N.C. Property Rights Watch

From Under the Dome: Annexation bill sent off the floor

2009-07-08T19:19:00.000-07:00

A bill meant to change the way cities and towns annex property owners is headed back to committee. more...

Emergency Alert from StopNCAnnexation

2009-07-08T07:54:00.000-07:00

The following was distributed yesterday by Catherine Heath of StopNCAnnexation:

EMERGENCY ALERT!!

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:

http://www.ncleg.net/GIS/RandR07/Home.html

House Bill 524 is the HOUSE VERSION OF THE RAND/League BILL S472!!

Remember; those are the League approved bills.
524 complements S472.
http://www.nclm.org/Legal-legislative/LegisBulletin061909.htm

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!

Ron Thoreson,
Co-Founder, StopNCAnnexation

Status of the Eminent Domain Amendment

2009-07-08T07:46:00.000-07:00

The State House voted yesterday to send House Bill 1268, a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban eminent domain abuse, back to the Judiciary II Committee.

More on this:

More on the eminent domain amendment (blog post by Becki Gray of the John Locke Foundation)

Under the Dome: Domain bill condemned to committee

Eminent Domain: The Biggest Property Rights Issue Deserves the Right Solution

2009-07-08T07:21:00.000-07:00

The following was released earlier this week by The John Locke Foundation:

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.”

Conclusion

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.

Independence Day and Property Rights

2009-07-02T19:13:00.000-07:00

At the N.C. Property Rights Coalition, we believe that property rights are one of the cornerstones of free people in a free society. We encourage you to consider the following as you celebrate America's Independence Day:

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

Raleigh council member quits as head of group pushing for government to seize Alcoa's dams

2009-07-02T19:03:00.000-07:00

The News & Observer (7/2/09): Raleigh councilwoman Nancy McFarlane said Wednesday that she will resign from her position as president of the N.C. Water Rights Committee, saying her involvement with the group has become a distraction.

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...

Previously:
- 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

Important Update on Forced Annexation Battle at Legislature

2009-06-23T08:08:00.000-07:00

The following was distributed via e-mail by Cathy Heath of the StopNCAnnexation Coalition:

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.

Carolina Journal: Mystery Group Behind Dam Takeover Bid

2009-06-01T06:53:00.000-07:00

Article by Don Carrington

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.

more...

Jordan Lake Rules: Too strict or too watered down?

2009-05-06T18:09:00.000-07:00

From the Growth Matters blog: Jordan Lake Rules: Too strict or to0 watered down?

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?"

Eminent Domain and Dirt

2009-05-06T17:05:00.000-07:00

Article by Daren Bakst at the John Locke Foundation: Message to NC Senate: Please Treat Us Like Dirt.

Senate Votes to Take Alcoa's Dams

2009-05-06T07:12:00.000-07:00

From Red Clay Citizen: Senate Votes to Take Alcoa's Dams.

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

Kieran Shanahan speaks out on state's efforts to seize Alcoa's private property

2009-05-05T11:02:00.000-07:00

RALEIGH, NC – Kieran Shanahan, Chairman of the N.C. Property Rights Coalition, today issued the following statement regarding the State of North Carolina’s efforts to seize private property owned by Alcoa:

“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.”
HTML clipboard
Previous Blog post about this issue: Federal government grants state of NC power to intervene in Alcoa licensing, possibly seize company's private property

Daren Bakst outlines annexation abuse in Wilmington

2009-05-05T10:34:00.000-07:00

Daren Bakst of The John Locke Foundation continues his series on forced annexation and annexation abuse in Wilmington.

Click here for more.

John Locke Foundation explores property rights implications of smoking ban

2009-05-05T10:32:00.000-07:00

The John Locke Foundation explores the property rights implication of the proposed smoking ban currently being considered in the legislature.

Click here to read their summary.

Wilmington: Airport ready to cut elderly man's trees to the ground

2009-05-01T05:36:00.000-07:00

From the Wilmington Star-News: Airport ready to cut elderly man's trees to the ground

Landlords irate at Cape Fear Public Utility Authority

2009-05-01T05:34:00.001-07:00

From the Wilmington Star-News: Landlords are irate at the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, which is making landlords pay tenants' debts. more...

ATV club takes steps to satisfy Brunswick County rules

2009-05-01T05:32:00.000-07:00

From the Wilmington Star-News: ATV club takes steps to satisfy Brunswick County rules

Raleigh rental property owners face registration deadline

2009-04-30T07:27:00.001-07:00

WRAL: Thursday is the deadline for residential rental property owners in Raleigh to get registered with the city and pay a fee. more...

Article: The Wrong Eminent Domain Amendment

2009-04-22T07:48:00.000-07:00

by Daren Bakst of The John Locke Foundation

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

2009-04-22T07:26:00.000-07:00

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has granted the State of North Carolina's request to intervene in the relicensing process related to Alcoa's Yadkin Hydroelectrict Project.

