According to a new bill passed into law on Wednesday, the western NC city of Boone will lose its rights of extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), seriously limiting the power the city has on residents outside city limits. The bill in question (SB865) passed a House vote 65-47, and the Senate 35-14. As it is a local bill, it does not require the governor’s signature before being implemented.
The issue of extraterritorial jurisdictions is not a new one to North Carolina. In 1959, legislation was passed to allow cities to exercise some regulative and zoning control over areas where the city might soon expand. The areas, known as extraterritorial jurisdictions, are usually defined as being within two miles of city limits. This bill revokes Boone’s right to exercise any control over its ETJ zone.
For such a short bill – it is only 8 lines long – it ignited a fair amount of controversy. The bill was initially voted down in the House Government Committee on Monday, 12-15. In an unconventional move, the bill was resurrected for a second vote on Tuesday with more committee members present. It passed the second vote, 18-16. A number of lawmakers protested the method with which it passed committee. Typically, a bill that is not given a favorable recommendation in committee is considered “dead”, and will not immediately return for a second vote.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Dan Soucek (R-Watauga), says that the bill addresses a key problem of “regulation without representation.” Residents of the ETJ cannot vote in city elections, such as that for town council, yet they must still live under regulations enacted by city government. This particular objection is not new. A bill introduced by Rep. Larry Pittman (R-Cabarrus) last year would have abolished all ETJ rights in the state, citing the injustice of ETJ regulations applying to people who were not represented in the ordinance-making process. As a conservative, this is a serious issue – regulating individuals who are not represented in the government hardly seems fair. This alone is sufficient reason to seek the abolition of ETJ rights.
Legislators, as well as residents of Watauga County, have accused the city of Boone of overreaching the bounds of reasonable regulation, and dictating how individuals can develop their lands – a problem for many conservatives who believe that individuals should be free to dispose of their property as they see fit, short of harming others.
On the other hand, it seems ironic that the state government in Raleigh is interfering in city and county affairs, while protesting the city of Boone’s interference in personal affairs. This could be seen as a move towards centralization rather than a system favoring local government. Rep. John Faircloth (R-Guildford) commented in an interview with WRAL that “I don’t think this is the right venue to settle this. It should be settled in Boone or in that county.” He added, however, “But it’s not being settled there, so it’s here.” As mentioned beforehand, the fact that ETJ residents may not vote in town elections makes resolving the issue locally difficult.
Additionally, the law applies only to the city of Boone. If the most common argument for abolishing ETJ rights is the inherent unfairness – “regulation without representation” – then it seems that the law should be re-written to abolish all municipal ETJ rights, instead of singling out the city of Boone alone.
Clearly, there are many contrasting viewpoints on this bill. Is it a case of the state government providing accountability to a city that has overstepped its bounds, or is the state government wrongfully interfering in local affairs? Should House Republicans – who have often criticized President Obama for forcing legislation through Congress – have strong-armed this bill through committee? Does the new law address a serious problem of “regulation without representation,” or does it unfairly apply to one city out of hundreds which exercise ETJ powers?
What do you think? Sound off in the comment section below, and share your opinion with us!
**Edited for clarity: 10:53 AM, July 1**
Here again we see the heavy hand conservatism coming down on ordinary citizens who have purchased home thinking the had zoning protections from industrial asphalt plant or high density student housing or Porta Jon businesses. Mr Soucek made no attempt to hold public hearings to give voice to those in the ETJ choosing instead to listen only to a major developer family who also has a family member on the Watauga County Commission and have been unsuccessful in getting additional family members elected to the Boone Town council. Republicans have lost the last three election cycles in Watauga County but they do still have the majority on the Watauga County Commission.
Volunteers are lining up to aid in the defeat of poor representatives like Dan Soucek and Jordan this fall. I suggest you look at the comments in the Watauga Democrat as to how angry the citizens of Watauga Cty are at the heavy handed deal of rule by those with wealth, 67 comments as of this posting.
http://www2.wataugademocrat.com/News/story/Boone-loses-ETJ-with-bill-passage-id-015375
My question to you is what is your compliant with George Soros public policy and the Open Society foundation?
