U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2012, 08:59 AM
 
Location: The 12th State
22,974 posts, read 62,869,879 times
Reputation: 15027

Advertisements

The state legislature approved a bill that would give residents in areas proposed for annexation by a municipality a chance to vote down the attempt. That comes after a judge struck down a similar law passed last year because it only included property owners and not all residents of proposed annexed areas.

read more here

Legislature passes annexation measure



The way annexation should be done, up to the residents.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2012, 09:12 AM
 
106 posts, read 302,221 times
Reputation: 150
If there should be a vote, there should be a vote that includes the people already living in town too. That's the only fair way of deciding.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
15,847 posts, read 7,092,274 times
Reputation: 7632
This sounds like a fairer way. The idea that a muni. should annex and not supply the benefit of being in that muni. for many years and higher taxes that come along turns off many. Any attempt to annex should bring the additional services that a city has to offer as soon as possible, with say water or sewer moving ahead into that area as the vote is being taken.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 10:16 AM
 
6,701 posts, read 11,395,085 times
Reputation: 5473
IMO, this will hurt the smaller cities of NC moreso than the towns with more than enough land area already.

The House also approved a measure 66-49 that would block or reverse annexations by Rocky Mount, Asheville, Kinston, Lexington, Wilmington, Marvin, Southport, Fayetteville and Goldsboro. That bill could not be blocked by a Perdue veto because it involves local issues. The legislation blocks a repeat of the nine annexations for at least 12 years.
NC lawmakers about to make annexations harder :: WRAL.com

^^^In the case of the 9 towns mentioned above, these towns were guilty of taxation without representation. In other words, they took in new tax dollars from newly annexed citizens and gave them no city services in return. Here in Meck county, all 7 towns have a contract as to who will annex who. Eventually, no part of Meck will be unincorporated and new property owners as well as renters are made aware of the pending future incorporation of their area. It is a system that has worked rather well.

There is also the business community side of this. The Ballantyne and Southpark areas of Charlotte are two such examples. Both of these areas were farm land at one point until land owners decided to develop the area. The city agreed to help with road improvements to these areas in exchange for being able to annex the area in the future for a tax return on the city's investment (yes, the city of Charlotte often provides city services such as road and water improvements first before annexation takes place). Few (if any) property owners actually populated these areas compared to how populated these areas are today.

It seems though that we have towns within this state who are not investing in the areas they choose to tax (which is wrong).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 11:55 AM
 
106 posts, read 302,221 times
Reputation: 150
This is largely Fayetteville's fault. Most annexations in the state are either voluntary or involuntary but done by the rules. Fayetteville seems to have gone against the letter and intent of the law with their "big grab." Now, a system that has allowed for orderly growth, fiscally healthy municipalities, and fair taxation is gone because Fayetteville got greedy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Fayetteville, NC
1,490 posts, read 5,747,869 times
Reputation: 1610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recip View Post
This is largely Fayetteville's fault. Most annexations in the state are either voluntary or involuntary but done by the rules. Fayetteville seems to have gone against the letter and intent of the law with their "big grab." Now, a system that has allowed for orderly growth, fiscally healthy municipalities, and fair taxation is gone because Fayetteville got greedy.

Fayetteville is the reason but allowing the people to vote (much better than petition)is only fair. Let the municipality make it's best case.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 12:19 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
13,657 posts, read 22,311,227 times
Reputation: 13930
For me, the annexation issue isn't clear cut and I don't know how I feel about all its possible effects. On the one hand, I think it could be helpful to NC cities that already have enough land to grow by forcing them to look inward to infill development to grow tax base. I firmly believe that growing ones tax base outward in a suburban model is not financially sustainable in the long run because it grows infrastructure faster than revenues. On the other hand, this new law could prompt the wealthy to leave the city limits to avoid paying taxes to the city that contributes to their quality of life. After all, paying less taxes seems to be the most important thing to much of the upper class. This could eventually depress housing values within core cities and raise their tax rates.
The unknown here is how real and sustainable the re-emergence of city centers and closer-in living is. The new generation seems to have much more of an appetite for such living arrangements and they tend to eschew the McMansion mentality of their parents. Will that last? Will the desire to be in the city successfully counterbalance the flight of some to avoid taxes? Who knows?
In the end, I don't trust the current legislature and put this decision into the bucket of laws that protect the rich and those whose holy grail is to avoid paying taxes. If it actually results in strengthening cities, that would probably be purely coincidental.

In the end, it's good that NC didn't have this sort of annexation law in the past or we would be like many municipalities in VA and SC....tiny and financially constrained. NC's former annexation laws allowed cities to grow, prosper and gain national visibility. Maybe it's time to shift course and focus on the land our cities already have? After all, Cary already has more land than Miami; Raleigh has more than Philadelphia and Charlotte has more than Chicago. Maybe we have enough land to be successful into the future?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 12:23 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
13,657 posts, read 22,311,227 times
Reputation: 13930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recip View Post
This is largely Fayetteville's fault. Most annexations in the state are either voluntary or involuntary but done by the rules. Fayetteville seems to have gone against the letter and intent of the law with their "big grab." Now, a system that has allowed for orderly growth, fiscally healthy municipalities, and fair taxation is gone because Fayetteville got greedy.
That's very interesting. I knew that Fayetteville recently had a huge land grab but I didn't know the circumstances. Thanks for sharing +1
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 01:03 PM
 
106 posts, read 302,221 times
Reputation: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by faabala View Post
Fayetteville is the reason but allowing the people to vote (much better than petition)is only fair. Let the municipality make it's best case.
The problem with making the case is that in most situations people will choose to have their cake and eat it too. They can use the parks, roads, and many other city services without having to pay for them or at least pay less for them. Their homes are worth more because they are contiguous to city limits and closer to higher levels of the services and amenities of the city. So it is just simple human nature to want to get away without having to pay for the benefits the municipal residents are providing for them. We're selfish.

I live in a municipality and if I lived on the edge and didn't have to pay taxes, I too would probably prefer to not have to pay may way. That said, if I got annexed, I would understand it would force me to pay my fair share.

Oh, and in NC, municipalities are required to declare on a regular (I think yearly) basis the areas they may consider for annexation during that period. Also, there is a minimum population density to be eligible for annexation, thus the long standing (until now) practice in NC which leads to that which is "urban" (by statute) should be in a municipality. NC counties are not equipped or intended to provide urban-level services.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Carrboro and Concord, NC
964 posts, read 2,292,298 times
Reputation: 1255
Well, let's just cut off water, sewer and other services at the existing city limits. It's only fair.

And, lest we forget, fairness is in the eye of the beholder. It's certainly not unimpeachable logic, and using shifting targets like "fairness" (or "beauty," to offer another example) as the foundation of a legal argument is just asking for someone to overturn something on precedent.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top