You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Heated exchange over fire district”.
Heated exchange over fire district
by Nancy Oates on March 11, 2013
• Permalink
Tagged fire districts
Posted by Nancy Oates on March 11, 2013
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/03/11/heated-exchange-over-fire-district/
Previous Post
Save Del Snow
Save Del Snow
Next Post
A representative view
A representative view
Recent Comments
- Nancy Oates on We’re still here
- Deborah Fulghieri on We’re still here
- Pluramus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
Blogroll
Categories
- 140 West
- Budget
- Business
- Carolina North
- CH2020
- Committees
- Community life
- Council Members
- County business
- Courts
- Courtyards of Homestead
- COVID-19
- Deer
- Downtown Chapel Hill
- Economic development
- Elections
- Environment
- Ethics
- Food Trucks
- Homeless Shelter
- Housing
- Land Use
- Library
- Lifestyle
- Media
- Museum
- Northside
- Occupy Protests
- Parking
- Police
- Politics
- Public Works
- Roads
- Sanitation workers
- Schools
- Social justice
- Spending
- Taxes
- Technology
- Town staff
- Transportation
- Trees
- UNC
- Uncategorized
- Work and Money
Tag Cloud
123 West Franklin advisory boards affordability American Legion annexation Bicycle Apartments bond referendum BRT Bus ads candidates Carolina Flats cell phones Central West CH2020 Charterwood Community Home Trust comprehensive plan county commissioners county government development Ephesus-Fordham fireworks form-based zoning Franklin Street Friends of Downtown Growth health care Historic District Commission historic districts Holidays Light Rail Obey Creek park-and-ride personalities real estate sales Rogers Road Shortbread Silent Sam students The Edge Timber Hollow towing traffic Trinitas VOEMeta
Bonnie Hauser
/ March 11, 2013Lets never forget that the area in quesiton involves a couple of hundred homes. 112 homes which classify as “not covered” for insurance – have a combined tax value of $90 million. The rest is also high value – but not as high and they don’t have an insurance problem. The entire community already has sidewalks, streetlights, garbage service and water/sewer infrastructure.
The rhetoric is flat and unconvincing. Joe Buonfiglio nailed it http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2013/03/05/75297/etj-is-not-towns-cash-cow.html
The meeting on the 21st may be the first opportunity for meaningful discussion about actual services, who wants them, and who’s using them. It’s been too easy for the council to blame the ETJ and the rest of us for the town’s excesses. .
Nancy
/ March 11, 2013Just to clarify: “Not covered” doesn’t mean home owners can’t get insurance; it means it will cost more because the district that officially has responsibility for the area is farther away than the district that actually sends the fire trucks. It is a scam by the insurance company, not a problem that the town is obligated to take on.
Many
/ March 11, 2013His-honor appeared to be doing his Prof. Jerry Hathaway imitation. I am sure Chief Dan Jones was cringing, and Chief Crabtree was insulted if they watched.
First, there is no question Chapel Hill is closer. Of course the optimal scenario is that Chapel Hill Fire service the area completely.
On the subject of Carrboro Fire servicing the area; besides being arrogant, his-honor was flat out wrong about mutual aid requirements. If Carrboro were primary, in the case of *any* fire alarm or EMS call Carrboro would be dispatched and send a truck every time. If there were a confirmed structure fire they would send multiple apparatus. Automatic fire alarms and EMS are probably 80-90 percent of the calls for service and only the primary is dispatched initially for these type of calls, Only in the case of a confirmed structure fire would Chapel Hill be dispatched. Furthermore Carrboro would be responsible and still be tasked with assuming command no matter which department is first on scene.
The fact that Carrboro Fire can do it for two-thirds the cost at more than twice the distance should cause taxpayers to question the efficiency of Chapel Hills budget.
The “cat up a tree” and “they won’t send a truck” comments were snide, uncalled for, and disrespectful toward Carrboro Fire and his-honor owes Carrboro Fire a public apology.
Furthermore, the county is correct, Chapel Hill has the ability to terminate a five year contract with a one year notice, so what exactly is the problem again, mayor Kleinschmidt?
Many
/ March 11, 2013Nancy, just to clarify further, people in the “not covered” category in many cases cannot sell or refinance their homes.
This is a scam by the insurance companies and results in tens if not hundreds of millions being sent out of state because our local leadership finds it easier to put the burden on the taxpayers.
BTW, the insurance savings far exceeds the cost of a rate increase in the fire tax.
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 11, 2013Actually, only the parts of the ETJ built after the mid-1990’s have sidewalks, streetlights and sewer service. The areas built earlier have septic tanks and shoulderless dark streets. We pay for garbage removal service directly. We pay for street repair of those streets that aren’t state roads. For the most part we’re miles away from CHT (which runs to Chatham County). This part of town has been ETJ since the 70’s.
As Nancy said, Chapel Hill isn’t obligated to take on fire service, and Carrboro F.D. can cover this area while lowering fire insurance ratings. It may well be that lambasting the ETJ is more fun for Chapel Hill elected officials than poring over town finances, but it’s not more productive. It may also be more fun than initiating negotiations for a fire service contract with a university that last year unilaterally and unexpectedly withheld its annual contribution of $900,000 to the Chapel Hill fire department (have elected officials asked how long that’s going to continue, by the way?). It’s also more amusing to request the U.S. Postal Service to rearrange its delivery systems so as to limit the coveted “Chapel Hill” appellation to actual municipal limits.
Diogenes
/ March 11, 2013Why is the ETJ in the Chapel Hill Carrboro School district? Since the rest of the County outside Chapel Hill is in the Orange County School District what is the argument for the ETJ being (remaining) in the Chapel Hill Carrboro school district?
Many
/ March 11, 2013IMO a better question is why are there two school districts at all?
Diogenes
/ March 11, 2013That would be money Many!
Many
/ March 11, 2013Ahhh I see.. So then in answer to your question there is an additional tax for schools in the DMZ….^H^H^H errr… ETJ for CHC schools.
So the answer would again be …money.
I know Chapel Hill will give the county residents their trash for free though…..
Fred Black
/ March 11, 2013Why do some talk as if those of us living in Chapel Hill are not “county residents?” This we-they bs gets us where?
Many
/ March 11, 2013Mr Black. Pardon me. You are correct. People in Chapel Hill/Carrboro are county residents. It is however evident by the behavior of some that they believe they are a better class of county resident; and that is the genesis of the “we vs. they”.
Schools are an example. Trash is another. The display by his-honor over the coverage in the ETJ is yet a third.
Fred Black
/ March 11, 2013Love to discuss but I need to know who I’m engaging.
Many
/ March 11, 2013Love to discuss but if the discourse is not enough for you then I leave you to the clique over on OP.
Bonnie Hauser
/ March 11, 2013Deborah – just to clarify -the new Chapel Hill fire district wont serve the entire southern
ETJ – it will only service 200-300 homes just south of town. (the really expensive ones).
The rest will continue to be served by North Chatham (and are getting a fire tax increase of 3.8 cents (from 5 to 8.8 cents) – with puts them at par with the Chatham households. They will see no improvement in insurance ratings.
Also- on the “not covered” designation. Some insurers will not write policies and as Many suggested, if they do, the rates are really high. Insurers are bending over backward to keep this lucrative book of business – but I wouldn’t be surprised to find some homes without insurance.
The southern ETJ (through the county line) is all in Chapel Hill Carrboro schools and in the district 1 voting district. The rest of us are in district 2- and are served by OCS which has schools in Hillsborough and Efland.
Julie McClintock
/ March 11, 2013The ETJ was a sound planning concept until the Rs in NC legislature doctored our annexation laws. When one piece of a system that has worked well to encourage orderly planning is taken away, what’s left makes less sense. We still need planning near cities and maybe some day the pendulum will swing back and this time ETJ residents can get voting rights.
In the spirit on honoring Del’s fact-based approach check out the IOG guru Dave Owen on why we need an ETJ.
http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pdfs/ss20.pdf
Many
/ March 11, 2013Very interesting (to me anyway) that the ETJ seems to have arisen out of the want to control perceived negative externalities: A city may not extend its regulatory or police powers beyond the city limits without specific legislative authority. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 1894 that the town of Washington did not have the authority to regulate the throwing of dead fish from a pier into the Pamlico River.
119 years later the flow of negative externalities seems to be at least equal if not reversed.
Also, the state recognized the potential for the tyranny of the majority (sort of): “The study commission noted the concern that residents of these areas were not entitled to vote in city elections. It recommended mandatory representation of extraterritorial residents on city planning boards and boards of adjustment “to meet this objection in a practical and yet legal manner.”
Does anyone know if Chapel Hill conforms to G.S. 160A-362 which requires the appointment to both planning and adjustment bodies of a proportional number of residents of the extraterritorial area? It seems to me like one member out of 10 from the ETJ is proportionally small, but maybe if you include the student population…. 🙂
Terri Buckner
/ March 12, 2013See A Planning Tool in Need of Reform:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/20/813658/a-planning-tool-in-need-of-reform.html
Carrboro has no intention of annexing my portion of the ETJ–they know they can’t afford it. I doubt if Chapel Hill would be considering annexation in this case if there were so many large, expensive homes in the area. When Matt C wanted to discuss annexing all the way down to the Chatham line, during one of the 2020 discussions, he was ignored.
George C
/ March 12, 2013Many,
I believe the number of residents in the ETJ as a percentage of total residents (ETJ & CH) is actually less than 10% of the combined population. However, when asked the ETJ representative declined to give up their arm and leg.
Many
/ March 12, 2013George C. thank you.
I just wish we could get past this reactive rhetoric and on to a more reflective problems solving mode. Get past the town vs. county, and work together to solve the issues of the day.
BTW: I noticed Nancy had not included the link to the Kleinschmidt tirade:
http://orange-nc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=421
So you don’t have to endure the whole thing, fast forward to around hh:mm:ss: 2:24:48, and for as long as you can stand. He makes two appearances.
A “desire” for “membership” in the town of Chapel Hill ?!?!………… Spain and Portugal? On one hand he says the planning tools don’t work but but continually goes back to defend the status quo. Every time I watch it I pick out a new subtle insult or slight.
Yes. If 911 is called you respond because you have a mutual aid contract and BTW Durham or Carrboro or New Hope respond to Chapel Hill calls per the contract……….Just wow…
Terri Buckner
/ March 12, 2013Why were the police and fire coverage assigned to Chatham in the first place? I don’t understand why a change is needed since the ETJ has been in place for 20 years or more.
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 12, 2013Interesting that Mayor Kleinschmidt says that when an ETJ resident calls 911, Chapel Hill’s police and fire departments mobilize first. “If 911 is called, a Chapel Hill fire truck will leave Chapel Hill Station number 5, while Chatham County is pedalling up the road from 6 miles away.” (2:28.35) That’s inaccurate. The 911 dispatcher asks for caller’s address and nearest cross street, and sends the O.C. sheriff (for law enforcement issues), or the mapped EMS or fire department, which in my neighborhood is North Chatham, with Carrboro second on the list. I have never seen a blue Chapel Hill fire truck in these neighborhoods in 11 years, although C.H. Station 5 is about 200 yards from the Bennett Road entrance to these neighborhoods. We do see red North Chatham and Carrboro trucks on call. I just once saw Chapel Hill police, who were working with O.C. deputies on a reported home invasion.
The mayor is correct that the Chapel Hill building inspections department inspects here. I think I’ll ignore his claim that giving ETJ residents a Durham address would depreciate the value of their properties (2:30.50).
Many
/ March 12, 2013Terri,
His-honors statements show a shocking misunderstanding of the facts. Perhaps Capital Analytics should be engaged to help his-honor?
Police were never assigned to this area from Chatham. I am sure Lindy has it covered.
Historically the Mt. Carmel Church area was the “Southern Triangle” fire district. Southern Triangle was organized probably around 1980(?) and the board decided not to form their own fire department but to instead contract fire protection out to Chatham. The same decision was made in the “Damascus” fire district.
Michael Talbert has it right; the insurance companies are taking advantage of an arcane loophole in the insurance law that ignores the closest enabled by accurate location information.
Fire coverage has not changed. Response has not changed just the insurance rates. Insurance rates and politics are what is driving this rigamorole.
Still thou art blest, compar’d wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But, och! I backward cast my eye on prospects drear!
An’ forward, tho’ I cannot see, I guess an’ fear!
