Lawson for Congress

To follow up on my latest post discussing Former Democratic Senator and Presidential Nominee George McGovern’s newly-discovered love of liberty, I paid a visit to a blog that I frequent a lot and where I sometimes post called Freedom Democrats, a group of Democrats who, like Senator McGovern, are very freedom-minded. The main poster at the site, Freedom Democrats, also contributes to my main blog, Liberty Republicans. A few weeks ago, he made a post endorsing the election of B.J. in this district instead of David Price, the incumbent and a member of his own party. I’d like to share this post with all of you here. Make sure you share the view of this Democrat with all of your Democratic friends in the 4th District! Away we go:

Stand up to George Bush: Elect a Republican to Congress!

What in the world could bring me, a self-identified libertarian Democrat, to the point of advocating electing a Republican to Congress?

Two things.

First, a Republican like North Carolina’s BJ Lawson.

For those who don’t know Lawson already, he is arguably one of the most dynamic and exciting libertarian Republican candidates this year. With Jim Forsythe out of the race in New Hampshire, the list of Republican congressional candidates representing a new generation of libertarian politics is lead by BJ Lawson and Virginia’s Amit Singh.

Second, there needs to be a Democratic incumbent who is failing to stand up for the district he is elected to represent. In North Carolina’s 4th District, we have such a problem.

Ironically, a front page story at the liberal blog Daily Kos helps make the case.

The great minds in Bush’s Homeland Security department came up with a doozie this year: let’s move the facility where we study the most infectious and dangerous disease among livestock from the isolated island it’s now on (accessible only by ferry or helicopter) and put it where there are lots of livestock operations. Brilliant!

The Associated Press has the details on a plan to move the nation’s leading center for research into animal diseases from Plum Island to the heartland of America:

The only U.S. facility allowed to research the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease experienced several accidents with the feared virus, the Bush administration acknowledged Friday.

A 1978 release of the virus into cattle holding pens on Plum Island, N.Y., triggered new safety procedures. While that incident was previously known, the Homeland Security Department told a House committee there were other accidents inside the government’s laboratory.

The accidents are significant because the administration is likely to move foot-and-mouth research from the remote island to one of five sites on the U.S. mainland near livestock herds. This has raised concerns about the risks of a catastrophic outbreak of the disease, which does not sicken humans but can devastate the livestock industry.

One of the five likely sites of the research facility is the town of Butner in Granville County, just outside of the 4th District and the Durham metropolitan area.

Here is where the incumbent in the race stands:

My current assessment is that the Granville County site would be a good location for the NBAF, and that our region of North Carolina would reap many economic and agricultural benefits from such a facility.

Here is BJ Lawson’s view:

As a citizen, physician, and father, I strongly oppose NBAF in our backyard. Join me in opposing David Price, and opposing NBAF. As your Congressman, I will work for the people of the Fourth District by seeking to make our federal government smaller, not larger. I will work to preserve private property rights, and not encourage unaccountable environmental hazards in our backyards.

The AP article outlines a government simulations of a simulated foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Kansas:

A simulated outbreak of the disease in 2002 — part of an earlier U.S. government exercise called “Crimson Sky” — ended with fictional riots in the streets after the simulation’s National Guardsmen were ordered to kill tens of millions of farm animals, so many that troops ran out of bullets. In the exercise, the government said it would have been forced to dig a ditch in Kansas 25 miles long to bury carcasses. In the simulation, protests broke out in some cities amid food shortages.

Stand up to George Bush and his Department of Homeland Security, elect Republican BJ Lawson.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Change is in the air at the North Carolina GOP Convention. We elected a change-oriented national committeewoman, physician and fellow Congressional candidate Dr. Ada M. Fisher. Dr. Fisher literally came out of nowhere — she nominated herself from the floor, and gave a great speech focused on reaching out and growing the party in true service to our communities and nation.