You failed to answer this question. What is your compliant with George Soros public policy and the Open Society foundation?
I am a conservative who lives in the Boone ETJ. I strongly support the actions by our local conservative state legislators to remove Boone’s regulatory authority in the ETJ.
What an absolute phony argument that the state is wrongfully interfering in local affairs. The State, through the General Assembly, has given municipalities the power to regulate in the ETJ. If there is a problem with a Town’s abuse of its ETJ authority, which Boone has done for many years, then only the General Assembly can rectify the situation, which has been done.
Sen Soucek is very popular among local conservatives and will be easily re-elected in this Republican district. If Civitas cannot support this initiative by a stalwart conservative State Senator, then I can no longer continue to provide you with financial support.
BTW, what kind of media bias is your headline referring to Soucek’s bill as a “Frankenstein.” One would suspect we were reading from the main stream media.
This is the type of subtly slanted political analysis is what one would expect to find in the News and Observer, not on Civitas’ web site.
The argument that that Soucek’s bill should have addressed ETJ jurisdiction statewide is also disingenuous. Municipal ETJ regulations may be working well in other places where cities and counties are cooperating and where growing cities and towns need to annex adjacent urban areas.
But Soucek is legislating on behalf of his constituents where there has been a ETJ problem for years. Boone is now a college town dominated by “progressives” and students from Appalachian State. Watauga County has had a GOP majority on the County Board since 2010. There has been consistent and continuous political conflict between the two divergent ideologies with the Town even refusing to seat County-appointed ETJ residents to Town advisory boards
In ’06, the Town adopted very restrictive land use regulations that apply primarily to the ETJ, despite holding a public hearing were nearly 400 people attended with the great majority opposed to their adoption.
The intransigent attitude of Town progressives have led to other conflicts with the County Board. In summary, the County will now be in a position to regulate land use in the entire County and County residents, including those in the ETJ, will have a voice in and a vote on those officials responsible for regulating their property.
E.E. Brunson:
Thank you for your comment. I apologise for any misunderstanding stemming from the way I wrote this article. I was intrigued by this bill, because I heard conservatives present arguments both for and against this bill’s passage. This article was not meant to make a judgment either way, but to spark conversation. There are many cases in which conservatives may disagree on the specifics of a bill–this is one of these cases. Most conservatives I have spoken to have been in favor of removing ETJ rights, but disagree over how it should be done.
Please do not read this as a negative referendum on Soucek. We appreciate the efforts and voting record of Sen. Soucek. We gave him an A grade in our recent Civitas Action rankings.
http://civitasaction.org/rankings/2013/394/
You will notice that I did not write a policy conclusion statement for this article. The purpose of this article was not to make a policy statement, but to open up discussion regarding the bill.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue with us!
Mr. Young, I don’t believe you did your homework when researching this article. There are numerous errors and omissions. Following are just a few:
1. SB 865 did not receive an “unfavorable vote” from the House Committee on Government. It simply did not receive a “favorable” vote the first time it was heard, thus leaving it in procedural limbo.
2. You failed to point out that the town of Boone has exercised it’s ETJ authority for 31 years without any growth into the ETJ areas or plans to do so.
3. You failed to mention that the Boone town council controls more land in the ETJ than it does in the city limits.
4. Were you aware that over 5,000 ASU students living in dorms on campus have the right to vote in local elections, but ETJ residents do not. The issue could not be “solved” locally as the town council does not represent the non-voting ETJ citizens.
5. Yes, the ETJ representation provisions as written in GS 160A-362, are wholly inadequate. The whole statute needs to be revisited. Perhaps you could have explained that in your article and addressed the root of the problem instead of complaining about the solution to one town’s exploitation of the ETJ provisions.
Mr. Templeton:
Good catch on your first comment. I have edited that sentence for accuracy.
I did uncover the other things you mentioned in my research, but chose not to include those issues. At this time I was writing, the bill was passed–thus, it was less an issue of advocating a bill, and more of an opportunity to discuss it. We tried to avoid making a clear policy statement here, and instead just open the issue up for discussion. If the conservative movement does not constantly examine its policies and legislation for inconsistency with our ideals, we will fall apart. There is always opportunity to improve!
