Annexation is all about the money — more for government, less for citizenry

by Barbara Hunter
published January 16, 2007 12:15 am
Involuntary - adj. - 1. done without choice, as in involuntary twitching. 2. Permitted by law, over the objections of the affected people, as in “involuntary servitude” or “involuntary annexation.”

Okay, I added the last one, but the point applies.

North Carolina is one of only four states in which involuntary annexation is permitted without any mechanism for consent of property owners (the others are Tennessee, Idaho, and Kansas). It may be worthwhile to investigate what it is that makes our state and its three fellows enlightened but the other 46 benighted.

The history of North Carolina’s involuntary annexation dates to a 1959 law that changed annexation procedures. Prior to that, only the General Assembly could approve annexation, and then only following submission of a petition by 15 percent of the affected residents. Under the new law, municipalities were in effect given absolute power to add desirable contiguous areas.

The requirements for involuntary annexation are simple and clearly intended not only to smooth the process but also to acquire as much valuable property as possible. Although the procedure requires a hearing, its purpose is only to provide information, not entertain points of view. One year after the hearing, the municipality may enact the annexation, with no provision for challenge.

Why would a municipality want to annex communities around it? There is a common expression: When someone says “It isn’t about the money,” it’s about the money. If you read between the lines, you’ll find dollar signs all over it. When faced with budgetary problems, an urban government in a state that permits involuntary annexation has certain choices: 1) reduce expenditures, 2) raise taxes, or 3) add high-value property to its boundaries. The first one is rarely considered; if something is in the budget, it is invariably assumed to be needed or at least desirable. (The aphorism that “there ain’t no free lunch” can also apply to “free” buses - free only if the fuel drops from the sky, the buses never require maintenance, and the staff volunteers its time.) The second choice is politically risky. Because the third choice is available in this state, let’s locate some adjacent ripe fruit to pick.

My choice of words is not arbitrary, for there is ample evidence of cherry-picking when it comes to enriching a municipality’s real estate tax base. What else can it be called when upscale subdivisions are grabbed and low-income areas, which really could benefit from increased services, and which in some cases have actually requested to be included (that’s called voluntary annexation) are bypassed?
A major player in the fight to maintain the current law is the North Carolina League of Municipalities, which has chosen to bill itself as “a nonpartisan federation of North Carolina’s cities, towns and villages” and which is affiliated with the National League of Cities. If that is the definition of nonpartisan, then nothing deserves to be called partisan (unless the word is taken strictly to mean that it is not associated with one political party). Noteworthy is the fact that the state and national organizations filed a “friend of the court” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of New London, Conn., in its notorious eminent domain case that deprived Suzette Kelo and others of their homes.

There is a fundamental difference between voluntary and involuntary annexation. If an area requests to be annexed (voluntary), there is no obligation to consider it. If it suits the municipality’s governing board to ignore the request, that’s that. On the other hand, if the municipality wants to annex (involuntary), there is essentially no recourse. On occasion, lawsuits have been attempted, but they have not succeeded beyond delaying the inevitable. Even worse, those living in the areas being annexed cannot vote in the municipal elections until one year after they are absorbed, which introduces the issue of “taxation without representation.”

What can annexation do to people’s tax bills? I checked the results of several involuntary annexations and found increases from 60 percent to more than 100 percent. That’s right, property taxes can more than double. If the people whose property is being annexed challenge the municipality’s actions with lawsuits (which they almost universally lose), the tax bills are charged effective the date they were originally scheduled, not the date the suit was decided. One locale is currently faced with a bill for 21 months of taxes, due and payable immediately.

My next column will describe some of the methods used to promote involuntary annexation, together with actual cases and results.

Barbara Hunter taught chemistry at Hofstra University among other career stops. Most recently, she was an application specialist in the IT department of a large law firm. She lives in Black Mountain. Her columns appear on alternate Tuesdays and she can be reached at brhunter@aol.com.