"I was quoted out of context!" An excuse I thought I'd never use.

Don't you hate it when people are quoted saying something silly, irrational, crazy, or just plain dumb and they invoke the time-honored and often abused excuse that "Those ridiculous-seeming comments from me were taken out of context,"? It just happened to me. Here's my excuse...I mean, my side of things.

I was seen (hopefully not by many people) saying that Southport merchants have to decide for themselves if they want our city to look like a flea market. It was in response to questions from a television reporter about sign regulations in Southport. I went on to say (to the reporter, but it was not part of the final piece) that unregulated signs can create a kind of sign pollution demonstrated by areas like Myrtle Beach (our default cautionary tale of tourism gone haywire). My point was that a fair and well-enforced set of sign regulations makes the area more appealing to visitors and residents alike and, therefore, helps all merchants display their businesses in the best possible light.

I also answered some questions about benches on city sidewalks, which are allowed in Southport as long as they are up against the building for safety and handicapped access purposes. I knew the reporter was there to cover Mr. Long and his citation for refusing to comply with city ordinances regarding the benches in front of his business, Bullfrog Corner. However, none of those comments I made about the benches were used in the story that was broadcast on the evening news and online.

I don't believe that it was done maliciously by either the reporter or the television news station. The story was the civic-minded business owner versus the big, bad city government that cannot possibly act in a personal or caring manner. I'm sure my use of the words "flea market" struck exactly the right tone for the piece, so the context was irrelevant. It made for a nice, quick report about the little guy facing an uphill battle against the massive might of municipal government. But it did make me look like the butter had slipped of my biscuit. It's all about context.

The facts are these: the sidewalks in almost all areas of the city are the property of the State of North Carolina or the City of Southport. These governmental entities are liable for anything on their property that might result in injury to person or damage to personal property. This concern is take lightly by most citizens (government activity is always dictated by their attorneys and concerns about being sued), but it is the responsibility of government to ensure that public spaces are safe and accessible for all people.

Both the state and the city have established laws for use of their public rights-of-way. Unfortunately, many people assume because it's owned by the public, the public can do whatever it wants in those areas.

Mr. Long's point is that the benches in front of his store should be allowed under the city-planted trees so pedestrians can rest in the shade. However, it has been determined and agreed (by the NCDOT, Southport Planning Board and Board of Aldermen with full public and merchant input) that benches on the sidewalk are only safe if they are up against the building and not floating freely anyplace on the sidewalk. Having the benches confined to the space against the building results in some benches being in the sun and others in the shade depending on the time of day. But with this regulation all the benches are safe and the adjacent sidewalk is open, accessible and aesthetically pleasing.

Mr. Long's problem is that the benches in the shade most of the day during the summer are not in front of his store. If he were truly civic-minded, Mr. Long would offer sweltering strollers a space on his property, which is inside his air-conditioned store. Instead he prefers to violate city ordinances that were established in an open process with full public discussion and research on how similar cities have solved the same issue. Furthermore, the city ordinances prior to allowing benches prohibited any items from being placed on the sidewalks. 

And then there's that one issue that everybody seems to forget: N. Howe Street and E. Moore Street are part of state highway 211. North Carolina Statutes forbid the placement of ANYTHING within the right-of-way on state highways in specific categories, and Highway 211 is one of them. But the folks at DOT have been reasonable in allowing us to permit certain items within the state right-of-way if they are safe and ADA compliant. This is only achieved if the benches are against the buildings.

If you look around town you'll see that every other sidewalk bench in Southport is placed against the building. Some are under awnings and eaves, which place them in the shade most of the day. Others are on streets that only get direct sun for a portion of the day. Still others are in the sun most of the day. All the other shop owners seem to be getting along just fine with the sidewalk obstruction ordinance and the placement of their benches.

Mr. Long has an alternative to taking his violations public and complaining that the city is singling him out. The truth is that Mr. Long is singling himself out. He should spare himself further fines by offering a space inside his shop for overheated pedestrians rather than demanding that the city overlook his violations.

But then Mr. Long would lose the attention he's getting in his mythical battle against the evil city.

Ken waffling on annexation?

It's clear that I've been a proponent of Southport's recent annexation initiatives because it is the best and most equitable way to establish a stable and adequate tax base for the continued viability of our city. It will also allow Southport to grow and provide even better city services to our community. So, why did I vote to rescind the annexation ordinances at the July 14 Board of Aldermen meeting? Good question.

The NC General Assembly passed HB56 near the end of its session. It requires a petition of 60% of the property owners to repeal the annexation. This is an example of an ex post facto law; something the US Constitution specifically prohibits in Article I, Section 10. However, to fight a constitutional violation like this would take a boat load of money for attorney fees and legal filings on the way to the Supreme Court with no guarantees whatsoever. Not the best way to spend the taxpayer's dollars.

The new rules put things in a new context, even though we didn't know what those rules would be until after we passed our ordinances. Would the city gamble that 60% of the annexed property owners would not file petitions against the annexation? Regardless, we would still be responsible for paying the cost of the petition process and the Board of Elections had already begun to prepare the mailing. If the annexation was repealed by petition, the city would not be able to consider annexation of the same areas for 3 years.

However, if we rescinded the ordinances we could begin another annexation under the new statute's restrictions at any time. The advantage of this approach would be flexibility. The city could file a Consideration of Annexation almost immediately and take our time informing the citizens in the annexation areas the advantages of being part of the City of Southport (and there are some, believe it or don't). A Consideration of Annexation filing has a 2 year time limit but may be extended as needed. It removes the ticking clock that added so much unnecessary aggravation and heightened the lack of communication between the city and those who might soon be residents. The process could have been much more thorough and all-inclusive if there was not a looming deadline.

