Column for May 22, 2008

It is not just people in the proposed ETJ that oppose its expansion

Some nights I would rather just stay at home. That is how I felt when debating whether I wanted to attend the last several Selma Town Council meetings. I knew that this last one, which would have the public hearing on the proposed expansion to two miles of the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction for planning and zoning, would be a long meeting. From what I read in the paper, it was. Since I am not sitting on the Council, though I once felt an obligation to attend meetings regularly as a citizen, I am less inclined to do so, especially with all the activities going on in my own busy life the past six months.

Since I am on the Planning Board, I got a chance to see the proposed ETJ expansion map. From what was explained by Stan Farmer on his next to last day on the job, as well as the consultant hired to work on the plan, the town's planning lines up pretty will with what Johnston County has zoned for the ETJ. On that aspect, my recommendation as a member of the Planning Board was that if the town was to go ahead with the ETJ expansion, that we simply take the territory as it is and zone it according to the closest comparable zoning that is in our town code. That was a "no brainer" to me. When asked to put that into a motion, I declined. The reason that I declined was that I was not at all in support of the concept of an ETJ expansion, much less the existence of an ETJ to begin with. Since I am morally opposed to an ETJ on several grounds, I verbalized that I would not make any formal motion that would support the adoption of said jurisdiction. When the motion was made by someone else and the votes cast, I was the only negative vote.

I was reading the comments by some of the citizens of the proposed ETJ and I am inclined to agree with some of what was said. I am only commenting upon what I have read in this very publication. First and foremost, in my estimation, the sole reason for an ETJ is so that the town can control the area just outside of its borders so that it can be consistent with the region inside its borders. The reason for this is for the purpose of expanding the town limits via annexation.

Annexation has been a hotbed of conversation and action in Selma. The folks who expressed a concern about future annexation as a result of this action have a good case for their suspicions. I had expressed this very concern at the Planning Board meeting last month. The reason of "every other town in the county is doing it" is not sufficient reason for Selma or any other town to do so.

I still do not have any earthly idea why Johnston County even has the authority to allow a two mile ETJ. TWO miles, folks. The entire town of Selma is only 3.5 square miles in area. Why should a town that small control such a huge outlaying parcel of land for its own planning purposes? The City of Raleigh had to meet certain population requirements in order to have that much of a planning jurisdiction. It is just plain morally wrong for the towns in a county whose entire population is roughly one third of a city like Raleigh to be entitled to the same size ETJ.

The criticism of the new interim town manager, "when one speaker wanted to know how someone from Louisburg could possibly know anything about what was going on in Selma" is a bit unfounded. First, this entire project was started under someone else's tenure. Secondly, Mr. Gobble has just recently started this job, so I do not expect him to know everything about Selma. For that matter, Stan Farmer, for all the praise he received, never lived in Selma. At least the town manager that the Town Council fired a couple of years ago, Jeff White, had a house right in town, was a Selma citizen, and a voter during his tenure. That is not to slam Stan Farmer's work. Actually, he and I got along well. It is simply to make a point.

The bottom line is that the entire existence of an ETJ is solely for the purposes of lining up and controlling growth outside of a town to prepare that territory to eventually be annexed into the town. Meanwhile, as was noted by one speaker at the public hearing, the residents of the ETJ have zero ability to elect representation within the town who have a measure of control on those without. That is just plain unethical in a representative republic. The only say that anyone from the ETJ has is that residents of the ETJ do have seats on the Planning Board, which are appointed by the Town Council. However, those seats are not directly chosen by the residents themselves, nor are the Planning Board members vested with any binding authority, thus making such representation of no consequence.

The 150 or so people who attended the public hearing and were cynical had every right to be and had experiential evidence to back up their concerns. I, as someone who resides within the town limits, serves on a town board, and cared enough about Selma to run for elected office twice so that I could stand against things like ETJ expansion and annexation, am rather dubious and have said so repeatedly.