By Elisabeth Strillacci, Robert Sullivan and Chandler Inions

SALISBURY — When North Carolina House Bill 765 was introduced in the state legislature, the N.C. League of Municipalities raised the red flag and asked cities throughout the state to oppose the bill. In Rowan County, all of the towns answered the call, passing resolutions announcing their opposition and urging state lawmakers to end the bill.

Salisbury, Kannapolis, Granite Quarry, Cleveland and Landis all passed resolutions announcing their official opposition to the bill and asking for Representatives Harry Warren, Grant Campbell and Julia Howard to vote against it. The town of Rockwell has called a special meeting next week to consider passing their own resolution. Spencer and East Spencer boards met before the bill came to light, but leaders in both towns have reached out to legislators and drafted letters of objection to send out.

H.B. 765 is a bill that purports to be about affordable housing or “work force housing” and aims to lower housing costs throughout the state by creating regulations such as:

• Requiring a minimum density based on municipal population
• Mandating a 90-day turn around on zoning applications
• Regulating a municipality’s ability to place conditions on rezonings
• Prohibiting towns from setting minimum parking requirements
• Prohibit towns from creating new historic districts without a 75 percent approval from residents
• And a multitude of other regulations aimed at reducing local decision-making on issues such as water or sewer capacity.

The bill would also allow individuals, both government staff and elected officials, to be held legally liable for illegal regulation decisions by stating towns cannot enter an opinion in its decision. However, the bill does not define what, exactly, constitutes an opinion. It just leaves officials and staff open to suit if anyone alleges they have used one.

The bill was introduced by Mecklenburg County Democrat Carla Cunningham and the other primary sponsors are Forsyth County Republican Jeff Zenger, Anson County Republican Mark Brody and Franklin County Republican Matthew Winslow. It hit the floor on April 3, had its first reading April 7 and received a favorable committee report and edit April 17.

Rowan County municipal officials have strongly pushed back against the bill, however, stating that it removes their ability to make decisions on a local level and preserve the character of individual communities.

“It alters our land use authority through a mix of state mandates and bans. I’m very concerned that this would lead to an increased risk of unregulated and incompatible development that would lower property values. It really creates the loss of local autonomy by eliminating the ability to let governments and developers negotiate voluntary conditions in the conditional district process,” said Salisbury Assistant City Manager Kelly Baker.

East Spencer Mayor Barbara Mallett said her community has, in the last five years, “made tremendous strides in our planned growth, and if this bill is approved as it stands, it will take East Spencer right back where we were five years ago. We will have lost all the progress we have made.”

In Cleveland, Mayor Pat Phifer echoed concerns that the bills strips the town of its autonomy and identity.

“(This bill) is driven by developers and officially, it is not my job to make developers money,” Phifer said. “It is my job to look after the people that elected me. The people that elected me are not wanting to change our restrictions, they like what we have.”

“Listen, I’m a development guy, that’s always been clear,” said Spencer Mayor Jonathan Williams. “But in Spencer, we have been working with developers. The ones we have worked with have been incredibly responsive to our goals and needs, and we have in turn worked with them on their projects and goals. This bill is not designed with those kind of developers in mind.”

In Granite Quarry, Mayor Brittany Barnhardt said that the town has worked hard to maintain its culture and “what has made the town unique,” and removing the role of local leadership would roll back that work at a time when the town is growing at a heightened rate, including implementing new zoning changes surrounding the Interstate 85 corridor.

“Introduced without input from our elected officials or community members, these bills risk undoing years of thoughtful growth, eroding the character of our town, and silencing the voices of our residents. We believe in preserving what makes our community unique and ensuring that development reflects the values, needs and vision of the people who live here,” she wrote in an email.

Kannapolis Mayor Darrell Hinnant and members of the town council approved a resolution at their last meeting that raised concerns about two other bills as well.

“House Bill 765, Senate Bill 497, and Senate Bill 688 all propose significant changes to local government development regulations that could undermine the ability of municipalities to effectively plan and manage growth,” the resolution states. “The proposed legislation may lead to adverse impacts on the environment, public health and infrastructure by limiting local government’s ability to enforce or even negotiate development standards, and the enactment of these legislative changes could result in unforeseen financial burdens on local governments, potentially requiring increased local taxes or fees to maintain the quality of life for residents.”

That issue of increased costs for municipalities and residents is a thread through all of the towns’ objections. Kannapolis, East Spencer and Granite Quarry, like many communities, are feeling the impact of growth in water and sewer lines. It is challenging for towns to keep up with building infrastructure to accommodate new development, and holding new construction within the town or city’s overall plan of development is essential to aiding that.