Overview:

- 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

Forced Annexation in Wilmington

2009-04-22T07:11:00.000-07:00

by Daren Bakst of the John Locke Foundation

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.”

more

Raleigh: Berkshire Downs residents fighting annexation

2009-04-19T19:48:00.000-07:00

From WRAL.com: Berkshire Downs residents fighting annexation

Raleigh property owners must now register rentals

2009-02-27T07:33:00.000-08:00

From WRAL: People who own residential rental property in Raleigh have from March 1 until April 30 to register their property under a city ordinance adopted last year. more...

NCPRC expects eminent domain amendment to be introduced

2009-02-10T15:56:00.000-08:00

We expect an eminent domain amendment to be introduced at the General Assembly in the coming weeks. Such an amendment would protect your property from being unjustly seized for purposes other than a legitimate public use such as a school or road.

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.

Wilmington: Battle lines are drawn as City Council approves annexation

2009-02-10T15:41:00.000-08:00

WWAY TV3: Council chambers were packed with residents in red who oppose the forced annexation of Monkey Junction. All but one council member voted to move forward with the annexation process. more...

Cary Tea Party Protests Annexation Re-Zoning Along Swift Creek Watershed

2009-02-10T15:36:00.001-08:00

Hundreds of citizens are expected to rally before the Cary Town Hall Feb. 12th before the Town Council's public hearing. They gather for a Cary Tea Party to voice their opposition to the forced annexation of their Wake County homes. more...

Colorado: Bill to protect landowners in railroad relocation dies

2009-02-10T15:33:00.000-08:00

Bill to protect landowners in railroad relocation dies

Goldsboro will wait on state for ruling on annexing

2009-02-10T15:31:00.000-08:00

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...

Problems With Forced Annexation Exposed in New Guide

2009-02-10T15:28:00.001-08:00

Carolina Journal Online: North Carolina has an "extreme" annexation law that needs major reform. That's the assessment of a John Locke Foundation expert who outlines the law's flaws in a new Q&A guide to forced annexation.

"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...

Washington, N.C. City Council Closer to Starting Annexation

2009-02-10T15:26:00.000-08:00

Washington Daily News (2/10/09): The Washington City Council unanimously adopted a resolution Monday that identifies four nearby areas the city may want to annex. more...

Protecting Private Property Rights included in AFP's legislative agenda

2009-02-02T07:03:00.000-08:00

Americans for Prosperity of North Carolina has included protecting private property rights as one of the key issues in its 2009 legislative agenda.

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.

Blueprint for Annexation Reform

2009-02-02T06:27:00.001-08:00

The John Locke Foundation recently published a Blueprint for Annexation Reform; it can be viewed here.

From StopNCAnnexation: Annexation Law Tweaks vs the Truth

2009-02-02T06:25:00.002-08:00

The NCLM (NC League of Municipalities) had their usual say in the N&O recently:
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...

Article by Doug Bandow: Increasingly Lost Property Rights

2009-02-02T06:25:00.001-08:00

Increasingly Lost Property Rights

Articles & Info on Forced Annexation in NC

2009-02-02T06:05:00.000-08:00

The John Locke Foundation has compiled this excellent resource:
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

Proposed Intertate High Speed Rail Network could impact property owners

2009-02-02T06:00:00.001-08:00

Click here to read more.

Book written about Kelo case

2009-02-02T05:58:00.001-08:00

Book Review: 'Little Pink House' Relates Eminent Domain Injustice.

Lawmakers meeting on changing annexation rules

2009-01-22T05:42:00.000-08:00

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...

Proposed legislation in NC House committee could infringe on property rights of homeowners living near railroads

2008-12-11T05:45:00.001-08:00

The NCPRC received a tip this week that the N.C. House Select Committee on Comprehensive Rail Service Plan for NC has a piece of proposed legislation that would grant the railroads project approval for any improvements made on private property that the railroad easement also shares. According to the tipster, property owners and the railroads pay property taxes on the land. We are looking into this issue.

Newspapers cover candidates' positions on property rights

2008-10-18T10:07:00.000-07:00

The Burlington Times-News asked State Senate candidates Tony Foriest (D-incumbent) and Rick Gunn (R) questions related to annexation and stormwater rules in a recent candidate survey. The candidates' responses are linked here.

The Wilmington Star-News asked Senate candidates R.C. Soles (D-incumbent) and Bettie Fennell about annexation. Their responses are listed here.

The Lexington Dispatch raises the annexation issue in the race between State Representative Hugh Holliman (D) and Republican challenger Rayne Brown. Read the article here.

If you know of other news items which reveal where candidates in North Carolina stand on property rights-related issues, please e-mail them to us at info@ncpropertyrights.com.

2008 N.C. Property Rights Voter Guide Now Available

2008-10-14T21:20:00.000-07:00

The 2008 N.C. Property Rights Voter Guide is now available on our Web site. Click here to find out where the candidates stand on protecting private property rights.

