If you are a citizen within the ETJ of a town or city, you are subject to the zoning requirements of that town or city, but are not allowed to vote for the members of the town council who now pretty much can control what you can or can't do with your property. You are being regulated, but have no say in choosing the regulators.
What you do have, for what it's worth, is some 'representation' on the town's planning commission and the town's Board of Adjustment. These representatives are, according to my understanding, chosen by the county commissioners. At least you have a voice in electing county commissioners!
Because the Town of Boone did not like the representatives that the Watauga County Commissioners chose for these appointments, they are now changing the rules - (or at least the town regulations) to take away the right of the county to make those appointments. If this happens, then the town of Boone will not only decide what rules apply to your property, but will also choose your representatives to these boards for you.
BOC Chairman Nathan Miller has said that the county commission can't just stand by and let the town take away the legal statutory rights of the county to select the representatives for it's constituents. The county is exploring it's options - including litigation if that is required. They have decided however, to make another attempt at approaching the town council in an effort to amicably resolve this impasse.
I'm not a lawyer and can only offer a layman's opinion here, but it seems to me that the NC STATE statute (ncgs 160a-362) specifically requires that citizens within a town's ETJ are entitled to proportional representation on the town planning board and BOA and further that :
" The representatives on the planning board and the board of adjustment shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners with jurisdiction over the area...."
That is to say, when the town extends it's zoning authority via ETJ, the individuals whose property is to be regulated by that town, are represented on the town's Planning Board and BOA by representatives chosen by their county commissioners.
(I should add here that the appointments that were made by the county commission included citizens who did not reside within the ETJ. I believe that it has now been clarified that to be qualified for these appointments, one must now reside within the territory covered by the ETJ. It's also my understanding that the county commissioners are in agreement with this "qualification" requirement.)
I am neither a resident of the town, nor of the ETJ and, as such, do not have a personal dog in this particular fight. It does seem to me however, to be inherently unfair - even un-American, for citizens of the ETJ to have no voice whatever in the regulations that affect them or the regulators that regulate them. I hope that the taxpayers of Boone and the taxpayers of Watauga county don't have to fund lawsuits against one another over a matter that - at least to this layperson - seems clear. I would also hope that during our next state legislative session, legislation be passed to:
1. Limit the amount of time a town can maintain an ETJ without having to actually annex the area; and,
2. Allow property owners within an ETJ to vote in municipal elections.
FOOTNOTE:: Steve Frank, on GoBlueRidge.Net has an item of interest on this topic
89 comments:
Another point I would like to make here;
The town and the county have presumably agreed that, to be qualified as a county appointment to one of these boards, an individual must reside in the ETJ.
Unfortunately, there are many businesses which exist within the ETJ and which probably suffer more under zoning regulations than the residential areas - shouldn't these business owners (or any other property owners) have a say as well? Even though they don't
RESIDE in the etj, they are certainly affected.
Does the Town Council, town planners and ASU have plans to push ETJ out further in the future?
ETJ needs to done away with completely.
Yet another government control over our lives. If America enjoys living this way, they should continue to vote for politicians who encourage this type of activity. We need less government intervention into our lives, especially at the state and local level. ETJs are, as blogger deftly pointed out, a manner for elected officials to put government into you bedroom; into your personal life; and into everything you know. We have a choice - vote them out or accept this type of government intervention that will, by the way, only get worse. Much worse.
Johnny Rico
New Guy. I was at the Town Council's public hearing and spoke. Commissioner Nathan Miller made it clear that the County Commissioners were working off of an unclear definition of "qualified" and agreed with the Town Council that the definition needed to be clarified in their UDO. Commissioner Miller spoke as Chairman of the County Commissioners and made that clear. He also made it clear that the County Commissioners were not opposed to all of the changes; only the changes that their legal counsel had advised them were contrary to NC General Statute. And, the Planning Commission met after that and had a very nice cordial dialogue with both Commissioner Gable and Miller as well as myself and other concerned citizens. The entire conversation was taped for the record. And,the Planning Commission voted unanimous on all proposed changes except for the taking of power, to appoint ETJ members, from the County. On June 21, the Town Council met and voted contrary to the recommendations of the Planning Commission to cede power from the Commissioners. The Town lawyer is telling the Town that they have the legal right to do so. The County lawyer is telling the County that the Town doesn't have that right. So, it looks like court is the only place to settle the argument. The County should do whatever is necessary to retain the power that appears to this lay person to be vested to them. This presumption of power was there when the County ceded the jurisdictionof these lands to the Town. And, hopefully, the County will not cede anymore property to the Town in the future.
IM said"The County should do whatever is necessary to retain the power that appears to this lay person to be vested to them" ....
And I have no disagreement with that. I would however, like to see another attempt at convincing the town of Boone that the county commissioners should be the ones to make those appointments. Litigation is expensive and I would hope to avoid it if possible, but the county authority to make those appointments can't be compromised.
Failing the towns cooperation, I agree with you - and with Nathan Miller, the county can't give up it's statutory authority nor should they make any concessions which would weaken that authority.
One small point....I am not sure that the county "ceded" the etj to the town or if the town exercised it's authority under the statute without county agreement.
Anonymous. The Town can't extend the ETJ further than the 1 mile of the Town Limit without County Commissioner approval:
"§ 160A‑360. Territorial jurisdiction.
(a) All of the powers granted by this Article may be exercised by any city within its corporate limits. In addition, any city may exercise these powers within a defined area extending not more than one mile beyond its limits. With the approval of the board or boards of county commissioners with jurisdiction over the area, a city of 10,000 or more population but less than 25,000 may exercise these powers over an area extending not more than two miles beyond its limits and a city of 25,000 or more population may exercise these powers over an area extending not more than three miles beyond its limits."
And, unfortunately, the County Commissioners buckled under pressure of a vocal minority when the Town got the area around Roby Greene Road. The commissioners back then claimed that they had no other choice because the people didn't come out against it.
For those who want to read this simple straight forward law for yourself:
§ 160A‑362. Extraterritorial representation.
When a city elects to exercise extraterritorial zoning or subdivision‑regulation powers under G.S. 160A‑360, it shall in the ordinance creating or designating its planning board provide a means of proportional representation based on population for residents of the extraterritorial area to be regulated. Representation shall be provided by appointing at least one resident of the entire extraterritorial zoning and subdivision regulation area to the planning board and the board of adjustment that makes recommendations or grants relief in these matters. For purposes of this section, an additional member must be appointed to the planning board or board of adjustment to achieve proportional representation only when the population of the entire extraterritorial zoning and subdivision area constitutes a full fraction of the municipality's population divided by the total membership of the planning board or board of adjustment. Membership of joint municipal county planning agencies or boards of adjustment may be appointed as agreed by counties and municipalities. Any advisory board established prior to July 1, 1983, to provide the required extraterritorial representation shall constitute compliance with this section until the board is abolished by ordinance of the city. The representatives on the planning board and the board of adjustment shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners with jurisdiction over the area. When selecting a new representative to the planning board or to the board of adjustment as a result of an extension of the extraterritorial jurisdiction, the board of county commissioners shall hold a public hearing on the selection. A notice of the hearing shall be given once a week for two successive calendar weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the area. The board of county commissioners shall select appointees only from those who apply at or before the public hearing. The county shall make the appointments within 45 days following the public hearing. Once a city provides proportional representation, no power available to a city under G.S. 160A‑360 shall be ineffective in its extraterritorial area solely because county appointments have not yet been made. If there is an insufficient number of qualified residents of the area to meet membership requirements, the board of county commissioners may appoint as many other residents of the county as necessary to make up the requisite number. When the extraterritorial area extends into two or more counties, each board of county commissioners concerned shall appoint representatives from its portion of the area, as specified in the ordinance. If a board of county commissioners fails to make these appointments within 90 days after receiving a resolution from the city council requesting that they be made, the city council may make them. If the ordinance so provides, the outside representatives may have equal rights, privileges, and duties with the other members of the board to which they are appointed, regardless of whether the matters at issue arise within the city or within the extraterritorial area; otherwise they shall function only with respect to matters within the extraterritorial area.