“If we have no real regulatory control over how our town grows and what is built, lot size, et cetera, then our infrastructure needs, not to mention things like first responders and their equipment and space needs, is going to create a price tag the town can’t pay,” said Mallett. “And those increased costs are then going to fall on our residential tax payers, because our commercial growth is in its infancy. How can we ask residents to bear that kind of burden?”

In Spencer, the town asked Steve Blount, who is the planning and zoning director, to review the bill and the objections filed by the league. In the introduction of the report he submitted, Blount said, “While a few items do give me concerns, overall, Spencer is already handling zoning and subdivision actions as would be required by the proposed revisions to NCGS 160D. However, not every municipality does things the way we do and thus adoption of this bill may have more serious consequences for them.”

Williams reiterated what Blount said.

“We are already doing a lot of what this bill is trying to do, but we do it on a local level, taking the specific needs of our town into consideration,” he said. “If the state is going to remove municipalities’ ability to govern locally, based on that town’s needs and that town’s personalities, it is going to strip our towns of their character, removing the qualities that make one town more desirable than another for different projects. They are going to create cookie-cutter communities that have nothing special to offer.”

No one has disputed the fact that affordable or, as the state names it, “work force” housing, is not an issue worth discussing. However, local officials have said the bill misses the mark in promoting affordable and accessible options.

“Affordable housing and disposable housing are two different things. If we don’t have any regulations or requirements that make us have safe housing for people who need affordable housing, we are creating disposable housing, and that just puts us in the same trap three years down the road,” said Salisbury Mayor Tamara Sheffield.

Barnhardt pointed to the same issue, writing that “true housing affordability includes planning standards — not just deregulated development.” She added that the bill could also reduce affordability on the back end, with unchecked growth causing towns to increase property taxes and utility rates and compromising insurance ratings.

“I think this bill started with good intentions,” said Williams. “But as it stands now, it doesn’t do anything to help that.” He added that he believes the term “affordable” housing is a misnomer, and is better represented by the term “multi-price point housing.” It isn’t as catchy, he said, but “communities are made up of people with different salaries and different means, and we want a broad range of people living in our communities. But we also want to be able to have development in its proper place. Take tiny homes. They are absolutely worth having, they have value, but there are also place where they just do not fit.”

Baker added that she was uncomfortable with the portion of the law that disallows local officials from voting on matters that they have a “fixed opinion” on, noting that there was no definition of what constituted a fixed opinion.

Each of the town leaders were in alignment in their position that municipalities object to the proposed bill “as it stands.” They all, in different words, said while they would certainly prefer it if the bill does not make it to a vote, the message they hope legislators get at the end of the day is the items in the bill merit further discussion before action is taken.

“I think it’s very easy for the state legislature to pass legislation, which can be harmful to cities. We’ve seen it before, and it’s caused some of our biggest problems. It’s very important that we make our voices heard and do that as soon as possible,” said Salisbury Councilor Susan Kluttz.

Williams encouraged residents across the state to contact their legislators if they are concerned or would like further explanation, and “they can call their local chamber of commerce or local businesses who are members to let them know how they feel about the bill, since it could conceivably raise taxes.”

N.C. Representative Harry Warren said in a phone call on Friday that he had received plenty of calls from people concerned with the bill and cannot support the bill as it was proposed.

“I do not support the bill in its present form. I see where it’s coming from and it has some good portions, but overall I think it’s an overreach in taking away local abilities to regulate,” said Warren.

He added that bills often undergo large amounts of changes before they are put onto the floor for a final vote, whether in committees or in other compromises between legislators.

Representative Julia Howard said that in her opinion, as a builder and a Realtor, that the bill needs a lot of work.

“You can’t crush local government and take them out of the picture,” Howard said. “Remember local government is the one that has to provide the water, the sewer, the schools and the road so they need to be a partner with whatever is going on. I think a compromise could be found there but you just cannot slash everything.”

Howard added that she would not vote for it in its current form.

“I could not,” she said. “I see what is happening to local government and if you follow the bills, you see a whole host of bills being filed to give an exemption for everything. Well someone has to pick that up and pay for it.”

Salisbury Councilor David Post said that despite the large amount of pushback coming at a local level, the city may need to prepare for the possibility that the bill passes, pointing to its bipartisan sponsorship.

“I would like staff, and I hate to say this, start the dive into, what is the impact to us? Because it is bipartisan, and we’ve got so many bills that are going through on party-line votes,” said Post. “Given that four or five Democrats and six or seven Republicans are on this bill, I think we ought to be prepared to say ‘what if?'”

Representative Grant Campbell did not respond to requests for comments by the Salisbury Post’s deadline.

“If you are going to do that, there is no reason to have local officials. Let the state decide everything,” Phifer said.