Now you see it — now you don’t: Legislation could dissolve municipal ETJs   *UPDATED*

A bill that could have a powerful effect on local communities and decision making — HB 281 (ETJ Restrictions), has been scheduled for hearing in the House Government Committee today, June 2, at 10 a.m. The legislation was the subject of an advocacy alert  distributed by email on Wednesday by the N.C. League of Municipalities, encouraging municipal officials to take action against the bill and to attend the committee hearing in Raleigh. According to the email, at least 221 cities in the state — including Asheville, Black Mountain and Weaverville — would lose extraterritorial jurisdiction powers under the bill, including “zoning, subdivision control, building inspection, minimum housing, historic districts, development agreements, cell towers, open space” and others.

Long a controversial subject, countywide zoning was adopted by the Buncombe County commissioners in 2009 after an original attempt in 2007 was struck down on procedural issues. In counties that do not have countywide zoning, HB 281 would grant voting power to ETJ residents in elections for municipal officials, and would allow ETJ residents to run for municipal office. As the league notes, such a situation could potentially allow a non-taxpaying ETJ resident to take part in setting tax rates for city residents. ETJ residents now, in some towns including Asheville and Weaverville, do have representation on planning boards and boards of adjustment, and ETJ designation has required the approval of the county commissions where it takes place.

Several Western North Carolina representatives sit on the Government Committee, including Buncombe County’s Democratic representatives Susan Fisher and Patsy Keever, and Republican Tim Moffitt. Republicans David Guice of Brevard and Phillip Frye of Spruce Pine are also on the committee. Guice’s District 113 includes Henderson, Polk and Transylvania counties. Frye’s District 84 includes Avery, Caldwell, Mitchell and Yancey counties. The crossover deadline for legislation is June 9, when the bill would need to have cleared the House and been forwarded to the Senate for potential passage this session.

Other June 2 legislative activity includes a second chance for the proposed Sunshine Amendment (HB 87), which will be taken up this morning in the House Rules Committee. The bill, which calls for a constitutional amendment to guarantee public access to governmental meetings and records (currently ordered by public law), was defeated by one vote in this committee last week, but has been resuscitated for a second vote today. Buncombe County’s Rep. Moffitt is a committee member; he voted in favor of the bill in March when it passed second reading in the House.

EDITOR’S UPDATE: Committee member Susan Fisher has reported that HB 281 was changed to a study bill in committee, meaning that if it is approved by the House and Senate, the issues involved will be studied and brought back to the Legislature for any future changes to current ETJ law. To see the newest version of the law, click here.

by Nelda Holder, contributing editor

SHARE

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

6 thoughts on “Now you see it — now you don’t: Legislation could dissolve municipal ETJs   *UPDATED*

  1. This is good. Cities should stop sprawling all over the countryside and focus on growing upwards in taller buildings that make more efficient use of space.

  2. Gordon Smith

    Nelda,

    Thank you so much for your excellent coverage of the stories coming out of Raleigh. You’re even handed and give us the information concisely.

    As to the ETJ here in Asheville, I’ll be interested to hear what they think of this proposal.

  3. hauntedheadnc

    [i]This is good. Cities should stop sprawling all over the countryside and focus on growing upwards in taller buildings that make more efficient use of space.[/i]

    Developers build the sprawl, not the cities, who are then left to deal with the messes that sprawl creates, such as traffic congestion. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a tool that cities can use to have some say over what a developer is allowed to do on their doorsteps.

  4. The developers build where they build to avoid onerous rules imposed by the municipalities. Then, after the construction is complete, the municipalities annex the area to obtain more tax revenue. Then, the developers build a little farther out and the municipalities annex even more buildings into the cities. It is a vicious circle.

  5. hauntedheadnc

    Brilliant, Thunder Pig. If we would just let developers build whatever the hell they want with no regard whatever for the community, all our troubles would be solved!

    Think of it: strip malls whose only landscaping consists of the dead weeds poking up through cracks in the parking lot! Subdivisions full of vinyl-sided crackerbox houses marching up hill and down dale, packed in so tight you’ll know to hold your nose when your neighbor farts. Big-box stores with barren parking lots big enough to be seen from space with the naked eye! And nary a pesky ordinance to regulate the size of signs, or whether those signs can blink and flash and distract all the drivers whizzing by, no law saying that a 500-unit apartment complex can’t shoehorn itself into a single-family neighborhood, no requirement that at least the occasional tree or bush be planted to shade a little of that asphalt…

    God, it’ll be beautiful!

  6. @hauntedheadnc:

    What you described is what you get under the system that pushes developers outward. Let them build upward. 10, 20, 30 or more stories up. Don’t tax land, only buildings. Then there will be less incentive for people who have had land in their families for generations to sell it.

    Doing the same thing over and over (regulation upon regulation, zoning ordinance after zoning ordinance) and expecting to get different results is insanity.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.