Annexation equals progress

On March 16, I had a letter published in favor of North Carolina’s annexation code and encouraging Asheville’s continuation in the battle to incorporate Biltmore Lake [“You May Need Annexation as Much as It Needs You,” Xpress]. My family has lived in North Carolina for several generations. In that time, it has evolved from the Rip Van Winkle state, (slept for 100 years post-Civil War), to the vibrant, diverse culture that we are.

Two great factors aiding this change were the development of our incredible university system and an annexation policy that allowed a rural state to help cities cope with inevitable growth. The law is both fair and simple: Once adjacent areas reach a density that is more urban in nature than rural, the existing municipality can absorb them. This keeps the central city from growth-stagnation and fiscal strangulation.

Recently there was an article in the Xpress comparing the size of Asheville city government with the North Carolina cities closest in population just larger (Greenville) and just smaller (Jacksonville) (see “Head to Head,” April 6). Really, these are the cities closest to us in size? What a joke. One needs only compare our infrastructure, cultural attractions, events, architecture, restaurants etc., to those towns and it is obvious that Asheville has been too slow to incorporate outlaying urbanized areas.

I am sure that many of the residents of Biltmore Lake came here from other places. If a view was the only goal they could have gone anywhere in overwhelmingly rural WNC to find low taxes, but convenience comes with proximity to Asheville, and proximity comes at a legal cost in this state — annexation.

— Steve Woolum
Asheville

SHARE
About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster

3 thoughts on “Annexation equals progress

  1. Typo.

    The letter is missing the word “forced” (annexation) at the end. This is the progressive’s favorite method of achieving their ends. Why leave it out?
    ……………………..

  2. No, that’s not a typo. The word “outlaying” subbing for “outlying” is probably a typo.

    The word you are looking for is omission, as it is a word that was left out of something. In your case, you feel as though it leaves out something that fundamentally alters the meaning and connotation of the word it is meant to modify.

    So, what you’re doing is being intellectually dishonest. Either that, or just ignorant.

  3. indy499

    I have mixed feelings on this topic. It is probably a bit more complicated than most people make it. One piece often overlooked is the current tax structure which is hugely unfair from the city perspective. Why does the city get to keep a smaller share of the sales tax revenue generated WITHIN the city than does the county?

    For all the folks who are opposed to forced annexation, are you also opposed to county residents getting a tax break at the city’s expense?

    Lastly, I think the city has been very passive in dealing with the broader growth/revenue issue of which annexation is only a part. If the state forecloses forced annexation, what other options does the city have? How about a commuter tax? Different parking rates for city residents and non-residents? Other ideas? For all who live around, but not in Asheville, who claim to never come in to town or use the city services, these charges shouldn’t be an issue, since they claim to never be here.

Leave a Reply