New Guy. Under the revised UDO that the Town Council voted on, the County only appoints ETJ planning board and planning commission members when the ETJ is first formed. After that, the Town makes all of the choices. So, the ETJ is left without anyone to hold accountable after the first appointment. Listen to the tape of the discussion of the Planning Commission of the night of the public hearing on this issue. There were both ETJ and non-ETJ members. With the exception of 1 member, they all wanted the County to continue to make the appointments. And, they made it clear that they would rather have the appointees come from the ETJ or the County; but, not the Town. As one ETJ member said: "You are not giving the power to the Town; you are ceding the power from the County." The news media harps on what Commissioner Gable said for obvious reasons. However, there were some really good points made by the existing planning commission members and other members of the public that were in favor of the commissioners retaining the power. Unfortunately, this was a power struggle gone bad. The Planning Commission took the high road; the Town brought it back down to the mud. And, now it looks like it will get really muddy. However, the County should finish it or the Town will continue to take more power.
More mud...At the time I posted the original post, I was not aware that the town had already fired another shot across the bow! According to today's Democrat, the town made an appointment of an ETJ representative to the planning board on Thursday.
I will leave it to the lawyers to figure it out, but it would seem to me that IF the town is wrong (And the state statute seems to say that they are) then any appointments made by the town and not by the county commission, would not be valid. Is this going to invalidate any actions that the planning board might take before we can get this straightened out?
I also don't see where the statute differentiates between appointment of representatives to NEW positions vs existing positions which become vacant. I will have to leave it to the lawyers to determine this, but isn't the INTENT of the state statute clearly to allow the county to select the representatives of the county citizens?
New Guy. There is a ratio of ETJ members to non-ETJ members that must be met. The Town's UDO provides for that as required by law and maintaining that ratio as required by statute with appointments being made by both the County and the Town was a subject of discussion and ways to amend the UDO to make sure that they didn't violate the requirements of the NC General Statute was of major concern.
The issue is this statement:
"The representatives on the planning board and the board of adjustment shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners with jurisdiction over the area. When selecting a new representative to the planning board or to the board of adjustment as a result of an extension of the extraterritorial jurisdiction, the board of county commissioners shall hold a public hearing on the selection."
The first sentence of the statute implies that the County Commissioners appoint the members to represent the ETJ. However, the second sentence might imply by starting off with "when", that it is an extension of the first sentence which would mean that the County only has the ability to appoint the intial representive of a newly formed ETJ. That is why the Town amended the UDO to only allow the County to make the initial appointment for new ETJs and the Town makes all subsequent.
Then there is the following from the same statute: "If there is an insufficient number of qualified residents of the area to meet membership requirements, the board of county commissioners may appoint as many other residents of the county as necessary to make up the requisite number."
Qualified residents is not defined. This is what the County Commissioners were arguing. However, it appears from a reading of the entire paragraph about proportionalities that qualified residents would be those necessary to maintain the proportionalities (i.e. if you need an ETJ resident to maintain the proportions,then you would have to first look for ETJ residents; if you don't need an ETJ resident, then you could pick anyone in the County which includes the Town and ETJ and outlying County.
The Town lawyer was relying on a court case. That court case doesn't trump the general statute in question. If Watauga County does not challenge this, other Municipalities may attempt the same. If Watauga County does challenge this and prevail (which I think that they will), the ambiguity brought about by the court case will be resolved.
I gathered this information from being at the public hearing and listening to the Town attorney and Commissioner Nathan Miller (an attorney) and reading the general statute. I am not an attorney.
New Guy. You wondered whether the appointments by the Town and the subsequent rulings by the boards (planning and adjustments) would stand. That is a good question. It might be that because the Town relied on this ambiguous court case and the advise of an attorney, that the decisions may stand and the appointments may well stand. That is a good question. I doubt that the decisions will be reversed because they will most probably show good-faith. The appointments is a different matter. This is an opinion only.
I would think an injunction halting all action by both the Boone Planning Board and the Boone Board of Adjustment would be in order until this is settled.
The Town of Boone is in flagrant violation of the state statue.
Towns love ETJ's because they give them control at no coast. They are not required to provide any services in the ETJ other than enforcement of the zoning and building codes. If they do provide services they charge much more than is charged for those within the municipal boundaries.
ETJ's should not exist. If a town wants to control an area, it should annex it. Of course if the town did do an involuntary annexation, it would have to provide full services for the area in a very short time. Usually it would take decades for the revenue generated by taxes on these properties to pay for the infrastructure required, if it every does.
As strange as it may seem, businesses and farms are the most efficient entities for which to provide services because they use less of them. The ETJ is usually residential (as per guidelines from the state) which require substantial services.
New Guy. Another bit of interesting information from attending the public hearing. The planning commission was there until past 9:00pm and they had asked the attorney about meeting at another time. The attorney told them that they needed to make a decision that night in order for the Town to make their decision with the number of days allowed after the public hearing. A discussion started and one of the ETJ members wanted to know what the hurry was. It was told that the County would be making a lot of appointments in the upcoming months. Hence the planning commission made their decision which was to leave the appointment power to the
Town. And, a member of the planning commission made it clear that the Town frequently didn't agree with them. And, then the Town met later on June 21 and amended the UDO so that they could make the appointment that you read about in the paper. That was the purpose of the rapid fire public hearing and subsequent vote. No secret. All on tape. However, I attended the meeting as did Commissioner Miller and Gable, Phil Templeton,Gayle Henson, Mr. Greene that applied for ETJ appointment, Tim Wilson and a Blowing Rock resident. All speakers were opposed to the Town's ceding of power from the County. NADA. ZILCH. Not one in favor of the Town's ploy.
New Guy. Before it is even release I will speculate that the HCP coverage of the event is much better.
New Guy. Matt Synder, Chair of Republican Party was also a speaker at the public hearing and stayed for the duration. This is very impressive. In all of the meetings I have attended, I don't remember a chair of the Republican Party attending. Hip Hip Hooray! Hes a keeper.
IM Said...in her 8:01PM post:
""The representatives on the planning board and the board of adjustment shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners with jurisdiction over the area. When selecting a new representative to the planning board or to the board of adjustment as a result of an extension of the extraterritorial jurisdiction, the board of county commissioners shall hold a public hearing on the selection."
Yes, IM, I am aware of that. I read it to be a requirement that when there is a NEW position as a result of a NEW ETJ, that the County commission had to have the public hearing as a prelude to making the appointment. If that is correct, then it doesn't change their authority to make subsequent appointments to vacancies, it just doesn't seem to require the public hearing portion.
As I said, I'm just a layman here. I don't know how courts have interpreted this in the past, nor do I have the legislative history or any 'inside' knowledge as to what was intended. I'm just going by my reading of the statute.
With regard to the court case the town is relying on...that would be the town of Highlands vs Macon County I think. My understanding is that, in that case, the appeals court judged ruled that the county was not an injured party and did not have "standing" to sue. Whether or not that same situation would apply here or whether there are enough differences in the Boone/Watauga case, is the question.
