Emergency Alert from StopNCAnnexation

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

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

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.

Eminent Domain and Dirt

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

Daren Bakst outlines annexation abuse in Wilmington

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

Click here for more.

Raleigh rental property owners face registration deadline

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

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...

Forced Annexation in Wilmington

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

From WRAL.com: Berkshire Downs residents fighting annexation

NCPRC expects eminent domain amendment to be introduced

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

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

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

Bill to protect landowners in railroad relocation dies

Goldsboro will wait on state for ruling on annexing

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

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

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

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

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

From StopNCAnnexation: Annexation Law Tweaks vs the Truth

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...

Articles & Info on Forced Annexation in NC

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