Johnston County's ETJ law scrutinized at public hearing
I wish that I was able to attend the recent public hearing on the two mile Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) law in Smithfield. Unfortunately, I work the sort of job in which I am a technical support type guy. When there is a problem with the equipment I maintain, I have to go take care of business. Even if I only sit in front of my laptop at home and monitor the progress of rectification, I have to do it. As life would have it, I worked late the night of that public hearing. I had it on my calendar and was ready to go. Then a problem with an upgrade to my company's software caused a major problem with our server, and instantly I was transformed from someone free for the evening to an employee chained to a laptop.
That sort of problem will not be happening to me all this week, however. As you are reading this, I am securely locked away in an undisclosed location with my new bride in our love nest for our honeymoon. God has truly blessed me this year. I wish I could tell more, but that is not what this week's column is about. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
I find it disturbing that for a public hearing on something that profoundly effects Johnston County that only one county commissioner took the time to attend. Alan Mims, according to reports, was the only one who thought it worthy of his time. I understand scheduling conflicts and getting bogged down with the day job, as I just described. However, one would think that more than just one commissioner would be there. Our state representative, Leo Daughtry, was there, though. So was J.H. Langdon. Thank you, gentlemen, for your interest and your courtesy.
I have written previously about the ETJ issue. I had given some thought and even made notes about what I would have said at that hearing. Since I was not able to attend in person, I am publishing my public comments for further consideration by our elected representatives.
Most every Monday night, I teach about U.S. history and the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, there were many debates about suffrage for the states. Great concern was expressed about being able to be properly represented in both houses of the legislative branch of government. These concerns were well founded, considering the history of the colonial response to England in which the cry of the day was "no taxation without representation".
In our case, citizens outside of the town of Selma are crying "regulation without representation". Taxation is a form of power, so is regulation. At least people in the Selma Fire District, yet outside the town limits get a service for the taxes they pay. Those who happen to live within the ETJ get regulation with no real benefit. They by default would already be within the county's jurisdiction. The county's plan was sufficiently similar to the town's that the town was going to merely adopt the county zoning and redefine it in accordance with corresponding town zoning requirements.
For a town of only 3.5 square miles, as is the case of Selma, to reach its tentacles of control out two full miles beyond its borders is unethical. Why should a town control more than its own square mileage outside of its political borders?
The argument in favor of the ETJ that the ETJ population is entitled to having representation on the town's planning board is fallacious for two reasons. First, the individual(s) chosen to serve on the board are selected by officials that ETJ residents are not able to elect. Second, the planning board has zero authority. None of the decisions taken by the board are binding in Selma and the town council that ETJ representatives can not vote for still has the final say in all matters.
When people are subject to a government that can regulate their lives and subjugate their private property rights with no recourse or choice, it violates the spirit of Article IV section 4 of the United States Constitution, which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" for each state. In a republic, those who have the rule over the people are chosen by the people. This is not the case if you live in the extra-territorial jurisdiction of a town in North Carolina.
When Johnston County towns are allowed a two mile ETJ because of a 1985 bill written specifically for the county and sneaked in by local legislators while the rest of the state's municipalities have no such authority, it is patently unfair to the rest of the state. A two mile ETJ law, and all ETJ laws for that matter, should be repealed.
Showing posts with label jurisdiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jurisdiction. Show all posts
Monday, October 20, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