No matter, it just seems a shame that taxpayers from both sides will have to foot the bill to litigate this. But, if it has to be, it has to be!
Macon county and Highlands case...just in case someone is interested
https://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=baaib&searchTerm=eSDX.cXSa.UYGW.bcUj&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
I live in Roby Greene area. The town ETJed our area because we asked them to so we could keep out an asphalt plant. There was no conspiracy. We wanted the Town's protection and petitioned for it.
Oh yes, Big Brother will protect you.
But then, you just love Big Brother, don't you?
At what price?
Inquiring Mind,
I copied and pasted all your posts together, just from this single thread, into one document (less than 12 hours of posts) and ran a word count on it.
Over 2000 words.
I had something to add, perhaps of value, perhaps not, but the perspective of a homeowner who lives only 150 feet into the ETJ, almost close enough to vote.
My post would have only been about 150 words.
I understand that you are very involved and very interested, but I hesitate to post my 150 words because they will either be drowned out by your next 2000 words to someone else, or God forbid, you actually start talking at me.
I don't want to have to fight a microphone hog.
If the County Commissioners felt it was so important to appoint a person from the ETJ to the board, then why didn't they? They appointed someone from the Town. Plus that the commissioners have stated publicly more than once that they don't support town zoning. Appointing people to town boards who work to undermine Town zoning just sets the Town up for lawsuits. The Board of Adjustment is required to UPHOLD Town regulations. Let's face it. The commissioners screwed up by appointing "unqualified" people to Town Boards--by that I mean unqualified in terms of where they live. I am no fan of Jim Deal, but he tried to warn them during the appointment meeting that they were screwing up. I read the lawsuit. It looks like the town is covered on this. Read the last three paragraphs.
Yeap! The HCP coverage is much better. Being in the loop, the WD coverage is not well written and leaves out needed background information.
The WD coverage gives you the impression that the County is going to sue the Town. The HCP tells you that the County is seeking mediation first. The HCP also gives the background to the June 23rd meeting which was the public hearing on June 13th. The HCP disclosed a very important piece of information that WD left out - "In approving the amendment, the council bucked a recommendation of its own Planning Commission, which voted to recommend all of the proposed changes except stripping the county's authority to make ETJ appointments". This is important because this is one of the boards to which the county was jointly making appointments. That decision was 5 to 1 by the planning commission by the way.
The WD is having trouble being an advocate of the people by getting the news out - I am of the opinion that either the reporter is too new or overwhelmed or knowingly biasing the reports. Something is wrong.
Congratulations to the HCP Anna Oakes and Jesse Wood. Great job guys. Keep up the good work. To Ken Ketchie, we are depending on you; you are all we have now.
MikeD.....I think there is always room for another comment, and I would like to hear yours!
The state law, which is the one that matters, says the County Commissioners will make the appointments. It also doesn't say the town gets to be the one that decides what qualified means.
Anonymous, re-read the state law AND the lawsuit. It says the commissioners get to choose the appointments if/when there is a new ETJ area.
Johnny Ricco. This would be an appropriate time to frame policy. Now would be the time to contact Jonathan Jordan and Dan Soucek and tell them to eliminate the ETJ.
First educate yourself. Self-learning is the only way to get government out of the way.
Recommended sites:
http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pdfs/ss20.pdf
http://www.sog.unc.edu/node/944
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3727
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1425505.html
A google of David Owens (NC State's zoning expert) plus ETJ will yield a lot of information.
Just to second what an earlier Anonymous said, I also live in the Roby Greene area and the so-called "minority" that wanted to be annexed into the ETJ was actually the vast majority of people who live in this area. We banded together as neighbors to prevent a large asphalt plant from being built right by residential areas, and I'm glad we did. I don't know a single person who lives around here who isn't glad we're in the ETJ.
And I think that the County fired the first shot in this ETJ battle when they rejected the town's nominees (all of whom live in the ETJ) and proceeded to appoint people who don't even live here.
I live near the existing asphalt plant. There's no problem with it. What's your point?
If you want to control your neighbors land, have you thought about buying it?
The county should never let the towns go 1 inch past the one mile limit for the ETJ. On top of that the state should do away with ETJs because people that live in them can't vote in town elections.
Anonymous said, "re-read the state law AND the lawsuit. It says the commissioners get to choose the appointments if/when there is a new ETJ area."
No, I don't think that's what it says. I think it says that a public hearing is required before making county makes appointments to a NEW ETJ area. It doesn't require that hearing for vacancies which occur after the initial appointments.
But, like everything else involved here, our opinions aren't what counts - it's what the judge says that matters!
New Guy. I said "take whatever steps necessary". Do I need to add mediation, etc.? Mediation, as a general rule, is common practice prior to going to court.
So, we agree?
Mike D. Just page down past my comments if you thing that they are worthless crap. Peace.
IM...if you are asking me if I agree that we should do whatever is necessary to preserve the counties right to make these appointments, yes - we do agree.
I would, however, as I said, like to see at least one more serious attempt to resolve this amicably with the town of Boone....but not by compromising the rights of the county under the statute!
(PS...actually, IM...we agree about most things MOST of the time! That's not too bad!)
New Guy. I think you will find in the sites I provided a court case that shows that what David Owens says carries a lot of weight. His publications are sited time and time again by judges.
Inquiring Mind,
Neither did I say you are worthless, nor did I say your posts are crap. What I said is that you are a microphone hog.
Imagine a karaoke show at a bar. There is this one guy. His impersonations are spot on, his voice is great, and his song selection is exactly what the crowd wants to hear.
There is only one problem, but it is a big one. When his song has finished, he doesn't relinquish the stage. He keeps one of the two microphones and continues to sing when other participants step up to participate. He is a microphone hog. Talented, yes. Considerate of those less outspoken and loquacious, no.
So, worthless crap? Absolutely not. But would I expect to see you try to cut in line in front of me at the post office without looking back? Definitely.
I appreciate your suggestion that I should deal with you by getting up and singing my song in spite of your continuing to sing yours without respect for others, but respectfully, that is not who I am. That is who you are.
If I see someone beating her child in the grocery store parking lot, I do not continue shopping the way I do and allow her to continue shopping the way she does. I confront her with her deviance from expectations, living within a civil society, as I confront you for being the microphone hog that you are.
That said, you offer some interesting insight into local politics. I don't quite understand how you can post one word every 15 seconds in this forum and have any other interests or hobbies, but that is between you and your fast fingers. All I care about is your tendency to drown out others with volume.
According to Goblueridge.net, the town of Boone has called a special meeting over "tax threat" by county.
http://goblueridge.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12516%3Atown-calls-special-meeting-over-tax-threat&catid=1&Itemid=155
Mike D. Jump in. This is a blog. There is no line and there is no microphone. When you hit post,it will post. I will be still for the next 24 hours and let you have at it if you are afraid that my comments are somehow causing you to be put to the curb.
Guy Faulkes. An injunction sounds like a great idea.
Signing off. IM
As I understand it, the Town of Boone is planning to retaliate by using the lease of the Jones house to the Watauga Arts Council as a bargaining chip. This is an excellent idea.
While the Arts Council is a worthy organization, maybe it should be run with private funding and not with taxpayer money. The negotiation could then be directly between the Council and the Town. The public monies (if any) now going to the Council could be used for the debt.
guy. What are you talking about? That makes no sense. How would the Town use the Jones House/Art Council as a bargaining chip? The Town owns the Jones House. I don't get what you're saying.
