NC GOP attacks municipalities
Big government Republicans put the squeeze on cities over annexation:
Both bills are aimed directly at five cities, one of which is Wilmington, that challenged last year's bill that made it virtually impossible for cities to take in territory that has developed around the outskirts. They also impose long waiting periods – one of the bills would make it 12 years – before a city can attempt another involuntary annexation of the same area.
These unincorporated developments sort of remind me of a tick on a dog's back: The tick couldn't survive without the dog, but the dog gets nothing in return except a sore neck.
If cities are not permitted to annex, they must be allowed to recoup the cost of providing services and amenities to people who don't live inside the city limits. That could mean fees, an income tax or some other method.
The Honorables also must insist on a fairer distribution of sales tax receipts. In New Hanover County, roughly 80 percent of sales tax revenues are collected within the Wilmington city limits, but because the county controls the distribution formula, the city's share of the proceeds is about 20 percent.
So basically, the people in the City are paying to take care of the people outside the City. Only in GOP-ville would that seem equitable.
BlueNC is dedicated to making North Carolina a more progressive and prosperous state. If your intention is to disrupt this effort, please find somewhere else to express your opinions.
Like?
Comments
The wrong cure for the problem
"If cities are not permitted to annex, they must be allowed to recoup the cost of providing services and amenities to people who don't live inside the city limits. That could mean fees, an income tax or some other method."
This is true, but involuntary annexation is a bad thing. What part of "involuntary" sounds like its OK? If an unincorporated area doesn't want to join, they shouldn't be forcefully annexed. The city should simply charge them for the cost of the services.
I don't understand your logic for supporting allowing involuntary annexation to be easy. If unincorporated areas are more expensive to service, you make it easier for the cities to charge them what it costs to serve them. You don't expand the powers of annexation. Especially since the larger a city becomes the less representation people have and the less recourse they have to address grievances. So, I can totally understand why many unincorporated areas don't want to be annexed.
Two things
First, developers cluster around cities due to one (major) reason: Property values. Those high values are derived from a lot of different factors, but most of them are associated with the city itself. True, businesses inside the city benefit from the commerce, but where do (most of) the sales taxes go? That's right, the state. A lot of that money is supposed to come back (for schools and such), unless the GA decides to keep the money (like now) or demand it be returned to state coffers (like now).
Second, as far as being "represented" locally, who do those unincorporated areas have now? The County Commission. If you think their grievances will even be heard (much less acted upon), you haven't been to too many County Commissioner's meetings.
Unfortunately for me, I have been to many County Comm Meetings!
I am not arguing the fiscal or economic points you bring up. Sure, the areas outside of cities benefit from the city. Sure, property values go up because of proximity to the city. The solution, though, is not forced annexation, but to give the area a grace period where they have to decide whether to become part of the city or incorporate and provide their own services. The idea of a city being able to claim an area against the wishes of the residents is just wrong. I don't support those residents getting services cheaper than they cost to provide, but making it easier for cities to gobble up any areas they like is not the answer!
Utilities are Key
Cities and towns should stop offering water and sewer hookups without voluntary annexation taking place.
And if the service is already offered, a hefty price increase for non-municipal residents is called for.
Happening already
I don't have any examples from here in NC but in SC this has already happened and the second generation owners are whining because they didn't read their deeds.
read more: Herald Online
Great, Unless You Are Asheville
"Cities and towns should stop offering water and sewer hookups without voluntary annexation taking place.
And if the service is already offered, a hefty price increase for non-municipal residents is called for."
A great idea, unless you are Asheville since the GA has passed laws preventing Asheville and ONLY Asheville from doing either of these.
In studying public administration
In studying public administration I remember reading about and hearing lectures about the pros and cons of annexation, but ultimately it was an important part of healthy growth for towns and cities experiencing population increases. I don't know enough about this bill to make strong comments one way or another. But I do know that when the city limits in theory on a map don't line up well with the limits of the city in practice, it leads to poor governance.