From the Asheville Citizen-Times:
RALEIGH — Some 200 people from Asheville to Wilmington who filled an auditorium Wednesday at the General Assembly sent lawmakers a message that while they may have put off a decision on annexation, the issue isn’t going away.
Lawmakers might even have to vote on it.
After the public hearing, Rep. Charles Thomas said he would make another attempt to stop cities from unilaterally annexing surrounding neighborhoods. more...
Friday, June 15, 2007
N&O: Homeowners hiss annexation law
From The News & Observer:
Homeowners from around the state booed at mayors and hissed at suit-wearing honchos Wednesday as they met in Raleigh to talk annexation.
The two sides clashed during a hearing before state lawmakers on a proposal to study North Carolina's controversial annexation law. The law has sparked remarkable vitriol in homeowners' hearts for decades because it allows municipalities to annex their land without the homeowners' permission. more...
Homeowners from around the state booed at mayors and hissed at suit-wearing honchos Wednesday as they met in Raleigh to talk annexation.
The two sides clashed during a hearing before state lawmakers on a proposal to study North Carolina's controversial annexation law. The law has sparked remarkable vitriol in homeowners' hearts for decades because it allows municipalities to annex their land without the homeowners' permission. more...
Public Seeks Fairer Annexation Rules
From the Winston-Salem Journal:
Residents from across North Carolina asked state legislators last night to modify the state law that allows cities to engage in involuntary annexation.
North Carolina is one of a handful of states that allow involuntary annexation - a practice by which a city acquires new property and new tax-paying residents even if the affected residents do not wish to join the city. more...
Residents from across North Carolina asked state legislators last night to modify the state law that allows cities to engage in involuntary annexation.
North Carolina is one of a handful of states that allow involuntary annexation - a practice by which a city acquires new property and new tax-paying residents even if the affected residents do not wish to join the city. more...
Pinehurst Forcibly Annexes Community
[WRAL] - The Village Council voted unanimously Friday to annex the Pinewild community.
Pinewild, a gated golf course community developed in the 1980s, fought the annexation for months. Many of the residents said they believe Pinehurst just wants the tax revenue they would generate. more...
Pinewild, a gated golf course community developed in the 1980s, fought the annexation for months. Many of the residents said they believe Pinehurst just wants the tax revenue they would generate. more...
Report: Forced Annexation is Undemocratic and Harmful To Minority Communities
This article, published on the Carolina Journal Online, gives an insight to the harms of forced annexation.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Legislative Public Hearing on Annexation Set for June 13
The following meeting notice was distributed via e-mail yesterday:
The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House will hold a Public Hearing
Day & Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Time: 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Location: Legislative Auditorium
Comments: Pursuant to House Rule 29.1, the chair of the House Rules Committee announces a public hearing to consider a Proposed Committee Substitute for HB 86, Study Municipal Annexation. Persons desiring to appear and be heard shall submit their requests by Tuesday, June 12, to Representative Paul Luebke, Room 529, Legislative Office Building. Also, persons who wish to submit a brief written statement of testimony without oral presentation may, by Tuesday, June 12, submit these statements to Representative Paul Luebke.
The views of interested parties will be heard concerning a PROPOSED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL 86 – AN ACT TO DIRECT THE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION TO STUDY MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION.
Sponsors: Representatives Thomas and Goforth.
Representative Owens, Chair
I hereby certify this notice was filed by the rules clerk at the following offices at 2:15 o’clock p.m. on June 05, 2007.
X Principal Clerk
X Reading Clerk - House Chamber
Dot Crocker (Rules Clerk)
NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
2007-2008 SESSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
2007-2008 SESSION
The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House will hold a Public Hearing
Day & Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Time: 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Location: Legislative Auditorium
Comments: Pursuant to House Rule 29.1, the chair of the House Rules Committee announces a public hearing to consider a Proposed Committee Substitute for HB 86, Study Municipal Annexation. Persons desiring to appear and be heard shall submit their requests by Tuesday, June 12, to Representative Paul Luebke, Room 529, Legislative Office Building. Also, persons who wish to submit a brief written statement of testimony without oral presentation may, by Tuesday, June 12, submit these statements to Representative Paul Luebke.