Property Rights Voter Guide -- Coming Soon

2008-08-25T12:14:00.000-07:00

Late last week, the N.C. Property Rights Coalition mailed a 12-question candidate survey to every legislative candidate in North Carolina, as well as candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General. We will use candidates' responses to publish a voter guide to let citizens know where candidates stand when it comes to private property rights.

Please encourage every candidate you know, regardless of party affiliation, to return our survey. Private property rights are one of the cornerstones of our free society, and we should know where they stand on this important issue.

N.C. Property Rights Coalition launches new Facebook group

2008-08-25T12:12:00.001-07:00

The NCPRC recently ventured into the world of social networking by launching a new Facebook group. Click here to join.

WRAL: Condemnation off for downtown Raleigh plaza site

2008-07-15T11:29:00.000-07:00

According to WRAL.com, Raleigh officials have reached a tentative agreement with the owners of a downtown site being eyed for a proposed plaza. Last month, the Raleigh City Council voted to begin condemnation proceedings to seize the property using eminent domain. According to WRAL, that process would halt if the City Council gives final approval to the agreement with property owners.

The Threat of Eminent Domain in Raleigh

2008-07-01T11:33:00.000-07:00

From the Civitas Institute's blog (Red Clay Citizen): The Threat of Eminent Domain in Raleigh

WRAL: 9-month annexation pause gets initial House OK

2008-07-01T06:45:00.000-07:00

From WRAL.com: RALEIGH, N.C. — Towns and cities couldn't forcibly annex unincorporated land for nine months in legislation tentatively approved by the North Carolina House. more...

Knightdale family struggles to keep land

2008-05-24T08:57:00.000-07:00

From WRAL.com: Growth and a zoning change to a section of farmland near U.S. Highway 64 have added thousands to a Knightdale family's tax bill and might force the family to change their plans for future generations. more...

WRAL: Small towns concerned about high speed rail plans

2008-04-29T13:23:00.000-07:00

From WRAL.com: Franklinton, N.C. — The construction of a high speed rail between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte has some city officials in North Carolina concerned about the effect it will have on small towns. more...

N.C. Lawmakers Eye Regulating Well Users

2008-02-26T17:24:00.001-08:00

FROM WRAL.com: Lawmakers Eye Regulating Well Users

WRAL: Big Changes to Municipal Annexation Unlikely in '08

2008-02-17T19:23:00.000-08:00

From WRAL.com: Municipal governments say North Carolina's involuntary annexation law has helped towns and cities thrive and doesn't need too many new wrinkles as it nears its 50th birthday. more...

Americans for Prosperity video on the forced annexation of Pinewild

2008-02-01T16:01:00.001-08:00

NCPRC signs onto statement of principles regarding NC's annexation laws

2008-02-01T12:40:00.000-08:00

The N.C. Property Rights Coalition has signed onto the following statement of principles regarding North Carolina's annexation laws. This statement of principles was developed by the John Locke Foundation.

Statement of Principles Regarding North Carolina’s Annexation Laws

Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws are not achieving the goal of providing urban services to communities that truly need services;

Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws encourage the duplication of services to communities that do not need urban services;

Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws are inherently flawed because municipalities have a disincentive to help communities most in need and have an incentive to annex communities for financial gain;

Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should reflect the reality that sound urban services can be provided through private sources equally as well as government sources;

Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should provide property owners subject to possible annexation a direct and meaningful representative process to challenge the annexation;

Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should ensure that annexations, both involuntary and voluntary, are applied in an equal manner to all individuals and communities:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the undersigned organizations, North Carolina’s annexation laws should be significantly reformed to protect the citizens of North Carolina.

Adopted January 2008 by:
Americans for Prosperity—North Carolina
Biltmore Lake Community Action Committee
Blue Springs-Hoke County Community Development Corporation
Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities
Cumberland County Citizens United
Fair Annexation Coalition
Good Neighbors United (Wayne County)
John Locke Foundation
Johnston County Citizens for Justice
North Carolina FreedomWorks/CSE
North Carolina Property Rights Coalition
North Carolina State Grange
StopNCAnnexation
Stop the Taking of Pinewild
Voices for Justice

Quote from today's NCPRC luncheon

2008-01-29T13:34:00.001-08:00

Wake County Commissioner Paul Coble shared the following quote at today's NCPRC luncheon:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
- Justice Louis Brandeis

This quote is certainly applicable to the ongoing fight to preserve our private property rights.

Wilmington Looks South for Annexation

2008-01-22T13:16:00.000-08:00

From WHQR: WILMINGTON, NC (2008-01-15) The City of Wilmington is looking to grow southward, by annexing a wedge of land in the Monkey Junction area.

The area being considered between Carolina Beach and College roads is currently home to 1534 county residents, according to figures used in a city presentation Monday. During that informational meeting with City Council, staff argued for annexation, saying it would increase the city's tax base to pay for services, such as roads and parks, that county residents also use.

Councilman Jason Thompson, who first ran for council to oppose the annexation of his own neighborhood, had some advice for residents unhappy about joining the city.

Start the emails, start the phone calls and start getting vocal. But I believe there's a super-majority of votes to pass it. I'm going to do my piece, but I don't expect to win.