I believe the biggest issue at hand here is regulation-without-representation. I do (personally) believe that the statute governing ETJ rights should be reexamined, or that we should consider abolishing all ETJ zones. That was addressed in the second-to-last paragraph.
I appreciate your comments and corrections!
” In 1959, legislation was passed to allow cities to exercise some regulative and zoning control over areas where the city might soon expand.” Boone has not expanded in 30 years (hardly “soon”) therefore they have abused the intent of the law. Secondly, representatives at the state level undoing or rectifying a law established at the state level is consistent with small government and not at all related to a president subverting congress. This article implies that the matter could have been settled locally, ignoring the fact ETJ residents are denied the right to vote for their regulators in Boone. Boone’s abuse of this law and overregulation in general has placed undue stress on rural land and citizens. ASU is growing and rather than increase building density in and around campus as advised by the 2030 Plan (commissioned by Boone), Boone has forced urban sprawl out into the county. Mr. Young, the reason for not abolishing the ETJ statewide is in some cases municipalities act with prudence using the law as it was intended.
Matthew Henry Young:
Thank you for your response to my criticism of your article on the General Assembly’s removal of the Town of Boone’s ETJ authority.
Yes, you are correct that a few local ETJ residents who profess to be conservatives have been critical of this bill. But judging from the response from our local GOP leaders, the bill has strong conservative and GOP support in Watauga County.
But what I think should be of particular interest to Civitas, since you score all members of the General Assembly on their votes on conservative issues, is that all conservatives in the State Senate and all but three or four in the State House voted for Sen. Soucek’s bill (SB865).
Aslo, while you apparently quoted Rep. John Faircloth correctly when he said the General Assembly is not the “right venue” to settle the dispute between Boone and the County, you failed to note that he also acknowledged the Town of Boone had abused its ETJ authority and that is why he changed his vote from nay to aye in the House committee.
In summary, this bill has wide conservative support both in Watauga County and in the General Assembly. I urge Civitas to abandon its neutral stance and to score the vote on this bill as a “conservative” vote.
And even if Civityas continues to maintain neutrality on this bill, in the future please try not to emulate the News and Observer’s left wing bias in your coverage of this issue..
How is this interference from Raleigh less big government? With no vote or public hearing, how did Mr Soucek know the will of the people in the Boone ETJ? What was the rush on this that eliminated public input?
Lets understand who’s commenting here. Mr Templeton is the same Templeton family that owns much of the commercial property in Boone NC, his sister is the Chairperson of the Watauga Republican Party, his brother-in law is on the Watauga BOC. Mr Templeton and his family have had strong opposition to the Town Boone regulations on steep slope development and view shed restrictions. Many people in the Boone area would like to see the Mountains and think Boone has enough student housing.
I am the Chairman of the Watauga County Commissioners. I don’t generally write in the comments section of sites such as this but I feel I must. Mr. Webster is a liberal activist in Watauga County and should be identified as such. I understand that Rep. Faircloth said this is a local issue that should be handled here but that is not possible.
First the county and town got into a dispute over appointments to ETJ positions on various boards. The town of Boone unilateral decided that the county could no longer appoint anybody. This drastic action made it so the members of the ETJ had no real voice to what happened with their property. The town of Boone only appointed liberal individuals who agreed with their mindset and not people who disagreed with them. The county’s only option was to sue or try and negotiate something out. Instead of suing the Town of Boone and the County were able to get Boone to recognize the county’s appointments but this took 2 plus years and it still has not been fully settled.
This is a liberty and freedom issue. The state created this and only the state can take it away. Nothing could be done locally to fix this issue. The people of the ETJ are regulated with no representation. Even the ETJ members on the boards are routinely overruled by the liberal town council. As we all know regulations can and do have negative effects on property values. If a government is going to impose regulations then that government should be answerable to the people it imposes the regulations on. The ETJ is the exact opposite of this basic principle of liberty. I can think of no other instance where the voters can’t vote on the people who regulate them. With the passage of this bill the people of the ETJ will now be able to vote for or against the government that imposes regulations on their land.
