Are you opposed to forced annexation?  Do you believe it's about time that North Carolina stop the oppressive practice of forcing people to live in cities against their will?

Then you should attend the inaugural StopNCAnnexation Annexation Reform Conference.

When: March 6, 2010 (special FreedomWorks and John Locke Foundation reception on March 5, 2010)
Where: Raleigh, NC

Learn More and Register: Click here

Time and Space are Limited!  Register Soon!

Comment (0)

If you like red tape and unelected government bureaucrats making major policy decisions without any real oversight, then North Carolina is the state for you.

Compared to most states and even the federal government, North Carolina is far behind when it comes to developing a regulatory process that protects against government agencies doing whatever they want.

When the state decided to allow illegal immigrants to attend community colleges, it was the State Board of Community Colleges that made this decisions not legislators who are accountable to the voters.

The legislature simply passes off major decisions to these largely invisibly boards, in part to avoid the political repercussions of tough decisions.  This isn’t a problem unique to North Carolina, but there are protections that can be built into the regulatory process to ensure that government bureaucrats are making decisions that truly represent the will of the legislature.

The regulatory burden is overwhelming in North Carolina.  In a 2005 John Locke Foundation survey of more than 600 North Carolina business leaders, regulatory burden was ranked as the second most important factor reducing the state's economic competitiveness (the tax burden was ranked No.1).  If we develop sensible regulatory reform, we can greatly improve our economic competitiveness.

In my recent report, “Regulating the Regulators,” I identify multiple reforms that the legislature should adopt to bring North Carolina into the “20th Century” when it comes to creating protections against agency abuses in the regulatory process.

Here a just a few reforms.  First, a government agency should clearly have the power to issue regulations (referred to as statutory authority).  Bureaucrats, who are in the regulation business, are going to try and regulate even if it’s unclear whether the legislature gave them the power to develop regulations on a specific issue.  The legislature should develop protections so that statutory authority clearly exists.

Second, the legislature also needs to require cost-benefit analysis.  For nearly 40 years, the federal government has required agencies to use some form of cost-benefit analysis when developing regulations.

When the costs of regulation exceed the benefits, the regulations should be rejected.  Agencies should be required to identify alternatives to achieve their regulatory objective and select the option (including no regulation) that involves the least cost to society.  Further, as President Jimmy Carter required, agencies should select the least burdensome regulations among the acceptable alternatives.

Comment (0) Read More...

North Carolina could soon prohibit dog owners from bringing their canine friends to restaurants.  This would even include outdoor dining areas.

The state’s Commission for Public Health has proposed a rule, which as written, would create this ban.  The agency, however, has explained that their goal isn’t to ban dogs in outdoor areas, but unfortunately, this is exactly what their rule would do.

This dog debate is a repeat of the smoking ban debate.  The only difference is instead of smokers we have dog owners.  The state shouldn’t prohibit dog owners from bringing their dogs to indoor or outdoor dining areas.

This issue isn’t about the rights of dog owners (or dogs), just like the smoking ban wasn’t about the right of smokers.  This is a property rights issue.  

Restaurant owners should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to allow dogs in their restaurants.  The fact that property is open to the public doesn’t change the fact that a restaurant is someone’s private property.

Smoking ban proponents argued that health “rights” were in conflict with property rights—I imagine this same fallacious argument will be made to defend a dog ban.  Just like with smoking, customers are fully capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to dine at a restaurant where dogs are welcomed

Dog ban proponents actually want to create a new right.  They want a right to go to any restaurant they want without ever having to deal with dogs.  They want their personal preferences, enforced through the power of government, to take precedent over property rights and the preferences of others.

Smoking ban proponents argued that a smoking ban was no different than having a health inspector regulate the conditions of a restaurant.  As with a smoking ban, a dog ban isn’t the same thing as a health inspector who is investigating the unknown health and safety conditions of a restaurant.  Customers can see for themselves whether dogs are allowed at restaurants.  Unlike with hidden risks, customers can make informed and voluntary choices about whether to be around dogs.

There likely are numerous individuals that supported the smoking ban but who oppose a dog ban.  However, one can’t have it both ways.  Ironically, I wrote the following during the smoking ban debate, “Smoking ban proponents may cheer on passage of HB 2 [the smoking ban bill], but under the legislative precedent they wish to set, they could soon find that some of their own actions subject to prohibition.”

That is exactly what is happening with a dog ban.  Those that oppose a dog ban but wanted a smoking ban are now having the same disrespect for property rights and personal choice used against them when it comes to bringing dogs to restaurants.  To be fair, there probably are smoking ban opponents that want a dog ban.  This also would be inconsistent.  

We’re getting into a situation where the populace identifies things it doesn’t like and then urges the government to ban it, regardless of rights or individual responsibility.  Yesterday, we were talking about a smoking ban.  Today, we’re talking about a dog ban.  Tomorrow we may be discussing a sugar ban.

A dog ban also reflects a belief that restaurants won’t act in their own best interests.  If a restaurant’s patrons don’t want to be around dogs, then the restaurant will prohibit dogs from entering the establishment.  It doesn’t require the government to force them to ban dogs.

The Commission for Public Health needs to change their rule to expressly allow restaurants to decide if dogs will be allowed in their indoor or outdoor dining areas.  I’d think that dogs would really appreciate it.  I know that anyone who respects property rights and freedom will appreciate it.

__________

Daren Bakst, an attorney, is the Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies at the John Locke Foundation.