Deal reached in years-long eminent domain case

2008-01-22T13:11:00.000-08:00

From SignOnSanDiego.com: "A vacant lot that once housed a thriving downtown San Diego cigar shop – and stands as a reminder of some of the evils of government taking people's land – looks set to finally become a four-star hotel. The dispute reaches back to 2004 when the city used eminent domain to take Ahmad Mesdaq's Gran Havana Cigar & Coffee Lounge in order to assemble land for a Gaslamp hotel developer."

A few things jump out of this article:

1. This was a classic example of a small business being confronted with the specter of "taking on city hall."

2. The dispute wasn't solved overnight -- it took nearly four years.

3. The land wasn't taken from the property owner to build a bridge, school, road or for some other legitimate public use. From the article: "The city condemned the corner parcel in 2004 to make way for a Marriott Renaissance hotel."

Eminent Domain: Land grab or tool to rebuild?

2008-01-22T12:41:00.000-08:00

From the California Eminent Domain Law blog:

Taxpayer groups are battling elected officials over the government’s right to seize property in a campaign that could impact thousands of homes and businesses in California.

Each side is pushing a measure for the June ballot that would reform eminent domain, — which allows local governments to seize privately owned homes and businesses and turn them over to developers for shopping malls and office parks.

Rezoning Could Limit Thousands of Raleigh Homeowners

2007-12-07T06:45:00.000-08:00

From WRAL: Raleigh — A rezoning – mandated by the state and intended to protect a water supply – would limit the ways in which thousands of owners in north Raleigh could develop their property.Letters will be sent to about 7,300 property owners, and city planners met with a citizens' advisory group Thursday to explain the regulations. Those will make it more difficult to construct additions – even decks – to existing homes. more...

Locke Foundation: Turkey, NC takes on Property Owners

2007-11-27T13:45:00.001-08:00

From The Locker Room.

Fayetteville: Businessman must pay for city’s error

2007-11-27T04:58:00.000-08:00

From The Fayetteville Observer: Pete Porreco wanted everything to be perfect — and legal — for a tailored sign to showcase the new location of his remodeling business in western Fayetteville.

He called City Hall and said he wanted to put up the biggest sign he could on a stretch of Raeford Road. He then hired a contractor, who designed a plan that the city approved with a $40 permit.

The lighted sign, which stands 14 feet high on a pole, went up in mid-October at Porreco’s business, Home Exteriors. About two weeks later, a city inspector came knocking and served Porreco with a written notice that sickened and surprised him.

The sign was too big, the notice said. He had to remove it or face $500 daily fines. more...

Related: Myron Pitts column

Railroad stakes claim to its right of way on which ministry building sits

2007-11-26T06:33:00.000-08:00

The News & Observer: Clayton Area Ministries volunteers were ecstatic three years ago when an anonymous benefactor gave them a building for their food pantry. It seemed a castle compared with the dilapidated, cramped quarters they had been renting.

Thanks to donors, the only payment the charity group faced with their new home was a monthly phone bill. Or so they thought. Then a representative of the state-owned N.C. Railroad told them half their building was sitting in its right of way. more...

Judge Says Couple Has to Leave Farm So County Can Expand Landfill

2007-11-18T12:08:00.000-08:00

FROM WRAL.com: DOBSON, N.C. — A Superior Court judge has ordered a Mount Airy couple to leave their 95-acre farm, ending a 10-year battle in which Surry County commissioners imposed eminent domain to purchase the property to expand the county landfill.

Judge Richard W. Stone ordered Donald and Faye Terrell to leave their farm by November 28. But Donald Terrell, 69, said he will not go. It's where he was born, he said. And though Surry County paid him $653,000 for it in March, it's worth much more. more...

Eminent domain: Onslow steps up

2007-11-08T06:30:00.000-08:00

Editorial from the Jacksonville Daily News: Robin Hood, or so the legend says, took from the rich and gave to the poor. The fact that he did it by force made him no less of a folk hero because his actions benefited a grossly downtrodden class of individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court, as interpreted by a slim majority of its justices, did just the opposite in 2005 when it decided the case of Kelo v. New London. In that instance, the court chose to allow government to legally rob private property owners on behalf of private developers and businesses.

It's a terrible precedent that chips away at both the spirit and consequences of the law. more...

Biltmore Lake residents' lawsuit fights annexation by Asheville

2007-10-26T21:32:00.000-07:00

From the Asheville Citizen-Times: Biltmore Lake residents have filed a lawsuit against the city of Asheville claiming it didn’t follow state law in seeking to annex the upscale subdivision. more...

Text of Onslow County resolution supporting property rights

2007-10-18T11:50:00.000-07:00

We recently posted a link to this article from the Jacksonville Daily News: Onslow County Commissioners vote to support limits on use of eminent domain.

The full text of the resolution can be viewed here.

