Mecklenburg's Bill Brawley Signs onto H267.

First thing Monday morning, Rep Bill Brawley of Matthews signed on as a sponsor of H276 filed last Thursday in the NC House.  While there are unconfirmed rumblings that this bill might not impact the I-77 HOT Lanes project, the fact that Rep Brawley is now a sponsor is definitely interesting.

Here's Bill Brawley at the January 14th WidenI77.org meeting in Cornelius describing his roll in helping push through the bill authorizing the P3 concept for the project.  His comments start at minute 15:00 of this clip.




In January, on the eve of starting his new role as Chair of the House Transportation Committee, Rep Brawley seems to be a fairly ardent supporter of the I-77 HOT Lanes project while still seeming to understand the concerns of those in the room.  Two months later, he signs on as a sponsor of a transportation bill which could derail that project (rumblings to the contrary notwithstanding).

When the Chair of a committee sponsors a bill directly in the purview of that committee, it has a good shot at passing.  H267 now sits in the House Transportation Committee.

Update 3/12: The rumblings continue out of Raleigh that this bill will not impact any decision on I77. If that is the case it certainly is intentional as this bill certainly could be structured to do so.

Update2 3/13: And the other shoe drops...Mr Brawley appears to actually have signed onto the bill to ensure that it does not interfere with the toll plans, not the other way around  See here.

NC House Files to Require NCGA Approval of Tolls on "Existing" Interstates

Following on the heals of the NC Senate bill to stop any potential toll plans on I-95, the NC House filed a bill on Thursday that could stop actual plans for tolls on any interstate highway.  Bi-partisan H267 filed by two Republicans and two Democrats would require an NCGA vote of approval before implementing tolls on any "existing" road.

Questions are out to the Bill's sponsors as to whether this bill would impact the decision to toll I-77 via High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes.  A simple straight forward reading of the bill, would indicated that it should since the existing HOV lanes will be converted to HOT as part of the project.  However, since the I-77 HOT project is a combination of HOV conversion and new construction, that opens the door for interpretation.

If those who support the HOT project are willing to engage in Bill Clintonesque splitting of linguistic hairs, they could try to say the HOT facility is new and not existing. The inclusion and exact meaning of the word "existing" in this bill is important.

A second important point with this bill is the last statement which is common to most bills in the Legislature..."This act is effective when it becomes law."

When it comes to giant government construction efforts, the I-77 HOT Lanes project is on the fast track.  The plan is to select a concessionaire and get the contract underway this year.  If H267 is not equally fast tracked, it will not become law before a contract may be signed - making it irrelevant to such a contract.

If those who support the HOT project are willing to play the standard political game of "run out the clock", they will stall this bill just long enough to not impact this project.  

To be very clear, if the Legislature was able to pass complex and controversial bills on Medicaid expansion and unemployment insurance in a matter of weeks, they could most certainly pass a simple bill that requires a vote on a simple subject such as tolls.  Not doing so will be very, very intentional.

Keep an eye on this one.  It will be interesting to see where it goes.

Update: Looks like the Legislators are going the route of splitting those very fine political hairs.  See here.

NC Senate Files to Stop Tolls on I-95...I-77?

On Wednesday, S218 was filed in the State Senate by to explicitly prohibit tolls on I-95.   One would have to expect a warm welcome for this bill if it makes it to the House.  See this video of Speaker Tillis commenting back in June 2012 on his opposition to tolling our Interstates..

If passed it would protect citizens from a "money grab" to use Speaker Tillis's own words.

Tolling I-77 via HOT lanes would seem to be consistent with that "money grab" scenario.  Hopefully, if that eventually comes before the legislature as indicated in this Fox Charlotte segment, it would receive the same jaundiced reception from Speaker Tillis.

The Economics of Turning I-77 into a Toll Road

Red Line Enabling Legislation Submitted

Well that didn't take long!

As was reported in the January 18th post, Red Line Lobbying Picks Back Up, readers of aShortChronicle were reminded to keep an eye out for this legislation, and today it arrived.  With the new Republican led General Assembly barely 3 weeks old, a pair of bills were submitted today, which if passed, significantly enable the spending of over $450 million North Carolina tax dollars on the Red Line Regional Rail project in Mecklenburg County.