Dr. Fisher’s election was, I believe, historic. Not only is she the first Black national committeewoman from North Carolina, but she nominated herself from the floor and won the voting overwhelmingly. The establishment’s candidate is a nice lady with an impressive political resume, but her speech was largely limited to her political and civic accomplishments — as such, it talked about the past. Dr. Fisher’s speech talked honestly about the challenges our nation faces, her efforts to bring about positive social change in her community, and where our party needs to go in the future. For most attendees, the contrast between past and future could not have been clearer.

During the business meeting’s Platform Committee report, I proposed a reasonable amendment stating our desire to eliminate North Carolina’s capricious statewide “no-carry” zones that disarm trained, law-abiding concealed carry permit holders:

Since criminals do not obey laws, we support eliminating North Carolina’s capricious statewide “no-carry” zones that disarm law-abiding and duly licensed Concealed Carry permit holders.

Of course, if a private property owner wants to put a “No Firearms” sign on his premises, he does and should always have that right. But if I own a bank and want to allow my trained and licensed customers to carry concealed, I don’t have that right - the state has arbitrarily declared that all financial institutions are “no carry” zones. Rep. Paul Stam, chair of the Platform Committee, recommended against the amendment, but it passed overwhelmingly. I approached him after the session to try and understand his objection to the amendment, but he didn’t offer an explanation. First he endorses my poorly-vetted primary opponent from his position as minority leader of the General Assembly, then he supports disarming certified and trained concealed carry permit holders.

Things got a bit nasty around the delegate nomination process, with an unfortunate parliamentary food fight that was completely unnecessary and avoidable if Chairman Linda Daves or her staff had shown some common courtesy to Gary Hardee and the Ron Paul campaign leading up to the convention. Instead, the party ignored their good faith attempts to reach out and put legitimate Ron Paul delegates on the slate, and further decided to reduce the number of Ron Paul delegates entirely based upon their interpretation of “proportional allocation”.

Even more amusing, Chairman Daves then got up on stage and blatantly lied to the entire auditorium about how the Paul supporters were “arguing among themselves” and that the party’s selection of Ron Paul delegates was “discussed with B.J. Lawson”. It was tragic comedy, as their actions effectively discredited them and alienated a large bloc of activists. Ultimately, Chairman Daves effectively squandered what would have been a “kumbya moment” after a fantastic unifying speech by our newly re-elected national committeeman Rep. David Lewis.

The final move was calling quorum. Both based upon the delegate fiasco, and the fact that a number of duly-debated resolutions passed in District conventions were not presented to the State convention because they didn’t make it through the Resolution Committee (ironically chaired by my openly-hostile district chair Martha Jenkins), most liberty-minded folks left early and someone had the good sense to call for a quorum. Not enough delegates were left, so they had to end the convention early and were unable to pass all the approved resolutions, including one in support of John McCain.

I should note that liberty supporters were not that well organized, however. I would have much preferred for a quorum call at the beginning of the Resolution Committee report, so that no resolutions would have been passed, and none would be singled out. As it happened, folks trickled out gradually before quorum was called, and quorum was called right before a resolution honoring our troops. That timing was unfortunate, as everyone I know firmly supports our troops — there is just honest disagreement on foreign policy, and many, like me, want our courageous troops home immediately. To the extent that the timing of the quorum call was perceived as a slight to the troops, there may have been some collateral damage.

I then spent much of Saturday evening at a hospitality suite hosted by the minority outreach committee. That was a great event, as I had the opportunity to meet some fantastic people, as well as candidates for the General Assembly who are interested in advancing positive social change. I really enjoyed meeting Pearl Floyd (running in HD 110) and Dempsey Miller (HD 99) - they are both strong candidates in their respective districts.

Our campaign also hosted a hospitality suite on Friday evening, and had a fantastic time talking with new friends from throughout the state as well as longtime supporters. We advertised our suite by giving out a $50 gas card every hour from 9pm until midnight, and kept the party going until 2:30 am. Our motto, “We can’t afford the Price”, highlighted our desperate need for a Constitutional federal government, as oil conveniently rocketed up almost $11 to a new record close of $138 on Friday. When will our government realize that we cannot afford to borrow and print $1-3 billion per day, and make our dollars worth less as a result?