Any city-initiated annexation is, was, and forever will be contentious. But at least the facts could be laid on the table and the residents could take their time in evaluating the benefits of being incorporated into Southport. All questions could have been answered. Heck, the residents may even voluntarily annex themselves into Southport if a good and truthful case was made to them.

Ok, that's a stretch but at least a good faith dialogue could result instead of the cat fight that took place this time.

The city could also structure the proposed areas for annexation in a way that would incorporate all desired properties instead of doing a piecemeal, step-by-step process. The Highway 211 business corridor, the main focus of Southport's annexation efforts, could be included from the start and those in the residential areas could see everything in the proper perspective.

In such a circumstance the city would be compelled to make a good case to the affected property owners: something we did not do this time around. It could be argued that the residents in Smithville Woods and other affected areas did not allow the city to present its case to them because they rejected any consideration of being a part of Southport outright. I'm still optimistic that, with enough time, some common ground can be established in the spirit of uniting our community. If we pursued the current annexation ordinances, this opportunity may be lost. It will certainly be delayed by 3 years.

While I support the actions of our board 100% with regards to annexation, I felt that voting against continuing the current process would give us a better chance of achieving our goals over the long term. While I really didn't expect that it would improve the relationship with the annexed residents in the short term, repealing the annexation ordinances now at least gave us a fighting chance to repair relations and avoid a permanent division in our community.  We shall see.

State Reps Ignore the Concerns of Southport Residents

Consider this situation: you want to move to Southport and build a house. You and your contractor obtain all the necessary permits, follow the local building ordinances, receive passing grades on each mandatory inspection and are ready to receive your final occupancy permit. Suddenly, the building inspector tells you there are several new building ordinances and codes that were not in place when you started building your house. In fact, they were passed after you finished construction. But the city refuses to issue the occupancy permit and insists that you 1) must make all changes so that your construction follows the rules you never knew about, 2) you have to pay more money in permit fees, and 3) you can't move in until you get the written approval of all your neighbors.

That's exactly what happened with the city-initiated annexation ordinance passed on June 10, 2011. This is called ex post facto (changing the rules after the game is over) and is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. However, the North Carolina Constitution allows the general assembly to do...well, pretty much whatever they damn well please--especially when it comes to the municipalities throughout the state.

photo by John Muus, photographic artist

Eight municipalities with annexation ordinances in place have been forced (retroactively) to submit to a petition process whereby 60% of the property owners in the annexation areas (not registered voters, as in most elections, but property owners who may not even be residents of NC) can block the annexation. Every city involved has spent significant taxpayer dollars under the existing law.  Now the general assembly is asking for more money (the city must pay for the petition expenses) and the approval of our neighbors.

Why don't the citizens of the affected municipalities get to vote? Because your elected state representative and senator said so. Furthermore, it was your representative and senator who insisted that Southport be forced into this after-the-fact penalty. Other cities with annexations in the same time frame as Southport's are not subject to the rule changes. The legislature achieved its goal to reform annexation in North Carolina, but they obviously wanted to punish those cities who followed the rules and spent taxpayer money in good faith. No criteria were given to explain why some cities were included and others ignored. This sets a precedent whereby the legislature can undo laws and apply new ones to citizens and public entities who didn't even know it was the law at the time of their actions. Furthermore, it discriminates against certain parties and leaves others unaffected while offering no criteria whatsoever as to how the individual parties were selected to be included in the new law.

This was done for the oldest of reasons: to get re-elected. Our reps chose to placate a noisy band of reprobates who refuse to pay their fair share of local taxes rather than stick up for the taxpayers of Southport. Despite the screaming and nasty behavior on the part of those opposed, the annexations are critically important to the future of Southport and all of our taxpayers should be angry with the actions of the state legislature.

The city-initiated annexation process was an important tool for the growth of cities in North Carolina. You will not find an economic development or local government who disagrees with that statement. The goal is to create city borders such that those who benefit from the city are included. In this way the municipal government--that which is closest to the needs and concerns of the people--can be large enough to take care of all the people in their area. Establishing a more stable tax base enables the city to improve existing services and develop projects that benefit everybody--including those who are being annexed. Unfortunately, many in the annexation areas do not see this as a benefit and prefer to keep not paying the taxes they should be sharing with city residents.

As costs for maintaining city services continue to rise, the entire burden will fall upon the current residents and result in higher taxes sometime down the road. Southport has been able to reign in spending over the years, but it has been done at the cost of maintaining our equipment, buildings, parks, and infrastructure. Our budget has no fat in it and all departments have had to sacrifice in order to avoid tax increases.

Please take a wide angle view of the annexation maps and compare them to our current city limits. (I'll prepare a document for this space within a few days in case you can't access the maps on the city website). Any reasonable person would agree that the areas proposed for annexation are surrounded by those within the current city limits and, for all intents and purposes, belong in Southport. Now we're paying their freight.

If there is any city resident who does not understand why these annexations are important to every citizen in Southport, please let me know and I'll provide answers to your questions. The bottom line is that, if Southport cannot grow it will cost more and more taxpayer dollars just to retain our existing services. Annexation is a win-win for all residents in our area. We have folks in Southport on fixed incomes who can use the help that a fair tax base can provide. It is the best way to keep taxes in check and work to improve out little piece of heaven.