RALEIGH – Action on two legal disputes has put annexation policy back in the North Carolina headlines.
In Moore County, citizens of the Pinewild community filed suit in August to block their annexation by the Village of Pinehurst. They achieved their first success last week when the trial judge declined to throw out the plaintiffs’ most substantial claims, which is what attorneys for Pinehurst had sought. That means the case will go forward. Meanwhile, in Buncombe County more than 300 residents of Biltmore Lake have just filed suit to block their annexation by the City of Asheville.
While the Pinewild residents are making some novel and potentially far-reaching arguments against their annexation – such as the claim that Pinehurst, by seizing privately owned streets without compensation, is violating the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – the Biltmore Lake litigation is a more traditional challenge to Asheville’s application of state annexation law. (There is, however, a nontraditional wrinkle to the Biltmore Lake case: under special state legislation, Asheville can’t charge out-of-town water customers more than in-town customers.)
Many close observers of annexation battles, both political and legal, seem resigned to the likelihood of governmental victory. North Carolina has one of the most liberal – by which I mean illiberal – annexation laws in the United States. Prevailing opinion in the community being swallowed counts for essentially nothing. And while in theory annexed residents are entitled to receive public services in exchange for what amounts to a large increase in taxes and government regulation, in practice North Carolina localities can take their time delivering services without fearing much in the way of adverse consequences.
Or so the conventional wisdom went until recently.
I think it’s possible that we may be on the cusp of change. A number of local politicians have found themselves in trouble, and sometimes out of office, by annexing large numbers of angry, motivated voters. One factor has been the state’s population growth. Most new North Carolinians are from states where the law strikes a better balance between the competing interests of local governments and property owners. Many are shocked to find how easy it is for municipalities to lord over them.
With regard to the legal environment, I’d urge particular attention to the Pinewild litigation. One of the lawyers advising the plaintiffs is Gene Boyce, who has some experience challenging unjust government policies. The Fifth Amendment article is an intriguing one, as is a separate claim that the annexation constitutes an infringement on the private contracts and covenants of Pinewild residents. The plaintiffs point to Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which denies states (and local governments as their creations) the power to pass any “law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
Defenders of North Carolina’s tyrannical annexation regime toss out a variety of arguments for the policy, ranging from economic development to protecting public health and safety. It’s all smoke. Annexation is about soaking up more tax money for municipalities to spend. Any legitimate problems with local-government finance can and should be addressed by more suitable policy tools, as I have previously argued.
Despite the powerful interest groups lined up in favor of the existing policy, the political struggle over annexation in North Carolina is far from over. Indeed, it’s only just begun.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.