Just like a bad penny, some things just keep showing up. The federal government take over of the health care system is one of those things. The problem is that we have to be incessantly vigilant against such intrusions and control. Every single time it comes up, we have to say "NO!" It only takes one single time to say "Yes" and we are permanently hosed. Government intrusion is not limited to the feds, however.
Just like the health care take over, the Town of Selma is again seeking to extend its tentacles of control into more unincorporated territory in the county. Johnstonians as far as two whole miles away from the town limits may wind up beholden to this little town. This is repulsive to the principles of American freedom and is patently unethical. There is absolutely no way that a town this small geographically and in population should be allowed to control territory greater than its corporate limits just because it wants to.
The bottom line is that there is but one reason a town would extend its planning jurisdiction, regardless of the fallacious arguments about wanting development consistent with it's own. The reason is to be a precursor to forced annexation. I have read the statutes on extraterritorial jurisdiction. The entire context of having an ETJ is for the future expansion of a town.
Once again, this unfair, unaccountable, and unethical issue has come up like the proverbial bad penny. The concept of an ETJ amounts to regulation without representation. People are subjected to the regulatory whims of the town even though they live outside the corporate limits and have zero voting capability for those who make such regulations. The only representation that they do get is on the Planning Board, which is an advisory board only.
This is one of the very frustrations that led me to take the decision to not seek another term on that board. During my travels, I sometimes run across current and former members of Selma's Planning Board. To a person I hear the complaint that they feel/felt like they are/were wasting their time. Regardless of the recommendations of the board, there is no binding authority behind decisions taken. Sure, a few ideas may be taken into consideration to help shape the town's zoning ordinances, but I personally have a hard time reconciling the idea of taking personal freedom away from people. I have read too much behind the Founding Fathers to be a partaker in abridgment of freedom.
Make no mistake. I have no issue with the work of the Planning Board and the Planning Director to simplify the town's zoning ordinances. They needed to be simpler and clearer. However, I take great umbrage at the idea of exercising control over people outside the town limits who have absolutely no say or sway in a Republican government. People, we fought a war over ideas like that.
My plea to the town council and mayor would be to please stop exerting control where you have no business controlling. Honor the freedom of those outside the town. Do not even think about setting up forced annexation in years to come. Let freedom reign. The county already has planning laws and the they are fairly consistent with the town's.
A reason such as bringing the zoning of outlying territories into close approximation to Selma's is a moot one. I have seen the maps and compared. I served on the Planning Board when this came up the first time. Heck, I even commented that if we are going to look towards the proposed ETJ map then we should assign zoning similar to its present use and as congruent as possible to our own zoning. Right after that, I refused to vote in favor of the adoption of said map so that I would not be a party to extending the tentacles of control where they do not belong. I thought that if we were going to move in a direction I abhor, then the town should at least do it right.
In order to preserve freedom, each and every time some immoral plan like this comes forward, we have to say "No!" It is much like saying no to personal temptation. It only takes one time of saying yes to fall into sin, or in this case, institute a soft tyranny.
Showing posts with label zoning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zoning. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Column for Aug. 6, 2009
At the last two Planning Board meetings here in Selma, we have taken up the issue of limiting the sort of lodging establishments that can be built in town. There is a proposal to prohibit motels from being built and only allowing hotel type lodging. This does not affect existing businesses, but rather future growth or replacement structures.
The difference between a hotel and a motel, as proposed by the town, is the manner of construction. A motel would be defined as having room access from the exterior of the building whereas a hotel would have interior corridors. It is argued that a hotel type business attracts (in general) a higher class of customer and brings in higher taxes than a motel.
I do a significant amount of traveling in my job and personal life. Just recently, I stayed at a fine Best Western motel (as defined by proposed Selma ordinance). I have stayed at some fine hotels, as well.
