The N.C. House voted yesterday for a slew of changes to the state's contentious, 50-year-old annexation law, which gives cities wide latitude to take in new residents and force them to pay municipal taxes and fees.
Residents have long argued that the law is unfair and is frequently abused by cities.
In voting for a broad reform bill, a majority of House Democrats and Republicans indicated that they agree with residents that the current law has given cities too much power.
Most critically, they approved a provision that could require some cities to get the consent of voters before undertaking controversial annexations.
But the most vocal opponents of annexation did not get everything they wanted and said that the bill, while better than nothing, does not go far enough to seriously rein in forced annexations.
"It's not anywhere where it needs to be. But we did make some gains," said state Rep. Larry Brown, R-Forsyth.
The bill was given preliminary House approval by a vote of 89 to 27. A second vote is required and is expected today. After that, the bill goes to the N.C. Senate, where its fate is uncertain because Democratic leaders there have not shown much interest in broad annexation reform.
Despite its unclear future, House members on both sides of the aisle described yesterday's vote as a momentous step. It is the first time that state legislators have attempted major changes to the annexation law, and it is the culmination of more than two years of numerous legislative committees and public hearings that were set up to study the issue.
Residents opposed to annexation have organized a large, grassroots movement that has pressured the General Assembly to act.
The city of Winston-Salem -- like such cities as Fayetteville, Asheville and most recently Lexington -- has aggressively expanded its borders in recent years and, in the process, has angered many of the newly annexed residents.
The most important provision in the bill would give annexation opponents the chance to trigger a referendum before a future annexation could take place. The opponents would have to gather signatures of 15 percent of the total of voters in the city and the area targeted for annexation.
If they did that, the city would have to hold a referendum among all city residents and residents of the annexation area. A majority of the voters would have to approve the annexation before the city could go through with it.
Annexation opponents say that the referendum provision would not have much practical effect, because residents of the area targeted for annexation would be vastly outnumbered by city residents. They say that the referendum should be held only among residents slated to be annexed.
On the other hand, the N.C. League of Municipalities, a powerful lobbying group in the General Assembly, said that the referendum provision would have a big impact and would severely limit cities' ability to use annexation as a tool to grow and stay economically healthy.
Rep. Kelly Alexander, D-Mecklenburg, said that opening up the possibility of referendums prior to annexation is bad public policy.
Alexander called the bill a "moonwalk bill," likening it to Michael Jackson's famous dance move because, Alexander said, the bill appears to be making forward progress while actually moving backward.
In addition to the referendum provision, the bill contains a number of other changes aimed at protecting residents.
For instance, it would require cities to extend water and sewer lines throughout annexed areas within three years of the annexation.
It would raise the minimum density standards for areas that can be subject to forced annexations.
It would establish more financial oversight of cities' annexation plans.
It would outlaw "shoestring" annexations and it would encourage cities to annex more low-income areas if the residents of those areas want to be annexed.
■ James Romoser can be reached at 919-210-6794 or at jromoser@wsjournal.com.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement