Here’s the problem with the temporary resolution of a controversy when the underlying issues haven’t changed. It lulls people into a false sense of complacency and can harbor the glowing coals that will ignite a future flare-up.
Perhaps that won’t be the case with Salisbury’s latest annexation skirmish. By dropping its annexation plan for the N.C. 150 corridor, the city has doused this particular hot-spot. For many, this might appear to have snuffed out the dissension, and we can all go back to worrying about schools, crowded jails, crime and out-of-control gas prices. But that would be taking a shortsighted view of an issue that affects not only Rowan and Salisbury but the entire state, not only the present but the future.
What needs to happen next?
At the state level, legislators should thoroughly review the state’s involuntary annexation law, and imposing a moratorium may be the best way to go about it. Annexation disputes have erupted in municipalities across the state, from Asheville to Pinehurst to Wilmington. As recent rallies in Raleigh and elsewhere have shown, there’s strong public sentiment against a law that can significantly impact neighborhoods without giving residents a voice in what happens. Granted, cities and towns need laws that provide for orderly development and the provision of public services as a populations grow. But is the existing annexation law the best strategy to provide for that? Should residents have the right to a referendum on annexation proposals? Why do so few states have forced annexation laws yet continue to see growth and vitality in their cities? Those are among the questions that have been raised, and it will be difficult to consider them objectively amid ongoing annexation skirmishes. A moratorium would allow for calmer deliberation.
At the local level, a cooling-off period is in order, too. City and county officials need to bridge their rifts and reassure residents they will work together for progress across individual jurisdictions. Consider this, for instance: If county and municipal officials were tasked with devising their own annexation procedure, what would it look like? What ideas might emerge that would better reconcile orderly growth with infrastructure needs and the desires of existing property owners? If it can be shown, as some have argued, that county residents partake of municipal benefits without bearing a fair share of the tax burden, what are ways to address that? What about targeted user fees for specific services or amenities? Since water and sewer cost is such a critical point, is there a more equitable way to distribute those costs and extend services more quickly to areas that need them? In other words, don’t wait for the state to act. Look at what local leadership might do to provide innovative solutions, rather than simply digging in and following old fault lines.
Ultimately, Salisbury dropped its proposal because a higher percentage of residents than anticipated requested water and sewer service, with no guarantee they would actually hook on once the lines were run. But, like buried conduits, the underlying issues remain. Until those are addressed and some common ground is established, the annexation fires will continue to smolder.