The county leases the Jones house from the town for the Arts Council, I have been told. The town said it wanted to review the lease on a monthly basis.
Maybe the county should not be involved in the lease at all. If the Arts Council were privately funded, then there is no battle between the town and county over the lease. Also, there may be a savings of public monies. How much does the county fund the Arts Council?
The council didn't give the Arts any funding this year, so maybe they prefer they vacate the premises. I agree with Guy, might be time to say private funding on a whole lot of things.
If we are discussing the ETJ, I think it is important to understand why it exists. In spite of how it may play out, in practical terms, as taxation and regulation without representation, there is a real, legitimate reason behind the practice, and it has to do with municipal development in an area that has traditionally been rural farmland. I am going to post just some introductory text from a UNC article by David Owens, and over coffee tomorrow morning, I'll share my experience and my thoughts, owning a home less than 150 feet from Boone proper, just barely in the ETJ. Here goes...
The North Carolina Experience
with Municipal Extraterritorial
Planning Jurisdiction
David W. Owens
In the past century, North Carolina has seen substantial population growth and a remarkable transition in its urban-rural makeup. In the past fifty years alone, North Carolina’s total population has increased by 350 percent. In addition, the state has evolved from a rural, small-farm state to a predominately urban-suburban state. In 1900 only 17 percent of North Carolina’s population resided within a city. By July 2003 that number had grown to 52 percent. In 1920 no city in North Carolina had a population over 50,000. While the state still has a large number of small towns, the state’s official 2003 population estimates include 16 cities with populations over 50,000; 68 with populations over 10,000; and 318 with populations over 1,000.
A substantial amount of this growth has occurred on the urban-rural fringe. Subdivisions and shopping centers have steadily encroached upon farm fields and forestlands. Whether one views it as desirable development or undesirable sprawl, this growth has been a fact of life in North Carolina.
Such fringe-area growth and associated development have a
number of impacts, including:
• Increased demand for roads, water, sewer, utilities, schools,
and various other services necessary to support development
• Fiscal implications for cities, counties, and landowners
• Environmental impacts, ranging from the effects of stormwater runoff on water quality to changes in air quality due to increased automobile use
• Implications for farmland preservation
• Dramatic changes in the social and cultural character of affected areas
continued, from David Owens...
Given the magnitude of these impacts, a critical question arises: What governmental body should be responsible for planning and managing growth in these transitional urban-fringe areas? Prior to development these are generally rural areas without urban densities or services, subject to county planning and development regulation. Fifty years ago, when much of this growth was just beginning, few counties had any planning programs at all. Today more counties have planning programs, but they tend to be geared toward rural needs. Adjacent cities may eventually annex these developing areas and thus have responsibility for providing municipal services within them. However, when and how (and indeed whether) such annexations will occur often remains uncertain, creating a significant dilemma. If a city cannot secure planning and regulatory jurisdiction until after urban densities are established, it will have no opportunity to influence how development within these areas takes place.
There are various solutions to this dilemma. First, the state can authorize or even mandate county planning and regulation of these developing areas. But an important question remains: Would county plans and regulations adequately address the more municipal concerns of these areas? Second is the creation of regional agencies with authority to plan and regulate development on a broad metropolitan basis. This alternative, however, has often proven politically difficult to achieve. The third and most commonly applied option has been to grant cities extraterritorial jurisdiction—the authority to plan and regulate development in areas immediately outside their corporate limits.
State authorization of municipal regulation of extraterritorial areas to protect public health and safety is well established and has a considerable lineage. In the past fifty years, states have begun to extend this idea to allow extraterritorial planning and land development regulations as well.
A principal concern with this option, however, has been the lack of political representation for extraterritorial residents. The legal aspects of this issue, if not the political and policy considerations involved, were largely resolved when the United States Supreme Court concluded that federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection are not violated when states grant municipalities extraterritorial jurisdiction without extending to extraterritorial residents the right to vote in municipal elections.
Full essay here, if you are interested.
See you over coffee (11:00 AM-ish).
The county does not lease the Jones House at all. The Jones house is Town-owned and Town-leased. County has nothing to do with it.
Michael D. I just can’t understand why you thought it was necessary to attack me personally just so you could copy and paste something from a link that I had already provided on this blog. In fact, it was pasted on a blog comment where people were encouraged to self-learn and get involved. Were you that upset that I had already posted that link? Hopefully, this is not the case; hopefully you learned something. However, the article not only points out the good; it points out the failures of the ETJ. There has been a real problem of balancing the Town’s needs/controls with that of the residents of the ETJ, as well as jurisdiction issues with counties and towns for a long time. In fact, as you pointed out, the main problem was the right to vote for those exercising jurisdiction. Whether it was upheld as constitutional to deny that right or not, doesn’t fix the problem. If you go to the 2009 video of David Lawrence, another SOG attorney and expert in the area of land use planning, annexation, etc,, you will find a really good dialogue between Mr. Lawrence and the NC Legislative Study Committee regarding the issues. The speakers have one consistent theme – balance. And, they speak to the fact that balance is something that they have a hard time accomplishing. This same article, as I pointed out before states the authority to appoint the ETJ members belongs to the County Commissioners:
“Extraterritorial Representation on Municipal Boards
A city exercising extraterritorial authority must expand
membership of both its planning board and its board of adjustment
to include extraterritorial representation. Originally the
number of extraterritorial members had to equal the number of
“inside” members.59 The requirement of a specific number of
extraterritorial members was deleted in the 1971 comprehensive
revision of the municipal statutes.60 The statute was again
amended in 1996 to require proportional representation.61
G.S. 160A-362 now requires the appointment to both bodies
of a proportional number of residents of the extraterritorial
area. For example, if a city with a population of 5,000 has a
five-member planning board, one extraterritorial member is
required for each 1,000 extraterritorial residents. If there are an
insufficient number of qualified residents of the extraterritorial
area, other county residents may be appointed. The
board of county commissioners of each affected county makes
the appointments. If appointments are required as a result of
an expansion of an extraterritorial area (as opposed to filling a
seat where a term has expired), the county board must hold a
duly advertised public hearing and make its appointments from
persons who have applied at or before the public hearing. If the
board of county commissioners fails to make the appointments
within ninety days of receiving a resolution from the city governing
board requesting that the appointments be made, the
city governing board may make the appointments.”
Mike D. The article also states: “For the most part, the cities have complied with
statutory mandates regarding the procedures to use in adopting
extraterritorial boundary ordinances and in securing extraterritorial
representation on city planning boards and boards of
adjustment.”
This would put the Town of Boone in the minority and is indicative of the Town’s heavy handedness on an area that is regulated by a body that ETJ residents can’t vote on and a board that insists on controlling the appointments of the members of the planning commission and planning board and a board that will go to any lengths to be oppressive.
Unfortunately, from the court cases examined, this is not an isolated incidence of injury to ETJ residents; the Town of Boone’s actions is just another in a long line of many. It is time for legislators to realize that times have changed and the ETJ laws need to be abolished.
You supported your opinion by quoting entirely one source and only one side of the opinion. While there may be compelling reasons from the government perspective for ETJs; there are even more compelling reasons against the ETJ in legal battle after legal battle, power struggle after power struggle, and injury after injury involving citizens of the ETJ. This should be obvious from what has gone on in Watauga County.
You are not the first one to question my abilities to utilize time; however, people that know me usually see what I do and say "How do you do it?" You don't have a clue.