It was the opinion of the Planning Board that the town ought not adopt an ordinance discriminating against motel type facilities in favor of hotels. The reasons were several, including the infringement upon the private property rights of a motel franchisee, discrimination against a viable form of business, and losing potential tax revenue from fine motel type establishments.
Let's face it, Selma will never attract a Hilton Garden or Embassy Suites. We are a crossroads on Interstate 95 and not a major tourist, convention, or business destination. Interstate travelers are looking for a clean, comfortable, affordable room, not a luxury suite.
Let's also face this fact. Selma does indeed have several establishments that I would term "flea bag motels". At one time, I am sure that they were decent establishments. Now they are aged, lacking in amenities, attract a lot of drug users and dealers, and some are high crime areas. It is precisely these sorts of clients that the town seeks to eliminate. I am all for that, but at what price? Sure, you are not as likely to find that sort of activity at the Holiday Inn Express or Hampton Inn. That is the nature of the franchises and clients to whom they cater, not necessarily construction.
The Village Inn in Smithfield has been a well run motel for years, as have several others. On the other hand, there were several fine motels that degraded into drug havens and cesspools. Some have since been torn down to make way for nicer businesses. That is all about the commitment to fine management and respect for the community versus trying to get a few bucks from a sleazy clientele roster.
If one of our craptacular motels here in Selma was to burn down or be demolished (which would not hurt my feelings. I will refrain from naming business names), the proposed ordinance would prohibit any type of lodging establishment that did not offer only interior corridors for room access.
Don't get me wrong, I love Microtel and have a stack of hotel rewards program cards for different hotel chains in my desk. However, if a Best Western, Red Roof Inn, Motel 6, or other company wanted to build a nice, clean, new facility that just happened to provide rooms accessible from the exterior of the building, I have a hard time with the Town of Selma saying, "Sorry, but we do not want your million dollar facility on our tax rolls, we are holding out for hallways."
Furthermore, unless one of our existing motels is indeed demolished, there are few places for the construction of a new facility. However, since we are not a major tourist destination, I doubt we will attract much more than we already have. Roanoke Rapids attracted a Hilton Garden, but they also have a major music theater on site, and we see how negatively that whole scenario worked out for the town.
I have a few thoughts about the argument that a hotel brings in more tax revenue than a motel. First, show me some hard numbers and I may soften my position, but property rights still prevail in my estimation. Second, I had guests in July and will have family here in September. Both parties elected to stay in a local lodging establishment since we do not have much room for accommodations at the house. Both parties chose lodging near the Factory Stores. Selma lost tax revenue since I advised against the flea bag motels, and the corridor edifices in town exceeded the cost they were willing to pay.
I do not know what the Town Council will decide on this issue, as they have been known to ignore recommendations by the Planning Board for various reasons. Will we uphold property rights and freedom while potentially missing out on property and room taxes from establishments that do not conform to fancier corridor construction?
The difference between a hotel and a motel, as proposed by the town, is the manner of construction. A motel would be defined as having room access from the exterior of the building whereas a hotel would have interior corridors. It is argued that a hotel type business attracts (in general) a higher class of customer and brings in higher taxes than a motel.
I do a significant amount of traveling in my job and personal life. Just recently, I stayed at a fine Best Western motel (as defined by proposed Selma ordinance). I have stayed at some fine hotels, as well.
It was the opinion of the Planning Board that the town ought not adopt an ordinance discriminating against motel type facilities in favor of hotels. The reasons were several, including the infringement upon the private property rights of a motel franchisee, discrimination against a viable form of business, and losing potential tax revenue from fine motel type establishments.
Let's face it, Selma will never attract a Hilton Garden or Embassy Suites. We are a crossroads on Interstate 95 and not a major tourist, convention, or business destination. Interstate travelers are looking for a clean, comfortable, affordable room, not a luxury suite.