The views of interested parties will be heard concerning a PROPOSED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL 86 – AN ACT TO DIRECT THE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION TO STUDY MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION.
Sponsors: Representatives Thomas and Goforth.
Representative Owens, Chair
I hereby certify this notice was filed by the rules clerk at the following offices at 2:15 o’clock p.m. on June 05, 2007.
X Principal Clerk
X Reading Clerk - House Chamber
Dot Crocker (Rules Clerk)
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
House bill would authorize an annexation study commission
According to this article from News14.com, a House bill would authorize a study commission to analyze North Carolina's current annexation laws. From the article: "Just when it looked like the more than a dozen bills dealing with involuntary annexation were dead, one still has life."
Monday, June 04, 2007
Dome: All Five Candidates for Governor Support Eminent Domain Amendment
The News & Observer's Under the Dome blog has been posting a series of entries outlining where the various candidates for governor stand on the eminent domain amendment and other key issues. According to Dome, all five probable major candidates for governor support the eminent domain amendment:
DEMOCRATS:
Richard Moore - supports eminent domain amendment
Beverly Perdue - supports eminent domain amendment
REPUBLICANS:
Bill Graham - supports eminent domain amendment
Bob Orr - supports eminent domain amendment
Fred Smith - supports eminent domain amendment
DEMOCRATS:
Richard Moore - supports eminent domain amendment
Beverly Perdue - supports eminent domain amendment
REPUBLICANS:
Bill Graham - supports eminent domain amendment
Bob Orr - supports eminent domain amendment
Fred Smith - supports eminent domain amendment
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Friday, June 01, 2007
Status of Eminent Domain Amendment
The eminent domain amendment (House Bill 878) that passed the N.C. House last week was referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee on May 29. The committee members are listed below.
Chairman: Sen. Charlie S. Dannelly.
Vice Chairman: Sen. David F. Weinstein.
Members:
Sen. Charles W. Albertson
Sen. Austin M. Allran
Sen. Bob Atwater
Sen. James Forrester
Sen. Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr.
Sen. David W. Hoyle
Sen. Neal Hunt
Sen. Clark Jenkins
Sen. John H. Kerr III
Sen. Vernon Malone
Sen. A. B Swindell
Chairman: Sen. Charlie S. Dannelly.
Vice Chairman: Sen. David F. Weinstein.
Members:
Sen. Charles W. Albertson
Sen. Austin M. Allran
Sen. Bob Atwater
Sen. James Forrester
Sen. Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr.
Sen. David W. Hoyle
Sen. Neal Hunt
Sen. Clark Jenkins
Sen. John H. Kerr III
Sen. Vernon Malone
Sen. A. B Swindell
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Annexation limit bill stalls
From the Asheville Citizen-Times:
Lawmakers wanting to limit city annexation powers acknowledged Wednesday their legislation likely would fail to clear the General Assembly this year.
But they will try to salvage the cause by submitting the issue for study.
Click for the rest of the article
Lawmakers wanting to limit city annexation powers acknowledged Wednesday their legislation likely would fail to clear the General Assembly this year.
But they will try to salvage the cause by submitting the issue for study.
Click for the rest of the article
Friday, May 25, 2007
Interesting coverage of the Eminent Domain Amendment
Eminent Domain Amendment Passes NC House, Heads to NC Senate
From N.C. House Republican Leader Paul Stam:
Raleigh – Just in time to meet “crossover” requirements, the North Carolina House has given final approval to a state constitutional amendment protecting private property. House Bill 878 would place the amendment on the ballot for voter approval during the next statewide election and would protect owners from having private property condemned by state and local governments for anything other than a “public use.”
