I live in Asheville, and I have a couple of questions for the North Carolina League of Municipalities.
The N.C. League website states, "we believe that a complete stop on all city-initiated annexations across the state is not a necessary or appropriate way to address annexation."
When you say "city-initiated annexations," are you really referring to forced annexations? "Forced" because you and your ilk feel that the people in a given area should not be permitted to vote on whether or not they wish to be annexed? If so, then why try and sugarcoat the truth here?
Please do correct me if I'm in error here, but if this is the case, then how can any of you simultaneously claim to be proponents of "democracy"?
North Carolina has been a "blue" state for quite a long time. Aren't Democrats supposed to advocate democracy? Or is the growing liberty movement correct in asserting that both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to their corrupted political parties and anti-liberty agendas?
As I understand it, North Carolina is one of the few states that allows its municipalities to forcibly annex areas without a public vote. Why is the state so beholden to draconian and tyrannical tendencies?
Hey, I have a great idea: Why not, for a change, consider advocating for the legalization of freedom? Another great idea: Why not, for a change, consider telling the truth?
Oh, I forgot: Tyrants generally don't deal in truth. Forgive me for forgetting!
— Bernard Baruch Carman
Asheville
The NCLM started using the term “city-initiated” a few years ago in an attempt to make it seem like the city bureaucrats and politicians weren’t such bullies. To make it sound as if the city staff and council could initiate an action, and then there would be some kind of response from the people. That there would be some kind of dialog, a give and take.
But we know that’s not the case! That’s why it should be called exactly what it is: FORCED annexation. No choice. No dialog. No negotiation.
In days past the NCLM has been the largest and most powerful lobbying group in NC. Guess how they are funded? By the municipal taxpayer. In order to be a member of the NCLM, every town and city in NC sends their citizens’ hard-earned tax dollars to this group, whose sole purpose — after funding themselves handsomely — is to keep power out of the hands of the people and in the hands of bureaucrats, lobbyists and unscrupulous politicians they can purchase or threaten.
The NCLM has to be exposed for what they are – corrupt, power-seeking lobbyists who have no interest in the everyday citizen.
Just check out their website to see how they meddle in many issues in our state.
Don’t be silly, Asheville city council takes their direction from the League of municipalities and the ICLEI not it’s subjects. Pay your tribute and shut up, slave.
Thanks, Betty.
Yes, wealth is forcibly extracted from city taxpayers which is then handed over to the League of Municipalities for them to pay staff to persuade state lawmakers in Raleigh to violate our rights here at home.
……………………….
Recently, legislation has been introduced (I should say re-introduced) that is intended to either mitigate, or ban, forced annexation in NC. The League of Municipalities has leveled all its’ considerable guns at this legislation. And they have been deceitful in this attempt. Numerous “oppositional” writings and comments have tried to make it appear that the supporters of this bill are realtors, landlords and investors only. They imply that only these people will benefit from the blocking of the archaeic and unjust land-grab called annexation. They try to make it seem as if they are speaking for city residents, when, in fact, they have another agenda entirely. The League of Municipalities does not speak for, nor do they represent individuals. They wield a powerful club for the benefit of towns and cities in this state. It is in their vested interest to make sure these MUNICIPALITIES (get it?) are not impeded in their attempts to grab your property. DO NOT BE FOOLED.
Residential annexations allow suburbanites to vote in city elections and thus risk urban values like gay rights ordinances and same sex domestic partner benefits. The modest tax funds involved are not worth the loss of self determination and urban values for the municipalities.