Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

It’s likely that Larry McDermott and I would agree on very little. However, when it comes to House Bill 765 (May 11), Larry and I are in full agreement regarding our opposition. About a month ago, when I first read the euphemistically called the “Save the American Dream Act,” I was shocked that such one-sided legislation could actually be going through committee mark-up. The bills’ provisions would prove to be dire for small communities that want to retain their rural character. 

The latest version, as Representative Johnson mentioned on May 7, is a significant improvement, but the bill continues to threaten the ability of Polk County and its’ three towns to structure future development. It also burdens local governments with additional costs that benefit only developers and creates loosely defined definitions that create the opportunity for legal actions that our small communities can ill afford. The following are only a few of the problematic provisions still in the bill as of last week:

Initial project reviews must be performed by local government “staff” and must be completed within 14 days after submittal by a developer. Our local governments don’t have “staff” with the experience and knowledge capable of reviewing complex submittals and it would likely be impossible to secure qualified consultants in such a short time frame.

Vesting of project approvals is extended from two years to five, limiting the ability to make changes to projects even if they are found to be necessary.

A new term, “Actual Needs of the Community,” has been created to define the required basis for any opposition to a project. This terminology is so loose that it practically invites litigation for any project denial. In addition, the bill includes provisions that open local officials to civil liability, which will threaten their willingness to oppose deep-pocketed developers.

Provisions in the bill require local governments to annually report on the available capacity of their water and sewer systems to support future developments. In addition, it requires those local communities to fund capacity additions to those systems in anticipation of future development as envisioned in their planning documents. Both requirements in the bill will force additional costs on local communities, with developers being the only beneficiaries.

These are just a few of the provisions remaining in HB765 that can potentially create additional complications and costs for Polk County communities while allowing developers to aggressively push projects that may be unwanted and potentially at odds with our vision of the future. Disapproval of this bill has been registered by the Town of Columbus, along with several other local governments in Western North Carolina, which have passed formal resolutions opposing this bill. 

If the ECS development in Columbus is an example of the type of “affordable housing” that HB765 is intended to enable, the bill deserves our condemnation. If you agree, let our state legislators know.

 

Jack Kern

Tryon