Missouri: Study Points to Continuing Eminent Domain Abuses

2007-10-18T11:47:00.001-07:00

According to this article, studies have shown that legislation passed last year in Missouri has failed to address eminent domain abuse. According to the article, "The study concludes eminent domain abuse has had a negative impact on local communities, adding the abuses will only worsen until the Legislature passes a constitutional amendment strengthening property rights in Missouri."

Sounds like Missouri and North Carolina have something in common: each of our legislatures failed to pass a constitutional amendment to give property owners the protection they deserve, instead settling for watered-down legislation that doesn't cut the mustard.

Editorial from San Antonio: Approve proposal on eminent domain

2007-10-17T08:07:00.000-07:00

San Antonio Express-News

As Texas continues to grow, the need for public land for infrastructure and projects will increase. With it, the use of eminent domain — the forced buying of private land for a public use — will also increase.

Proposition 7 would amend the Texas Constitution to allow a "taking entity" to offer land acquired through eminent domain back to the owner at the original sales price under certain conditions. more...

Onslow County Commissioners vote to support limits on use of eminent domain

2007-10-17T08:03:00.000-07:00

From The Jacksonville Daily News: The Onslow County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution Monday in favor of North Carolina joining an ever-increasing number of states that have enacted legislation prohibiting condemnation of private property for economic development.

In September, the board unanimously voted in support of the North Carolina General Assembly obtaining a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of eminent domain - the right of a government to take private property for public benefit - for commercial use. more...

Charleston, WV: Officials say they will consider using eminent domain to expand Civic Center

2007-10-17T08:02:00.001-07:00

From The Charleston Daily Mail: Officials say they will consider using eminent domain to expand Civic Center

Stanly County: Norwood looks at annexation during closed session

2007-10-17T07:59:00.000-07:00

From The Stanly News & Free Press: Norwood looks at annexation during closed session

Center for Local Innovation's City/County Issue guide focuses on freedom

2007-10-15T15:24:00.000-07:00

RALEIGH – Local governments can help their communities prosper by holding the line on taxes and fees, minimizing regulation, and avoiding the use of force against private property owners. Those are some key recommendations in the Center for Local Innovation’s new City and County Issue Guide 2007.

The guide arrives as some N.C. counties consider raising sales taxes or imposing a new land-transfer tax. “The common thread in these recommendations is freedom,” said CLI Director Chad Adams. “By increasing individual freedom, local governments can foster prosperity for all North Carolinians.”

The pocket-sized Issue Guide addresses more than a dozen topics common to North Carolina local governments. It covers services governments provide, the way they raise money, and the attention they pay to private property rights. John Locke Foundation researchers analyze each topic and offer recommendations.

For example, counties and municipalities do not need new ways to raise taxes, said Joseph Coletti, JLF Fiscal Policy Analyst. “North Carolina’s local governments all have two ways to tax their citizens: property taxes and sales taxes,” Coletti said. “Some have additional taxes, and they often charge separate fees for services such as water and sewer and solid waste removal. Local government already costs an average of $1,432 per person in North Carolina.”

Now many local governments want more tax options, Coletti said. ”Local governments have misused the money they now have,” he said. “In Wilmington, the city council has set aside money for a convention center while the sewer system leaks. Charlotte built a convention center and a short section of light rail instead of expanding road capacity.”

The Issue Guide warns local government against chasing the goal of “economic development” through wasteful convention centers, stadiums, and other non-essential projects. “Recently many North Carolina cities and counties have ignored the distinction between the public and private sector by funding outright or subsidizing functions that are inherently private,” said Dr. Michael Sanera, JLF Research Director and Local Government Analyst. ”City officials have poured millions of taxpayer dollars into nonessential city activities while essential services such as police, fire, and roads suffer.”

Some Issue Guide recommendations are simple. For instance, municipalities should avoid all forced annexation, said Daren Bakst, JLF Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst.

“Municipalities use forced annexation as a financial bailout,” Bakst said. “Money from unincorporated areas boosts the municipal tax base. If an individual knows that he can always steal money from his neighbor in case of financial trouble, he will take inappropriate risks and make poor decisions. He can steal his way out of mistakes. The same is true for municipalities that use forced annexation.”

The new guide serves as a companion piece to CLI’s annual By The Numbers report, which ranks cities and counties by local government spending levels. “This new guide places the numbers in context,” Adams said. “Citizens concerned about local government spending can find ideas for improvement in the Issue Guide. Local leaders can also use the guide to help them avoid taking ever-larger chunks of our paychecks each year.”

The Center for Local Innovation’s “City and County Issue Guide 2007” is available at the JLF web site. For more information, please contact Adams at (919) 828-3876 or cadams@johnlocke.org. To arrange an interview, contact Mitch Kokai at (919) 306-8736 or mkokai@johnlocke.org.

Excellent article on eminent domain and individual rights

2007-10-15T15:22:00.001-07:00

This is a good column by George Mantor

Greensboro holding annexation meeting

2007-10-15T15:20:00.000-07:00

From the City of Greensboro's Web Site:

As the City of Greensboro begins the annexation process, we know you have many questions about what annexation will mean to you. We invite you to browse this website to find answers to your questions.

