The hearing before the Judiciary Subcommittee went well today. There was a unanimous favorable recommendation for HB 3661.
Mayor John Tecklenburg spoke against the bill. He made a rather odd argument, claiming that the bill would allow the Town to annex areas within the boundary of the City of Charleston. This is not correct. The bill would only allow the Town to annex unincorporated territory, which is not within the boundary of the City of Charleston. Everything within the boundary of the City of Charleston is incorporated by the City of Charleston. Of course, the bill does allow the Town to annex properties within "donut holes" that are surrounded by the City of Charleston. Because of the City of Charleston's annexation policies, there are areas that are not within the boundary of the City of Charleston that are entirely surrounded by areas that are within the boundary of the City of Charleston. It is just one implication of the convoluted boundaries created by annexation policies by the City of Charleston.
The South Carolina Municipal Association appeared to oppose the bill, but when we contacted them, they said that they did not oppose the bill but simply wanted to amend it so that all municipalities can practice what they called "satellite" annexation. This means that a City or Town can annex a property some distance from its existing boundary. They said that HB 3661 is too narrow, only allowing a municipality entirely within a special purpose district with an elected governing body to annex across a break in the contiguity of the special purpose district. They proposed removing those restrictions, which would remove all requirements for contiguity. The Town had asked the Municipal Association to continue its past policy of neutrality on the bill. I suppose they are claiming they haven't opposed this bill but would prefer what they consider an improved version. In my opinion, their "improvements" would result in a a bill that would never pass.
The Special Purpose District Association of South Carolina stated that they opposed the bill. Their representative knew nothing about the bill and so could give no explanation of a reason for the opposition. He just said that he was instructed to oppose the bill. JIPSD Chair Alan Laughlin is looking into why the association to which the JIPSD belongs opposes the bill. The JIPSD resolution in support of the bill asked that the Special Purpose District Association support the bill.
The Coastal Conservation League opposed the bill as well. They proposed amendments that would require that the Town obtain permission from the City of Charleston to annex the areas they have surrounded. Further, the City of Charleston would have to transfer jurisdiction to the Town for some of the properties they have annexed so that the Town would become contiguous with the unincorporated area. The City of Charleston and the Town already have the power to adjust their boundary in a way that would make the Town contiguous to unincorporated area. There is really no point in amending this bill so that it effectively repeats powers that municipalities already have.
In the end, the members of the subcommittee unanimously voted a favorable recommendation.
No comments:
Post a Comment