So here are my personal conclusions:
- It’s important to stay involved, and there are individuals and candidates within the party that deserve wholehearted support. Activists should seek out and meet our local candidates and find out if they are principled supporters of the rule of law, limited government, and freedom — if so, we need to help them as much as possible.

- The party itself, however, remains unfortunately myopic. While we should support our local auxiliaries and work to obtain party leadership positions going forward, the current state party apparatus remains elitist and disconnected from the problems facing our state and nation. It must be changed from within, which will take time and continued effort identifying others who are honestly concerned about our future.

I also have one additional conclusion that may be controversial, but I believe to be important:

- In order to take back our state, we need to remove state funding for political parties. Right now, North Carolina taxpayers are funding the Democrat and Republican parties based upon “checkoff funds” of $3 per taxpayer that can be allocated from your state income tax return. It’s not a real political contribution, since the money has ALREADY been taken from you in taxes — the state just gives you the option of allocating $3 of STATE FUNDS to a political party, instead of schools or new roads.

Our political parties should not steal from our children, or our roads. I strongly believe that political parties must honestly earn the financial support of their members. No political party deserves welfare from the state.

The fight against the National Bio & Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) continues to march forward and gather steam. In the last few weeks I have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know members of the Granville Non-Violent Action Team (G.N.A.T.) and they, along with B.J., have inspired and encouraged me to speak out about NBAF.

So, in the last couple of weeks, I have composed two Letters to the Editor: one for the Durham Herald-Sun, and one to the Raleigh News & Observer.

Below is my letter to the Durham Herald-Sun, which addresses the attempts by the NC Consortium for NBAF to speak about the security and transparency factors of the proposed facility even though they are unqualified to speak about either:

NBAF risks public health
March 6, 2008

Regarding the Feb. 27th article “Official Supports Bio-Agro Defense Facility”, Dr. Warwick Arden, Dean of the NCSU College of Veterinary Medicine, like many members of the N.C. Consortium for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), is unqualified to discuss the security and transparency aspects of the facility. He is not a member of Homeland Security and, as such, his assurances of how the Department will behave are meaningless.

Further, there are several facts that Arden cannot deny. For instance, the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which will be stored at NBAF, in England in 2007 is believed to have been caused by an accidental release from a facility there. Accidents, after all, do happen.

In September, New York Congressman Tim Bishop, whose district includes Plum Island, encouraged his constituents to reject locating NBAF on Plum Island. This was despite that the facility on Plum Island has been in place for over 50 years.

At the Creedmoor town hall meeting last week, Dr. William (B.J.) Lawson, a physician who’s running for Congress against NBAF-supporter David Price, argued that we should collaborate with laboratories around the world already studying these diseases instead of building a “Taj Mahal” for these diseases in our backyard.

The reality remains unchanged. NBAF presents undeniable and unnecessary public safety and health risks to our area that any potential benefits from the facility do not outweigh. Unqualified assurances from Arden and other members of the Consortium will not change that.

While my letter to the Herald-Sun tackled a recent article they published, my letter to the News and Observer tackled what hasn’t been in any articles yet: the fact that David Price supports NBAF and has lobbied Homeland Security to bring it here. Here it is, as published (except for the bold part):

What Price supports

I have yet to see a single article that points out that U.S. Rep. David Price supports the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility and as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security has been lobbying the Department of Homeland Security to bring it to the area.

He has done so while ignoring the dangers of the NBAF, a facility that will store animal-to-animal and animal-to-human diseases that will pose health and safety risks to local livestock and residents.

Thankfully, at least one candidate has stepped up to retire professional politician Price and give the people of the forth district a voice in Washington once again — B.J. Lawson, a Duke Medical School graduate from Cary who filed his candidacy last month.

