Wouldn’t it be nice if local governments, developers, and neighbors could sit together, talk through controversial large development proposals, and work to reach consensus about what would be a good project for all concerned? Wouldn’t it be nice if at least some of this process could be informal, not requiring witnesses under oath and subject to cross-examination, with no strict limits on individual conversations along the way? And wouldn’t it be nice, should that lead to consensus, that an effective tool would be available to implement that agreement, something everyone could rely on over time? It would be nice and the tool does now exist in North Carolina. (more)

I am often asked, what animal control services MUST local governments provide?  The question may come from local officials who are in the process of evaluating their options.  Perhaps money is tight and they are considering dropping some animal control services, consolidating services with another jurisdiction or otherwise streamlining animal-related functions.  Or the question may come from the media or members of the public, often because they are frustrated that local officials are not responding to an animal-related issue. For example, an article on urban coyotes in Sunday’s Charlotte Observer explained that despite the growing coyote population and the public’s expressed concerns, “county animal control doesn’t respond to coyote calls, referring residents to state officials and private contractors who trap wildlife for a fee.” So, what is the answer?

The short answer is very few. State law authorizes local governments to provide quite a few animal control services but requires only a handful of services. (more)

I have recently received several phone calls asking me about the statute that prohibits local governments from making a profit on operations or about the one that prohibits them from competing with the private sector.  There actually are no such statutes of general application, although there are a few specific statutes with that effect and a couple of cases that are relevant. (more)

Local governments across the country are becoming increasingly involved in promoting, facilitating, and even funding private efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in response to climate change. To date, local efforts have focused primarily on providing incentives to developers and builders (to encourage sustainable building practices) or to local government electric utility consumers (to reduce energy consumption).

A relatively new initiative, however, is for local governments to provide some form of direct funding for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy projects on private property. To date, local governments in a handful of states have instituted grant or loan programs to aid households and other private sector entities with energy conservation efforts. During the 2009 legislative session, the General Assembly added North Carolina local governments to the list—authorizing counties and municipalities to establish programs to finance certain renewable energy and energy efficiency projects on private property (energy finance programs).

The energy finance programs authorized by the North Carolina legislation differ in many respects from those authorized in the other states. Furthermore, the legislation is not without complications, leaving many local governments wondering if, and how, such programs may be structured to benefit their communities. This post briefly explains the current legal framework for the energy finance programs in North Carolina—it details the basic contours of the statutory authority, requirements, and limitations, and highlights the potential legal hurdles to establishing the programs in this state. (more)

The proposed rezoning makes poor planning sense.  The neighbors oppose it.  The petitioner is unpopular.  So the governing board votes down the proposal.  How may the petitioner challenge this action (or lack of action)?  If adoption of a zoning amendment is a legislative action, then how can a petitioner challenge the refusal of the governing board to act?  Or, alternatively, is a refusal to rezone subject to the same judicial review considerations as a challenge to a zoning amendment actually adopted?  The answers to these questions under North Carolina law are just now beginning to emerge. (more)

A New York Times article on Friday covered Pfizer’s announcement that it will be leaving New London, Connecticut, the city at the center of the landmark eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). In Kelo, a 5­‑4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permits the condemnation of private property for the purpose of carrying out a comprehensive economic development plan, even if the condemned property is not blighted. The decision permitted the city to condemn Susette Kelo’s New London home to make way for an “urban village” adjacent to Pfizer’s property. According to the article, Pfizer asserts that it had no interest in the condemnation case, but the city touted its comprehensive plan in its efforts to lure the company to New London.

The Supreme Court’s decision proved to be unpopular. In response, a number of states enacted amendments to their state constitutions to restrict or prohibit the exercise of eminent domain for economic development, except to eliminate blight. A similar amendment was proposed in North Carolina during the 2009 session of the General Assembly (House Bill 1268), but it did not make it out of the House. Bills containing constitutional amendments are eligible for consideration in the upcoming short session, so the proposed amendment could be put forward again in 2010. (more)

I sometimes get questions about what actions local governments can take to ensure that contractors are not employing unauthorized immigrants, especially now that jobs are scarce. In particular, can a local government enact an ordinance that requires contractors to use the E-Verify program? (more)