Page 2A-KINGS MOUNTAIN HERALD-Wednesday, September 30, 1987
KINGS MOUNTAIN CITY ELECTIONS - 1987
Issue #3: Oaths, Duties And Responsibilities Of Office
The oath of office that our City Commissioners and Mayor
must swear to reads as follows:
“I, (name of person), do solemnly swear or affirm that I will sup-
port and maintain the Constitution and Laws of the United
States, and the Constitution and Laws of North Carolina not in-
consistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the
duties of my office as (office title), so help me God.”
N.C. Constitution Article 6 Section 7
Satellite annexation is the taking into the city
limits of a piece of property which does not
border on any part with the city limit boundary.
This annexation entitles the property owner to
all of the benefits granted to any other property
owner that is inside the city limits. These
benefits are police and fire protection, gas,
water and sewer, electricity (when not conflic-
ting with another utility company providing the
power) and all other rights available. Satellite
annexation is good for the city when the advan-
tages of having the property as part of the city
limits are equal to or greater than the advan-
tages to the property owner. These advantages
must be weighed since the granting of the annex-
ation entitles the property owner to all of the
benefits immediately and any agreements made
that would give up or surrender any of these
benefits would be immediately voided the instant
gE .the property owner would want them. These
costs of providing these services are not cheap
and must be weighed carefully before deciding to
annex. Satellite annexation is not good when it
favors the property owner over the city and its
citizens since it is the citizens who must bear the
tax and utility burdens of providing the services
| to the satellite. fins ~
1 Very property owner’s right to petition
for satel,” exation if they desire. It is the
granting .: , A annexation where it is not
economically (.¥8ible for the city that is wrong.
The following &, unt of events earlier this year
is meant in no way to portray the property owner
~ as being wrong t@ ask for satellite annexation. It
is meant to show the policy decision as being
flawed and the/commissioners actions in the
decision. }
In the spring of this year, a petition of annexa-
tion was submitted to the City for the purposes of
requesting satellite annexation of a piece of pro-
perty located north of Kings Mountain on NC 216
-- the Cherryville Highway -- owned by Richard
K. Moore and operated as The Ole Country Store.
The purpose of the annexation was to enable the
store to sell beer and wine (which it could not do
unless the property was part of the City).
| After the petition was submitted, it was passed
on to the Planning and Zoning Board for their
recommendation. Prior to the May 12th meeting
of the City Commissioners, the Planning and
Zoning Board expressed, by letter (that was
given to each of the Commissioners and Mayor),
their reasons why the petition should be
DENIED. A seperate report was issued by the
Department of Community Development and
given to the Commissioners and Mayor and it too
spelled out its reasons why the petition should be
denied. Both groups reasons were of purely
economic and feasibility issues and not based on
any issue of personality. These letters are on file.
3
The Mayor and Commissioners met in a
regular public meeting on May 12, 1987 and one
of the items on the agenda (along with a similar
annexation request by Floyd Goforth) was the
Moore petition. As required by statute, a public
hearing was called during the course of the
meeting giving the audience and Commissioners
time to openly discuss the petition. When the
Mayor asked for anyone to speak in favor. of the
petition, there was no response. After three calls,
the Mayor then asked if there were any com-
ments against the petition. At that point, seven
people spoke in opposition, several of them
presenting petitions to the Mayor and Commis-
sioners with the names of several hundred that
were opposed to the annexation. The public hear-
ing was then closed.
The only Commissioner to make any
statements was Commissioner Humes Houston,
who opposed the granting of the petition on the
grounds that it was bad policy and procedure and
that it would also set a bad precedent. His argu-
ment was clear and he then made a motion to
deny the petition. It failed for the lack of a se-
cond. ;
Commissioner Corbet Nicholson then made the
motion to approve the annexation. Commis-
sioner Harold Phillips seconded the motion.
The vote was 4 - 1 with Commissioners Corbet
Nicholson, Norman King, Fred Finger and
Harold Phillips voting in favor of the annexation
petition. Commissioner Humes Houston voted
against. Commissioner Allen was not present.
(Subsequently, the other satellite annexation
petition was approved by a 4 - 1 vote with the
same roll call). . =
A few days later, Mr! Moork applied for the
permits required since his property was now a
part of the City. The first permit was a privilege
license to operate the store -- it was approved.