Diogenes
/ March 12, 2013The best laid schemes of mice and men,
Go oft astray,
And leave us nought but grief and pain,
To rend our day and argue over ETJ
(source: same as above)
anonymous
/ March 12, 2013@ Many – there are two school districts since you have one portion that supports higher taxes for “higher” services and votes 70% for the democratic presidential candidate and the other part that wants lower taxes and votes 70% for the Republican presidential candidate….
So newcomers can choose which philosophy they want (assuming they can afford either downpayment) and know full well the differences. The ETJ creates tension since they still pay the school taxes for the school services but get many of the benefits of being “close” to the cities with the lower tax rate.
Many
/ March 12, 2013@Anonymous I knew that thank you. It still does not explain to me why there are two school districts. Durham combined theirs (I think under state mandate) two decades ago -1990’s. Wake did the same two decades earlier than Durham – 1970’s (although I am not holding Wake up as anything but an extreme embarrassment)
Why not Orange?
I do not get the feeling it’s all about choice……
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 12, 2013Anonymous and Many (whoever you are), the issue of school merger came up 10 years ago at a BOCC retreat, and the 2 Boards of Ed., and the BOCC met publicly to discuss the matter quite a few times over the course of 2003. In the end, county and town residents weighed in to maintain 2 separate school districts.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/107129/
Oh, and anonymous (whoever you are)? The ETJ does not create tension by paying CHCCS tax. What do you really mean?
Many
/ March 12, 2013Separate but not equal, eh? In this day and age? In the middle of “progressive” Chapel Hill?
I know I am overusing it, but……….Wow
Many
/ March 12, 2013@Diogenes; Very funny. I got coffee up my nose reading that, although the preceding line would have added a bit…..
But, Mouse, thou art not alone
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men……….
anonymous
/ March 13, 2013@ Many – simply look at what’s going on with the Recycling program, the Carrboro Town Manager says the County should raise taxes to support high level recycling; the county commissioners are afraid to..
http://chapelboro.com/Aldermen-Not-Pleased-With-BoCC-Actions-On-Recyclin/15782123
schools are just one reflection common to other government services – library, recycling, etc… where “values” are different = high tax verse low tax tolerability.. if anything Orange county should split into 2 counties which is kind of why we have the chapel hill carrboro city school part separate and soon to be joined by separate recycling services, if only the library were separate too, then CH tax payers wouldn’t have 30 people on wait lists for popular books. (and yes I’m happy to pay more taxes to have shorter wait lists for books at the CH library).
anonymous
/ March 13, 2013@ deborah f – I’m sure there are some ETJ residents who use the chapel hill/carrboro/UNC transit park n ride lots and buses in addition to Chapel Hill paid for parks (e.g. southern village etc…) so ETJ residents who use these services pay less (or nothing) for them than chapel hill town residents….
Although in theory anyone from outside chapel hill could come and use the town parks and buses, I suspect at least for Parks n Rec there aren’t many who do so besides ETJ residents
George C
/ March 13, 2013anonymous,
UNC is going to be charging for parking in their park & ride lots and I suspect that Chapel Hill will soon follow suit since UNC’s decision to charge will increase the demand for the CH lots. So no one will be getting a free-ride there. In the case of the parks probably most likely to be used by ETJ residents, Southern Community Park and Homestead Park, Orange County has contributed funding to both.
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 13, 2013Hi anonymous (whoever you are), it doesn’t make sense for residents of the southern ETJ to drive south a mile to park their cars in order to take a CHT bus north into town– thereby making a 10-minute trip into town take 90 minutes or more.
As for Southern Community Park, my ETJ-resident son plays soccer on a team there, but don’t the teams pay for use of the fields (and there are kids from Chatham and Durham on those teams– does that make you angrier?) Maybe Chapel Hill could take the word “community” out of the name and put in something more hostile to outsiders.
Many
/ March 13, 2013@anonymous. I see.
It seems to me as if some in Chapel Hill Carrboro have what I would refer to as an “island mentality”.
I see the separate schools as an example of this. Like transit or trash it’s “ours” when we want to share the costs or take on the burden, but the system is built to exclude anyone not “in town”.