As for my time, I use the 4 hour rule. Einstein said we only needed 4 hours sleep; I tried it years ago and found he was right. And, then there is time management. And, as for breaking in line; obviously you don't know me because people who do see a person that lets others take their place in line; who stops to open the door; who gives up their seat; who sees others in need an lends a hand. Shame on you for being so negative and rude about somebody you do not even know. Did you somehow think that would help your credibility?
Inquiring Mind,
I have not had the time to read everything you have posted, but I am curious... have you risen to speak directly to the Town Council, addressing your concerns? It seems to me that if the town were in direct violation of the law, there would certainly be some legal avenue you could follow to rectify the situation, whether by speaking directly to them at a monthly meeting, or by talking to someone on a state level.
I have had great experiences with the town elected officials. I have asked to speak twice at monthly meetings, and not only has my participation been allowed, I have been thoroughly encouraged and complimented and thanked after the fact. One of the two times, I got exactly what I asked for, and the other time, I didn't get it immediately, but I got the information I needed to eventually make it happen. I have been surprised and elated that I, a lone citizen, have been given such a degree of direct access to my political representatives.
Sometimes, I wonder if 'approach' may have something to do with why many people do not get what they want. If I walk into a place with an entitlement mentality, that is to say "I know my rights, and you will give me what I demand because you work for me and you have no choice", there is a very low likelihood that I will get anything more than the absolute minimum of assistance. This goes for anyone I approach, whether it's a police officer, a grocery store clerk, the guy who sells me my fishing licence every year, a postal clerk, or a Town Council member. I have read and seen that attitude from many people. Do you know anyone who reacts well to that kind of approach? Do you feel like you want to go out of your way to help such a person? I know I don't.
Living 150 feet from the town boundary, I wish our neighborhood would get annexed. I would like to be able to vote in town elections. I pay $550.00 in property taxes (My parents pay $7,500 for the same size house and my inlaws pay over $10,000). If we were annexed, that amount would double, but the reduction in my water bill would more than cover the difference, and I would no longer have to pay for trash pick-up.
In a nutshell, I feel as though my voice is welcomed and my concerns are taken under careful consideration by the town, and I feel as though my property tax burden is miniscule compared to that of others, particularly given the fact that I am provided with a public transportation system free of charge, allowing me to not own a car for the past 10 years and not hand my money over to terrorists and Communists. I would like to be able to vote for town officials, but in the grand scheme of things, I get to live in paradise, with my voice heard, with free transportation, for a very low tax burden.
Regulation without representation? Taxation without representation? I just don't feel it. And now, I'm going for a nice walk on the Greenway, on a beautiful day, in paradise. I might even take my fishing pole.
Mike D. I did speak at the public hearing on whether to take the power from the County. The Mayor was very nice and cordial. And, she made me feel quite welcome. Then the Planning Commission opened a second public hearing and they were all very nice. And, the attorney was nice as well. As a matter of fact, I think the Planning Commission, which I wrote in a comment somewhere after the public hearing, worked well together. They were considerate of each other and the speakers. I felt real comfortable and appreciated the exchange of issues and ideas with each other. The Planning Commission chairman did an excellent job of allowing all to have a voice, including the public. And, I went up and thanked each one of them and complimented them on how they conducted their deliberations. I can't anything but good things about the Planning Commissioner deliberations that I experienced. The Planning Director was a tad bit ill toward the Planning Commission which I though was not appropriate. His displeasure showed. They voted for all changes unanimously except for the taking of power from the County. And, they deliberated and debated the issue for a long time. They finally agreed 5-1 that they didn't want to take that power away. I am not sure where you are coming from. However, I think that you want to needle me with personal attacks more than you want to discuss the issues. You spend you microphone time however you want. However, I can't continue this for the sake of others. That would get annoying for sure - Tit for Tat - you know.
Does anyone know the names of the ones on the Planning Commission? I'm curious if I know any of them and wonder why the media never publishes their names. It's not a secret is it? Also, how about the other two people who were appointed by the county commissioners for the ETJ since the media only named Templeton?
http://www.townofboone.net/departments/admin/pdfs/town%20boards.pdf
Reader....open this link and scroll down to about the third page.
There should be no ETJ unless residents can vote in municipal elections and run for municipal offices. If you cannot vote for the people that make the rules or be one of those people, then they should not get to make the rules.
If a town feels it necessary to control an area outside of town, it can always annex, which gives the people in the area the ability to have a say in their rules and regulations. Of course this would alos cost the municipality money and bring franchise people that may not agree with the status quote, so municipalities hate the idea of losing the ability to regulate those that are not represented in the process.
"The Jones house is Town-owned and Town-leased. " So the Town really leases the Jones House to itself? That is strange.
Inquiring Mind,
Would you consider putting together a short list of the infractions of the state ETJ laws you have seen here? I haven't really had the time to read everything you have posted. Just a few bullet points covering the essential argument would be really helpful, something like "1) The ETJ extends more than a mile from the town limits and the law says it can't do that". I understand the complaints of fairness, or lack thereof, of the general concept of the ETJ, but I'm more interested in the actual infractions, and it seems as though you have done sufficient research to spell those out simply and clearly.
If you don't, or don't want to, It's ok, but it would really help me to see your ideas more clearly if you would summarize them and pull them all together into one, unified statement in concise, layman's terms.
Perhaps you have already done this, and I skipped over it, or missed the thread. If so, please forgive me. I have just gotten bogged down by some of the lengthy posts, and I think I may have missed some of the crucial points.
Guy,
""The Jones house is Town-owned and Town-leased. " So the Town really leases the Jones House to itself? That is strange."
This reminds me of the hospital scene from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life":
Hospital Administrator: "Ah, I see you have the machine that goes "ping"! This is my favorite. You see, we lease it back from the company we sold it to, and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account!"
Thanks Anon for the tip and I do know a few of them.
NC needs an appeal law for citizens of an ETJ. I don't know who would need to be contacted about a law, but it makes sense. I read where WJ placed ammendments on their zoning ordinances, a little over a year ago. Might be what the commissioners and town need to consider.
Mike D. With due respect, your comment about dealing with public officials is interesting. From my own experiences, some are polite and respectful and try to be helpful, and unfortunately, some are not. The latter group has the attitude that they are the overlords and the citizens are mere serfs. Some will try to bluff and intimidate the questioning public. Plus, they do not think they have to answer questions truthfully, if at all, let alone give the citizens copies of documents, etc., that are clearly public information. This hostile and arrogant attitude by some public officials is not only wrong, it should be of great concern to the citizenry.
It should also be of deep concern to citizens regarding the continual growth of government power and government's increasing demands for more taxation and funding over these last several decades. Government's grab for power will not cease unless the citizens join together and stop it.
Are you that trusting of government and government officials? I'm not.
Whether or not an individual is satisfied with the decisions of the town is not the point. One may very well be satisfied with everything the town council or the planning board decides. That doesn't change the fact that the county commissioners are the ones charged by the statute with making the appointments of the ETJ representatives.
"Are you that trusting of government and government officials? I'm not."
Anonymous, If you would be so kind as to pick a nickname, I'd be happy to converse with you. It doesn't need to be anything of a personally identifying nature. Just something to set you apart from the next person who leaves an anonymous comment. Anonymous posters make for extremely confusing conversation. Plus, even though I can seem like a sarcastic ass at times, the truth is that I enjoy developing relationships in these here political forums. How can that happen without some kind of identifier attached to posts?
Thank you.
