75 debate Village of Lake James

About 75 people spent two and a half hours trying to persuade a legislative commission to accept their point of view during a public hearing Thursday night at Table Rock Middle School.
Most agreed on one thing: they don't want Lake James and its shores changed in undesirable ways.
They disagreed sharply — the 75 almost split evenly, in fact — on whether incorporating a village at Lake James is the best way to achieve that goal.
More than 200 people turned out for the Joint Legislative Commission on Municipal Incorporations' first and last public hearing concerning the Village of Lake James. People made one- to three-minute statements, depending on whether they spoke for themselves or for a group. Afterwards the commissioners and staff answered about a dozen questions.
Regardless of people's persuasiveness and passion Thursday night, the decision may tip over a debatable interpretation of North Carolina law — whether a village can have two separate pieces divided by a lake.
It's a question of "contiguity."
In general, a North Carolina municipality should be in one contiguous piece, not a series of islands spread across a county map. However, the law anticipates and allows instances when a stream or river divides a community, said commission counsel Gayle Moses.
Lake James is not a river.
Parts of the lake divide the proposed village. The most conspicuous example is at the village's eastern end where a bay separates the SouthPointe and East Shore neighborhoods. Because Huntertown falls between them on land, the two neighborhoods aren't contiguous on the ground.
Sen. Fletcher Hartsell, the commission's co-chair, said such a situation has not come before the commission during his 15 years.
Moses sought an opinion from David Lawrence, an expert at the Institutes of Government. She said he believes the lake is not an impediment to the village's contiguity.
Some speakers Thursday disagreed and Hartsell admitted it's "just an opinion," without the force of law.
Hartsell said the commission will consider the issue very carefully, because of its impact on the Village of Lake James decision, the possibility of setting a precedent and because the matter might have to be solved by legislative action.
Other than that, though, the commission may have little left to decide. Lee Nichols, an analyst from the Division of Community Assistance, said the petition appears to comply with the law's requirements for everything from boundaries to population density.
Most of Thursday's arguments were familiar to anyone who's followed the on-going debate about whether to create the village along the lake's south and eastern shore.
Some arguments had a curious similarity. For example, almost no one wants to pay higher taxes. Some people want to create the village as a defense against annexation by Morganton or Glen Alpine or creation of a special county taxing district. Some people don't want to pay new taxes for the village and services they have now. And yet another group told the Joint Commission they want to pay taxes for services they don't get from Burke County.
Many of the village's supporters repeated the same phrase: "We want to control our own destiny."
Many of incorporation's opponents just as adamantly do not want the village controlling the lake's future.
Some spoke passionately, almost to the verge of tears, and Hartsell said the commissioners will take everything into consideration.
In the end, however, the Joint Commission's decision largely will depend purely objective measures of whether the village's petition meets the requirements of the North Carolina General Statutes.
Hartsell said the commissioners will meet in Raleigh, probably within the next two weeks, and vote whether to give the legislature a favorable or unfavorable recommendation concerning the Village of Lake James.
Sen. Jim Jacumin already has Senate Bill 538 prepared for the legislature's vote, though it still could be rewritten.
Several people at the hearing, including a representative for Crescent Resources, said they want their property taken out of the village's description. Hartsell said there's nothing the commission can do about that; changes would be up to the legislature.
Jacumin in turn said it would be up to the petitioners and his constituents to tell him what changes they want.
And no one is predicting what the legislature itself might do.
As Fletcher said half-seriously, "No man or property is safe when the legislature's in session."