newsobserver.com projects - HB524-09 - Comments

Re: Annexation bill clears house

PaulTerrell — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:11:40 -0400

Please clarify in you article that the peition also would include people living in the affected cirty. Why do people already living in the city need to sighn a petition for a vote annexation. That is stupid.

Re: Annexation bill clears house

domewatcher — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:08:27 -0400

"So called "involuntary" or "forced annexations" allow municpalities to manage growth."

Not quite sure I follow this. If the city annexes a group of people, then the city grows. If the city does not annex a group of people, then the city does not grow.

Me thinks the municpal lobby is bigger than your average bear. Now if those about to be annexed had a lobby? But you don't have time between the annexation notice and the date you are joined to the city to hire an effective lobby. Lobbyists need to be nurtured in place for years and years so that they will become strong, have roots. And have those spreading branches that bring shade and comfort to the legislators. Maybe a hammock swinging under the branches.

Forced annexation is wrong. A forcible lobby is also wrong but that is our form of government.

Re: Annexation bill sent off the floor

SouthsideJohnny — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:29:38 -0400

The league leads my representative around on a pound puppy leash. I hope they wake him up so he will vote to keep annexation. They are real impressed with him.

Against their will..........

domewatcher — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:50:46 -0400

"The bill was drafted in response to long-festering anger over municipalities' ability to annex property owners against their will."

We need to get off this business......worrying about the will of the people! "The will of the people" is an outdated concept in modern governance. The "people" don't have any lobbyists so they obviously have no "right" to be heard in matters of government. If the "people" were truly interested in what government was doing then they would hire lobbyists.

Annex them, tax them, kick them around. They probably won't even notice.

"The will of the people".......give me a break!

Re: Quick Hits

bniolet — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:51:43 -0400

Paul: Accuracy is our highest goal. I agree the wording of the sentence leaves something to be desired. Your second point isn't really something to be corrected.

Re: Quick Hits

BitterEXdemocrat — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:04:53 -0400

the corrupt 'crackkks will render any annexation legislation against the people, be sure of that...

WHY do NC democrackkks always want to OPPRESS the citizens in every facet of their lives??? And you still vote for them? W H Y ???

Re: Quick Hits

PaulTerrell — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:19:27 -0400

The current proposal gives ALL voters in the city a vote, not just the people being forced to be annexed, FIRST correction.

Second correction is the hoops and hurdles you have to jump around are so extensive it makes the possibility of a vote VERY unlikely.

bniolet, on your quick hits you may want to be a little more accurate.

Re: Bill titles rankle Republicans

PaulTerrell — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:15:28 -0400

Do we actually believe that the Democrats in the General Assembly would do anything that ressemble bi-partisanship? No. On every amendment proposed by the Republicans on the House's budget bill, the Democrats shut them down. I witnesses Rep. Blust rewrite a amendment for the sake of a Democrats who said he would vote for the new amendment. guess what happened. The Rep (Anson) said after the new amendment was put up that he would not vote for it. With that kind of horse hockey going on the the State House, it is the Democrats who are the party of NO. No to every single proposal put forward by the Republicans.

Re: Annexation bills blended

spiveygb — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:58:08 -0400

Of course you haven't and I didn't mean to imply that you would. However, you do visit them using streets, protected by emergency services within the town/cit. Both of which are paid for with municipal tax dollars. My other point doesn't have so much to do with money. Rather, do people generally think that this development would pop up near where they live without the municipality? Best Buy, the mall, etc. don't locate in the middle of nothing. Also, municipalities bring in employment. Don't get me wrong...I'm not a "develop for the municipalities" zealot but people need to keep in mind that without them their life would be a lot different (maybe not entirely for the worse :-)).

Re: Annexation bills blended

domewatcher — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:48:38 -0400

Interesting point. But I have yet to be turned away from a grocery store because I did not pay city taxes. Same at the mall and at entertainment venues. If I had green money they would take it with no questions asked. Our county already supports the library so we got that going for us. The cities could easily put up checkpoints to keep the non-city taxpayers from getting in. But somehow I do not see that happening.

Re: Annexation bills blended

spiveygb — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:38:35 -0400

The entire notion of "I don't want to pay taxes and be in the city" is ridiculous. Do "I don't need anything from the city/town" folks enjoy the grocery store? a library? shopping and entertainment? I just don't get it when people are so "anti-municipality" when they directly or indirectly enjoy the benefits of living near one and yet don't want to share the burden.

Re: Annexation bills blended

domewatcher — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:16:56 -0400

"The idea is to allow cities to regulate growth."

I think maybe the idea is to allow cities to add real property tax revenue from those who do not want to be included in the city.

The key words are "involuntary annexation or forced annexation."