Pressure to add limitations on the state’s power of “Eminent Domain” reached a critical point in 2005 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut. In Kelo, the Court ruled the city of New London had the right to condemn private homes to resell to another private owner who offered economic development and a larger tax base. Kelo has inspired stronger protections nationwide for private property and also for a clear reading by the courts of the Fifth Amendment to United States Constitution, among the Bill of Rights, which reads in part: No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The bill has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, sponsored by Democratic former Speaker Dan Blue (D-Wake), House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake), Rep. David Lewis (R-Harnett) and Rep. Jim Harrell, III, (D-Allegheny), and was co-sponsored by 96 members of the North Carolina House. After surviving repeated attempts to gut the bill, the proposed constitutional referendum was approved by the House on a final vote of 104 to 15, Thursday.
The text of the proposed addition to North Carolina’s Constitution reads:
“Private property shall not be taken except for a public use, including preservation for that use. Public use does not include the taking of property for the purpose of thereafter conveying an interest in the property to a third party for economic development. This paragraph does not apply to the taking of blighted properties as defined by general law, nor to takings for access by the owner to property. As used in this paragraph, blight includes only the physical condition of the property taken. Just compensation shall be paid and, if demanded by the owner, shall be determined by a jury.”
Raleigh – Just in time to meet “crossover” requirements, the North Carolina House has given final approval to a state constitutional amendment protecting private property. House Bill 878 would place the amendment on the ballot for voter approval during the next statewide election and would protect owners from having private property condemned by state and local governments for anything other than a “public use.”
Pressure to add limitations on the state’s power of “Eminent Domain” reached a critical point in 2005 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut. In Kelo, the Court ruled the city of New London had the right to condemn private homes to resell to another private owner who offered economic development and a larger tax base. Kelo has inspired stronger protections nationwide for private property and also for a clear reading by the courts of the Fifth Amendment to United States Constitution, among the Bill of Rights, which reads in part: No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The bill has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, sponsored by Democratic former Speaker Dan Blue (D-Wake), House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake), Rep. David Lewis (R-Harnett) and Rep. Jim Harrell, III, (D-Allegheny), and was co-sponsored by 96 members of the North Carolina House. After surviving repeated attempts to gut the bill, the proposed constitutional referendum was approved by the House on a final vote of 104 to 15, Thursday.
The text of the proposed addition to North Carolina’s Constitution reads:
“Private property shall not be taken except for a public use, including preservation for that use. Public use does not include the taking of property for the purpose of thereafter conveying an interest in the property to a third party for economic development. This paragraph does not apply to the taking of blighted properties as defined by general law, nor to takings for access by the owner to property. As used in this paragraph, blight includes only the physical condition of the property taken. Just compensation shall be paid and, if demanded by the owner, shall be determined by a jury.”
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Eminent Domain Amendment on House Calendar for Today!
We have good news to report: House Bill 878 (the eminent domain amendment) is on the House calendar for today!
Please contact your House member and tell them to support this important bill. According to the calendar the House is scheduled to convene at 1:45 p.m. today.
Please contact your House member and tell them to support this important bill. According to the calendar the House is scheduled to convene at 1:45 p.m. today.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Eminent Domain Amendment Finally on Committee's Calendar
This post from The Locker Room provides us with an update on the status of the eminent domain amendment. The entry, posted by Becki Gray, says the following:
"It (HB 878) was on the calendar for the House Judiciary Committee (after several days of input from many interested parties, including JLF, resulting in a newly drafted proposed committee substitute). The committee met for an hour, considered and voted on about eight other bills on the calendar. The committee adjourned before taking up the eminent domain bill. It has to pass the House before Thursday night at midnight. They will reconvene after.'" session to continue their work. Chairman Dan Blue (D-Wake) said at the end of the meeting, 'We may vote on anything between now and the cross over deadline.'"