The enabling legislation comes in the form of Senate Bills 103 and 104 introduced by Republicans Fletcher Hartsell (R-Cabarrus), Wesley Meredith (R-Cumberland), with S103 now also sponsored by Jeff Tarte (R-Mecklenburg) (Sen Tarte added 2/20. See update below).

The bills seem innocuous enough on their own.   S103 slightly modifies the existing law which allows special assessments for "critical infrastructure" to be levied when a petition is signed by a majority of property owners in the assessed area.  Furthermore, these property owners must represent a super majority (66%) of the assessed value in the Special Assessment District (SAD).  The change in S103 actually makes the "voting" process in this law more fair.  S104 eliminates the current sunset provision on the legislation.  That date is July 1st of this year.

What is not so innocuous is how this legislation will be used to support the Red Line project if passed as-is.

The Red Line is a $450 million project, and this legislation will provide about 1/4 of the required funding via a complex SAD.  The remaining funds come from other pools of money - NCDOT funds, Charlotte Transit Tax dollars, and a TIF that will consume nearly all of the incremental tax revenue generated near the rail line.  However, this Special Assessment District funding is absolutely KEY. Without it, there is no Red Line financing plan.  Effectively, votes for S103 and S104 are votes to allow the spending of all this other money as well.

Also, as has been covered extensively in The Red Line Chronicle page, SAD and TIF financing mechanisms are attractive for this project precisely because they do not require direct voter approval.  That's hardly a very small-d democratic approach to spending this kind of money.

So what should legislators do?

If they are concerned at all about paying more that just lip service to out of control spending, they should take steps to ensure this legislation does not open the door to spending hundreds of millions on a project like the Red Line.  Capping the amount of funding supported by these SADs would be a good start.

UPDATE 2/20 - If there were any doubts that this bill is intended to support the Red Line, Senator Tarte adding his name to the list of sponsors should put them to rest. However, this should not be a surprise.  Way back during last year's primary campaign for NC Senate 41, then Candidate Tarte's inconsistency on the Red Line was pointed out here - Dueling Press Releases In NC Senate 41 Race Reveal Inconsistency For One Candidate.

Reshaping North Carolina Via the Ballot Box

With the new General Assembly only two weeks old, a theme seems to be taking shape that could result in North Carolina voters having a large say in reshaping how government operates here in the Old North State.  If successful these changes would enshrine some small government principles into the State Constitution and change how the judges who interpret that Constitution are elected.

Every Legislature has a number of proposed amendments, but few make it to the voters.  Last session the big one was the controversial "Amendment 1" regarding same sex marriage.  Many others however can not muster the three-fifths vote needed in each chamber of the legislature to get on the ballot.  The UNC School of Government has a good piece here on those that did not make it in 2011.

What will be different this time?  The veto proof Republican majorities in both houses of the Legislature, that's what.  With 77  Republicans in the House and 33 in the Senate, they have the votes to put anything they want on the ballot.  If they choose to do so, several amendments are currently targeted for the November 2014 General election - making that a particularly big day for the voice of NC voters.  It is hard to see these not passing if the citizens are given a say about them.

Here is what we may have in store.  If they ultimately pass, private property will be protected, term-limits will be in place for leadership of the General Assembly, and North Carolina will protect its status as the least unionized state in the Union by elevating its right-to-work laws.

Eminent Domain - "Private property shall not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use. Just compensation shall be paid and shall be determined by a jury at the request of any party."

Annexation Amendment - "The General Assembly may not authorize any annexation initiated by a city, town, or other government subdivision unless the eligible voters living within the proposed area of annexation, and they alone, are allowed to vote, and the proposed annexation is approved by two‑thirds of those voting. Such election shall be placed on the ballot in accordance with law within the proposed area of annexation for the general election next occurring after the municipality proposes the annexation. This paragraph does not prohibit property owners from requesting annexation if they so desire. No city, town, or other governmental subdivision may exercise any jurisdiction beyond the corporate limits."