Comment (0)

Here are a couple of things I have just written on the recent Supreme Court case on whether corporations and unions can engage in political speech.

There's been a lot of absurd reaction to the case--so hopefully the following will provide some common sense on the issues (at least for those who believe in the First Amendment).  

1) Op-Ed in Fayetteville Observer

On Jan. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Citizens United v. FEC that's a major victory for anyone who believes in the First Amendment. The court held that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit corporations and unions from expressing their support or opposition to political candidates or to prohibit them from airing campaign ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

The law was so extreme that the government could have banned books, movies and other communications that contained political messages. The penalty for committing this "horrible" act of engaging in speech included possible jail time. The very notion that speech could be met with criminal sanctions should scare all Americans.

Comment (0) Read More...

Municipalities are getting desperate in their attempts to defend the unethical practice of forced annexation, as can be seen in recent events in Rocky Mount. In its attempt to forcibly annex property owners who live in an area called Oak Level, Rocky Mount has decided to use the race card.

Rocky Mount officials have made the absurd claims that the Oak Level residents don’t want to be forcibly annexed due to their racist motivations. There’s nothing unique about the strong and heated opposition by the Oak Level residents.

Annexation victims across the state strongly oppose being forcibly annexed by municipalities. It doesn’t matter what the race is of the annexation victims or those annexing them.

There’s plenty of reason for annexation victims to oppose being forcibly annexed. They live outside municipalities on purpose. To be forced into a municipality is to disrespect their decisions onwhere and how they want to live.

Annexation victims are forced to pay higher taxes and to abide by zoning laws and other restrictions that may undermine their way of life. For communities being forced to accept water and sewer services, there also is another major cost that often is overlooked.

Even though municipalities initiate annexations, the annexation victims are the ones that have to pay for the water and sewer infrastructure that provides the water and sewer services that they didn’t even want in the first place. These costs can exceed over $20,000, depending on the municipality.

Being forcibly annexed can mean losing one’s home due to the high costs imposed on property owners. Even if property owners can keep their homes, their lives will be fundamentally harmed without them ever having a say in the matter. Racism has nothing to do with wanting a vote or meaningful representation before the government can inflict such serious harm on so many individuals.

The racist claims are even more absurd because if there’s any reason for racial concerns, it’s due to the state’s forced annexation system. Forced annexation has an established history of being discriminatory in nature. Since there’s no real oversight over municipalities and they generally can annex whomever they want for whatever reason they want, there’s always going to be the potential problem of municipalities abusing the law for racial reasons to try and maintain or achieve a certain mix of people.

 

Comment (0) Read More...

We learn in high school civics class that the legislature is the branch of government that passes laws.  If only that were how government really operated in real life.  In North Carolina, unelected bureaucrats and political appointees have the power to make some of the biggest decisions that affect all of our lives. For practical purposes, they have the power to pass laws.

Similar to Congress and other state legislatures, the North Carolina legislature passes bills that give agencies broad powers.  For example, a bill may allow an agency to have great discretion in choosing how and what it will regulate when it comes to the environment.

One way to protect against some of this excessive deference to agencies is to prohibit state agencies from passing regulations that exceed federal standards pertaining to the same issue.  These laws, sometimes referred to as “no more stringent” laws, ensure that the legislature, and not some bureaucrats, determine if North Carolinians should suffer a greater regulatory burden than citizens in other states.

Comment (0) Read More...

North Carolina needs to stop trying to lure businesses through economic incentives and instead focus on providing a business-friendly climate for all businesses.

In 2004, North Carolina got involved in a major incentives deal with Dell. The state legislature approved $242.5 million in tax breaks to be given over 15 years to the company. Winston-Salem and Forsyth County both kicked in money as well.

As is common with economic incentives projects, this whole “venture” with Dell has been a fiasco. Dell already is closing its plant and as a result 905 jobs will be lost. About $30 million in state and local incentives have already been provided to Dell. While some of the money may be returned, millions of dollars are going to be lost.

This massive economic development failure should make government officials pause and consider the problems associated with economic incentives.

On the surface, giving money to a company so that it will create jobs sounds very appealing. However, the problem is sound policy requires going beneath the surface.

 

Comment (0) Read More...

We all need to do something nice for President Obama. He’s had a tough time recently. He went all the way to Copenhagen to address the most important issue facing this nation: whether Chicago should be selected as the site for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

Despite Obama’s brilliance and messianic presence that helped him advocate for Chicago, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) rejected Chicago. The impact of this rejection could have crippling effects on Obama’s morale.

The President did everything he could to secure the 2016 games. His constant efforts to criticize and apologize for the United States ever since taking office have been masterful. At every chance he’s had, especially when he’s been overseas, he has blamed America first. The IOC should be ashamed of itself for disagreeing with Obama—they clearly must be racists like all Obama critics.

Obama was brave to ignore the misguided critics who thought he should be spending his time on other issues. As if meeting with the troops in Afghanistan and speaking to military leaders is more important than whether the Windy City gets the Olympics. As if Iran having nuclear capabilities even compares to the sheer magnitude of synchronized swimming in Chicago in 2016.

He rightfully used the most powerful political position on Earth to try and secure games that would help bridge the gap between cultures. Skeet shooting can make the national economy flourish. Badminton is a sure way to create world peace. Now that Rio got the Summer Olympics, none of this is possible.

Obama needs to immediately get involved in other critical matters facing this country. For example, will San Diego get the Super Bowl? If the Rolling Stones go on tour, will Charlotte be on their itinerary?

 

Comment (1) Read More...