Today, Carolina Journal Radio’s Donna Martinez discusses North Carolina’s annexation laws with John Locke Foundation legal and regulatory policy analyst Daren Bakst. (Go here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)

Martinez: This subject of annexation, I find, is a discussion point all around the state. It doesn’t seem to be isolated to one particular area. Give us a sense of North Carolina’s laws. Are we typical or atypical of how most states handle this?

Bakst: We’re atypical. You know, the [North Carolina] League of Municipalities likes to say we’re a progressive state because we do annexation differently than every other state. Well, actually, we’re regressive because we do it differently. When you have a process whereby people don’t have any meaningful representation or have any say in the process, I would consider that to be regressive.

Martinez: And, in fact, Daren, the way that annexation works in this state is that the city or town, as I understand it, does what the law says they have to do. They have to put in writing what they’re going to do. They hold a public hearing. But then the citizens that are going to be affected, what voice do they have?

Bakst: They have no voice. And the law really doesn’t require much of the cities. It’s basically a unilateral action by the municipalities to annex people in unincorporated areas. And those people in these unincorporated areas — basically areas that aren’t a city or town, basically [the] county — don’t have any say whatsoever as to whether or not they are going to be part of the city. So it’s basically a land grab, bringing them into the city.

Martinez: In fact, you have written that you believe our current law is inherently flawed.

Bakst: Yes, it’s inherently flawed. The city, they’re going to do the rational thing and bring in communities that benefit the city. That’s what they should do. They’re not going to bring in areas that hurt the city, so what they’re going to do is annex areas that will increase their tax base — help them financially. And what they’ll also do is exclude the areas that are going to hurt them, but really need the municipal services. The law, the annexation law, is designed to ensure that areas that need municipal services get them. And, unfortunately, they don’t get the services because cities don’t have any reason to provide them [with] the services.

Martinez: Daren, this subject is getting a lot of discussion, as I mentioned, not just with activist groups around the state, but also now in the state legislature. Citizens have started to band together, and the John Locke Foundation is one of about a dozen organizations that has signed on to what’s called a Statement of Principles about annexation. Let’s talk a little about those. You have already mentioned the issue about services and that, in some cases, they are going to areas that don’t need them, and they’re not going to areas that do. You also say that annexation is duplicating services — that’s in the Statement of Principles. Tell us about that.

Bakst: Well, it’s kind of tied to the fact that the cities simply will provide services to areas that don’t need the services. A lot of communities that are being annexed actually have very good water and sewer and garbage collection — all the services that the city would need to provide through the annexation laws.

Martinez: And is that what’s happening in the Pinehurst area?

Bakst: Yes, that’s exactly what’s happening. And their services are great, maybe better than what any city can provide. So it makes no sense. What is the city offering them? Nothing. And in return, the people in that area have to pay — will have to pay — a lot more taxes. They may have to pay development fees — in other words, the cost to bring in some of these services. They don’t want to be annexed, and they’re going to have to pay for the services that they don’t want.

Martinez: Let’s talk about more of the items in the Statement of Principles — these are really more recommendations that the organizations have signed on to. First of all, you are talking about the issue of having a voice. What should North Carolina be doing?

Bakst: Well, I think one of the key points of the statement was not necessarily to provide the clear answer as to what the direct and meaningful representative process should be, but that there should be some type of process.

Martinez: Which there is not right now.

Bakst: Which there is not. You know, if you are living in an unincorporated area, you have no relationship to the people — the city officials — that are making decisions about your life, about where you’re going to live. And there should be some type of recourse. Maybe it should be a vote for those people in the unincorporated areas. Maybe it should be that the county commissioners are involved. There are all kinds of different alternatives that have been implemented by other states across the country, and there needs to be something.

Martinez: The statement, Daren, also says that annexation should be applied equally. What do you mean by that?

Bakst: Well, I think as they [legislators] reform the laws — and hopefully will reform the laws — we don’t want very narrow exceptions in the laws just to protect certain types of communities, like a gated community. We think that any community that is being annexed improperly — this forced annexation process — should have protections in place, and they should have a say in the process. It shouldn’t just be, “Let’s make sure that communities that are wealthy aren’t annexed.”

Martinez: Daren, the statement also gets into the issue of private [companies] versus government providing services.

Bakst: Well, a lot has changed since 1959 when they developed this annexation law. The private companies can provide very good services. You don’t need a city to provide garbage collection service. There are private companies that can do that.

Martinez: And, in fact, I live in the county area in Orange County, and I pay a private service to pick up my trash every month.

Bakst: Right. and one of the other key points about the statement is really to represent the fact that there is a wide range of organizations across the ideological spectrum that believe the annexation laws are broken, and that also believe that the annexation laws need significant reform.

Martinez: What happens after an involuntary annexation? You have some folks who say, “Hey, where are our services? We’re now being billed for taxes, but what’s happening?”

Bakst: Nothing’s happening. The problem is — in Fayetteville for example — thousands and thousands of people were annexed, and they’re still…

Martinez: I think it was about 40,000, a couple years ago.

Bakst: Yes. So they’re still waiting for their water and sewer services that they thought they were going to get. And apparently it may take anywhere from 10 to 15 years for them to ever get the water and sewer services that the city really had promised to give them, and they’re supposed to give them. There’s really no oversight on the cities, and the courts give all kinds of deference to the cities as well. The law is kind of a joke when it comes to putting any types of requirements on the cities.

Martinez: Finally, Daren, what’s the next step for the legislative committee? When will we hear more?

Bakst: Well, they’re going to continue to meet, probably until May. And we’ll go across the state, hopefully, with meetings and getting feedback from the public.