Much of what you have heard from the opponents of annexation is slanted, in their own economic self-interest, and simply does not represent the full story.
First of all, North Carolina law is not "archaic and outdated" as the opponents suggest. In fact, the United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has recommended the North Carolina procedure for the rest of the country. North Carolina law is very specific (and restrictive) on the rights of municipalities, and this is another example.
Other states have resisted similar statutes because the N.C. statutes tightly define the rules for annexation by a municipality. Anyone who has lived in other states with patchwork zoning and boundaries recognizes the problems where municipalities have much freer rein. The North Carolina laws provide for an orderly method of municipal growth over many years.
Rather than being a "land grab," N.C. law has protected Pinewild from annexation from its beginning through its growth phase. The statutes require that the annexed area share a boundary with the existing town, have at least 2.3 residents per acre, and/or meet certain other density criteria.
Only recently has Pinewild reached the density threshold. So Pinewild has actually been protected from premature annexation during this period. This is not a land grab -- it has been a patient, supportive process by the village of Pinehurst.
Meanwhile, Pinehurst has provided Pinewild with the same services as those provided to its tax-paying residents. Professional permitting, building inspection, code enforcement and general municipal services are just some of the areas where Pinehurst has supported and enhanced Pinewild.
Pinewild residents continue to enjoy the ambience of Pinehurst amenities such as Rassie Wicker Park, greenways, Fair Barn, etc. These are all financed by Pinehurst tax-paying residents.
The fact that Pinewild chose to be a gated development was an economic decision by the developer and should not dictate annexation laws and policies, in Pinehurst or elsewhere. Pinehurst has always made it clear that it is willing and able to provide the full range of municipal services available to all residents. Country Club of North Carolina and Fairwoods on Seven are both examples of gated communities in Pinehurst.
In other states, Pinehurst could have insisted on an annexation agreement before allowing the development to proceed.
Other communities in Moore County should consider the implications of this issue. With the projected growth of our county, will gated, private developments proliferate next to existing communities if they find that they can enjoy the services of the adjoining town without sharing in the cost?
The argument that Pinewild just "happens to be in the Pinehurst postal area" does not ring true. Even today, Pinewild is being marketed as Pinewild of Pinehurst. I cannot imagine that Pinewild would have the same market and property values if it were located in rural Moore County. In fact, Moore County realizes the tax benefits of the higher valuation associated with the Pinehurst address.
"Taxation without representation" is simply rhetoric which has no basis. The truth is that, after annexation, Pinewild residents will have the same rights and representation as any other Pinehurst resident. It is apparent that the opponents do not want a vote -- they want a veto.
Pinehurst is facing many important decisions regarding growth, infrastructure, traffic, and services to its residents. As we move forward, Pinewild should be part of that process. I believe that working together on an orderly annexation is a far more productive path for all of us than continued confrontational efforts by the opponents of the legal process.
Doug Lapins is a member of the Pinehurst Village Council.