The links on the left will take you to information about specific services, as well as general information about the City of Greensboro. You can also call (336) 373-CITY (2489) to speak with a City Services Representative who can answer your questions.

A public informational meeting is set for Thursday, October 25 at 7 pm in Grimsley High School Auditorium.
Parking is available off Campus Drive.
* If you need an interpreter or any other auxiliary aid or service, please contact Donna Gray at 336-373-2723.

Locke Foundation spotlight on the impact of forced annexation in NC

2007-10-12T11:24:00.001-07:00

Click here to read the spotlight.

Lexington officials hear from residents about annexation

2007-10-11T08:15:00.001-07:00

From the Winston-Salem Journal: More than 60 people came to a meeting of the Lexington City Council last night with a simple message - they don’t want to be annexed into the city. more...

US Landowners Challenge Canadian Company's Right to Eminent Domain

2007-10-11T08:05:00.000-07:00

Canadian company wants to use eminent domain to build an 1,830-mile pipeline through the US from Canada, to Oklahoma... more...

Mooneyham: Railroad is still bullying

2007-10-10T08:12:00.000-07:00

Column by Scott Mooneyham of the Capitol Press Association: Railroad is still bullying

Lexington: Annexation opponents air their grievances

2007-10-10T08:02:00.000-07:00

From The Lexington Dispatch: A standing room only crowd made up of upset homeowners voiced their anti-annexation arguments to the city council at Lexington City Hall on Monday night. more...

Elizabeth City: Most council candidates back eminent domain

2007-10-10T07:49:00.000-07:00

From The Daily Advance: A majority of candidates for City Council believe the city should use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire land for the $10.4 million aviation research and commerce park project.

“Yes, I think it is the greatest thing in our area,” said 1st Ward Councilwoman Betty Meggs, who is seeking a second term. “We have to think of what’s best for everyone.”

At issue is a privately owned 100-foot-wide parcel of farmland the city is trying to acquire for the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Regional Airport Authority’s planned aviation park, estimated to create 500 jobs and generate $150 million for the local economy. The landowner, the Hall family, has refused to sell, and City Manager Rich Olson says he would use eminent domain to acquire the property if necessary. more...

Lexington Annexation: City growth vs. property owner rights

2007-10-08T06:48:00.000-07:00

From the Lexington Daily Dispatch: A group of annexation opponents is set to bring a petition of more than 1,000 names of like-minded residents to the Lexington City Council meeting Monday, protesting the city’s consideration to annex 11 areas around the city. more...

Builders Lose N.J. Eminent Domain Fight

2007-10-08T06:46:00.001-07:00

From BuilderOnline.com: Builders were dealt a blow this week when the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear a case in which New Jersey builder MiPro Homes claimed the township of Mt. Laurel, N.J., unlawfully seized a 16-acre parcel that was under site development and had been legally zoned and approved for construction. more...

Pasquotank Board postpones letter to protest eminent domain

2007-10-08T06:43:00.000-07:00

From The Daily Advance: Pasquotank’s Board of Commissioners agreed Monday night to postpone adopting a resolution and letter that protest “any eminent domain takeover” by the city of land for its $10.4 million aviation park project. more...

Annexation still affects local races in Fayetteville

2007-10-06T19:15:00.000-07:00

NEWS14: Citizens who were annexed into the city of Fayetteville in 2005 will have the chance to vote for their representatives next week.

Both District 6 and 8 comprise residents who were brought into the city two years ago, although the majority live in District 8, which is home to incumbent Juanita Gonzalez. Gonzalez is finishing her third term on the city council and now faces opposition from two political newcomers: Ted Mohn and Charles Ragan who both became city residents after the annexation. more...

Bakst: Another government land-grab

2007-10-06T17:07:00.001-07:00

From Carolina Journal: Wake County's Open Space Bond

Op/ed in N&O: Another government land-grab

From NoLandGrab: City Planner Calls Eminent Domain Condemnees "Hostages"

2007-10-06T17:03:00.000-07:00

City Planner Calls Eminent Domain Condemnees "Hostages"

Zell Miller Quote on Property Ownership

2007-10-06T14:51:00.000-07:00

"The opportunity to own what we're willing to work for is a pillar of our democracy. It is so ingrained in our American experience that we can hardly imagine otherwise. But rest assured there are people in this world who can only dream of owning anything. At the heart of communism was the notion that the state owned everything the people produced. The government managed production, owned the yield, and dispersed it with the grand kind of wisdom that led to the erection of the Berlin Wall. The wall is now a gravel pile, and so is the thinking that constructed it."
- Former U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) in his book, "A Deficit of Decency"

Commentary: Minority areas hit hardest by eminent domain

2007-10-05T11:08:00.000-07:00

Commentary by Clarence Page, published in The Chicago Tribune:

A father and son who operate a nonprofit boxing gym for kids in suburban San Diego are fighting their town for the right to stay where they are. Ultimately, their battle to hold onto their property could help decide your right to hold onto yours. more...

