Bill to kill highway corridor set-asides clears committee

Posted March 24, 2015

This area of Johnston and Wake counties is set aside for future road construction.

— The House Transportation Committee gave its approval Tuesday to a bill to do away with the Map Act, a 1987 law that has allowed the state to block new development on properties that sit in the path of planned highways across North Carolina.

Rep. Rayne Brown, R-Davidson, called the law "abusive" and painted a picture of property owners who were caught betwixt and between, neither able to sell their land nor fully use it.

The state Court of Appeals has already found the state unconstitutionally takes land through the Map Act without compensating those owners. Although that case arose out of Forsyth County, there are similar situations across the state.

"We have situations in my district where we have (Interstate) 540, and people have lost full use of their land while they're waiting for a roadway to come," Rep. Nelson Dollar, R-Wake, said.

However, Dollar cautioned that the state would need to find a way to plan for highways or face a skyrocketing costs for road construction.

In the Winston-Salem case, DOT officials estimated that it would cost the state $200 million to buy all of the property involved outright. Brown said that number was closer to $400 million. Either way, the demise of the Map Act will mean the state has to front the money to buy thousands or acres of property before its ready to build a road or risk owners putting new homes and businesses in the way of future routes. That would make future acquisition and construction more costly and time-consuming.

Despite that potential cost, many representatives said the state shouldn't be in the position of saving money by crippling property owners.

"The Map Act cannot be tweaked or fixed. It needs to be completely repealed," Rep. Debra Conrad, R-Forsyth, said.

The bill now heads to the House Appropriations Committee before heading to the floor.


Please with your account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Phil Larson Mar 24, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    You mean campaign donaters?

  • Christopher Rose Mar 24, 2015
    user avatar

    Mike I'm sure that's the whole point. I mean how can you vote for this and then also want to get rid of the protest petition requiring a bigger town board majority at the same time?

  • Melanie Lane Mar 24, 2015
    user avatar

    makes sense to me - kinda like how we can't use science to discuss climate change and had to extend the use of it out by 30 years instead of 10 because people would not be able to sell their homes on the coast if we tell potential buyers of expected change to the coast line while they own the property. Let it be like that, we can know that 540 is expected to go where homes are but lets not burden sellers with telling buyers about it - by the time buyers buy the property and want to sell it again these guys don't expect to face re-election fights

  • Arthur Raleigh Mar 24, 2015
    user avatar

    The road needs to be completed otherwise we will have tons of cars on tiny country roads

  • Mike Jones Mar 24, 2015
    user avatar

    How many GOP 'ers own land that would benefit from this ???