news-record.com

A bill rewriting state annexation laws was 10 pages long when it was introduced in the N.C. House of Representatives on March 10.

It had grown to 36 pages by the time it received final approval Thursday, four-and-a-half months later.

Now it moves to the Senate, where it will be welcomed like the plague and probably placed in the legislative equivalent of quarantine. When the General Assembly already is overdue for adjournment, senators don't want to plunge into a difficult and drawn-out debate on a bill that has the power to make everyone feel sick.

Annexation is a subject where battle lines are clearly drawn -- at municipal boundaries. State law favors growth by cities, but people who'd rather live in unincorporated areas have pushed hard for changes. They'd get plenty if the new legislation were enacted.

Some of the provisions are fair, holding cities more accountable for providing promised services to newly annexed residents within a reasonable time. If they don't, they could have to refund property taxes collected. Residents also could take longer, up to 20 years, to pay assessments for water and sewer services, and cities could not impose taxes before the effective date of annexation.

Other initiatives would be troublesome, however. The Local Government Commission would be given more oversight authority over municipal annexations, studying the "fiscal feasibility" of the action. Giving effective veto power to a state agency over a municipal function constitutes too much potential interference from Raleigh.

At the same time, the bill would give local voters a say if a total of 15 percent of the registered voters in the city and the area proposed for involuntary annexation petitioned for a referendum. A "no" vote would prohibit the city from proceeding immediately, or again for at least five years. Such a referendum would amount to an unnecessary hindrance. In representative government, voters elect City Council members to make decisions on matters like this. Their redress against unpopular actions is to elect new representatives, which they can do every two years.

Other aspects of this legislation raise questions, too. One solution may be to pare it back to 10 pages and focus on the basic obligations of a city to provide promised services. Measures that might stifle responsible municipal growth should be weeded out. State law has favored annexation because growth is good for cities, and healthy cities promote economic development that benefits the state as a whole.

In any case, the Senate needs more time to work it over than it has right now. This bill should lie in quarantine until the General Assembly meets again next year.