Wednesday, July 08, 2009
House Bill 524 is on the House Calendar for tomorrow (today, Wednesday, July 8) to be moved forward to passage!!
Listen tomorrow at 3 pm online: http://www.ncleg.net/Audio/Audio.html
Please call your legislator tonight and tomorrow and tell them you oppose this bill and want them to vote against it.
Find contact info for your legislator:
House Bill 524 is the HOUSE VERSION OF THE RAND/League BILL S472!!
Remember; those are the League approved bills.
524 complements S472.
Pay no attention to the wailing coming from the League of Municipalities about the vote amendment.
The NCLM is play acting the part they are expected to play.
This Bill is a disaster for real reform and the vote amendment added to it is a cruel joke on us.
The standards for a valid petition to get a vote are close to impossible to meet and, if met, to win against a tax funded municipal campaign by and for the city to win.
What 524 changes in the services requirements will mean higher costs for the victims of forced annexation, not the relief from the financial burdens of forced annexation that we all have asked for.
We need to help the Senate have the freedom to come up with a better bill, and a victory for Rand’s bill would smother that.
Rand is trying to dominate the conversation in the Senate by getting H524 passed out of the House!
He’ll do anything to make that happen, and if the grassroots does not oppose H524, he is succeeding.
That will hobble any chance we have to get a better bill out of the Senate.
And get ready for any vote provision in H524 to disappear once 524 gets to the Senate; _but H524 will NOT disappear.
That is why H524 needs to DIE!
This battle is far from over! The Senate has just begun to work on an annexation reform bill.
Don’t let Tony Rand and the League mess this up!!
If we do not oppose H524, then we will be waiting for many years to come to see real annexation reform. The League approved bills are good for the cities with nothing good for us.
Don’t let those working against us succeed in dividing the grassroots.
Please read the following letter from Ron Thoreson, one of the founders of StopNCAnnexation:
To all who are Grass Roots Annexation Reform believers and workers:
I, Ron Thoreson, am one of the founders of the grassroots effort to change the North Carolina Annexation Laws.
From the beginning, it has always been the true grass roots citizen’s goal to get real annexation reform using a bipartisan approach for reform from our North Carolina Legislative Representatives.
In observing much information from all the recent committee meetings and developments, with different bills and amendments being tossed about, it is critical for all in the current grass roots movement to watch closely for one thing, and that is partisan posturing, deal making and finger pointing.
No one party will make true reform of the North Carolina annexation laws. I am sad to see that some political partisan leaders are now claiming that changes in partisan representation are the only answer to true reform. It is not.
Tell those who are making such claims that they need to work across the aisle, for us, to show others that true reform is defined as being real reform, not some useless legislation that may claim to offer a vote, but stacks all the requirements of getting such vote against the will of the people seeking to have a voice and a vote in the process
Tell your legislators that the only reform is to effectively represent the people they are tasked to serve and give them a real voice and a balanced playing field when it comes to a municipalities desire to annex.
Beware of the partisan and power games that are being played over this subject in the NC Legislature right now. There are power groups on both sides of the aisle that are jockeying to create meaningless legislation that offers no real reform. If left to this outcome, the result will be that annexation laws will not have a chance to be changed again for a minimum of five years.
Ellis Hankins of the North Carolina League of Municipalities argued against annexation reform legislation for years after the bogus 1998 “annexation reform study”, saying that 'such was done and did not need to be done again'. Hankins got his way until this year, 2009…..11 years.
Grassroots workers; don’t be duped into living with a bill that is meaningless! And don’t be duped into an excuse that one partisan group is to blame over the other.
Keep up the fight! Demand nothing less than true reform!
More on the eminent domain amendment (blog post by Becki Gray of the John Locke Foundation)
Under the Dome: Domain bill condemned to committee
This week, the North Carolina House is expected to consider a constitutional amendment (H B 1268) to address eminent domain abuse. While the House should be commended for taking up this crucial issue, the proposed amendment is a cure worse than the disease. Through some minor changes though, this amendment could offer real protection.
The Latest Amendment
“Private property shall not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use. Public use does not include the taking of property in order to convey an interest in the property for economic development. This paragraph does not apply to the taking of physically blighted properties as defined by general law, nor to takings for access to property. Just compensation shall be paid and, if demanded, shall be determined by a jury."
The Problems with the Amendment
I. Blight Abuse
This amendment would expressly allow economic development takings so long as the property is “physically blighted.” The problem is that “physically blighted” can mean almost anything (e.g. an unattractive house, an old building, a home that is outdated, etc).
By not properly defining blight, the amendment would give the green light for abusing blight (urban renewal) laws to seize private property for economic development. It would actually undermine statutory protections the legislature put in place a few years ago to address the abuse of blight laws. Here’s what others have said about the abuse of blight laws to seize private property:
Indeed, the displacement of African-Americans and urban renewal projects are so intertwined that “urban renewal” was often referred to as “Black Removal.”
- Senate Testimony of Hilary O. Shelton, NAACP Washington Bureau Director (2005).
“Under that act [Federal Housing Act of 1949], which was in force between 1949 and 1973, cities were authorized to use the power of eminent domain to clear ‘blighted neighborhoods’ for ‘higher uses.’ In 24 years, 2,532 projects were carried out in 992 cities that displaced one million people, two-thirds of them African American.
— Institute for Justice study
Eminent domain abuse cannot be effectively addressed without limiting blight condemnations, which have caused more harm than any other kind of taking…
Moreover, a ban on economic-development takings is unlikely to be effective without parallel restrictions on blight condemnations. Effective reform efforts must address the two major flaws of current blight takings: over-expansive definitions of blight and abusive takings in truly blighted areas.