The second permit was the privilege license
from the City to sell beer and wine inside the city
limits. This permit was denied since the City’s
Planning and Zoning Ordinances require that the
property be zoned properly. Since the property
had been outside of the City’s 1 mile perimeter, it
had never been zoned. The permit would then
have to wait until after the Planning and Zoning
Board zoned the property according to their
duties and procedures which would then have to
be approved by the Commissioners. The law and
statutes are clear on these procedures.
At this point, Mr. Moore left the office only to
return later with Commissioner Norman King.
Commissioner King asked that the permit be
issued. The City employee told Commissioner
King that this was against the rules and pro-
cedures of the Planning and Zoning Ordinance
due to the lack of proper zoning at the store.
Hearing this, Commissioner King told the
employee to issue the beer and wine sales per-
mit. The permit was then issued. The Ole Coun-
try Store, after having obtained all of the re-
quired permits from the City and the ABC Board,
could now sell beer and wine.
At the September 8, 1987 Commissioners
meeting, a similar petition for satellite annexa-
tion by Tommy Hall was denied by a vote of 5 - 0.
Commissioner Nicholson made the motion to
deny and it was seconded by Commissioner
Phillips. Remember the May 12th meeting and
who made the motions and seconds?
POINT: Election to the office of Mayor and
Commissioner is one of the highest compliments
that can be paid a candidate. It is a statement by
the voters that they believe that the people they
have chosen are the leaders they have the most
trust in and the ones they believe will faithfully
uphold the honor and dignity of the office. Elec-
tion also means that the citizens will know that
whatever decisions that are made on the issues,
the Commissioners vote on them will be the right
decision -- the decision that will best protect and
serve the interests of all of the citizens. Election
also means that they will do nothing that would
taint or demean the value of that oath. This
would include decisions or actions. It is a solemn
oath that is not to be taken lightly.
During the May 12th meeting, Commissioners
Nicholson, King, Finger and Phillips had ample
opportunity to state their reasons for voting for
the annexation petitions. They said nothing. If
they had given their reasons, their votes may
have had more meaning. Instead, they said
nothing even after a member of the audience
asked them what would be the City’s benefit
from the annexation.
The satellite annexation of a property is per-
manent with the only thing that could possibly
change this (to UN-annex) would be a special act
in the State Legislature and even then the law is
not clear.
Again, we defend every property owner’s right
to ask for annexation if they desire it. It is only
when the costs to the rest of the City and its
Citizens are far outweighed by the benefits to the
property owner that it is wrong. This is not a test
of personalities but only of costs and benefits.
We feel very strongly that the actions of these
Commissioners -- Corbet Nicholson, Norman
King, Fred Finger and Harold Phillips must be
called into question. First, they ignored the
reports issued by the Planning and Zoning Board
and the Department of Community Develop-
ment. Secondly, they chose to ignore the wishes
of the people who were very adamant in their op-
position to the satellite annexation. Thirdly, the
demanding of the beer and wine permit issuance
by Commissioner King was clearly against the
Planning and Zoning Ordinance. We feel that
these actions are violations of the oath they all
took to uphold and faithfully discharge the duties
of office since the annexation petition they
granted would only benefit the property owner,
The payback to the City would never offset the
costs involved both presently and in the future.
These Commissioners knew this but chose to ig-
nore it. The Commissioners actions were com-
pletely wrong and indefensible.
The Government of the City of Kings Mountain
should be something that all of us as citizens both
inside the city limits and in the surrounding
countryside should be able to take a great deal of
pride in. The Government should also reflect the
wishes of the people. The Government should be
a symbol for other towns and cities to look at
with envy and respect. Kings Mountain can have
a Government that would be all of these things
but only if the citizens express themselves with
the only true voice they have -- the vote.
Citizens, you have the choice and the power to
change Kings Mountain for the better. Please
vote and while voting remember the oath the
Mayor and Commissioners have to take. This
oath is a pledge to you, the voter and the citizen.
You can make the difference between good
government and poor government.
PLEASE VOTE!
ACTION COMMITTEE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT
(Paid Political Advertisement)
—————