Let's also face this fact. Selma does indeed have several establishments that I would term "flea bag motels". At one time, I am sure that they were decent establishments. Now they are aged, lacking in amenities, attract a lot of drug users and dealers, and some are high crime areas. It is precisely these sorts of clients that the town seeks to eliminate. I am all for that, but at what price? Sure, you are not as likely to find that sort of activity at the Holiday Inn Express or Hampton Inn. That is the nature of the franchises and clients to whom they cater, not necessarily construction.
The Village Inn in Smithfield has been a well run motel for years, as have several others. On the other hand, there were several fine motels that degraded into drug havens and cesspools. Some have since been torn down to make way for nicer businesses. That is all about the commitment to fine management and respect for the community versus trying to get a few bucks from a sleazy clientele roster.
If one of our craptacular motels here in Selma was to burn down or be demolished (which would not hurt my feelings. I will refrain from naming business names), the proposed ordinance would prohibit any type of lodging establishment that did not offer only interior corridors for room access.
Don't get me wrong, I love Microtel and have a stack of hotel rewards program cards for different hotel chains in my desk. However, if a Best Western, Red Roof Inn, Motel 6, or other company wanted to build a nice, clean, new facility that just happened to provide rooms accessible from the exterior of the building, I have a hard time with the Town of Selma saying, "Sorry, but we do not want your million dollar facility on our tax rolls, we are holding out for hallways."
Furthermore, unless one of our existing motels is indeed demolished, there are few places for the construction of a new facility. However, since we are not a major tourist destination, I doubt we will attract much more than we already have. Roanoke Rapids attracted a Hilton Garden, but they also have a major music theater on site, and we see how negatively that whole scenario worked out for the town.
I have a few thoughts about the argument that a hotel brings in more tax revenue than a motel. First, show me some hard numbers and I may soften my position, but property rights still prevail in my estimation. Second, I had guests in July and will have family here in September. Both parties elected to stay in a local lodging establishment since we do not have much room for accommodations at the house. Both parties chose lodging near the Factory Stores. Selma lost tax revenue since I advised against the flea bag motels, and the corridor edifices in town exceeded the cost they were willing to pay.
I do not know what the Town Council will decide on this issue, as they have been known to ignore recommendations by the Planning Board for various reasons. Will we uphold property rights and freedom while potentially missing out on property and room taxes from establishments that do not conform to fancier corridor construction?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Column for Feb. 12, 2009
Once again, an "I told you so". This time about local ordinances and tyranny
People scoffed when I wrote that local planning and zoning ordinances can be used for control and can be a form of tyranny. Here are two more examples of usurpation of power and freedom.
By the time this column is published, the Town Council will have most likely taken a vote on whether to apply its ordinance on abandoned, nuisance, and junked motor vehicles to the ETJ, or extra-territorial jurisdiction. The proposal by the town is to allow the code enforcement officer to take an ordinance specifically intended for application within the city limits and extend the authority to cover into the ETJ, which is not within the town limits.
An ETJ exists for the sole purpose of planning growth outside the town's corporate limits to accommodate orderly future growth of the town. I personally disagree with the existence of an ETJ, since it amounts to regulation without representation. There is a violation of being governed without the consent of the governed or the benefit of services of the governing agency.
Selma wants to take an ordinance designed to be about motor vehicles and traffic and apply it to people who do not live within Selma. Junk cars have nothing to do with systematic planning for future growth of a town. Don't get me wrong, I hate to see junk cars in driveways and on properties here in town or outside of town as much as anyone. However, I have a fundamental problem with the idea of taking a law designed to be enforced within the town limits and apply it outside of our corporate limits. If we can do that with the junk cars provision, why do we not find a way to enforce the town's speed limits, parking, fire prevention, and livestock possession laws on people who do not even live within our town, as well?
Can you see how this is "letting the camel stick its nose into the tent"? Let's clean up our own act here in town before even thinking about telling people who do not even live within the town to clean up theirs. Let's not enforce what is in effect a parking and storage law outside of the town's limits.