Mt. Airy candidates debate annexation

2007-10-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

The Mount Airy News reports that annexation was among the issues recently debated by municipal candidates. From the Oct. 3 article:

The candidates also differed on annexation, which has been a controversial issue due to residents recently being forced into the city limits.

Cochran pointed out that only four states, including North Carolina, now allow forced annexation. She mentioned one case in which a local woman is having to rely on subsidized government housing because she can't afford the higher taxes and utility hookups resulting from annexation of her home. “I am not in favor of forced annexation,” Cochran said.

One of Cochran's opponents, Sickmiller, took a similar position. “There are a lot of things that are legal to do,” she said, but that doesn't mean they have to be done. She also wonders whether the tax money generated from annexed communities adequately offsets the related expenses. “I don't believe in forced annexation if it's only for the money.”

Said Brown: “I think there should be many independent studies done before you annex an area.” Saying numerous factors should be considered, he added, “I am not in favor of off-the-wall annexation at any time.” He thinks major annexations should be studied at least 10 years before being approved, although he said individual property owners who are willing to pay for city services should be allowed to join the municipality. “It doesn't have to be hundreds of people.”

While he said it was not fair for non-city residents to use Mount Airy services without paying extra, Livengood said he understands why some people want to live outside the municipality, possibly because of quieter neighborhoods or lower taxes.

Lowry said that annexation should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis, and only where economically feasible. “We're about annexed out,” he said.

“The greatest need we have in Mount Airy is fiscal management,” he said. “We are on the verge of a fiscal train wreck.”

Harris was the only candidate who supports an aggressive annexation approach, saying that cities have to offer a certain population to be considering by companies wanting to locate facilities to a community. Otherwise, the city will be passed over, the incumbent said.

SPIN Cycle: What’s up with the North Carolina Railroad?

2007-10-04T12:44:00.000-07:00

From today's SPIN Cycle newsletter (published by NC SPIN):

What’s up with the North Carolina Railroad?
That’s a question many are asking after the state-owned railroad came trying to collect rent on businesses that are located close to their rail lines. According to NC RR officials, 150 years of surveying errors and lack of oversight have prevented them from collecting rent on lands they legally own and within their 200-foot right of way.

They say they have signed more than 230 leases for their lands and that another 120 or so are yet to be negotiated. Affected small business owners are understandably upset when a representative of the NC RR walks in and claims they owe rent to the state rail line.

Look for court cases and legislative action regarding these collection efforts.

Blogger: How do you reconcile urban planning and private property rights?

2007-10-03T08:26:00.000-07:00

We stumbled across this blog entry earlier today: How do you reconcile urban planning and private property rights?

It is an excellent read.

Stanly County: Norwood annexation troubling community

2007-10-03T08:23:00.001-07:00

Norwood annexation troubling community

Eminent Domain Could Arise In Sugar Creek, MO

2007-10-03T08:20:00.000-07:00

From KMBC-TV9.

SUGAR CREEK, Mo. -- Sugar Creek may be the battleground for another fight involving eminent domain.Some residents near Sterling and Smart avenues said they are being forced out of their homes by City Hall in favor of developers. more...

Apex Votes to Control 9,000 Acres Next Door

2007-10-03T08:14:00.001-07:00

From WRAL.com: Apex Votes to Control 9,000 Acres Next Door

Forced annexation an issue in Tryon elections

2007-10-01T11:52:00.001-07:00

Tryon candidates divided on annexation, dispatch, other issues

Judge says couple who won eminent domain fight must repay developer

2007-10-01T11:50:00.000-07:00

Judge says couple who won eminent domain fight must repay developer

Charlotte Observer: Rail-line rent irks legislators

2007-09-30T16:41:00.000-07:00

More on the N.C. Railroad's efforts to railroad property owners.

Judge: Developer & City of Norwood, OH Must Pay In Eminent Domain Case

2007-09-27T12:54:00.001-07:00

WCPO.com: Judge Rules Norwood, Developer Must Pay In Eminent Domain Case

Charlotte Observer: Landowners feel railroaded

2007-09-25T12:45:00.000-07:00

Concord auto mechanic Frank Abernethy, struggling to run his small business, was caught off guard by the unannounced visit from the railroad agent.

It was early August when the employee from the state-owned N.C. Railroad Co. showed up at his garage and demanded he sign a lease for $1,200 a year in rent and fees. He also said Abernethy needed $1 million in insurance because his shop sits too close to the tracks.

Even though the mechanic bought the property in 2005, the railroad says it technically owns his land -- and has 19th-century deeds as proof.

"Nobody told me that when I bought the building," Abernethy said this week. "I told the guy, `What are you trying to do, put me out of business?' "

The railroad says there are hundreds of other property owners like Abernethy along its 317-mile line from Charlotte to Morehead City. One day, the company could try to reclaim the disputed parcels. But for now, the railroad just wants rent, said Scott Saylor, railroad president.