It seems that after serving in Congress for over 20 years, Price has lost touch with the people he’s supposed to represent. I say “supposed to” because a glance at Price’s campaign donors shows whom he now truly represents: a laundry list of corporate and special interests, including some interests who might benefit from NBAF being located in the area.

It’s time for long-overdue change. Someone in Congress actually looking out for the best interests of the people would be Price-less.

The part in bold was actually removed by the newspaper, but as people wake up to what David Price is doing, they’ll begin to look for alternatives. B.J. Lawson is that alternative.

Watch our local newspapers, as many other local residents are speaking out about the proposed facility and making solid points about its dangers. I encourage everyone to do the same, and don’t stop at NBAF. Letters to the Editor are a great way to speak your mind about whatever issue is important to you. To write the Durham Herald-Sun click here. To write the Raleigh News and Observer click here.

Rep. Tim Bishop is a Democrat who represents New York’s 1st District, including Long Island and Plum Island. Here’s what he had to say about NBAF in September of 2007:

“I encourage Long Islanders to join me in voicing strong opposition to placing a Bio-Safety Level 4 facility on Plum Island,” said Congressman Tim Bishop, who represents the Congressional district which includes Plum Island. “From the moment DHS became involved at the Plum Island Animal Disease Facility, I have received repeated assurances from the highest levels of the Department—including Secretaries Ridge and Chertoff—that it would not be a suitable location for BSL-4 research.”

The article on his Congressional Web site continues further:

Plum Island’s proximity to major metropolitan areas on Long Island and Connecticut make it an unsuitable location for BSL-4 research, which investigates highly infectious diseases that affect both animals and humans, such as the Ebola virus. Placing a prime terrorist target in such a highly populated area could have disastrous consequences.

Why is Rep. Tim Bishop encouraging his constituents to reject NBAF on Plum Island, while Rep. David Price is encouraging NBAF to locate in our backyard?

Unfamiliar with NBAF? Read this post.

Last night’s gathering at South Granville High School in Creedmoor was a poignant illustration of the crisis of confidence between our federal government and its citizens. I had the opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue — local citizens opposed to NBAF, as well as representatives from Homeland Security, the USDA, government contractors, and our local consortium desiring to bring the laboratory to the area.

At the end of the evening, what stood out was the profound lack of trust in our federal government. Person after person approached the microphone to ask the panel to essentially predict the future. Almost every question asked for long-term assurance regarding safety, transparency, governance, and accountability. Many questions couldn’t be answered until the Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. When answers were offered, however, they were received with palpable skepticism among the lab’s opponents.

Unfortunately, no members of last night’s panel can predict the future. Despite their best intentions, the lab’s representatives from Homeland Security, USDA, and various government contractors are incapable of delivering on any verbal promises made last night. At the end of the evening, we’re still left with the nagging question of whether our region wants the largest BSL-4 laboratory to study the most dangerous organisms in our backyard, when that laboratory’s use will be dictated by ongoing threat assessments by our Department of Homeland Security and the USDA.

My question to the panel was a slightly different one — why do we need this boondoggle at all? We’re looking to spend $450 million on this laboratory, which is money that we don’t have, to study diseases that are not yet endemic to our country. Does it really make sense to spend money we don’t have to concentrate the risk of studying and housing all these exotic diseases in a single large facility?

Make no mistake, each of these diseases is a cause for alarm. We absolutely should contribute to the global body of knowledge to diagnose, treat, and ultimately prevent these diseases from causing a public health disaster. But let’s consider an alternative: since each of these diseases is endemic somewhere, there is already research being done right now in laboratories around the world.

Why can’t we embrace a collaborative approach, and encourage our scientists to work at the best existing laboratories for these diseases around the world? Such studies are being done where the diseases are already endemic. If we believe we have the best safety and containment protocols, why not share those with other countries where they are already studying the diseases, and reduce the risks inherent in existing laboratories? Why not encourage laboratories that have already specialized in a few of these diseases, and thus reduce the “risk concentration” of a single large repository for dangerous pathogens?