Speaker/Pro Tem Term Limits - "No person may serve as Speaker in more than two General Assemblies. The initial convening of a session of the General Assembly after the terms of members commence shall constitute a new General Assembly for the purpose of this Section. Only service as Speaker during any part of an odd‑numbered year constitutes service as Speaker for that General Assembly for the purpose of this Section."

NC Right to Work/Secret Ballot Amendments - "The right to live includes the right to work. The exercise of the right to work must be protected and maintained free from undue restraints and coercion. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of North Carolina that the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization or association."

However, regardless of what happens with any of the proposed amendments, it's up to the judiciary to interpret the laws and ultimately the Constitution.  Bills have been already been introduced in both houses of the Legislature which would restore partisan elections for our judges.  If passed, that too should push the state in a more conservative direction.

There is a reason bills H65 and S39 are titled "Restore Partisan Judicial Elections".  In the past they used to be that way.  Previous Democratic legislatures made judicial elections non-partisan because too may Republican judges were winning even though Democrats have huge registration advantages in the State.  It seems even when North Carolinians were electing Democrats to make their laws, they wanted more conservative Republicans to help enforce them.  More on that here.

Elections matter.  The new Republican General Assembly may be about to put on a good display as to why.

UPDATE: And the march continues with Senate Bill 82 filed on 2/13.  This bill would eliminate straight ticket voting.  Shockingly, people would be expected to have some idea of who they are voting for in each race.

NC Legislature Challenges Municipal Planning Authority - Davidson in the Crosshairs

The new NC Legislature has bills in the works for legislation which would enforce limitations on current planning authority for the State's municipalities.  For town's like Davidson that place a very high premium on town planning and design, any attempt to limit that authority is seen as unacceptable influence from Raleigh on local control.  Some of these supposed limitations could just be imagined. Others, certainly would be painfully real.  Regardless, they are bound to have those at Town Halls across the state in an uproar if these bills go forward. 

Will all the municipal hand-wringing be justified?  Let's take a look at what these bills would accomplish.

The first bill is a reincarnation of a bill which died in committee last session when the clock ran out.  That bill was  S731.  Senate Bill 731 intended to enforce limitations on the ability of municipalities to control development through certain types design restrictions.   According to an email from Senator Dan Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) who was the bill's sponsor the last time, S731 is planned to be resubmitted.  As of January 31 that resubmission has not yet happened.

This bill was apparently so egregious that it spawned a full-blown study of its impacts by the Town of Davidson.  This study was conducted using Town resources under Davidson's CDC-funded Design for Life program.  The D4L program has funding to conduct three annual Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) on various aspects of design issues affecting the town.

Here was Senator Clodfelter's response when asked if a bill like S731 would be reintroduced.

"SB 731 passed the Senate last session (by a very strong bipartisan vote), but it arrived in the House too late in the session to be considered before adjournment.  It will be reintroduced this year.  The bill has no effect on such things as walkable design, bike-friendly design, or anything of the sort.   I have read the “study” and was perplexed by the fact that the authors of the study seemed to be talking about a piece of legislation they had never even read.   There has been a great deal of “Chicken Little” reaction to the bill, and that has been equally perplexing.   The bill actually is a restatement and reinforcement of current zoning statutes, which I think are quite direct about the permissible subjects that may be regulated through zoning ordinances.   The need for the bill has come about because some local governments have been simply ignoring the limitations in the current statutes.   I do not know whether Davidson is one of them."

So, when Davidson Mayor Woods said at Board work session recently “finding a champion in Raleigh for our side of this is going to be a challenge.” (DavidsonNews.net 1/23/13), the sentiment behind Senator Clodfelter's email would likely be the reason why.

The second piece of proposed legislation actually has been submitted.  It's impacts would be much more far reaching.  House Bill 79 - Annexation Amendment - would amend the North Carolina State Constitution to much more strictly limit annexation of unincorporated areas within the state.  The new language would amend Article VII of the State's Constitution to include:

The General Assembly may not authorize any annexation initiated by a city, town, or other government subdivision unless the eligible voters living within the proposed area of annexation, and they alone, are allowed to vote, and the proposed annexation is approved by two‑thirds of those voting. Such election shall be placed on the ballot in accordance with law within the proposed area of annexation for the general election next occurring after the municipality proposes the annexation. This paragraph does not prohibit property owners from requesting annexation if they so desire. No city, town, or other governmental subdivision may exercise any jurisdiction beyond the corporate limits. 