It's part of the railroad's push to take back and manage its right of way -- the 200-foot-wide buffer along the tracks. more...

John Locke Foundation Report: Eminent Domain in N.C. -- The Case for Real Reform

2007-09-23T14:35:00.000-07:00

John Locke Foundation Report: Eminent Domain in N.C. -- The Case for Real Reform

Background on Eminent Domain and Kelo

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. For example, if a house can generate more tax revenue as a strip mall, then the government can seize the house and transfer it to a strip mall developer.

What Other States Have Done

Seven states have already passed constitutional amendments to protect against eminent domain abuse, include neighboring states such as Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

In Nevada, the voters overwhelmingly approved a new amendment but it requires passage in two consecutive general elections to become law.

When a state brings up an eminent domain amendment to the voters, which does not also try to address regulatory takings, the voters overwhelmingly pass the amendment.

What North Carolina Has Done

The House Select Committee on Eminent Domain Powers developed a watered down interim report in 2006 and was supposed to meet after the short session to address just compensation and other critical issues. For no apparent reason, it never met again.

The legislature passed a bill in 2006 that deleted provisions in existing law that expressly allowed for economic development takings. However, the legislature was not willing, in legislation, to expressly prohibit all economic development takings. In addition, the bill amended the state’s urban redevelopment (blight) law.

Why North Carolina Needs a Constitutional Amendment

North Carolina’s constitution has the weakest property rights protections in the country. It is the only state in the country that does not have an express constitutional provision that limits the taking of private property for a public use with just compensation.

State legislation is the only thing coming between North Carolinians and the government’s ability to take private property for economic development or any other reason. When legislation can be changed at the whim of political interests, this is far from adequate protection.

Limit Takings to a Proper “Public Use”

A constitutional amendment should only permit property to be taken for what has traditionally been understood to be a public use. Those reasons generally are not different from what North Carolina now allows in the state’s eminent domain statute.

Proper takings include property taken for use by the government or use by the general public. It also should include takings for utilities and common carriers in their role to provide services to the general public, and to protect against blighted property.

The blight justification for taking property must be very narrow in scope. If not, a constitutional amendment could actually be worse than the eminent domain abuse it is trying to solve. It should only mean taking property to protect the public from a clear and direct harm to the public’s health and safety that is caused by that parcel of property.

All takings for any private use should be prohibited (except for public utilities and common carriers, as explained above).

Protect Against the “Blight” Excuse

It is critical to understand that most eminent domain abuse has not come from blatant economic development takings, but instead through the abuse of blight laws.

It is almost impossible to demonstrate that a taking is really for economic development reasons, as opposed to addressing some overbroad definition of blight.

There is a “reverse Robin-Hood effect” when it comes to blight laws. The government takes private property from the poor to give to the wealthy.

Provide “Just” Compensation

The House Select Committee on Eminent Domain Powers had drafted a bill that identified a way to better compensate eminent domain victims

Many of the compensation issues that need to be addressed in a constitutional amendment are consistent with the compensation issues that the Committee identified in its interim report.

Generally, just compensation has meant fair market value.

Just compensation should be “just.” It should make eminent domain victims “whole.” This means that they should be put in the same position that they would have been in had their property not been taken.

Create a Fair Process for Eminent Domain Victims

The government always should have the burden of proof in all eminent domain proceedings.

The government should have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a taking of a specific piece of property is clearly necessary for the public use espoused and that no reasonable alternatives exist.

Bottom Line

An eminent domain amendment is a bipartisan issue, as seen by the wide support for recent eminent domain amendments even in North Carolina. Only politics and the desire to protect governmental interests will explain why a properly drafted amendment is not enacted.

Download PDF file: Eminent Domain in N.C.: The Case for Real Reform (701 k)

Annexed area pays police taxes twice

2007-09-23T14:33:00.000-07:00

The Charlotte Observer

When residents of the Shannamara neighborhood got their tax bills last month, a few realized something strange: They'd been billed for police services in both Mecklenburg County and Stallings. Now, there may be nothing they can do about it. more...

City of Toledo invokes eminent domain for mall

2007-09-22T09:56:00.000-07:00

Toledo Free Press

The City of Toledo's proposed use of eminent domain for taking the Southwyck Mall properties for redevelopment will be the subject of a public hearing on Sept. 24. The issue of eminent domain became official with a resolution presented to City Council Sept. 18.

The resolution (603-07), calling for the use of eminent domain for the roadway extension at Southwyck Mall, was discussed and held for the next Council meeting on Oct. 2, due to the hearing, according to City Council Clerk Gerald Dendinger.

Eminent domain for Southwyck is the topic for the Environmental, Utilities and Public Service Committee meeting scheduled for 4 p.m. Sept. 24 in City Council chambers. The public is invited to attend and voice its opinion on the proposed use of eminent domain.

City Council member Rob Ludeman said eminent domain is a tool the City of Toledo can use to get Bill Dillard and Buddy Hering, who own parcels at Southwyck, to complete the deal with Larry Dillin, president of Dillin Corporation. more...