In North Carolina, citizens can easily be made subject to a change in governance with little power to do anything about it. Municipalities have the authority to take your property into city limits through forced annexation with approval of a city council that does not represent you, and is made up of representatives that you did not have the opportunity to elect. You can object, but opposition means very little because the existing annexation laws are designed to favor city governments. You can voice your opposition at public hearings where time limits are placed on the speakers, and as history has proven, your viewpoint will be ignored by city leaders.
Your property does not have to be connected to land that is already within city limits. There is a procedure called "Satellite Annexation" that allows outlying areas to be taken into city domain as well. So, you do not have to live adjacent to a city to be safe from annexation.
North Carolina remains one of the few states that allows involuntary annexation. The State Grange along with other groups, including a coalition known as Stop Involuntary Annexation Now, is very active in providing a voice for those who oppose this forced action against citizens. There has been a public outcry through communications, publicity, as well as public hearings against forced annexation. However, it has been an uphill battle to convince the General Assembly to act because so many of them are listening to the cities, rather than the citizens.
Forced annexation is arguably one of the most blatant legal acts in this state that succeeds in removing individual liberties from the citizenry. It simply establsihes citizens and cities as adversaries in an unfair arena, because the laws are biased toward the municipalities.
A simple solution is to allow landowners affected by possible annexation to vote on whether or not they want it to happen. However, city leaders do not want this to happen, because they realize that in order to get a positive vote, they will have to make annexation attractive. It would also reduce power, which can be difficult for anyone to give up. All of us have to be accountable for our actions. What would be wrong with municipalities being accountable to citizens by being required to make annexations attractive in order to get a positive vote?
Nothing. If the annexation is not worthwhile to the citizens affected, it should not happen anyway!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The state of Arizona has taken the bold step of controlling illegal immigration. This new law is controversial, and has sparked debate on both sides of the issue. Is this action taken by Arizona the right thing to do? Time will tell. However, they have taken action that they feel is needed in the midst of our federal government failing at any attempts toward immigration reform.
For years now, Congress has danced around the issue of immigration issues, fully realizing that reform is needed, but failing to act. Some measures have been taken toward border security, but even with these measures there remains a large influx of illegals into this country. This is not only an economic problem, but also a national security issue.
NC State Grange policy supports efforts to control the influx of illegal immigrants into the country. We recognize that it would be extremely difficult to achieve this on a state-by-state basis. A partnership between states and the federal government, operating under effective and common sense legislation, will be the ideal path toward controllng illegal immigration.
For years now, Congress has danced around the issue of immigration issues, fully realizing that reform is needed, but failing to act. Some measures have been taken toward border security, but even with these measures there remains a large influx of illegals into this country. This is not only an economic problem, but also a national security issue.
NC State Grange policy supports efforts to control the influx of illegal immigrants into the country. We recognize that it would be extremely difficult to achieve this on a state-by-state basis. A partnership between states and the federal government, operating under effective and common sense legislation, will be the ideal path toward controllng illegal immigration.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
NC Education Lottery - A Question of Ethics
Included in today's Charlotte Observer is an article about an individual who through some type of numbers game has greatly increased his chances of winning. He has won several times in the last month, so he has been barred from participating in the lottery. Whether or not lottery officials are justified in this action, I do not know. Were rules broken? I do not know this either.
In the article, an unidentified spokesman for the lottery stated, "We can't have people winning the lottery. It's like stealing money from kindergarteners." This philosophy creates a dilemma for those who purchase lottery tickets. They aren't suppose to win. However, if they do, they are stealing from our students. To date, I haven't purchased an NC lottery ticket, but my wife has! It's a good thing she didn't win because I would not want this heavy burden of guilt thrust upon her.
The State Grange opposed the lottery from the beginning. The act of gambling is ethically questionable, in addition to taking advantage of those citizens who may not need to spending their cash on lottery games but hope to win big someday. Ironically, unethical tactics were used by the General Assembly to get the lottery passed! The vote was taken while opponents were absent so that enough votes could be gathered to pass the legislation.
Even though I have not purchased a lottery ticket yet, I am less likely to do so in the future because I am not suppose to win. If I were to win, I would not want to be labeled as a person who stole from kindergarten children. I will probably do more good, and feel much better about purchasing something from a local school fundraiser!
In the article, an unidentified spokesman for the lottery stated, "We can't have people winning the lottery. It's like stealing money from kindergarteners." This philosophy creates a dilemma for those who purchase lottery tickets. They aren't suppose to win. However, if they do, they are stealing from our students. To date, I haven't purchased an NC lottery ticket, but my wife has! It's a good thing she didn't win because I would not want this heavy burden of guilt thrust upon her.
The State Grange opposed the lottery from the beginning. The act of gambling is ethically questionable, in addition to taking advantage of those citizens who may not need to spending their cash on lottery games but hope to win big someday. Ironically, unethical tactics were used by the General Assembly to get the lottery passed! The vote was taken while opponents were absent so that enough votes could be gathered to pass the legislation.
