Local News

Forced annexation moratorium on hold for now

Posted July 7, 2008
Updated July 8, 2008

— For years, hundreds of people who live in the rural area of Buck Swamp Road near Goldsboro have been fighting to stay out of Goldsboro's city limits.

"We live in the country, and that's the way we want to stay," said Larry Pierce.

Larry Pierce and others who make up Good Neighbors United say they want no part of Goldsboro's forced annexation.

"We're satisfied with the services we have, and its going to be double taxation for no additional services," Pierce said.

City leaders argue annexation will bring improvements, such as sewers, to replace older septic tanks.

Officials also say the increased tax base is necessary to keep up with growth and to improve places like parks already used by people in and outside of the city limits.

"(It will) Increase the general well-being of the region and the city, and I think that leads to economic prosperity for all," said Goldsboro City Manager Joseph Huffman.

The Goldsboro case is currently under review by the North Carolina Supreme Court, and is one of many in the state that could be affected by possible changes to the law.

Last week, the state House approved House Bill 2367 bill that would put a temporary hold on all involuntary annexation until May 31, 2009. That would give state leaders a chance to review the current, and nearly 50-year-old, law.

"We would consider it a big win if it is passed," Pierce said.

North Carolina is one of only four states that still allow involuntary annexations.

But Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand says it won't pass and that the chamber won't consider the bill as it is now because it does not comply with rules for the current session.

He said he believes the current annexation law does need a review and that he and other lawmakers hope to study the issue in the next session.

That means no moratorium August, which is when the moratorium would have started..

"If they would take time to review it, then they would see the laws need to be changed," Pierce said.

"Annexation laws probably don't need to be amended very much," Huffman said. "We're where we are at because we've been doing things the right way for a long time."


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Tired_of_LIBERALS Jul 8, 2008

    bpjamesncsu seems like a well edumacated fella. Keep them non city folks outa town - that'll show 'em!

    The issue is "do the non annexed residents cost the tax payers in the town any money?" NO, they don't. They don't get police, fire, water, sewer, or trash service (which is paid for in addition to taxes, funny enough). Your city taxes get you those services and the right to vote for people to spend your tax dollars.

    Non annexed people do NOT get any of those services from the city. They still add to the tax base by taxes on goods purchased (yes that feeds back to the cities).

    The cities annex the surrounding property only to reap the taxes while providing no additional services beyond what the people have already. Furthermore they are annexed against their will by politicians who they have no voting rights over.

    All the county people are looking for is the ability to vote over the annexation of their property.

  • paddie Jul 8, 2008

    "I have no problem with stopping forced annexation, as long as those who live near the city/town never go into it. If you benefit from the city/town, you ought to help pay for its services, IMO"
    Oh puleeeze. When people go into town to shop and frequent businesses they are contributing to the towns economy.

  • RUSH_2112 Jul 8, 2008

    Involuntary annexation is a little more complicated then just big government coming in and swallowing you up for tax base purposes. There are strict requirements (G.S. 160A-47 "Prerequisites to annexation").

    Consider what happened in our community 8 years ago. An older subdivision had approximately 80 property owners. It was located outside the corporate limits but directly abutting it. All lots were on well & septic systems. Many of the septic systems failed and created a health issue. I think the state or county got involved and basically told them they had to connect to municipal water & sewer services. The local jurisdiction came in and bailed them out and built a sewer outfall to serve that neighborhood. Water was also extended into the sub. Now that they were receiving public services, it was time to annex the entire sub. Most of the property owners agreed to be annexed except for a few. Because not all 100% owners agreed, forced annexation had to be done.

  • bpjamesncsu Jul 8, 2008

    I have no problem with stopping forced annexation, as long as those who live near the city/town never go into it. If you benefit from the city/town, you ought to help pay for its services, IMO.

  • jsanders Jul 8, 2008

    "North Carolina is one of four states that still allows involuntary annexations."

    What a crying shame. Truth is, NC's annexation law lets towns and cities run wild:

  • mindcrime Jul 8, 2008

    Involuntary annexation is a blight on our state. It's one of the biggest issues I'm addressing in my campaign for Lieutenant Governor. I'm absolutely opposed to forced annexation or any other form of municipal/county/state aggression (including Eminent Domain).

    Elect me Lt. Governor and I promise to fight tooth and nail to
    protect your property rights and allow property owners to choose whether to live in the city or not.

    Phil Rhodes for NC Lieutenant Governor


  • alwaysCool Jul 8, 2008

    The city of Goldsboro DOES NOT have anything to offer. I met the mayor 8 years ago and he stated then that he/the city was going to take over our area. He did not care what we thought. In the area we live in the water is going to be provided by another source, the trash service, they have not worked it out, the police they have to hire more people because we are not close to the city, then there is fire department. We are suppose to be covered by the same volunteers (Belfast). We already have street lights, curbs. They are trying to use the kids as a racial line. They want us to send our kids to a school that is on Academic probation. The only thing that Mayor King and his group can promise for sure is that our taxes will continue to rise for nothing for us to gain

  • bosoxbaby Jul 8, 2008

    If I wanted to live in the city I would've moved there.

  • Tired_of_LIBERALS Jul 8, 2008

    Involuntary, forced annexation is taxation without representation - plain and simple!!!

  • paddie Jul 8, 2008

    "City leaders argue annexation will bring improvements, such as sewers, to replace older septic tanks."
    Oh come on! Fayetteville city leaders talked this trash till they were blue in the face. Oh the septic tanks are failing! We've got to do something to HELP these poor folks. Now the latest I've heard since the forced annexation is that it's going to take at least 20 years to get the new sewer systems in place. Of course all the people affected have to start paying now. Our government is so out of control it's becoming very scary.