I asked this question, and was told that we need this laboratory since we will not be able to rely on international cooperation in the event of a widespread outbreak. For example, in a global Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak, the UK would meet its own needs before it would share assays or treatments with us.

That answer still falls short for me. In a collaborative environment, as our scientists help create diagnostic assays, treatments, or vaccines for each disease, we can begin commercializing the resulting technology domestically so that we are assured of our own defense.

Is this really the best way to spend $450 million, plus ongoing operating expenses?

Regrettably, our incumbent representative David Price is lobbying our Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to locate the proposed National Bio- & Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Butner, North Carolina. The proposed facility would bring a Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory to our backyard to study diseases including:

• Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)
• Classical Swine Fever (CSF)
• African Swine Fever (ASF)
• Rift Valley Fever (RVF)
• Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP)
• Japanese Encephalitis (JE) virus
• Nipah Virus
• Hendra Virus

This list is not inclusive, and may change based upon Homeland Security’s “continued threat assessments and risk assessment”.

Rep. Price has a twenty-two year history of bringing home the bacon to North Carolina, but this is one federal gravy train that we should avoid at all costs. The proposed facility will replace the current Plum Island Animal Disease Center, located off the northeastern tip of Long Island. Plum Island is on an island for a reason: by current law, Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) cannot be studied on the mainland United States. While we in the United States have been free of FMD since 1929 (other than an accidental outbreak on Plum Island in 1978), it has devastated the livestock industry overseas, especially in the U.K.

There are a number of special interests who are joining Rep. Price is supporting this effort. This Consortium includes representatives from our local academic communities and industry. While they are clearly well-meaning and interested in economic growth, they have differing opinions concerning what is in the best interest of our region. The Consortium’s Web site has a FAQ page supporting the laboratory, but their support falls short on several counts.

The first concerns are transparency and accountability. While we already have several BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories in our District, these labs are associated with industry, our universities, and our state’s Division of Public Health. As such, there are certain levels of transparency and accountability associated with their activities. The Department of Homeland Security is a completely different animal, pardon the pun, and over the course of the past five years has proven itself to be highly politicized, corrupt, wasteful, and secretive. The transparency and accountability that we can demand of our existing facilities would be completely absent at NBAF.

The next concern is simply common sense. Why change the law to allow FMD to be studied on the mainland United States? Why locate such a facility, with no transparency and little accountability, within fifty miles of two million people? Why allow “pretreated and decontaminated” waste from this facility to flow into Falls Lake, Raleigh’s already precious water supply? Are jobs and prestige from this federal gravy train really worth the risk to our citizens and environment?

Fortunately, there is growing grassroots awareness that the answer is no. Not in our backyard, certainly. A growing grassroots organization has been spreading the word through its Web site www.nobio.org and letting citizens know how to push back. There are a number of events this week, but the most important is Thursday evening’s DHS/NBAF Hearing at South Granville High School, Creedmoor, from 7 - 10pm. Concerned citizens should attend — this laboratory’s proposed location is on the border of Granville and Durham counties, and waste disposal or accidents will affect all of us.

Finally, I had the opportunity to meet with local activists from the Granville Nonviolent Action Team (GNAT) this past weekend. I was interviewed by John Monroe, who received this form letter (quoted below) in response to his concerns from David Price:

“NBAF, which will be managed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), will conduct research focused on zoonotic and foreign animal diseases.”

“Much of the federal research on these kinds of diseases is currently conducted by DHS and USDA at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York.”

“I understand that there are concerns about the security of NBAF, in terms of the potential for dangerous pathogens to spread beyond the facility, and that these concerns are based in part on questions on the security of the Plum Island facility in the past.”

“Through my subcommittee post, I intent to exercise such oversight in order to achieve a safe and sustainable outcome for both our national security interests and the welfare of the community where the facility is eventually sited, hopefully in North Carolina.”