Anonymous. Your comment on the public officials is right on. My experience has been the same. And, this is why legislatures, study committees and citizens will never be at peace with the ETJ. Robert Cherry, spouse of Town Council Member Jaime Leigh was appointed to the Town of Boone Planning Commission and the Town thinks that they can do a better job of selecting qualified persons. The law gives the County the right and the Town's little spin will come back to bite them.
Mike D. You identify yourself how you wish and I, and others, will do the same. I feel more comfortable with 'Anonymous'. Also, on this blog, we have that choice.
Moreover, one's ID is not important. The points, the issues, the arguments presented are what's important on this blog.
If I ever figure out how to eliminate the "anonymous" option I will do so. We are all anonymous anyway. The option only serves to keep those using it from being held accountable for past comments. It inhibits the ability to take stock of individual perspectives. But Nonny is right, it is an option... for now.
Anonymous,
There you have it. The blog administrator himself does not approve of users refusing to assume an identity on his blog, but allows it only because he has not figured out how to get rid of the option. If you Google "how can I remove the anonymous posting option from my blog", you will find hundreds of other blog administrators who do not appreciate snipers who wish to avoid ever having to defend their words by assuming an identity on the blog.
My request of you is not unreasonable.
Anyway, are we really changing the world with our comments here, or are we participating in a conversation with others who enjoy politics? Why not be personable? You can still say whatever you want. I promise, I won't hold it against you if you have always wanted to be called "Strawberry Shortcake" or "Twinkletoes" or something. :-)
Come on... be a pal!
HD,
I tried to figure out a way to remove the option, but it looks like there is no way to avoid it as long as the Name/URL option is made available. Honestly, I do usually choose that option, but I also have a Google account, so I would log in if needed. It's just unfortunate that it would prevent our lovable yet lazy friends from participating.
The only thing I can think of that would kind of split the difference on a solution would be to disable "Name/URL" posting, but also provide an easy link to sign up for a Google account.
Will it make you happy if I post under MikeD? I am not the original.
MikeD2,
I would consider it a great honor, and it even sounds like a Star Wars droid. :-)
Anyway, MikeD2, to your question "Are you that trusting of government and government officials? I'm not."
I'm not really sure. On a state and national level, I don't trust them very much at all, but at a local level, politicians are much more accountable to their constituents. If you spend any time in public in Boone, you cannot help but run into the mayor, the town council, and the town attorney. So I have to be honest, I do feel a greater inclination to trust local politicians in a small town. Does that mean I agree with their policies or decisions? No. But I do trust them more.
Here is an article from the 8/11/2003 Watauga Democrat archives that disputes the Mayor's comments in last Thursday's HCP: "Boone Mayor Loretta Clawson said the action “just blew me away,” adding she had never seen that in all her years on council." After you read this article, replace "Lee Stroupe" with "Harvard Ayers" and "Earl Keller" with "Jeff Templeton". Then replace "steep slope" with "asphalt plant" and you will have it - history repeating itself. And please note, the Watauga Democrat said that the commissioners were exercising their "legal and moral rights".
Lets go back to 2003
"• A Reporter’s View: Keller appointment raises important public questions
08/11/2003 By Scott Nicholson
Political appointments are always political in nature. When a decision is a little more complex than applying a rubber stamp, then the public deserves at least the dignity of a discussion.
The county commissioners performed the rare action of ignoring an outside recommendation for a position on a public board during its last meeting.
The Boone Town Council voted to recommend Lee Stroupe to another term on the Boone Board of Adjustment as a representative of the town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. ...
Presumably, this allows political representation for the area in which the residents are subject to ordinances adopted by elected officials that they didn’t elect. In other words, ETJ residents can’t vote to “throw the rascals out” if they are unhappy with the town ordinances.
As a matter of general practice, the town recommends members to the county commission, which usually approves them with little or no discussion.
Since there are numerous civic boards and numerous appointments, it’s impossible for the commissioners to know each appointee or board candidate, and they often rely on the judgment of the body making the recommendation. In this case, the political implications are a little too controversial to get the rubber stamp.
Lee Stroupe had an excellent attendance record during his three years on the Board of Adjustment and was unanimously recommended by the town council. Anyone who attends board meetings on a regular basis knows that attendance is the single most important quality in a member.
Spotty attendance leads to delays and costs for developers as well as taxpayers, and causes inconvenience for the citizens who show up to speak at meetings that must be postponed due to lack of a quorum.
Stroupe also happened to be one of the leaders of Citizens Against Pollution, a group that organized to oppose an asphalt plant in the Roby Green Road community.
The man the commissioners appointed to the board instead of Stroupe was Earl Keller. He is a partner in Keller Brothers Inc., which leased a parcel of land for the asphalt plant.
TO BE CONTINUED
8/11/2011 Watauga Democrat article continued:
"Presumably, these two men are at different ends of the ideological spectrum on land use issues.
Keller is well qualified and may prove to be an excellent Board of Adjustment member. He is a farmer and a large landowner who has experienced firsthand the conflict of private rights versus community rights. He understands development pressures as well as anyone.
In his first BOA meeting Thursday night, Keller’s knowledge of underground water springs played a key role in one of the most significant issues surrounding a large subdivision project.
Keller, like all community board members, deserves our gratitude for his willingness to serve.
Keller’s appointment was perfectly within the legal and moral rights of the county commissioners.
If they felt Keller was the superior candidate for the position, then they were duty bound to appoint him, despite the town council’s recommendation.
The appointment itself was not troubling. What is troubling is the manner in which it was made. Keller was nominated and appointed with no public discussion.
Presumably, the county commissioners all knew beforehand that Keller would be nominated and elected as a candidate. Otherwise, the public would expect a discussion of the relative merits of the two candidates….
The other troubling aspect of the appointment is that it carries the taint of a revenge blow against the town.
The town has supported a scenic byway designation for U.S. 421, and the county commissioners have repeatedly opposed it.
Now that the state has entered the fray, the commissioners could be tempted to flex their muscles against those who don’t follow the company line.
The commissioners are clearly consistent in their land use views and have never apologized for their positions. Nor should they. But as elected officials, they owe it to the public to explain and even repeatedly defend those positions.
Many of us remember the last time the town and county governments fell into a conflict that eventually descended into a battle of personalities and egos.
Local taxpayers ended up spending more than $400,000 in legal fees before our most important community leaders sat down and resolved the dispute rather than continuing to fire away at each other via expensive attorneys.
The commissioners have the courage to vote what they truly believe is in the best interest of the people they represent, and even their political opponents can and should respect that...."
(Please read the article in full. The reporter also touches on a perception of lack of open government; something we have longed argued.).
I saw on the GoBLueRidge web site
http://goblueridge.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12537:heated-excnahges-punctuate-special-town-board-meeting&catid=1
the town council's discussion of the Jones house/art council issue.
But,I didn't see anything about the ETJ disagreements. Does anyone know what happened there?
Let me attempt to convey what happened at the Jones House meeting which was hours of deliberations of where a copier could and could not be located. I understand, with my limited background, that the Downtown Business Development Association is being temporarily housed in the Jones House until the Downtown Boone PO is renovated. The Downtown Business Association has placed a copier in a location that is unacceptable to some who have contacted some Town Council Members who are in turn concerned. From what I understand, it is temporary; however, temporary or not the Town wants it located elsewhere. Some Town Council Members found it absurd that they were spending hours on the discussion of the location of the copier. And interesting, the owners of the copier claim their lease doesn't give the Town the authority to tell them where to locate the copier; however, they are willing to work with the Town and are in discussions with an attorney. Its hard to come into the middle of what appears to be a long contentious debate without background information. The newspaper has a history of assuming we know all of the players and the problems. Another "Tit for Tat" episode. Nothing about the County and ETJ discussed. If anyone else has more information or clarifying information, please jump in. The whole concept of spending hours in this discussion seemed odd in the first place. I did read that another location was considered;however, it couldn't be placed there because of personnel files. It appeared the only other option was to purchase a smaller copier. Go figure.