A second issue came up recently and hit my best friend. My buddy, Dave, lives way out in the country in northern Johnston County. It takes me almost thirty minutes to get there from my house in Selma. He moved to the middle of nowhere on purpose.
One day, Dave came home to find a violation notice on his door. A busy body code enforcement officer for Johnston County went on to his private property on a private road to complain about the fact that he has three campers and a lot of cars on his land.
Every one of the cars is registered. Two of the campers are response vehicles for emergency communications. One is owned by the Johnston County REACT Team, one is for the NC Emergency Reserves and has been used in hurricane response efforts by several agencies. One camper is a private RV. Two of the vehicles in question are registered to the State of North Carolina, and after the state abandoned its constitutional militia efforts, several former members have been left with the burden of upkeep and storage of its vehicles.
Dave takes no services from the county, such as water, sewer, electricity, etc. He had a county inspector on his property when he had his house built and the utility hook up for his campers installed and approved. He has met the requirements for keeping vehicles on his property registered. Yet a meddling inspector felt compelled to show up to a private residence on a private road in the middle of nowhere to extend a hand of power onto someone's private country acreage. He even used Google Earth type satellite photos from a few years ago as evidence for coming onto private property.
The fact is that there have been no complaints by any neighbors or passers by. This is the hand of over-reaching government. It is funny that I pass by dozens of junked cars, dilapidated buildings, old signs that probably violate the county sign ordinance, and properties that were once construction sites but are now illegally abandoned to get to Dave's house. The inspector would have to drive past the same things in order to get there.
Why can we not just leave people alone when they are out in their own remote personal paradise? Some people move to the country to escape such problems only to find some eager beaver intruding on their freedoms already approved by previous inspectors. Yes, local ordinances can just as easily be used as a form of oppression as can state or federal laws. I told you so.
People scoffed when I wrote that local planning and zoning ordinances can be used for control and can be a form of tyranny. Here are two more examples of usurpation of power and freedom.
By the time this column is published, the Town Council will have most likely taken a vote on whether to apply its ordinance on abandoned, nuisance, and junked motor vehicles to the ETJ, or extra-territorial jurisdiction. The proposal by the town is to allow the code enforcement officer to take an ordinance specifically intended for application within the city limits and extend the authority to cover into the ETJ, which is not within the town limits.
An ETJ exists for the sole purpose of planning growth outside the town's corporate limits to accommodate orderly future growth of the town. I personally disagree with the existence of an ETJ, since it amounts to regulation without representation. There is a violation of being governed without the consent of the governed or the benefit of services of the governing agency.
Selma wants to take an ordinance designed to be about motor vehicles and traffic and apply it to people who do not live within Selma. Junk cars have nothing to do with systematic planning for future growth of a town. Don't get me wrong, I hate to see junk cars in driveways and on properties here in town or outside of town as much as anyone. However, I have a fundamental problem with the idea of taking a law designed to be enforced within the town limits and apply it outside of our corporate limits. If we can do that with the junk cars provision, why do we not find a way to enforce the town's speed limits, parking, fire prevention, and livestock possession laws on people who do not even live within our town, as well?
Can you see how this is "letting the camel stick its nose into the tent"? Let's clean up our own act here in town before even thinking about telling people who do not even live within the town to clean up theirs. Let's not enforce what is in effect a parking and storage law outside of the town's limits.
A second issue came up recently and hit my best friend. My buddy, Dave, lives way out in the country in northern Johnston County. It takes me almost thirty minutes to get there from my house in Selma. He moved to the middle of nowhere on purpose.
One day, Dave came home to find a violation notice on his door. A busy body code enforcement officer for Johnston County went on to his private property on a private road to complain about the fact that he has three campers and a lot of cars on his land.