I applaud all the legislators in Raleigh who voted for this. They are true patriots of liberty who have stood up against an onslaught of freedom deniers to vote for this bill. The town of Boone employed 4 lobbyists and utilized the lobbyists of the League of Municipalities to fight against this bill while the property owners of the ETJ only had their two elected officials advocating for them. This is a victory against big money and special interest in favor of freedom.
I won’t go into the many abuses by the town of Boone against landowners in the ETJ but the stories are numerous and maddening. The people who complained the loudest about this bill are the minority. During the debate on the bill and after its passage I have had large numbers of ETJ residents and landowners come up and tell me how happy that they are now outside of the control of the town of Boone.
I usually read Civitas, as it is a great resource for Conservatives. It is clear that this time Civitas got it wrong on this issue and instead of siding with conservative ideals has taken a liberal stance. I am disappointed in them.
Coming from the Civitas Institute, this article is disappointing.
“…limiting the power the city has on residents outside city limits…” Why should the ‘rulers’ of city government have power over residents of the ETJ, who have no voice in the selection of those ‘rulers’ ?
“…dictating how individuals can develop their lands…” It’s more than that; it’s telling people how they can use their property, how they must prune their bushes and whether they can get permission to cut down a damaged tree that threatens their home. Or the farmer in the ETJ who wanted to have a tractor path (on his own property) to haul straw bales to his barn and was told by the Town of Boone he couldn’t do it unless he put in sidewalks and streetlights.
“…it seems ironic that the state government in Raleigh is interfering in city and county affairs, while protesting the city of Boone’s interference in personal affairs. This could be seen as a move towards centralization rather than a system favoring local government.”
Did the author even read this nonsensical statement before publishing it? The ETJ authority was granted to municipalities by the state legislature. If a town is misusing or abusing those powers, who but the state legislature can revoke that authority?
It’s clear to many who have studied the issue that misuse and abuse of the ETJ by the Town of Boone has been more egregious than any other municipality in North Carolina, and this led ETJ residents to call for action by their legislative representatives.
Thank you, Chairman Miller, for adding clarity and some needed facts to this discussion.
(I would apologize for the duplication in my post, except that our two comments were made at the same time, and I didn’t see Mr. Miller’s until after mine posted.)
I’ll also support the statements of Mr. Brunson, Mr. Templeton, and Mr. Brooks, all of which are well-stated.
If, as stated by Mr. Young, “This article was not meant to make a judgment either way,” perhaps he might explain the headline. How is this a Frankenstein bill, and from what grave did it arise?
“Revokes Boone Jurisdiction Rights” is inaccurate, in my opinion. Boone was granted jurisdiction authority (not ‘rights’) which was abused and has now been revoked.
Hopefully someone in the Civitas Institute leadership will soon clarify all this.
Mr Miller, why was there no public hearing to hear from the residents of the ETJ, many if not a huge majority wanting the protections of the ETJ?
Mr Miller, if being a liberal activist is working to get ethical visionaries who are forward thinking, honest citizens, with a record of public service, vision and ideas into political office, then you’re correct.
Lonnie,I think what Mr. Miller meant to say when he called you a liberal activist was that you are a nut.Mr.Miller is too nice a fellow to say that,but I’am not.
Larry how does your personal attack on me add to the discussion of making public policy without input from the residents and home owners of the Boone ETJ, many of whom will see their property value decline as a direct result of this decision?
Lonnie,It adds to the discussion by letting people know that haven’t heard you that you are a nut.I mean that in a nice way.
What do you think Larry? Should the citizens living in the Boone ETJ have had the opportunity to voice an opinion before Mr Soucek went Raleigh to make steep slope development or block the view of the Mountains with multistory Student housing? Will those previously protected from asphalt plants, industrial complexes and port Jon businesses next door now face a loss in property values? Is this what you call local government control or giving citizens a voice ?
Lonnie,I don’t have a dog in this fight and don’t know enough about it to comment .I was just messing with you a little bit.In my experience there are places that need zoning and others that don’t.I don’t think this could be a one size fits all deal.
