RALEIGH — When the General Assembly reconvenes in May, adjustments to the budget will be made. Stricter ethics rules and taxpayer-funded elections are also ripe for further consideration. But no item on the short session’s agenda will be as important as a key property rights protection issue — reform of North Carolina’s repugnant forced annexation laws.
North Carolina is one of a handful of states granting municipalities free rein to annex property owners without their consent and charge taxes before residents receive services. The House passed a weak attempt at reform at the end of the 2009 session. The bill met a brick wall of resistance in the Senate from its powerful leader, Tony Rand, who resigned Jan. 1 to take charge of the state parole board.
The bill remains eligible for consideration during the short session. According to a fiscal note, proposed forced annexation reform will cost the state about $190,000 a year, as a result of the reporting that would be required from new oversight provisions in the bill.
The problem with annexation is not that cities are breaking the law — for the most part they aren’t. But the law is so broadly written that cities are encouraged to trample property owners’ rights. And when cities do overreach, the penalties are minimal at best.
The bill that is eligible for consideration, House Bill 645, is weak and does not offer enough protection. But it can be amended.
Before a proposed area is annexed, the affected property owners should be able to vote on whether they want to pay city taxes and receive city services. Then, if a majority supports annexation, county commissions should provide oversight of the entire process. Any services provided should indeed be meaningful, i.e., needed and desired by the property owners. If a city initiates the annexation, it should be financially responsible for new water and sewer infrastructure.
The political prospects of real annexation reform are uncertain. The largest hurdle in getting a bill heard vanished when Rand stepped down. Advocates for property rights protection in the Senate include Minority Leader Phil Berger and Sen. Larry Shaw, a Fayetteville Democrat. Many others oppose annexation reform.
If the annexation bill that is eligible for consideration is amended and passes in the Senate, it would then have to go back to the House for reconsideration. The first vote in the House was difficult and contentious. Political considerations, part of the long session debate, will play an even greater part in this election year debate.
Polling shows that North Carolinians don’t like forced annexation. In a March 2009 Elon University poll, 40 percent of the respondents disagreed with forced annexation, and a June 2008 Civitas poll found that 51 percent of those polled thought a one-year moratorium on forced annexation was good idea.
However, 40 percent of the Elon poll respondents said they hadn’t given the issue much thought, and 12 percent of the Civitas respondents weren’t sure about the issue.
Forced annexation may not affect everyone. Some of us already live within city limits and others aren’t attractive as potential annexation targets. But if government has the power to take anyone’s property, no one’s is safe — through forced annexation or some other scheme.
John Locke believed that all men are granted certain rights by God and that government exists to protect those rights. Our Constitution was founded on those beliefs. The General Assembly must ensure that the principles that behind the founding of our nation and our state are upheld. Paramount of those principles is the protection of the right to property.
Becki Gray is vice president for outreach at the John Locke Foundation.