Every one of the cars is registered. Two of the campers are response vehicles for emergency communications. One is owned by the Johnston County REACT Team, one is for the NC Emergency Reserves and has been used in hurricane response efforts by several agencies. One camper is a private RV. Two of the vehicles in question are registered to the State of North Carolina, and after the state abandoned its constitutional militia efforts, several former members have been left with the burden of upkeep and storage of its vehicles.
Dave takes no services from the county, such as water, sewer, electricity, etc. He had a county inspector on his property when he had his house built and the utility hook up for his campers installed and approved. He has met the requirements for keeping vehicles on his property registered. Yet a meddling inspector felt compelled to show up to a private residence on a private road in the middle of nowhere to extend a hand of power onto someone's private country acreage. He even used Google Earth type satellite photos from a few years ago as evidence for coming onto private property.
The fact is that there have been no complaints by any neighbors or passers by. This is the hand of over-reaching government. It is funny that I pass by dozens of junked cars, dilapidated buildings, old signs that probably violate the county sign ordinance, and properties that were once construction sites but are now illegally abandoned to get to Dave's house. The inspector would have to drive past the same things in order to get there.
Why can we not just leave people alone when they are out in their own remote personal paradise? Some people move to the country to escape such problems only to find some eager beaver intruding on their freedoms already approved by previous inspectors. Yes, local ordinances can just as easily be used as a form of oppression as can state or federal laws. I told you so.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Column for Jan. 15, 2009
Beware that planning and zoning ordinances can lead to regulatory tyranny
There are many tools at the disposal of legislators for the control of the masses. Control can take many shapes. Speed limits are a form of behavioral control. A speed limit curbs one's freedom to operate a motor vehicle at any speed one so desires in consideration for the safety of the whole of society. To that end, we in this nation do indeed legislate morality.
In the effort to legislate moral issues, there are always standards employed. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to stamp out private property rights. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to deny two people, allegedly in love with each other, the right to marry. We regulate marriage all the time. Law dictates that I have but one wife at a time. That is a moral stance on the issue, as articulated in statute.
I am free to own property. To deny the right to own property would be antithetical to our nation's founding principles. To allow me to own property and yet deny me the freedom to use it for reasonable purposes can be just as tyrannical as to deny me the right to own it in the first place.
When I speak of legislation I do not refer only to the national level of government. Cities often use planning and zoning laws to restrict behavior and freedom. For instance, it is required to have a certain amount of square footage of land upon which to build a dwelling. That is not an unreasonable requirement, considering that with a lot the size of a postage stamp, one dwelling would infringe upon the neighboring property and the property rights of others.
By the time this column is published, the Selma Town Council will have held a public hearing on whether or not to disallow future duplex (two family) homes in the MDR, or Medium Density Residential district. Since I serve on the town's planning board, I have seen this issue come up twice in the past two months.
Selma has a problem with 60% or more of its citizens being renters rather than single family dwelling owners. Renters typically do not have as much vested interest in the town, in property taxes, in the aesthetics of the property, and rental homes often attract a lower quality resident than would purchase property. This is a fact that the town wrestles with, as it has pointed out in its Strategic Plan. I have previously commented upon the plan extensively, yet not exhaustively in this column.
In the planning board meeting, I made the following observations and declarations.
1. The town does indeed have a problem of a disproportionate number of its residents being renters as opposed to home buyers.
2. Regardless of the need to change the proportion of home owners versus renters, private property rights need to be respected.
3. There are many people who own duplex and rental homes for a living.
4. The MDR district is fairly full as it is. There are not a large number of empty lots on which to build, anyway. I doubted that the move would have much impact, if any.
5. The MDR district was designed precisely for single family homes and duplexes.
6. To eliminate duplexes from future additions to an MDR zoned area is contrary to the very essence of what makes the MDR district MDR.
7. To tell a person what he can or can not do with his private property when it fits the intent of the zoning ordinance is not ethical and is denying private property rights.