Let me attempt to convey what happened at the Jones House meeting which was hours of deliberations of where a copier could and could not be located. I understand, with my limited background, that the Downtown Business Development Association is being temporarily housed in the Jones House until the Downtown Boone PO is renovated. The Downtown Business Association has placed a copier in a location that is unacceptable to some who have contacted some Town Council Members who are in turn concerned. From what I understand, it is temporary; however, temporary or not the Town wants it located elsewhere. Some Town Council Members found it absurd that they were spending hours on the discussion of the location of the copier. And interesting, the owners of the copier claim their lease doesn't give the Town the authority to tell them where to locate the copier; however, they are willing to work with the Town and are in discussions with an attorney. Its hard to come into the middle of what appears to be a long contentious debate without background information. The newspaper has a history of assuming we know all of the players and the problems. Another "Tit for Tat" episode. Nothing about the County and ETJ discussed. If anyone else has more information or clarifying information, please jump in. The whole concept of spending hours in this discussion seemed odd in the first place. I did read that another location was considered;however, it couldn't be placed there because of personnel files. It appeared the only other option was to purchase a smaller copier. Go figure.
Let me attempt to convey what happened at the Jones House meeting which was hours of deliberations of where a copier could and could not be located. I understand, with my limited background, that the Downtown Business Development Association is being temporarily housed in the Jones House until the Downtown Boone PO is renovated. The Downtown Business Association has placed a copier in a location that is unacceptable to some who have contacted some Town Council Members who are in turn concerned. From what I understand, it is temporary; however, temporary or not the Town wants it located elsewhere. Some Town Council Members found it absurd that they were spending hours on the discussion of the location of the copier. And interesting, the owners of the copier claim their lease doesn't give the Town the authority to tell them where to locate the copier; however, they are willing to work with the Town and are in discussions with an attorney. Its hard to come into the middle of what appears to be a long contentious debate without background information. The newspaper has a history of assuming we know all of the players and the problems. Another "Tit for Tat" episode. Nothing about the County and ETJ discussed. If anyone else has more information or clarifying information, please jump in. The whole concept of spending hours in this discussion seemed odd in the first place. I did read that another location was considered;however, it couldn't be placed there because of personnel files. It appeared the only other option was to purchase a smaller copier. Go figure.
I would imagine tht all of the Town's meetings concerning the ETJ will be held in executive session. The County hopefully is going to take them to court over the appointment issue. If this is the case, it is even possible some of the executive closed (secret) meetings may be legitimate.
New Guy. You might want to focus on the appraisal on the old WHS property. The appraisal is in and will be discussed at the July 12th meeting of the Commissioners. Deron Geougue, the County Manager, was quoted as saying that the appraisal would not be released before the meeting and may not be then because it might "affect the sale of the property". The County has no problem interpreting the ETJ regulations. However, NC General Statute 143-318(a)(5) has to do with land acquisitions and not land dispositions: The board may go into closed session "(5) To establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating (i) the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease; or (ii) the amount of compensation and other material terms of an employment contract or proposed employment contract." And, this is what David Lawrence, School of Government expert, has to say on the subject in an article titled Public Records and Open Meetings:
“A public body may hold a closed session to develop its negotiating position, in the purchase of real property, and it may while in closed session, give instructions to its bargaining agent in that transaction. Note there is not a similar authority for a closed session if the body is selling real property.”
And, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press states on the subject:
“Neither the Public Records Law nor any other statute exempts or excludes records relating to the acquisition or disposition of public property. A public body may meet in closed session to discuss negotiations of "the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease." G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(5). When this occurs, the minutes and other records relating to such discussion are public records, but they may be withheld from public inspection "so long as public inspection would frustrate the purpose of the closed session." G.S. § 143-318.10(e). The disposition of public property may not be discussed in closed session; accordingly, records relating to such transactions, and the negotiations thereof should be available for public inspection at all times.”
TO BE CONTINUED
Continued - Old WHS Appraisal
Discussions of disposition of property must and should be conducted in the open. Another article by David Lawrence and Charles Szypszak titled Property Acquisition, Sale and Disposition clearly indicates that dispositions of government property are to be conducted openly. And, it would be unconstitutional under the NC State Constitution to the sale the property for less than fair market value (Article 1 Section 32). Everyone has the right to the “fair market value”; the citizens, the purchaser and the government. The following statement is made in this article: “the North Carolina Supreme Court has indicated that the price resulting from an open and competitive procedure will be accepted as the market value.”
The County Commissioners and the School Board have been in violation of the use of "Acquisition of Property" for purpose of holding closed sessions and withholding information. The School Board was challenged on this recently and changed their reason from "affect on the sale of the property" to "client-attorney privilege". However, the statute is very clear that this only refers to correspondence from the attorney to the board: § 132‑1.1. Confidential communications by legal counsel to public board or agency; State tax information; public enterprise billing information; Address Confidentiality Program information.
"(a) Confidential Communications. – Public records, as defined in G.S. 132‑1, shall not include written communications (and copies thereof) to any public board, council, commission or other governmental body of the State or of any county, municipality or other political subdivision or unit of government, made within the scope of the attorney‑client relationship by any attorney‑at‑law serving any such governmental body, concerning any claim against or on behalf of the governmental body or the governmental entity for which such body acts, or concerning the prosecution, defense, settlement or litigation of any judicial action, or any administrative or other type of proceeding to which the governmental body is a party or by which it is or may be directly affected. Such written communication and copies thereof shall not be open to public inspection, examination or copying unless specifically made public by the governmental body receiving such written communications; provided, however, that such written communications and copies thereof shall become public records as defined in G.S. 132‑1 three years from the date such communication was received by such public board, council, commission or other governmental body."
The School Board still has not released the appraisal they did in 2006 and they have not answered requests for mediation. Does the County want to go to mediation? Lets see if they deny access; however, the issue needs to be brought to light and settled in the courts to prevent this form every occurring again.
The Town and County may very well be busy in court. The County might want to err on the side of open government, or as in the words of the Attorney General, Roy Cooper in his open government guide: "The spirit with which public officials work to comply with the law is just as important as the law itself. Recognizing that the public’s business should be done in the open and honoring requests for help serves the people as well as those who seek to inform them. In fact the policy of the state of North Carolina is to allow public access to activities of government. In other words, when in doubt, how to interpret the state’s open records and meetings laws – always work to resolve the question in favor of openness.”
Guy. I agree, the Town will probably go into closed session under client-attorney privilege. The attorneys should being fairing pretty well: ETJ, public records, copier placement, sale of old high school property....
Two hours attorney fees would buy enough copiers to have one in each place!
On the 4th, I walked from my house in the ETJ across the border into the Town of Boone. I strolled up the Greenway Trail for about 20 minutes, enjoying the night air, finally stopping in the park to spread out a blanket and watch the beautiful town fireworks. Today, I once again enjoyed a relaxing stroll on the Greenway. Tomorrow, I will ride my bike on the Greenway to where I will catch a free bus to work.
Now, I am not sure about this, but considering my dramatically reduced property taxes (from owning in the ETJ), does this not constitute representation without taxation? Should I expect an invoice from the Town of Boone for using the facilities the taxpayers of Boone have provided for my use?