Even though I have not purchased a lottery ticket yet, I am less likely to do so in the future because I am not suppose to win. If I were to win, I would not want to be labeled as a person who stole from kindergarten children. I will probably do more good, and feel much better about purchasing something from a local school fundraiser!
Monday, March 22, 2010
No Reason to Celebrate
Now that the House has passed health reform legislation, we have something to be more concerned about than the legislation itself. We know it was a bad bill! In listening to the debate in the House, many members criticized the legislation indicating that it was flawed, but said that they were going to vote for it anyway. The thinking that passing a bad bill is better than passing nothing at all is difficult to comprehend. This type of philosophy is even less valid when the entire House of Representatives had the opportunity to make the bill better before passage. During the House debate, many members of the minority party urged the other party to join with them in making the legislation better, but were ignored. I heard no one express opposition to health care reform.
The concern we now have is more serious than the flawed legislation. We have a polarized Congress that has lost the ability to produce quality work because of thier inability to cooperate with one another. Also of great concern is that Congress is ignoring the will of the citizens. It was made clear through many different sources that most Americans desired health care reform, but not the legislation that was passed by the House. I would venture to say that most Americans today feel that they are not represented, and that their voice does not matter. It was completely possible to return to the table and re-create a health bill that most Americans and Congress could support, but that did not happen. Congress gets a failing grade on this one. Therefore, no one, including the President, has a reason to celebrate victory! Failure to provide the best possible for the citizens of this country does not deserve any pats on the back!
The North Carolina State Grange is an advocate for transparency, fair play, and ethical behavior. If all members of Congress and the President had observed each of these important concepts, there is no doubt that that we would be celebrating the passage of a much better health bill than we now have.
The concern we now have is more serious than the flawed legislation. We have a polarized Congress that has lost the ability to produce quality work because of thier inability to cooperate with one another. Also of great concern is that Congress is ignoring the will of the citizens. It was made clear through many different sources that most Americans desired health care reform, but not the legislation that was passed by the House. I would venture to say that most Americans today feel that they are not represented, and that their voice does not matter. It was completely possible to return to the table and re-create a health bill that most Americans and Congress could support, but that did not happen. Congress gets a failing grade on this one. Therefore, no one, including the President, has a reason to celebrate victory! Failure to provide the best possible for the citizens of this country does not deserve any pats on the back!
The North Carolina State Grange is an advocate for transparency, fair play, and ethical behavior. If all members of Congress and the President had observed each of these important concepts, there is no doubt that that we would be celebrating the passage of a much better health bill than we now have.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Health Reform or Insurance Reform?
Based on polling information, it appears that most Americans oppose efforts by the President and Congress to reform healthcare. Why? Perhaps it is because most of us have health coverage that we are satisfied with. On the other hand, maybe Americans do not trust the President and Congress to do it right, for fear that they could make things worse rather than better.
A problem that I see in all of this is that the focus for reform is directed to the insurers. The health care industry encompasses a broad range of business and industry, all of which are making a profit. Yet, when the President and many members of Congress address the issue, they focus on insurance company profits. They leave the impression that it is okay for all entities tied in with the health industry to make a profit except for insurance companies. Increased costs among all of these health related entities can lead to more expensive medical claims for the insurance companies to pay. However, our leadership is trying to portray health insurers as the bad guys!
True health care reform should include all business entities associated with the health care industry, because they all contribute to the cost of health care. For example, in addition to insurance company scrutiny, perhaps Congress should also consider profits made by medical equipment manufacturers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, and many others. Congress should also examine the profits that lawyers receive in addition to settlement amounts on malpractice lawsuits.
It has been implied that insurance company profits are excessive and their policies abusive.
In some cases this may be true, but probably not for the majority. Isn't it possible that there could be abuses in other parts of the industry?
It is okay for all of the businesses associated with health care to make a profit. It is not okay to focus on a single entity which in this case is insurance companies, and hold them accountable for the rest of the industry.
Americans are right to be skeptical and fearful of what Congress might do. While some health reform is needed, we would be better off for Congress to abandon the effort than to do it wrong!
A problem that I see in all of this is that the focus for reform is directed to the insurers. The health care industry encompasses a broad range of business and industry, all of which are making a profit. Yet, when the President and many members of Congress address the issue, they focus on insurance company profits. They leave the impression that it is okay for all entities tied in with the health industry to make a profit except for insurance companies. Increased costs among all of these health related entities can lead to more expensive medical claims for the insurance companies to pay. However, our leadership is trying to portray health insurers as the bad guys!
True health care reform should include all business entities associated with the health care industry, because they all contribute to the cost of health care. For example, in addition to insurance company scrutiny, perhaps Congress should also consider profits made by medical equipment manufacturers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, and many others. Congress should also examine the profits that lawyers receive in addition to settlement amounts on malpractice lawsuits.