"It (HB 878) was on the calendar for the House Judiciary Committee (after several days of input from many interested parties, including JLF, resulting in a newly drafted proposed committee substitute). The committee met for an hour, considered and voted on about eight other bills on the calendar. The committee adjourned before taking up the eminent domain bill. It has to pass the House before Thursday night at midnight. They will reconvene after.'" session to continue their work. Chairman Dan Blue (D-Wake) said at the end of the meeting, 'We may vote on anything between now and the cross over deadline.'"
Monday, May 21, 2007
Jacksonville Daily News: We Need Eminent Domain Amendment
This editorial from Saturday's Jacksonville Daily News calls for an amendment to the state constitution to prevent eminent domain abuse.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
News Release: Eminent Domain Amendment Moved to Sponsor's Committee
The following is a news release from Rep. Paul Stam, minority leader in the N.C. House:
Raleigh - On Tuesday, May 15, the Eminent Domain Constitutional Amendment was finally re-referred to the House Judiciary II Committee, chaired by former Speaker Dan Blue (D-Wake), one of the primary sponsors.
Other primary sponsors are Reps. Paul Stam (R-Wake), Jim Harrell (D-Surry) and David Lewis (R-Harnett). As co-sponsors, 92 House members also signed onto the bill in March. Re-referral of the amendment from the Rules Committee to Blue's Judiciary II Committee brought hope to supporters of the proposal.
"It will finally receive a hearing and a vote before next Tuesday's Crossover Deadline," Stam said, the date when most legislation must pass either the House or Senate to be eligible for consideration in the other chamber.
If approved by the General Assembly and the voters in a statewide election November 6.
In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut that local government could condemn private property and transfer it to someone else for economic development, and the hue and cry around the county spread like wildfire. Polls show 80 to 90 percent disapprove of the decision.
The constitutional amendment would reverse the infamous Kelo decision for North Carolina by disallowing condemnation in such case. It would require prompt payment of just compensation and a trial by jury in all condemnation actions as a matter of constitutional right.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Private property shall not be taken except for a public use. Public use does not include the taking of property for the purpose of economic development. The previous sentence does not apply to the taking of property which is blighted as defined by general law. Just compensation shall be promptly paid and, if demanded by the owner, shall be determined by a jury. Nothing in the previous sentence affects transfer of title pending final judgment on the amount of damages if the condemnor has deposited with the court for distribution to the owner its good faith estimate of just compensation, as provided by general law."
Raleigh - On Tuesday, May 15, the Eminent Domain Constitutional Amendment was finally re-referred to the House Judiciary II Committee, chaired by former Speaker Dan Blue (D-Wake), one of the primary sponsors.
Other primary sponsors are Reps. Paul Stam (R-Wake), Jim Harrell (D-Surry) and David Lewis (R-Harnett). As co-sponsors, 92 House members also signed onto the bill in March. Re-referral of the amendment from the Rules Committee to Blue's Judiciary II Committee brought hope to supporters of the proposal.
"It will finally receive a hearing and a vote before next Tuesday's Crossover Deadline," Stam said, the date when most legislation must pass either the House or Senate to be eligible for consideration in the other chamber.
If approved by the General Assembly and the voters in a statewide election November 6.
In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut that local government could condemn private property and transfer it to someone else for economic development, and the hue and cry around the county spread like wildfire. Polls show 80 to 90 percent disapprove of the decision.
The constitutional amendment would reverse the infamous Kelo decision for North Carolina by disallowing condemnation in such case. It would require prompt payment of just compensation and a trial by jury in all condemnation actions as a matter of constitutional right.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Private property shall not be taken except for a public use. Public use does not include the taking of property for the purpose of economic development. The previous sentence does not apply to the taking of property which is blighted as defined by general law. Just compensation shall be promptly paid and, if demanded by the owner, shall be determined by a jury. Nothing in the previous sentence affects transfer of title pending final judgment on the amount of damages if the condemnor has deposited with the court for distribution to the owner its good faith estimate of just compensation, as provided by general law."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