Mike D. How much does the Town of Boone pay toward the Watauga County Recreation Department? Where is the facility located? Who uses that facility? Who owns which parks? Please tell us exactly what recreation does the Town pay for? The microphone is yours. You may be very surprised to find out that the Town pays for very little and the County foots the bill while most of the facilities are in the Town. The concept we are discussing here is regulation without representation.
Inquiring Mind,
I don't know, but since the fireworks were launched from a place called "Clawson/Burnley Park", my guess is that the park is owned by the Town of Boone, and the fireworks were paid for by the town.
From TownofBoone.net:
"Town Parks & Greenway Trail
The Parks & Greenway Trail is in charge of the maintenance and management of Boone's three public parks - Junaluska, Boone Jaycee & North Street, as well as the historic Greenway Trail facility."
From AppalCART.com:
"As a result of the recommendations in the TDP, AppalCART became an independent authority in July of 1986 with its own personnel policy and benefits, and all employees became authority employees and no longer county employees. This change also overcame some reluctance with the Boone Town Council and it voted to join the authority and to begin financially supporting it. AppalCART became the official name of the authority."
And no, the concept we are discussing here is "The county, the town, and the ETJ". Please see the title of the thread for more information.
I think a person living under a reduced tax burden in the ETJ, yet benefiting from many of the town's programs, is absolutely appropriate to the conversation. AppalCART routes run into the ETJ, and the Greenway Trail is easily accessed from the ETJ.
Mike D...
When I saw you had written: "I will catch a free bus to work." it got me thinking that maybe you have identified the problem we are having with the liberal mentality.
There is no "free" bus! There is only someone else paying for it.
I am glad to see that you appreciate it though. Several of my liberal friends just assume they are entitled to it.
New Guy. Well said. When the County doesn't have to pay for something because they receive State or Federal grant money, they often say it isn't costing us anything. It is good to remind those who enjoy all of these "freebies" that somebody pays.
Mike D.
Again, we are talking about "regulation without representation" and not "taxation without representation".
A lot of out-of-Town residents enjoy the Town sponsored facilities and a lot more of the Town residents enjoy the County supported facilities by nature of location. The Town does not fund any of the Watauga Recreational Center and programs. The County also supports AppalCart. Please don't divert the subject - land planning jurisdiction and regulation within the ETJ and who appoints members to those boards - Town and County or just Town - that is the debate. As Scott Nicholson in the Watauga Democrat in August of 2003 about another controversial appointment by the commissioners of an ETJ representative: "... was perfectly within the legal and moral rights of the county commissioners". Looked like Scott Nicholson can read the statutes too.
inquiring mind said...
"New Guy. Well said. When the County doesn't have to pay for something because they receive State or Federal grant money, they often say it isn't costing us anything. It is good to remind those who enjoy all of these "freebies" that somebody pays." .
I agree IM...it seems like every BOC meeting someone mentions that it is "grant" money and thus doesn't cost "us" anything. Of course that's just the way we have become conditioned to think....the federal government takes it away and then offers it as 'free' grants back to the states and local governments.
It's coming out of a different pocket, but it's still our pants!
You can see though how people somehow 'buy' into it. It's the Santa Claus mentality..."free fireworks", "free busrides" etc. And when the money runs out and some things have to be cut back, you can hear the demands that someone else should suffer the cut, or else just raise taxes on another "someone else".
We can't keep doing this!
Public transportation, bad.
Public fireworks, bad.
Public parks, bad.
Got it.
At least now we can have an honest conversation. Understanding the core of a person's beliefs is crucial to understanding the direction they wish to steer you in a debate.
Regulation and taxation are unrelated subjects.
Got it. Insane, but I got it.
One thing I don't understand, Inquiring Mind. You are clearly against regulation, but you constantly quote it in your arguments.
And representation. Were you represented in 1917, 1929, and 1949, when municipalities were granted extraterritorial jurisdiction in NC? How about before that, when it was granted by judges? You quote the regulations. Were you represented?
Look, I have lived in a society where taxes were so oppressive that a person could only hope to save enough money in a lifetime to buy one house that they might be able to pass on to their children. Everything was taxed and regulated. You had to pay a tax to own a pet. You had to pay a tax to own a TV. It was awful. I would not, even for a moment, wish such a society upon us.
But here I see a researched, polished, and well presented version of the "ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do with my land" attitude.
Reading through, around, and between the lines of your voluminous posts, it seems to me that this is ultimately one of two things. Either you think public parks and public works are a concept invented in a dark room by Marx and Engels rather than a pillar of advanced human civilization that has existed for thousands of years before Socialism was invented, or all of these posts are simply a veiled partisan assault on the Town Council.
No Mike, you aren't even attempting to have an "honest conversation" here.
Noone said that public parks, fireworks, or public transportation were bad...noone that is, except for you and that was just your effort to put straw men up so that you could knock them down.
What HAS been said, is that these things are not "free".
Regulation and taxation are not related in any consistant way - why do you think it's insane that they are not? The town of Boone can regulate the ETA (which IS what we are discussing), but they can't tax it. The residents there are not being taxed by the town, but they are being restricted as to what they can do with their land.
I am not even making the argument here that the regulation is bad...or good for that matter. What I am saying is that since the people are subject to regulation by the town, shouldn't they have SOME say in the election of those that are regulating them?
Mike, take a breath! You are better than that!
New Guy,
When I put up a straw man, which I clearly did, it is not to prove a point, but to illuminate that there is a larger issue at play.
Inquiring Mind offers volumes of statutory legalese to demonstrate particular infractions of the state's extraterritorial jurisdiction legislation, but Inquiring Mind's real beef is with the allowance for extraterritorial jurisdiction in the first place (red herring with a touch of proof by verbosity).
Communist professors whom we have known almost never step forward and say that Communism is great, do they? We are forced to draw the conclusion based on their relentless attacks on Capitalism, right? We feel safe drawing the conclusion because they never, ever say anything good about Capitalism, but say bad stuff about it all the time. But what do they say about us if we call them Communists?
"I am not even making the argument here that the regulation is bad". You don't have to say it directly. It seeps from almost every post in the thread, and the "without representation" part of the argument is Inquiring Mind's straw man.
Look, the truth is that "ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do with my land" is the heart and soul of Inquiring Mind's philosophy. All of the research, all of the verbosity, it's all a dance around the core principle.
So just as I would say to the professor who doesn't want to debate the true merits and horrendous atrocities of Communism, I say let us discuss sewers dumped into creeks, historical buildings torn down for profit, and the heritage of the town turned into a WalMart parking lot so that three developers can make as much money as possible.
If I were Inquiring Mind, I wouldn't want to have that debate either. I would much rather obfuscate, obscure the real issue by quoting statutes I don't agree with like they are Scripture.
The difference in IM and MikeD is that IM posts a great amount of information to back up her opinions, MikeD simply posts a great amount of opinions.
Both are entertaining, but one can gain more information from IM.
MikeD, if you are really that disturbed by the amount and lenght of IM's posts, might I point out no one makes you read them?
I really do not understand your comment about IM not debating you. He or she has certainly countered everything you have said and backed the counter up. You have not done the same.
There is a really good letter to the editor in the HCP from Matthew Snyder on the issue titled: Silencing the Voice of Representation.
PLEASE POST ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT TO THE 'NEW' THREAD WHICH IS:
http://wataugarepubs.blogspot.com/2011/07/part-ii-of-county-town-and-etj.html?showComment=1310063158389
Post a Comment