More About The Language Of Liberty …

David referenced an article I’d written a year ago within his recent post entitled “People Don’t Think That Way Anymore”. 

To underscore Davids’ point “We have no one to blame but ourselves for not comprehending the consequences of the loss of Liberty”.   

I continue to pester our elected officials whenever they stray from support of individual liberty. 

On 22 May I received a newsletter from NC Senator Wesley Meredith.  It was titled “Quality Annexation Reform” and I began to read it with enthusiasm.

 I quickly stumbled upon language that did not convey to me a message of “quality”: 

Quality Annexation Reform

The legislature passed a compromise law last year to halt forced annexations if 60 percent of landowners in annexed areas signed a petition opposing it.  Under the law, a town or city would not be allowed to try to annex that area for three years.  However, a superior court judge struck down the petition process earlier this year.

To address the judge’s concerns, the Senate also passed HB 925 to require a referendum vote of an area’s registered voters – both landowners and renters – prior to that area’s annexation by a municipality.  If a majority of voters oppose the annexation, the municipality may not move forward with an involuntary annexation process for a minimum of three years. This restores some democracy to the process, ensuring that residents in the areas to be annexed have a voice in the process.

Government officials should not have unrestricted control over someone’s private property – or their checkbook. These bills are an important step in restoring fair policies to protect property rights.

The “quality reform” seemed everything but, and the description of these as “fair” seemed an insult to individual land owners.  I wrote Senator Meredith:

Sir –

We who live outside the juridsiction of towns and cities do so for a variety of reasons.  

Most enjoy our independence and desire to live without the attendant services, taxes, and community restrictions.  We do not view ourselves as a convenient tax-base from which others can fund infrastructure and activities we don’t want. 

I am offended that you believe democracy, a majority vote among targeted land owners, is a valid means by which to accomplish a “taking” of real property and liberty.  

Please explain how you think forcing me to pay additional taxes for city services I don’t want or need (eg. water, sewer, police), is any different in principle than a controversial “individual mandate” to buy government health insurance?

Respect the property rights of the individual.  No property annexation without a request of the individual land owner.

It’s that simple …

Hans

This is the exchange which followed:

Dear Hans          ,

I hope this email finds you well.  I would simply like to let you know that Senator Meredith’s office has received your email.  Thank you for contacting our office with respect to this important issue and explaining your stance on it. 

Many Thanks,

Bruce McGowan

Office of Senator Meredith

meredithin@ncleg.net

(919) 733-5776

 

Mr McGowan and Senator Meredith –

I did not write to “explain my stance”…  I wrote to explain how to properly frame the debate on annexation.

I also asked a specific question which you failed to answer:

Please explain how you think forcing me to pay additional taxes for city services I don’t want or need (eg. water, sewer, police), is any different in principle than a controversial “individual mandate” to buy government health insurance?

Tread cautiously when you come to lay claim on my land:

Hans

Dear Mr.             ,

Thank you for writing us back.  Probably the best response to you would be a phone call from Senator Meredith.  If this is possible, could you please send me your phone number?  Until then, I have included in this email some information regarding how Senator Meredith has addressed the issue of annexation while he has been in office.  I realize that this is not exactly what you are looking for, however I thought you might want to review it.

The below links will take you the North Carolina General Assembly’s website. 

 The below link will take you to a bill that Senator Meredith co-sponsored during the Long Session.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=S27

The below link will take you to a bill that was recently in the Senate that did pass and is now in the House.  Senator Meredith voted “aye” on this bill.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H925&votesToView=all

The below link will take you to House Bill 5 that was also recently in the Senate.  Senator Meredith voted “aye” on this bill as well.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H5&votesToView=all

 Thank you again for writing us back.  Take care.

 Best Regards,

 Debbie Lown

Debbie Lown – Legislative Assistant

919-733-5776

Senator WESLEY A. MEREDITH

District #19 – Bladen and Cumberland Counties

Ms Lown and Senator Meredith –

I read the links you provided (below) and here is my summary:

  • S27 … in order to prevent a “taking” (perpetual increased taxation and real constraints on my liberty) I must marshal a coalition of 60% of the land owners targeted by the offending municipality
  • HB925 … a formal procedure whereby a municipality can accomplish a “taking” when a simple majority of those affected give their consent
  • HB5 … a temporary nullification of specific “takings” that were successfully challenged, with express acknowledgement that the offending municipalities ‘can try’ again in 12 years

These legislative actions are inconsistent with the Founders’ purpose of government – to protect Life, Liberty, and Property from encroachment by others.  These legislative actions merely stipulate how municipalities may accomplish “legal theft”.

Now that I’ve seen the legislation that Senator Meredith has supported, I understand why you and he would not address my inquiry:

Please explain how you think forcing me to pay additional taxes for city services I don’t want or need (eg. water, sewer, police), is any different in principle than a controversial “individual mandate” to buy government health insurance?

 S27, HB925, and HB5 demonstrate a clear lack of respect for individual land owners and their property.  A phone conversation with the Senator would not change these facts.

Hans

 

Cue sounds of crickets chirping.   No further response expected or received in the week that has passed.

So why post this thread ?  To help some of you understand that the presence of an “R” next to a legislators’ name does not guarantee that person will respect your Life, Liberty, or Property.

Our elected officials do not understand the language of liberty and will not act to defend liberty.

 

STATISM and LIBERTY cannot coexist …

One must perish !

 

~ Kerodin, III To Liberty 

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BrockTownsend
9 years ago

Good job, Hans.

randysright
9 years ago

If God only requires 10%, why should the government need more than God?

LT
LT(@lt)
9 years ago

Sodom and Gommorah would have been spared for the benefit of three good souls… our municipal governments should be held to such high standards -- where three households object to any act of annexation or other ‘taking’, the municipality should further be barred for a period of not less than 10 (ten) years against further action to unilatterally annex said property, or any portion thereof, for any reason, or by any cause, whatsoever.

Zee
Zee
9 years ago

So how would you have wanted him to vote on these annexation related bills?