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.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Editor's note: this article is the opinion of the author; the NC Property Rights Coalition has not yet taken a position on this particular amendment.
After the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, it's constitutional for the government to seize private property for economic development reasons. For example, your house or church could be seized so that a wealthy developer could build a shopping mall on your property.
Since 2006, eight states have passed constitutional amendments to protect against what are referred to as "economic development takings." There has been bipartisan support for a constitutional amendment in North Carolina. In 2007, the House passed an amendment by an overwhelming 104-15 vote. The state Senate, notorious for its opposition to property rights, let the amendment die.
Recently, some House members have introduced a new eminent domain amendment: House Bill 1268. The amendment would prohibit takings for economic development. It appears as if the amendment may be on the fast track. This may sound good on its face, but when it comes to this amendment, the cure is worse than the disease. The amendment would actually weaken, not strengthen, property rights. more...
Federal government grants state of NC power to intervene in Alcoa licensing, possibly seize company's private property
- According to The Salisbury Post, Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. OWNS and manages the dams, powerhouses and reservoirs related to the project.
- From The Greensboro News & Record: Federal regulators will allow Gov. Bev Perdue to have her say in the ongoing argument over whether Alcoa should be allowed to keep its electric generating plants on the Yadkin River. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled Friday that Perdue could add her voice to those asking the U.S. government to withdraw Alcoa’s right to produce and sell electricity generated by hydroelectric dams along the river.
- According to The Greensboro News & Record: The FERC has never withdrawn a license in the way that Perdue is asking for, and the company says it should be allowed to maintain its business. Meanwhile, state legislators are drafting a law to create a nonprofit entity to take over Alcoa’s Yadkin River operations.
- According to The Salisbury Post, bills have been introduced in the N.C. Senate and House calling for the creation of a state trust for the ownership and operation of the hydroelectric project.
- According to The Salisbury Post, Senate Bill 967, which would establish the state trust to own and manage the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, won the unanimous support last week of the N.C. Senate's Judiciary II Committee. The bill has moved on to the Senate Finance Committee.QUOTES:
"If you look at the state taking over a private enterprise and running it for the benefit of the state, that is precedent setting." - Gene Ellis of Alcoa, News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
"We had one experience in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez when he was the leader of that nation, they did take over one of our plants." - Gene Ellis of Alcoa, News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
FAIR MARKET VALUE: According to the News 14 article, the state would have to buy the dams if they did get control. Ellis estimates the fair market value at "over half a billion dollars." Stanly County manager Andy Lucas has already indicated that the government will try to pay less than the fair market value, saying "If the federal government decides to recapture, there's a price on that and we believe that's the price. That price is different from what Alcoa has been citing and putting out there." News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
Wilmington's Annexation Abuse
If property owners are being forcibly annexed and want water and sewer services, they must request water and sewer lines be provided to their property within 5 days after what is called a public hearing. The public hearing is basically a venting session where annexation victims can tell city commissioners (who don't listen) what they think about the annexation.
Wilmington just had their public hearing this week. As I was looking on the city's annexation web page, I saw the FAQ document the city developed for the annexation victims. This is the document many people will read (as opposed to the unintelligible annexation plan) Here's something it said:
“How long will it take to get water and sewer service?
Installation of water and sewer lines will occur in two phases. First, the major water and sewer lines that all other smaller lines feed into must be constructed. Then, the smaller hookups to individual residences and businesses will occur. The city plans to have both phases completed within two years of the effective date of the annexation; however, by state law only the first phase must be completed within two years of the effective date of annexation.”
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
On May 24, 2007 a proposed eminent domain amendment (HB 878) passed the NC House by a vote of 104-15. On May 29, 2007, the bill was referred to the N.C. Senate's Ways & Means Committee -- which had not met since 2001. The bill was clearly sent away to die.
We will keep you posted on the progress of the eminent domain amendment once it is introduced. We hope that the House & Senate leadership will give it the fair hearing it deserves.
Goldsboro News-Argus -- Goldsboro Mayor Al King and Mayor Pro-tem Chuck Allen say they will hold off on any involuntary annexation until the state legislature decides its next move on the subject.
Currently, the legislature is looking at allowing citizens to vote on whether or not they want to be annexed into city limits.
And although they believe the idea is a bad one, King and Allen say there are some adjustments that need to be made to the legislation. more...
"My analysis of the level of recourse provided to property owners targeted for forced annexation shows that 48 states -- virtually every other state in the country -- have abandoned North Carolina's outdated approach to forced annexation," said Daren Bakst, the guide's author. "The 4.1 million North Carolinians who live in unincorporated areas make up 46 percent of the state's population. These are the people who could become victims of forced annexation. They deserve better than this state's current annexation law." more...
Monday, February 02, 2009
From an e-mail recently distributed by AFP-NC:
Protect private property:
o Support a constitutional amendment stopping eminent domain abuse.
o Stop forced municipal annexation.
o Stop excessive property tax increases that threaten homes & businesses.
How N.C. should tweak its annexation laws
The city lobbyists claim that the law requires cities to provide a long list of urban services, but the truth is not so simply stated nor the bar necessarily so high. What do the laws require of the cities? It depends… it depends on what the city has to offer in the first place. Each annexation requires different responsibilities from the annexing city because the law allows such a wide variation regarding what the city must provide. The law allows cities that don’t even have their own fire and police departments to forcibly annex. more...
Forced Annexation in N.C.: A question-and-answer guide.
Winston-Salem Journal - Right to Vote? N.C.'s legislators divided on giving power to targets of forced annexation
News14 - Study commission votes to stop NC annexation
Carolina Journal - Pinehurst, Pinewild Feud Over Annexation
WWAY - Sunset Beach moving forward with annexation
Wilmington Star-News - Wilmington expands proposed Monkey Junction annexation area
WRAL - Wake County residents fight annexation
Statesville Record & Landmark - Hearing nears on Langtree annexation
Thursday, January 22, 2009
RALEIGH, N.C. — A committee is trying to respond to citizen complaints about the way North Carolina cities and towns acquire unincorporated areas.
The panel of legislators, municipal leaders and the public is slated to meet Thursday to recommend changes to the full Legislature about involuntary annexation laws.
Grass-roots groups and citizens attending the committee's public hearings are unhappy with how some towns and cities have annexed land. They want lawmakers to require municipalities to provide promised services more quickly and to give reisdents of the targeted areas more say over whether annexations happen. more...