It is for these reasons that a month ago, the motion was made in the planning board meeting to change the zoning ordinance to eliminate the future building of duplexes in the MDR district but it failed for lack of a second. The second time this discussion and vote came up on January 5th, the majority of the board members felt as I did and voted to recommend that the town council not change the zoning ordinance. Of course the planning board is only an advisory body with no binding authority, and the town council will do what it wants.
I grow tired of the quality of tenants in the duplexes in my own neighborhood. I despise Mariachi music at 1 AM as much as anyone. I have seen drug deals go down with other tenants in the neighborhood. I hate it. But I hate the deprivation of private property rights even more. I agree that Selma needs to have a better quality of residents moving here and a higher percentage of single family homes. I just do not believe that oppressing land owners with zoning requirements that can lead to local regulatory tyranny is the correct methodology. By the time this column is published, we will know where the town council stands on the matter.
There are many tools at the disposal of legislators for the control of the masses. Control can take many shapes. Speed limits are a form of behavioral control. A speed limit curbs one's freedom to operate a motor vehicle at any speed one so desires in consideration for the safety of the whole of society. To that end, we in this nation do indeed legislate morality.
In the effort to legislate moral issues, there are always standards employed. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to stamp out private property rights. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to deny two people, allegedly in love with each other, the right to marry. We regulate marriage all the time. Law dictates that I have but one wife at a time. That is a moral stance on the issue, as articulated in statute.
I am free to own property. To deny the right to own property would be antithetical to our nation's founding principles. To allow me to own property and yet deny me the freedom to use it for reasonable purposes can be just as tyrannical as to deny me the right to own it in the first place.
When I speak of legislation I do not refer only to the national level of government. Cities often use planning and zoning laws to restrict behavior and freedom. For instance, it is required to have a certain amount of square footage of land upon which to build a dwelling. That is not an unreasonable requirement, considering that with a lot the size of a postage stamp, one dwelling would infringe upon the neighboring property and the property rights of others.
By the time this column is published, the Selma Town Council will have held a public hearing on whether or not to disallow future duplex (two family) homes in the MDR, or Medium Density Residential district. Since I serve on the town's planning board, I have seen this issue come up twice in the past two months.
Selma has a problem with 60% or more of its citizens being renters rather than single family dwelling owners. Renters typically do not have as much vested interest in the town, in property taxes, in the aesthetics of the property, and rental homes often attract a lower quality resident than would purchase property. This is a fact that the town wrestles with, as it has pointed out in its Strategic Plan. I have previously commented upon the plan extensively, yet not exhaustively in this column.
In the planning board meeting, I made the following observations and declarations.
1. The town does indeed have a problem of a disproportionate number of its residents being renters as opposed to home buyers.
2. Regardless of the need to change the proportion of home owners versus renters, private property rights need to be respected.
3. There are many people who own duplex and rental homes for a living.
4. The MDR district is fairly full as it is. There are not a large number of empty lots on which to build, anyway. I doubted that the move would have much impact, if any.
5. The MDR district was designed precisely for single family homes and duplexes.
6. To eliminate duplexes from future additions to an MDR zoned area is contrary to the very essence of what makes the MDR district MDR.
7. To tell a person what he can or can not do with his private property when it fits the intent of the zoning ordinance is not ethical and is denying private property rights.
It is for these reasons that a month ago, the motion was made in the planning board meeting to change the zoning ordinance to eliminate the future building of duplexes in the MDR district but it failed for lack of a second. The second time this discussion and vote came up on January 5th, the majority of the board members felt as I did and voted to recommend that the town council not change the zoning ordinance. Of course the planning board is only an advisory body with no binding authority, and the town council will do what it wants.