Larry, interesting Mr Soucek heard the voice of the family that stand to financially game from this legislation but did not hear the voices of those residents who property values will decline as a result of this legislation.
Nathan Miller: I appreciate your comment. I agree that the city of Boone has abused its ETJ rights, and that the legislature should step in to provide accountability. Rep. Faircloth did state that he didn’t think it was the best venue for solving the issue (ideally, disagreements should be solved as close to the source as possible), yet he also commented that it wasn’t being resolved locally, and that was why it was here. I did include the rest of that quote in the article.
You are also correct that the state created the ETJs, and so they should also have the right to revoke them. That is something I probably should have highlighted more in my discussion of the issue.
I completely agree that regulation-without-representation is a huge issue. I mentioned that in the article as well. I personally believe that ETJ zones should be abolished completely–and that the citizens of the county should have equal representation in these issues.
I would like to extend a humble apology for the confusion – I certainly did not intend for the article to be read as supporting a liberal agenda. I was, at times, careless in my rhetoric. I wished to spark discussion (which I succeeded in), but certainly did not mean to confuse. ETJ zones present a serious problem of violating the essential rights of county residents, and the legislature was right to revoke Boone’s particular rights. I think that they would have been justified to revoke all ETJ rights in the state, on the representation issue alone (which I did state in the article). The article was merely meant to outline the issue, explain how there are several ways to look at the issue, and spark discussion.
Thank you for your comment, for your perspective, and for your ongoing work as a Watauga county commissioner!
A. Conservative:
Thank you for your comment. You bring up several good points, which I agree with. As someone who does not live in Watauga county, I was unaware quite to the extent which Boone has abused its ETJ powers. The abuses are certainly significant enough to justify revoking its powers. Of course, I consider that the regulation-without-representation issue is sufficient cause to abolish all ETJ zones (something I state in the article).
I did read through my article, and it was read by several of my colleagues before publication. None of us predicted that it would cause such an uproar – it was meant to be a somewhat cheeky way to bring an issue up for discussion. It succeeded in sparking discussion, it failed to perhaps clearly explain the Civitas position on the issue. We support the NC legislature on this particular bill, and think that the regulation-without-representation issue is a big enough problem that we should be discussing potentially abolishing all ETJ zones in the state.
As for the headline, it was meant to be taken in a slightly joking manner. The “grave” referenced was the procedural limbo bills are put in when they fail to achieve a positive recommendation. The manner with which the bill passed committee was slightly unusual (and sparked criticism from many people). Though it didn’t break any rules, as far as I know, it didn’t adhere to the normal procedure.
As you are perhaps aware, Civitas makes a point of trying to educate the general public about NC issues. If people do not click on our articles or read them, they can’t learn from them! A headline such as “SB865 and ETJ powers” doesn’t get people to click through. The type of person who sees a headline like that and thinks “hey, that sounds like something interesting to read over lunch!” (in other words, someone already interested in the legislature and policy) is probably already educated on such matters. We, as conservatives, need to reach out and talk people in our culture—college students, middle-class accountants, and Wal-Mart cashiers. In a Buzzfeed-styled world, it’s hard to get readers without a snappy, attention grabbing headline – and I don’t think you want Civitas to begin putting policy discussion at the bottom of articles like “27 Kittens Who Look Like Nicholas Cage Restore Your Faith In Humanity.”
We have to walk a fine line between getting people to read our articles, and avoiding shading the issue. I erred a little too far on one side with this headline. It sure attracted comments! I see now, how it could be easily misinterpreted. This internet medium doesn’t let you see the wink-and-grin with which I read it to the person next to me. I apologize for the confusion it led to, though. It’s been an excellent learning opportunity for this young writer! Thank you for your comments and your input – they help me know how to better do my job. God bless!
As a former county commissioner in another county, I feel that ETJ’s should be eliminated for the reasons stated above. Unfair treatment in an ETJ is a common complaint to a county commissioner. The ETJ was created by the legislature and should be eliminated throughout the state. As an alternative, all the citizens in the ETJ should be allowed to vote in all city elections, then you would see how quickly the cities would reduce the size of the ETJ or eliminate it.