- What is involuntary annexation?
- What is “legislative annexation?”
- Is Involuntary or Forced Annexation allowed in
North Carolina?
- What’s the rationale behind involuntary or “forced”
annexation?
- Why does North Carolina still provide for
Involuntary Annexation?
- Where can I see the Actual Statutes?
- Can we defeat the City of Asheville in its attempt
to annex Biltmore Lake, and other surrounding neighborhoods?
- Is there anything unique about an Asheville
City attempt to annex Biltmore Lake?
- Is Involuntary Annexation right for Biltmore Lake?
- Place Holder for next question?
Involuntary annexation is a procedure by which a
municipality can “absorb” an area that meets certain contiguous boundary and
population criteria without the consent of the owners of the properties being
absorbed.
Legislative Annexation can occur when the NC Legislature
responds to a locally sponsored bill and passes a law that annexes a community.
If successful, the normal annexation process utilizing NC GS 160A - 45, 46 and
47 (links below) is totally bypassed. Once a law passes, it is difficult to
legally challenge it.
Yes. North Carolina is one of 4 states that it is allowed
it if certain criteria are met. The other 3 states are Idaho, Kansas and Tennessee.
Additionally, Louisiana, Illinois and Oregon also provide for limited annexation
if more specific criteria are met. There is currently a bill in the NC
Legislature calling for a study of the NC Annexation laws.
Originally, to promote orderly growth and provision of
basic services like fire and police protection, water, sewer and street
maintenance.
Municipalities have a very strong and well-funded lobby to
oppose changes to the forced annexation statutes. There have been many attempts
to change the law, which currently offers obvious financial benefits to
municipalities. They can pick and choose from surrounding communities, annexing
those that provide increased tax revenue at minimal cost, and avoiding
communities that truly need municipal services since the cost would exceed the
financial return.
Click on the link below. In the right hand
side of the site that appears, under statutes, enter 160A-45 (Policy or “intent”
of Statute); 160A-48 (Character of area to be annexed) and 160A-49 (Annexation
Procedure).
www.ncga.state.nc.us/homePage.pl
A general overview of the Involuntary Annexation process
in NC can be found at the following link:
www.tharringtonsmith.com/newsArticlesDetail.php?nid=29
The answer
is YES! The primary development is Nolan v. Village of Marvin, 360 N.C. 256,
which was decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court in January 2006. In that
case, the Village of Marvin attempted to annex a community, but was offering few
services in exchange for the taxes that would be imposed. The Court held, for
the first time, that in order for a municipality to forcibly annex an area, the
municipality must provide a threshold level of services to the annexed area that
would benefit property owners in a meaningful way
To read the full opinion, please see
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2006/pdf/488-05-1.pdf
Opinion states: "The Village of Marvin did
not substantially comply with statutory procedures for an involuntary annexation
because the services provided simply filled needs created by the annexation
itself, without conferring significant benefits on the annexed property owners
and residents. Although the administrative services which the Village proposed
to extend were the only services provided to existing residents, N.C.G.S.
160A-35(3) is grounded in a legislative expectation that the annexing
municipality possesses meaningful services to extend to the annexed property."
www.stopncannexation.com/nolanimpact.htm
Yes. Biltmore Lake is a private, partially gated community
that already has achieved orderly growth, and has a fully funded infrastructure.
Our developer, and therefore we, the property owners, have paid to have all
infrastructure installed, rather than the City installing the infrastructure.
Also, unlike most other potential Annexation target communities, water and sewer
already exist, and we already pay for these services. If the intent and/or
objective of Involuntary Annexation is to provide orderly growth and services
and to improve health safety and welfare (as described in the NC General Policy
Statute, GS160A-45), Biltmore Lake is not a candidate for annexation. Also,
since it is a private, partially gated community, and most property owners want
this to continue, the City would not be required to be responsible for street
and sidewalk maintenance. Provision of water and sewer, which is often a
justification for annexation (described in the Statutes) doesn’t apply, since
Biltmore Lake already has these services. Annexation of Biltmore Lake by the
City of Asheville requires Biltmore Lake property owners to pay a significant
tax increase, but Biltmore Lake gains virtually nothing in the way of additional
services or improved health, welfare and safety. In fact, we would encounter a
degradation of services. This is clearly not the intent of the Annexation
statute.
No. The intent, spirit and purpose of the existing
statutes that allow Involuntary Annexation is to provide annexed communities
with services needed for public health, safety and welfare (described in
160A-45: Declaration of Policy). Annexation of Biltmore Lake by the City of
Asheville will not provide any additional needed services, and will not
materially improve protection of health, safety and/or welfare of Biltmore Lake
residents. In fact, we will experience a degradation of our services currently
enjoyed..
|
|