If passed, this change would need to be approved by a statewide referendum before becoming law... 

this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the State at the statewide general election on November 4, 2014, which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State. Ballots, voting systems, or both may be used in accordance with Chapter 163 of the General Statutes. The question to be used in the voting systems and ballots shall be:

"[ ] FOR          [ ] AGAINST

Constitutional amendment requiring municipal annexations not requested by the property owners to be approved by a two‑thirds vote of the voters in the area to be annexed, and prohibiting municipalities from exercising jurisdiction outside their borders."

In boom times, municipalities have used annexations and the additional tax revenues generated by them to fund new spending.  This legislation would effectively bring that to an end.  While strictly limiting unrequested annexations would impact all municipalities, it's that last part (highlighted in bold) which could particularly impact towns like Davidson.  Davidson exercises planning authority in select areas outside the Town boundaries.  This amendment would bring to an end control over areas within the town's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction or ETJ.

In an email to Rep. Larry Pittman (R-Cabarrus), one of the bills primary sponsors, when asked about the intent of that language and if it would strip authority over areas like the ETJ, the response was short and to the point.

"That is the intent of that wording."

If you are a fan of limited government, then these two bills seem like common sense.  Ensuring municipalities do not exercise authority outside their approved powers and protection of property rights are definitely good things.  However, placing limits on government authority is not everyone's main objective.

As part of its agenda on Tuesday 2/12/13, Davidson's Town Board will discuss its legislative priorities for the coming year.  It would be surprising if these two items are not a hot topic of conversation.

Local Rail Transit in the Crosshairs

Seemingly out of nowhere, every high-dollar rail transit project on the CATS project list has suddenly come under serious fire. 

The Red Line missteps have been well documented here in this blog and elsewhere, but in the last few days the Charlotte Streetcar and even the Blue Line Extension are no longer the sure things once predicted.

This week's Charlotte City Council defeat of the City Manager's budget proposal was at least partially driven by the high cost of the Streetcar funding included in the budget's capital plan - $119 million in bonds that would be paid for by a large property tax increase.  After last November's elections and the near sweep of City Council by the Democrats, passage of the budget and the Streetcar funding seemed a sure thing.  Tuesday's 5-6 vote with 4 Dems voting with the Council's 2 Republicans came as a total shock - particularly to Mayor Foxx who has long been a Streetcar proponent.  When this budget ordinance comes back around later this month, don't be surprised is the Streetcar is the major spending item that is not on the list.  See this Observer article for more background.

Even more surprising is the risk posed to the Blue Line Extension to UNCC in northeast Charlotte by the State Legislature.  The State Senate has passed a budget amendment that removes funding for Charlotte rail projects which would effectively kill the BLE.  While this is an outside possibility, polling shows that it would be supported statewide if not by the entire local legislative delegation - both Republicans and Democrats.  Mecklenburg Republican, Ric Killian, has proposed a gas tax cap that will likely be voted on this session.  If it passes, recent polling by Civitas shows that funding for mass transit is the top target of taxpayers if gas tax revenue is reduced.  See question #9 on these recent polling results.  59% of respondents say cut mass transit first if the gas tax cap brings in less revenue.  The next closest is "New Road Construction" at 27%.  If the gas tax cap passes, this will give them political cover to pull BLE funding.

Oh what a difference six months makes.

Republicans Put Themselves in a Pickle Over Gay Marriage Amendment

With Beverly Perdue's exit from the governor's race this fall, the proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage just got interesting.  Passage of the controversial amendment on the May 8th primary ballot was a foregone conclusion when the only big race on the ticket was the Republican presidential primary.  Now, with a Democratic primary for governor on the ticket as well, the Republicans in the Legislature have a problem.