It has been implied that insurance company profits are excessive and their policies abusive.
In some cases this may be true, but probably not for the majority. Isn't it possible that there could be abuses in other parts of the industry?
It is okay for all of the businesses associated with health care to make a profit. It is not okay to focus on a single entity which in this case is insurance companies, and hold them accountable for the rest of the industry.
Americans are right to be skeptical and fearful of what Congress might do. While some health reform is needed, we would be better off for Congress to abandon the effort than to do it wrong!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
An environmental group associated with a town in the northeastern part of the country has developed a document proposing actions that the town government should take to address in their words the "climate emergency". Some of the proposals are logical and well-thought out. On the other hand, they are asking the local government to institute "environmental disincentives against ...beef, pork, and lamb." Fortunately, they are leaving poultry and seafood alone! The report further recommends an increased emphasis on "vegetarian and organic foods in government-run programs", such as school lunch programs, and set limits on meats included in these programs. They would like for the government to mandate that schools and restaurants conduct "Meatless or Vegan Mondays" in an effort to "reduce reliance on meat, dairy and eggs..."
So, we are seeing another group that would like to destroy a segment of agricultural production that is not only important for feeding the population, but also an industry that provides healthy contributions to our economy. Also of great concern is the effort to involve government in manipulating private markets. While there is nothing wrong with vegetarianism or consumption of organic foods, there is also nothing wrong with producing beef, pork, and lamb in this country!
Expecting government to control markets by banning the consumption of meat products is wrong! Markets are best controlled by the choices that consumers make. This is America. If we want to purchase and consume any meat product on any day of the week, we have the right to do so. Those who wish to purchase vegetables and/or organic foods have that right as well.
The same group is also recommending that City Council meals be meatless, with limited dairy products. I wonder if members of this council are happy about that?
So, we are seeing another group that would like to destroy a segment of agricultural production that is not only important for feeding the population, but also an industry that provides healthy contributions to our economy. Also of great concern is the effort to involve government in manipulating private markets. While there is nothing wrong with vegetarianism or consumption of organic foods, there is also nothing wrong with producing beef, pork, and lamb in this country!
Expecting government to control markets by banning the consumption of meat products is wrong! Markets are best controlled by the choices that consumers make. This is America. If we want to purchase and consume any meat product on any day of the week, we have the right to do so. Those who wish to purchase vegetables and/or organic foods have that right as well.
The same group is also recommending that City Council meals be meatless, with limited dairy products. I wonder if members of this council are happy about that?
Monday, February 15, 2010
Farmland Losses are Dangerous
North Carolina is losing farmland at an alarming rate! For the last several years, our state has been a leader in the acreage of farm and forest land lost to development, at the rate of approximately 100,000 acres per year. North Carolina is not alone in this problem as productive farm land is being lost throughout the United States.
What does this mean for agriculture? The answer is simple! Fewer acres means less food production while the population is growing. Less land will lead to higher purchase prices and/or higer rental rates for farmers. Competition will also increase among farmers as they search for available land. Farms will be forced out of business because of increased expenses combined with the inability to obtain adequate acreage to maintain a viable business.
What does this mean for citizens? Food prices will increase, and domestically grown food will become less available. America will become more dependent upon foriegn countries to feed our growing populaition. It is estimated that by 2050, world food production will need to increase by 70% in order to feed people. Advances in agricultural technology will likely increase yields. However, yield increases may not sufficiently provide for food demands because of large farmland losses.
We are short-sighted! Even though agriculture is the largest industry in North Carolina, government leaders continue to see a manufacturing plant sitting on a former farm as better for the tax base. The same applies to housing developments placed where farms once existed. If this trend continues, generations to come will suffer from the short-sighted practices that are now in place. Failure to reverse the trend of farmland loss will lead to a crisis point in the years ahead. Is this the kind of legacy we want to leave for the generations behind us?
What does this mean for agriculture? The answer is simple! Fewer acres means less food production while the population is growing. Less land will lead to higher purchase prices and/or higer rental rates for farmers. Competition will also increase among farmers as they search for available land. Farms will be forced out of business because of increased expenses combined with the inability to obtain adequate acreage to maintain a viable business.
What does this mean for citizens? Food prices will increase, and domestically grown food will become less available. America will become more dependent upon foriegn countries to feed our growing populaition. It is estimated that by 2050, world food production will need to increase by 70% in order to feed people. Advances in agricultural technology will likely increase yields. However, yield increases may not sufficiently provide for food demands because of large farmland losses.
We are short-sighted! Even though agriculture is the largest industry in North Carolina, government leaders continue to see a manufacturing plant sitting on a former farm as better for the tax base. The same applies to housing developments placed where farms once existed. If this trend continues, generations to come will suffer from the short-sighted practices that are now in place. Failure to reverse the trend of farmland loss will lead to a crisis point in the years ahead. Is this the kind of legacy we want to leave for the generations behind us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)