I grow tired of the quality of tenants in the duplexes in my own neighborhood. I despise Mariachi music at 1 AM as much as anyone. I have seen drug deals go down with other tenants in the neighborhood. I hate it. But I hate the deprivation of private property rights even more. I agree that Selma needs to have a better quality of residents moving here and a higher percentage of single family homes. I just do not believe that oppressing land owners with zoning requirements that can lead to local regulatory tyranny is the correct methodology. By the time this column is published, we will know where the town council stands on the matter.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Column for Jan. 10, 2008
Does LaPlante favor la plant d'ethanol?
By the time this column is published, the latest Selma Town Council meeting will have taken place and a scheduled public hearing will have been held about the proposed rezoning request in Selma's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to accommodate the construction of a proposed ethanol plant. These plans were detailed in last week's edition of "The Selma News" as well as in other local media outlets. The rezoning request has already passed the Planning Board and is now going through the process necessary to become reality. I am predicting that the public hearing will have brought forth some "great moments in sports," so to speak.
There is opposition being generated by Tony Tetterton, who lives nearby in the Selma ETJ, as reported in the paper. I have respect for Tony for several things. First, he is willing to "put his money where his mouth is" for the causes in which he believes. I don't see that too often nowadays. Regardless of anyone's opinions of his positions, you have to respect the willingness to take a stance and get involved. I do not agree with Tony on everything, and he knows this. We have, however, developed a good working relationship because we are willing to listen to one another's opinions and concerns. I have allowed him to share with me at length on various topics. Some I have agreed with him about, some not so much. None the less, I hope that he will get his due consideration, especially since he has spent significant time and effort to become educated about the things in which he believes.
That being said, the entire ethanol plant plan for the Selma area is only in the process of having a parcel of land rezoned. The ethanol company has not even bought the property yet. It would be some time before a plant is actually built, if at all. I personally serve on the Planning Board, as do other fine citizens of the booming metropolis of Selma. This request came before the board, we met with the representatives from East Coast Ethanol, and we looked at the zoning map and requirements. We did remark about the necessary upgrades to the roadways to accommodate the plant, its method of delivery, and other items of interest. However, our duty was not to debate the merits of an ethanol plant. Our duty was to determine whether or not it was appropriate to rezone residential and farm land to an industrial application. To that end, I was amenable.
There are arguments against the ethanol plant, as enumerated in last week's newspaper, so I will not get into them here. I also will not debate the merits of those arguments in great depth here. I will save that for my talk show. I personally am for progress and development when it is appropriate and beneficial. Is this the case with the proposed plant? I personally don't know yet. I do know that there was one quote from Mayor Hester with which I take issue, or at least wonder why this would be a consideration. He said, "If the plant is constructed, it will have a positive impact on Selma. It could add $100 million to our tax base. That's significant for the town." I agree that such an addition would be significant to our tax base. However, the proposed plant would not be within the Selma town limits and therefore is not subject to taxation by the town. As I understand it, Selma would have to annex that property in order to realize any such benefit.
There are also issues about court precedents that require Selma to take the zoning of Pine Level, the nearby ETJ jurisdiction. Do I think that Selma should have to take what another town does into consideration when determining our own town's destiny? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I think that Selma should totally ignore what other towns have for requirements of zoning just because we are an autonomous entity and should act as such. I have a hard time with another town determining Selma's jurisdictional authority and influence and vice versa.
I also have the thought that I am not fond of the very concept of an extra-territorial jurisdiction. I have a hard time with allowing a town to regulate people and businesses that are not getting to have a say in the governance as people within the town get to have with their vote. There should be the town limit and that is it...period. Either a property is within our town borders or it is not. Either it is within our jurisdiction and its owner(s) pays taxes and gets the same services and say in governance as others in town or not. There should be no property, person, or business held in limbo. That is just plain unethical. Unfortunately, that is how the State of North Carolina has determined that towns should run their affairs and we have to deal with it.
There is a balance to be struck somewhere, I am sure. The town leaders wish to expand Selma, as do I. There is the ongoing concern between freedom and regulation. There is the feud between development and environmentalism/preservation. What is the right answer for Selma in this case? Again, I am not sure. You will probably read the results of the public hearing in this issue of the paper. Hopefully I was able to be there in person and will be addressing this issue further if it develops.