Here is a YouTube video of our discussion:

As a citizen, physician, and father, I strongly oppose NBAF in our backyard. Join me in opposing David Price, and opposing NBAF. As your Congressman, I will work for the people of the Fourth District by seeking to make our federal government smaller, not larger. I will work to preserve private property rights, and not encourage unaccountable environmental hazards in our backyards.

Regardless of whether you own a weapon, every American should take a gun course that includes guidelines for when Deadly Force may be legitimately used in self-defense. While taking such a course recently, I was struck by the obvious parallels between personal defense, and national defense.

At least in North Carolina, there are four conditions that all must be present to justify use of Deadly Force in self-defense:

• There must be an real and immediate threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault such that a normal person believes Deadly Force is necessary.
• The threat must be otherwise unavoidable.
• You cannot instigate the dispute: “If you start a fight, you lose your rights.”
• You cannot use excessive force.

These four criteria have interesting implications. First, regarding the immediacy of the threat: a history of violence and/or a fear of future violence do not justify the use of Deadly Force. For example, a repeatedly battered wife who chooses to kill the abusive husband between assaults is not justified in using Deadly Force. The husband must be physically threatening/attacking her for Deadly Force to be justified.

Regarding the concept of “avoidability”, in North Carolina there is a “Duty to Retreat” such that you must attempt to avoid or exit the hostile situation if possible. An important exception to the Duty to Retreat is if you are on your own property. In that case, obviously, you are in your “retreat” and can use Deadly Force if the other conditions exist.

Here’s an interesting case study, however. You’re an armed citizen awakened by a noise downstairs. You and your shotgun peek around the corner and see someone pulling silver out of the dining room cabinet. Are you justified in using Deadly Force at that time? Perhaps surprisingly, you are not. Deadly Force can only be used in defense of life or physical harm. It is not justified in defense of property. If the thief tries to surrender or escape when he hears the action on your shotgun, you cannot fire. But if he starts running towards you, you are more justified in using Deadly Force.

Even more interesting: You’re an armed citizen awakened by a noise downstairs. You and your shotgun peek around the corner and see someone forcing his way in through the back door. Are you justified in using Deadly Force at that time? Thanks to something called the “Castle Doctrine”, you are. While your castle’s perimeter is being violated, you are justified in using Deadly Force. Once the trespasser is inside, however, he must be a real and immediate threat to your life or physical safety.

Another important point is that you are justified using Deadly Force in defense of an innocent victim, but only if all four criteria above are met and the victim would have been justified in using Deadly Force him/herself. Especially important is the third criterion, or identifying the true instigator in the fight. Are you justified in defending an elderly lady being beaten by a group of muggers? How about walking into a convenience store and seeing two men struggling on floor, when one man reaches for a knife? In the first case, the true victim is fairly obvious. In the second case, however, it’s impossible to know who instigated the conflict. In other words, there’s no “Defense of Innocents” if you stumble onto a fight between the Hatfields and McCoys. In that case, as a citizen, diplomacy is the only solution.

Is it reasonable to think that the our guidelines limiting use of Deadly Force for citizens and law enforcement officials would also apply to us as a sovereign nation, and “global citizen”?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This morning the government seized my property. You may have heard about it, or read about it, although probably not in the Old Media. Here’s an article that describes the raid on the Liberty Dollar headquarters in Evansville, IL.

You see, just over a week ago I placed an order for some Liberty Dollar “rounds”, or 1 ounce silver thingys. (I’m not going to call them “coins”, since they’re not “legal tender” and I wasn’t intending on using them as “money”.) They’re just attractive, and heavy, mementos of what money used to be — something with intrinsic value. Here’s a picture:

I gave them a check, and was awaiting receipt of my silver pieces, when I read the news today. What’s a guy to think? Is it now illegal to purchase silver in the United States of America? What has the government done with the silver that I purchased? Most importantly, when will the FBI show up at my house with an apology to give me my property?