- Ilya Somin, George Mason University law professor and national expert on eminent domain
Simple Solution: By properly defining blight, these problems can be addressed. For example, the amendment could state: “does not apply to the taking of blighted properties that are abandoned or pose a risk to the health and safety20of the public.”
II. Allows Government to Make End-Runs Around the Prohibition on Economic Development Takings
When the government seizes private property for economic development, it rarely comes out and admits it. So long as the government identifies a secondary reason for taking private property, which is easy to do, courts will defer to this reason. The amendment provides little to no protection against these end-runs.
Like Michigan has done with its new constitutional amendment, there should be a burden of proof requirement.
Simple Solution: Require that the government have the burden of proof to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the taking is for a public use, and that the taking would not have occurred but for the public use.
III. Other Problems
A) Technical Mistake: The current amendment would have the unintended consequence of not requiring just compensation for “physically blighted” properties or takings for “access to property.” This problem can be fixed by simply making the last sentence of the amendment its own paragraph.
B) Access to Property: Under the proposed amendment, an economic development taking would be allowed when it is for “access to property.” This could mean seizing a house so that a driveway could be built for a shopping mall. This language is far too broad.
C) Just Compensation: The amendment should specifically define just compensation to include relocation costs, loss of business goodwill, attorney’s fees and other costs necessary to make eminent domain victims “whole.”
North Carolina needs an eminent domain amendment — the legislature understands that as evidenced by the bipartisan support for the proposed amendment. At best, there will be one bite at the eminent domain reform apple—this amendment would waste this critical opportunity. Fortunately, by making only slight changes, the amendment could provide real eminent domain reform.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."
- John Adams
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
- Samuel Adams
"Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark."
- Walter Lippmann
The announcement is an abrupt end to an unlikely five-month marriage between McFarlane, a first-term City Council member who represents North Raleigh, and the committee, which was created last year to oppose the request of Alcoa Power Generating to renew its license to operate hydroelectric dams on the Yadkin River 100 miles west of Raleigh. more...
- Carolina Journal: Mystery Group Behind Dam Takeover Bid
- Senate Votes to Take Alcoa's Dams
- Kieran Shanahan speaks out on state's efforts to seize Alcoa's private property
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
June 21, 2009
NC House Discussing Annexation Reform
The House Judiciary II Committee is working on rolling all the annexation reform bills, GOOD AND BAD, into one bill.
They met Tuesday and Thursday last week and it’s a wrestling match between the city lobbyists and the people.
The people are pulling it their way, but are up against entrenched players at the GA.
It is strength in numbers that is making the difference for the people.
Please come and join others who are driving for hours to be in Raleigh for these meetings and help to tip this over the (NCLM) hump and make this a historic year for real reform!
- Tuesday June 23rd,
- immediately after session
- Room 544 (this was changed from Cathy's initial e-mail; this is a larger room)
- Legislative Office Building in Raleigh.
- Estimated time for the meeting is 5pm.
- Session starts at 3pm so come before 5 and watch the end of session.
IF YOU CAN'T ATTEND:
There will be an audio broadcast of the meeting that you can listen to online:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Audio/Audio.html << Use this link and select Room 544
Lots of red attire in the gallery will be a good thing!
The Proposed Committee Substitute Bill (PCS) discussed on Thursday was horribly slanted in favor of the cities and the people voiced their dissatisfaction with it. Rep. Glazier opened the bill to further amendment and these will be considered on Tuesday. Twenty-two amendments are on the table, one of them is excellent: Amendment #62! THE WHOLE PACKAGE OF REFORM Rep. Tim Moore introduced the full text of H645 to replace the current language of the “PCS” as an amendment. Please contact members and tell them to approve Amendment #62. Other good single issue amendments: - #53 – Adds a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE - #56 & 60 – adds ‘need for meaningful services’ to qualify city annexation attempts. - #57 & 58 – adds the County Commissioners to approve city annexation attempts. Equally important are calls and emails all day Monday to JII Committee members.
Thank them for listening to the people and ask them to approve #62.
Monday, June 01, 2009
A driving force behind the state’s effort to take over a central North Carolina hydroelectric project owned by Alcoa Power Generating Inc. is a mysterious group called the North Carolina Water Rights Committee.
The panel is headed by Raleigh City Council member Nancy McFarlane. She has refused several Carolina Journal requests to be interviewed about her organization.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
The short version (from Growth Matters):
On the one side you have the environmentalists who claim the rules aren’t strict enough.
On the other hand, you have local governments, businesses and folks in the real estate and building industry (in a unusual coalition) saying the rules will cost billions to implement—and may not even clean up the water.
The issue is simple: clean up Jordan Lake. The solution is more complicated. State regulators want local governments and private businesses to “retrofit” existing buildings and development. Guess what, there’s no money from the state to meet this mandate.
From GrowthMatters: "So our question to our readers is this: Is it fair for the state to make local governments and businesses go back and retrofit properties with storm water devices—costing billions of dollars? If not, what is a fair solution?"
Prior posts on this issue:
Kieran Shanahan speaks out on state's efforts to seize Alcoa's private property
Federal government grants state of NC power to intervene in Alcoa licensing, possibly seize company's private property
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
“The North Carolina Property Rights Coalition is greatly concerned about the attempt by state government to take over Alcoa’s property in North Carolina. Alcoa is a private business that paid for and developed the land it owns. If the state is allowed to seize Alcoa's property, how vulnerable are private citizens and small business owners to the same type of government takeover? Private property rights are one of the cornerstones of our free society, yet every day we hear more stories of federal, state and local governments infringing on private property rights. Private property owners all over North Carolina should take notice of this issue and speak out in defense of their private property rights.”
Previous Blog post about this issue: Federal government grants state of NC power to intervene in Alcoa licensing, possibly seize company's private property
Click here for more.
Click here to read their summary.