Winston-Salem Takes Another Look at Annexation

This article originally ran in the Winston-Salem Journal on Tuesday, June 3, 2003

City to take another look at annexation

Council tells staff to revise proposed areas, ordinances

By Victoria Cherrie

JOURNAL REPORTER

Annexation Archive

After a year of mapping and surveying, city staff members will take another crack at developing an annexation proposal that excludes more rural areas and won’t force land owners to give up their goats, pigs, sheep and guineas.

In a brief meeting before their regular meeting last night, the Winston-Salem City Council voted to have the city manager revise his proposal to annex 14 areas covering 34 square miles into the city.

In addition to the revisions, the council will consider an amendment to the city’s ordinance prohibiting residents from keeping goats, pigs, sheep and guineas on their property.

‘We’re looking at shortening the list,’ Stuart said.

The goal is to minimize the number of rural areas included in the plan. Under the new criteria, rural areas will be annexed only if they are now being developed or are likely to be developed in the future.

Boundaries will also be more clearly defined using major roads or planned highways such as the Northern Beltway, Mayor Allen Joines said.

Joines recommended the revision and new criteria for the annexation plan because of concerns raised by council members and the more than 100 people who spoke against the proposal at a recent public hearing.

The revisions will postpone the council’s vote at least until June 23.

The city has given several reasons for annexation. By taking in areas around Winston-Salem, the city can plan for and have jurisdiction over the building of roads, sewers and water lines to support its growth. Also, many people who live outside Winston-Salem work and shop in the city, taking advantage of city services, such as police protection, without paying city taxes. Drawing those properties into the city would increase the city’s tax base, annexation proponents say.

Opponents have argued, however, that the proposal is unfair and includes too many traditionally rural areas.

Other opponents argue that involuntary annexation is illegal. Last night they circulated a copy of the city charter, which says that residents have the right to vote before they are annexed. Ron Seeber, the city attorney, said that laws passed in 1959 superceded the charter and allow a city or town to annex property without a vote as long as there is a public hearing.

About 40 opponents attended last night’s meeting. Some flashed signs that said: ‘Shame.’

Bennie Robinson held a sign that said: ‘If U Ask Me? No annexation. But then who asked?’

Robinson, 62, retired from General Motors about six years ago and moved here with his mother, Elizabeth Carpenter, who is 79.

It is unknown how many residents will be affected by the revision of the existing plan.

That proposal calls for annexing areas from all sides of the city, with the largest being on the northwest and southeast fringes. State law allows cities and towns to take in such areas if they meet certain population density standards and minimum levels of development.

Once the maps are reconfigured to reflect the new criteria, city staff members must then determine what areas do or do not qualify and how that could change the city’s projected post-annexation tax base.

The new maps will be ready by June 11 when the council meets in special session to discuss the revised annexation plan, Stuart said.

• Victoria Cherrie can be reached at 727-7283 or at vcherrie@wsjournal.com