Perhaps what you suggest is not far off. I for one hope you are wrong and see great pearl in exclusion. I expect that the town may wake up one day and find that a complete reliance on a extremely high property tax base coupled with and exclusionary infrastructure is a problem, and trying to compensate with taxes and fees on business only serves to drive that business to Durham, Pittsboro and Mebane…..hey wait a minute……
anonymous
/ March 13, 2013@ many
It’s a reality, not a theory, that Chapel Hill subsidizes the library both for residents of Carrboro and the ETJ.
that’s a fact. As long as Town council members are seen as patsies other municipalities will never pay for their use. The library was not a difficult issue to calculate equity (users from chapel hill should not be paying more than users from carrboro or ETJ as we have now).
@ george – does the County fund the operations of Parks in CH better than they do the library? Or are the parks a case where Chapel hill residents get taxed twice; once through the town taxes and once through the county taxes?
anonymous
/ March 13, 2013maybe the Council can hire a consultant to do a calculation of how much lower chapel hill taxes would be if they didn’t entirely fund or split construction of facilities like the library, southern community park, the aquatic center etc…. and than only receive pennies on the dollar for operating them… after chapel hill residents pay both county and town tax bills for the same service..
would be an interesting study…..
Terri Buckner
/ March 13, 2013The Urban Dictionary’s definition of a freeloader: A freeloader is someone who exploits chances to get free stuff whenever possible.
I was sitting in a meeting last week, listening to two people getting to know each other. One asked where the other lived. Her reply, “From what I’ve read lately, I’m one of the local freeloaders.” She (and I) live in the ETJ. We were all at a volunteer event. Obviously, our community service means less than where we live.
anonymous
/ March 13, 2013don’t worry Terri the Chapel hill council will let you
continue freeloading…
they spent 16 million $$ just renovating the library and got less than even the fair share of annual operating costs from the BOCC.
Then when carrboro gets it’s branch library about 40% of the construction costs will come from CH residents.
Many
/ March 13, 2013@anonymous
CH Library is way overbuilt and obviously underfunded. IMO a better solution would be to collaboratively build out services..or a fee per use if you think its that great, but again I think the fee would ultimately be counter productive to funding. The Town clearly has buyers remorse over spending too much on a sunset facility. It is bad form to build a 16 million dollar gold plated Cadillac and then complain about the gas it takes to run it. I think both CH Hill and the surrounding area would have benefited from a county wide solution, but that probably would not be exclusive enough for some.
I am not opposed to a fee to use the white elephant because I would not use it much, if at all. To impose a global tax on everyone in the county for a 16 million dollar library in this economy is a bridge too far.
In short, I think the Chapel Hill Library lobby has too much influence on the town council, and you should look there for solutions.
Diogenes
/ March 13, 2013According to the free dictionary.com one definition of a citizen is: “a resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there”
Residents of the ETJ are not citizens of Chapel Hill. They are free to voice their opinions — and do quite enthusiastically — but they can’t vote in Chapel Hill elections and never will unless they elect to become part of the Town of Chapel Hill. The message to the Town is quite clear. Voting in Town elections is not worth the price. The message to residents of the ETJ is ” we get the message”.
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 13, 2013Here is the full entry from the free dictionary.com (I admit preferring my thick Merriam-Webster purchased in Chapel Hill about 10 years ago):
cit·i·zen
[sit-uh-zuhn, -suhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection ( distinguished from alien ).
2.
an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
3.
an inhabitant, or denizen: The deer is a citizen of our woods.
4.
a civilian, as distinguished from a soldier, police officer, etc.
Origin:
1275–1325; Middle English citisein < Anglo-French citesein, Old French citeain, equivalent to cite city + -ain -an; Anglo-French s perhaps by association with deinzain denizen
Where'd you get the part about entitlement to vote? Or is there another dictionary.com?
Diogenes
/ March 13, 2013I think you’re missing my point Deborah. The message is clear and we get it. You don’t vote in Town elections and you’re OK with that. By extension therefore you are willing to deal with the consequences of Town actions without having the ability to influence them through the ballot box. Instead you’ll rely on whatever other means are at your disposal which may or may not result in a satisfactory outcome from your perspective. Now if you’re not OK with that you are welcome to become voting citizens of the town.
Many
/ March 13, 2013Well it’s a bit more complicated than that, because Deborah would need to convince a majority or her neighbors and the Town would need to determine (apparently) that it is in their financial interest, but point taken.
