De-Annexation

Other topics in Mt Holly
       
User avatar
Scott L
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:48 am

De-Annexation

Postby Scott L » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:22 am

It is now possible for property owners to de-annex their property from city limits. I've heard this being done or considered for a neighborhood as small as 13 homes (Maggie Valley) and as large as South Charlotte (thousands of homes). It involves first getting a very clear idea of who wants out, then getting very good support for the de-annexation, and then a meeting with a State Representative to help you forward the idea. (It does not necessarily have to be YOUR State Rep as we've seen done with State Rep. Presnell. Sometimes local State Reps. have too many political alliances with local governments to effectively help you consider de-annexation.) What this could mean:

  • You won't pay city property taxes
  • Your monthly city services bill will change. If you continue to have water/sewer provided by the city, the rate can go up as it is higher for out-of-town-limits customers. If you have private water/sewer, you might not have a city service bill at all.
  • You likely won't have city trash services and will have to contract with a private company
  • You will rely on county police and fire services (Mount Holly provides county fire services anyway)
  • If you have city-owned streets, the de-annexation bill should put those back in the NCDOT ownership
  • Your zoning will be controlled by the County and not the City
  • City laws won't apply -- like junk car ordinances and "no farm animal" rules. If you have an HOA, the HOA can consider adding those rules
  • Means nothing to school system as those are all county

http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=6959
http://rowanfreepress.com/2013/02/27/br ... isbury-nc/
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/n ... ity/nbsJn/

I am interested in this in the context of Mount Holly because:
  • We have at-large representation. Some residents way up in Stonewater Bay or Kendrick Farm don't have a councilmember anywhere near them.
  • Our town leaders sometimes seem corrupt (Meaning they do not represent the will of the people to government. Instead they represent the government to the people; or they are too influenced by lobbyist groups and industry.)
  • There is talk about how our city might not even provide some services to its citizens -- rather the city will simply contract that with the City of Charlotte. There could be a taxation without representation element to consider here and certainly a question of inappropriate governance.
  • There is talk about using City taxpayer money to annex more property into the City rather than provide basic required city services (like sewer)
  • There is doubt that a "city" stretched so long and narrow is really a community at all. Those in the north have little in common with those in the south.
  • If Mount Holly grew inappropriately too big, it could have stretched our infrastructure beyond the town people's limits/desires. Shedding some people might put us back to what we want our small town to be. From 1990-1999 our population was almost unchanged. Since 2000, we've grown our population by about 75%. How much of that was irresponsible/inappropriate growth? Why are we continuing to plan major growth in spite of the peoples' objection to it?

This is likely something at least interesting to consider for fringe areas. Especially as we start talking about major changes in continued growth, funding that growth, and contracting with Charlotte to more-or-less become part of their EJT. While people could not de-annex themselves, cities could do what they like provided the politics allows it. Now there is an option to consider. The "option" ought to change some perspectives of what a city should be to its citizens.
  

mmcginnis221

Re: De-Annexation

Postby mmcginnis221 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:01 pm

Talk of de-annexing Stonewater among residents has been ongoing for a number of years, but we were afraid we would lose all services. This is good to know. What would Mt. Holly do without all the tax revenue solely from Stonewater?!?!? It may be time to find out.
  

User avatar
Scott L
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:48 am

Re: De-Annexation

Postby Scott L » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:25 pm

Ask Tim Timmerman of SMART for a meeting. I'm sure he'd love to discuss it. I lived in Raintree where he presented once. (Invited by our HOA I think.) Rather than stay and fight a long battle to keep more of my $4,500/year in property taxes by de-annexing, I simply left. Seems like the Stonewater:MH relationship is like the Ballantyne:CLT one.

http://www.smartmeck.org

Also, Rep. Presell I know would be glad to meet with you about it. (Courtesy keeping our local state rep out of any crossfire unless/until it's seriously being considered.) Rep. Presell is very experienced with the topic.

https://www.facebook.com/Michele-D-Pres ... 3/?fref=ts
  

User avatar
Scott L
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:48 am

Re: De-Annexation

Postby Scott L » Sat Dec 12, 2015 10:46 am

I've been asked if Mount Holly property along the Belmont border can be de-annexed to be considered for annexation into Belmont.

I think that's possible following the same formula. But the interesting thing to consider how Belmont could/would swap out water/sewer services with property that flipped from Mount Holly to Belmont. Who knows -- there might be an agreement where Mount Holly is providing or contracting with Belmont to provide services anyway. And if Belmont and Mount Holly both outsource sewer to Charlotte, then it literally might be an administrative thing to let Mount Holly or Belmont to "collect" for Charlotte services from a resident. Whoever takes the smallest "cut" might be the favored city to go with.

But yes, once you get de-annexed from Mount Holly, if you're up against Belmont, you can ask them to be annexed into their town.
  


Social Media

       

Return to “Misc”