- 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://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.