By the time this column is published, the latest Selma Town Council meeting will have taken place and a scheduled public hearing will have been held about the proposed rezoning request in Selma's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to accommodate the construction of a proposed ethanol plant. These plans were detailed in last week's edition of "The Selma News" as well as in other local media outlets. The rezoning request has already passed the Planning Board and is now going through the process necessary to become reality. I am predicting that the public hearing will have brought forth some "great moments in sports," so to speak.
There is opposition being generated by Tony Tetterton, who lives nearby in the Selma ETJ, as reported in the paper. I have respect for Tony for several things. First, he is willing to "put his money where his mouth is" for the causes in which he believes. I don't see that too often nowadays. Regardless of anyone's opinions of his positions, you have to respect the willingness to take a stance and get involved. I do not agree with Tony on everything, and he knows this. We have, however, developed a good working relationship because we are willing to listen to one another's opinions and concerns. I have allowed him to share with me at length on various topics. Some I have agreed with him about, some not so much. None the less, I hope that he will get his due consideration, especially since he has spent significant time and effort to become educated about the things in which he believes.
That being said, the entire ethanol plant plan for the Selma area is only in the process of having a parcel of land rezoned. The ethanol company has not even bought the property yet. It would be some time before a plant is actually built, if at all. I personally serve on the Planning Board, as do other fine citizens of the booming metropolis of Selma. This request came before the board, we met with the representatives from East Coast Ethanol, and we looked at the zoning map and requirements. We did remark about the necessary upgrades to the roadways to accommodate the plant, its method of delivery, and other items of interest. However, our duty was not to debate the merits of an ethanol plant. Our duty was to determine whether or not it was appropriate to rezone residential and farm land to an industrial application. To that end, I was amenable.
There are arguments against the ethanol plant, as enumerated in last week's newspaper, so I will not get into them here. I also will not debate the merits of those arguments in great depth here. I will save that for my talk show. I personally am for progress and development when it is appropriate and beneficial. Is this the case with the proposed plant? I personally don't know yet. I do know that there was one quote from Mayor Hester with which I take issue, or at least wonder why this would be a consideration. He said, "If the plant is constructed, it will have a positive impact on Selma. It could add $100 million to our tax base. That's significant for the town." I agree that such an addition would be significant to our tax base. However, the proposed plant would not be within the Selma town limits and therefore is not subject to taxation by the town. As I understand it, Selma would have to annex that property in order to realize any such benefit.
There are also issues about court precedents that require Selma to take the zoning of Pine Level, the nearby ETJ jurisdiction. Do I think that Selma should have to take what another town does into consideration when determining our own town's destiny? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I think that Selma should totally ignore what other towns have for requirements of zoning just because we are an autonomous entity and should act as such. I have a hard time with another town determining Selma's jurisdictional authority and influence and vice versa.
I also have the thought that I am not fond of the very concept of an extra-territorial jurisdiction. I have a hard time with allowing a town to regulate people and businesses that are not getting to have a say in the governance as people within the town get to have with their vote. There should be the town limit and that is it...period. Either a property is within our town borders or it is not. Either it is within our jurisdiction and its owner(s) pays taxes and gets the same services and say in governance as others in town or not. There should be no property, person, or business held in limbo. That is just plain unethical. Unfortunately, that is how the State of North Carolina has determined that towns should run their affairs and we have to deal with it.
There is a balance to be struck somewhere, I am sure. The town leaders wish to expand Selma, as do I. There is the ongoing concern between freedom and regulation. There is the feud between development and environmentalism/preservation. What is the right answer for Selma in this case? Again, I am not sure. You will probably read the results of the public hearing in this issue of the paper. Hopefully I was able to be there in person and will be addressing this issue further if it develops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
