitted that most land area comes from voluntary annexations and about
40% of the population comes from voluntary annexations (in a Commission
meeting, a commission member stated that the League told him the number
was about 60% of the population comes from voluntary annexations).
One final point to educate the papers: There are two major types of
annexations: voluntary (property-owner initiated annexation) and
city-initiated annexation. Forced annexation is a subcategory of
city-initiated annexation. When they say forced annexation would
be killed–so what? The real question is whether city-initiated
annexations would be killed, and the answer is no. The League
likes to use “forced annexation” and “city-initiated annexation”
interchangeably to confuse people.
____
Before, I write a book on this, let me just say I will tear apart their arguments over the next few days.
Let me close with this: OK, newspapers, let’s say there isn’t going
to be a vote. I challenge you to write an editorial arguing:
– Cities should be able to forcibly annex people that don’t need meaningful services.
– Cities should be able to duplicate existing services in areas and say
that should be good enough to allow them to forcibly annex those people.
– Cities should have no oversight and a neutral third party with clear
guidelines shouldn’t make sure that the annexation is in the best
interests of the community, doesn’t hurt the county, doesn’t hurt the
city’s own residents, doesn’t hurt the environment, doesn’t hurt
surrounding communities, is based on motives other than a financial
bail-out, doesn’t improperly exclude minority communities, etc.
– The 48 other states (i.e. basically every other state) in the country
that have laws that don’t come close to the extreme nature of North
Carolina’s forced annexation law have cities that are far worse than
North Carolina (don’t cherry-pick Michigan and Pennsylvania)
– The ends justify the means, even when it comes to sacrificing voting rights and property rights.
– Counties should be able to forcibly de-annex city residents when it would help promote orderly growth.
– Annexation victims that didn’t want to be annexed in the first place
should also have to pay thousands of dollars (maybe $10,000 or more)
for the water and sewer infrastructure they didn’t want.
Can’t argue this? Then maybe you should start arguing that these
issues need to be addressed. Maybe then you could get some credibility on this issue.