It’s ironic, though, to consider all the stuff that IS being sold today. I just discovered Facebook a few weeks ago, and was amused to discover that people are apparently willing to exchange Federal Reserve Notes for “gifts” on Facebook that are entirely virtual. Check this out:

Oh, wow! A Jibble! I’ve always wanted one of those! And my friends would think I’m SO COOL if I sent them a few! Mom, can I have some money to send my friends some Jibbles??? (Better hurry, though… they’re only creating 100,000 of them! Will they finance???)

Question: What do you call a country with a $9.1 trillion national debt, and an $800 billion current account deficit, that seizes its citizens’ silver but has a profitable market exchanging its paper currency for Jibbles?

Answer: Bankrupt.

Maybe I’m asking too much of our government, and maybe the Fourth Amendment is still intact — perhaps I just need to change my expectations for the word “unreasonable”. But would it be unreasonable search and seizure if the government took away my Jibbles?

Addendum: Video just in.

I’ve had a difficult time reconciling my respect for free markets and private property rights with the need for planning in urban and suburban development. When you think about it, it’s a bit of a paradox: on one hand, a private landowner should be able to do whatever she wants to maximize her property’s value. On the other hand, private landowners should be able to voluntarily associate and agree to standards that maximize the value of everyone’s property. (And remember, value is not only measured in dollars.)

For me, the key is voluntary association as a means of self-determination. We freely chose to live in Cary, North Carolina — a suburban town with extraordinarily strict zoning, sign, and planning regulations. We like the fact that there are no billboards, almost all utilities are underground, and signs are minimalist and fit in with the environment. Have you ever seen a Biscuitville? While I’ve never actually eaten there, you can’t miss them: they’re typically clad in bright yellow siding. Where we live, though, even the Biscuitville is brick.

On top of that, we further chose to live in a neighborhood with lots of restrictive covenants, and even an architectural committee that approves paint colors and exterior remodeling. Why? Well, we liked the way the houses are kept up, and even though the kids aren’t going to know the joy of a keeping a goat in the backyard, we don’t have to worry about our neighbors collecting junk cars in their front yard, either.

But here’s where I see a problem: while we voted with our tax and homeowner’s association dollars to live here, many folks have different priorities and value their ability to live with less regulation in unincorporated Wake County. However, in direct defiance of private property rights and economic self-determination, Cary has been on the involuntary annexation warpath for much of the past decade. That’s where the Town of Cary steps up and identifies surrounding land that it would like to “own” as part of its tax base, and kicks off a well-described process to annex affected landowners.

Since North Carolina law gives cities and towns this ability to annex your land involuntarily, you can be a retiree happily living on your homestead on a fixed income, and then receive a notice in the mail that you are being assessed $10,000, or $20,000, to hook into your new city’s water and sewer system. Additionally, you’re going to be assessed additional taxes for fire and police protection.

Forget about the fact that you have a well and septic system that’s served you for thirty years. Forget about the fact that you used to volunteer for, and still support, the volunteer fire department. And forget about the fact that you just don’t have the money… and when you’re hit with medical bills for your sick spouse, what do you do then? Sell the house you were going to leave to your children?

Can this happen in America? Unfortunately it can, and does. What on earth would possess a town to do this?

Typically it’s development. It’s not that the town really wants to run over the retiree or rural landowner who has lived there for thirty years. More likely, however, there is a big parcel of land nearby that’s turning into a mixed use development or new high-density subdivision. It’s easier for the developers if the city provides municipal services, and the city wants to increase the tax base, but existing landowners are often caught in the crossfire.

So my conclusion is that if we truly respected private property rights and forbade involuntary annexation, cities and towns would grow in a much more deliberate, and sensitive, fashion.

If cities required landowner consent before annexing property, the developer of the new subdivision could certainly sign up for services, but the adjoining landowners would have a seat at the table and not be hit with “unfunded mandates” that threaten their financial security. If it’s worth it to the developer, perhaps the developer and town negotiate a reasonable compromise with the retiree for his water and sewer connection. That’s the sort of conversation neighborly folks ought to have.

To learn more about involuntary annexation, and sign a petition to fight it in North Carolina, visit StopNCAnnexation.com.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::