I am interested in the “free rider” question though. Are the residents of the ETJ “free riders” because they use some Town services without paying the full price, or is the Town a “free rider” because they use the ETJ as an attractive part of the Towns “presence”, “lifestyle” and for a sponge for waste and housing they cannot or do not want to provide?
Rather that trying to draw that bright line of distinction, could it be that the two parties pretty much break even?
Could it be that the real answer is to work together in good faith to foster the partnership to solve problems rather than picking nits?
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 13, 2013My dear Diogenes (whoever you are), only the third sentence in your penultimate entry is clear and accurate; the rest is all assertion, unclear and inaccurate. “The message is clear and we get it”? What message and who is “we?” You are attributing words to me I never said, thoughts I never thought. Furthermore, you misstated the dictionary.com definition of citizen, and you must have had a reason for that.
If I missed your point, surely you can state your point simply, without pretending to be an unnamed group of people issuing portentous 2nd-person declarations.
Diogenes
/ March 13, 2013You can’t vote in Town elections.
As for the definition, here’s the link:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/citizen
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 13, 2013Can’t vote in town elections, but town can make a hash of the ETJ along with the southern part of town, never mind the sales tax on my Webster’s.
Any word on whether the town is going to negotiate a fire service contract with UNC?
Terri Buckner
/ March 14, 2013All issues have two sides. We hear repeatedly how ETJ residents are freeloading. But the towns have had the opportunity to annex for over 20 years and they didn’t.
From this resident of the ETJ’s perspective, there are two issues:
1. We don’t vote for town council/BOA members, and yet they control our property. We can’t go to the county for assistance when they make potentially bad decisions (like Obey Creek was on track for), because the county can’t intercede in town business. So ETJ residents are totally unrepresented in these battles, except for the goodwill of the elected officials for whom we can’t vote. Think about it and try for just one moment to put yourself in our shoes. Involuntary annexation is imposing taxation without first giving representation. I’ve done the calculations and if my home was located in the CH ETJ it would cost me an additional $1,000 a year. For many of my neighbors, many of whom have owned their homes for 40-50 years and are now on fixed incomes, that increased cost is unaffordable. They would be forced out of their homes or have to make unacceptable tradeoffs. There are definitely McMansions in the ETJ, but there are more affordable homes.
2. So development has built up in the ETJ over the 20 years that the town choose to NOT annex, and the towns have controlled that development. Now they see revenue potential in SOME of that built-up, and they want to take advantage of it. They still don’t want Dogwood Acres or all of the homes off Mt Carmel Church. Those smaller, older homes wouldn’t benefit the town, and in fact, would cost the town. So the town is being selective in making their decision, why shouldn’t the ETJ residents have the same right to be selective?
The easy solution is for the towns to give the ETJs back to the county. Then the residents will have democratically determined representation. We would be on an even footing with the towns when contentious issues like Obey Creek and the fire insurance arise.
anonymous
/ March 14, 2013what legal sole authority does the town of chapel hill have over non-town land? None is my understanding, there may be “courtesy” reviews, but please point me toward a link that shows the Towns directly regulate what happens in non-town land? Your representation is the BOCC, who does directly regulate land use outside of the towns is my understanding
Many
/ March 14, 2013Extraterritorial jurisdiction is the ability of a government to legal exercise it’s authority beyond its boundaries.
In the case of Chapel Hill/Carrboro it is the extension of their powers of land use and zoning..
GS 160A‑360. Territorial jurisdiction
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=160A-360
Diogenes
/ March 15, 2013One of the privileges of citizenship is the right to vote. One of the responsibilities is to pay tax. One does not come without the other. To the extent that residents of the ETJ wish to exercise greater influence on Town decisions they have a choice and they have been clear that they are not willing to bear the responsibility in exchange for the right. Ita sit!
Bonnie Hauser
/ March 15, 2013Diogenes – that;s a decison that has to be made with serious discussion. Today its a win-lose. The town controls zoning in the ETJ and the citizens have no influence over the council. Until the legislature fixed this, towns were allowed to annex without support of the community – and the community had to pay for water and sewer – in addition to the new taxes. Now citizens have a saw in whether or not they want to be annexed.
At any time, the council has the option to meet with the citizens of the ETJ and discuss annexation -but to my knowledge, that’s never been suggested.
In the meantime- I’m with Terri – maybe its time to give the ETJ residents and their elected officials (the BoCC) control over land use.