I attended the Walnut Creek public hearing on the ETJ, along with, as I estimated, over 500 other folks, all but one opposed to Walnut Creek gaining the ETJ authority. Petitions were passed around among the communities and over 800 signatures were placed in a binder and a copy was provided to Rep. Van Braxton, who was in attendance. There were 30 who spoke in opposition to this action on the part of Walnut Creek Officials. Joe Daughtery, a resident of Walnut Creek asked the Mayor, “What were you thinking ?”, “You have really made our neighbors mad”. He received a standing ovation when he was finished. Joe is a Candidate for the County Commissioner seat District 6 and is also opposed to this action as a further expansion of government. The sitting Commissioner, as he told me, Jack Best is for Walnut Creek getting ETJ. The following was provided by J.C. Uzzell and is what he said at the hearing;
The Village of Walnut Creek is a private community. It was developed as a private community by the original developers and that character has not changed in its 30+ year history.
The Village of Walnut Creek does not provide any services to the surrounding community.
Within the village there are:
No Post Office, No schools, No churches, No Fire Dept, No Rescue Dept, No health services, No businesses to shop
No commerce exist between the Village and the surrounding community
The Village of Walnut Creek is a bedroom community only, where the surrounding community is very diverse with a mixture of homes, businesses and farms.
The government of the Village of Walnut Creek has no connection with the surrounding communities.
Wisdom in our political system is found in the voices of the citizens, and they are saying to you, they do not want the Village of Walnut Creek in decisions that effect their homes and businesses.
Pastor Randy Herring, of Emmanual FWB Church spoke and gave an excellent account of the thoughts and feelings of the group present and it is as follows:
Reasons to be against Walnut Creek Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
Presented to Walnut Creek at their Public Hearing on May 28, 2008.
Prepared by: Randy Herring, Associate Pastor, Emmanuel FWB Church, 5975 Hwy 70 E, LaGrange, NC 28551
1. It is insulting.
Walnut Creek has cited a benefit of ETJ that would “afford the viewing public a favorable ‘first look’ at the municipality as you enter the surrounding area from elsewhere.”
This means that Walnut Creek believes now or else is predicting in the future that property owners within the ETJ have property that is “unfavorable” to Walnut Creek and unsightly to the viewing public according to the standards held by Walnut Creek. This seems especially insulting when considering the fact that no major thoroughfare passes through Walnut Creek only along its border. Not everyone that passes through the proposed ETJ area is on the way to Walnut Creek nor are they concerned with what kind of “favorable look” they see as they whiz by at 70 mph.
2. It is un-necessary.
Although Walnut Creek has the legal title of “village” and has some legal authority as a municipality they should not compare themselves to towns and cities such as Goldsboro, Mt. Olive, Freemont, and Pikeville.
Most municipalities are cities and towns. A town is defined in Webster’s as “a concentrated group of houses, public and private buildings, smaller than a city having sovereignty vested in a town meeting” (or government). Walnut Creek does not meet this definition and is simply an overgrown subdivision and as such it does not contain any public buildings or businesses. It is not a center of commerce nor will it ever be.
ETJ is necessary for cities and towns for the benefit of its entire people and the greater good of the town. Cities and towns exercise ETJ in a fashion that promotes healthy growth which not only accommodates but encourages growth in commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential and other portions of its constituency for the benefit of the people of the town. Walnut Creek is only a residential area; they have no public land, no public buildings, no post office, no churches, no grocery stores, no doctors office, no retail business, no public recreation areas, no industry, nor any other of the sectors that you expect to find in a typical municipality which exercises ETJ for the benefit of the entire town and not for personally held aesthetic values or the protection of the property values of a select few.
3. It is inhibitive to local business and non-profits.
Walnut Creek stated that ETJ will ensure that “standards are maintained and unfavorable growth is curtailed.” It is the purpose of the ETJ such that any business that wished to locate near Walnut Creek would have to meet their standard of what is “favorable” or “unfavorable.” One can only suppose, based on the current standards held within Walnut Creek that the ETJ standards will be, at a minimum, inhibitive to business. The standards for business, industry, and agriculture that Walnut Creek wishes to enforce are currently unknown and therefore it is unknown what constitutes “favorable” or “unfavorable” growth. Is a garage favorable, a bait & tackle shop, a convenience store, a motorcycle dealership, or a drug and alcohol rehab center? What is favorable?
4. It is selfish.
Walnut Creek expects to have property owners in the ETJ maintain the standards they set forth while Walnut Creek is able to maintain its “gated community” feel. Walnut Creek is offering nothing in return for landowners having their rights taken from them. It only takes driving inside Walnut Creek without a sticker on the window and parking near the lake or the boat landing or on the side of the street and then observing how long it takes before you are confronted to be convinced that they have a “gated community” feel. The only things missing are the gates.
Walnut Creek’s repeated drum beat is that the ETJ will protect property values. Demand drives value, property is only worth what the market will bear. If Walnut Creek zoning standards protect property value then why hasn’t all of the property within Walnut Creek been sold or developed? If their zoning is so miraculous at protecting value then why are there FOR SALE signs all over the subdivision. It is possible that ETJ will actually decrease some property values outside of the area by reducing demand due to perceived restrictions on larger un-developed tracts, mini-farms, existing developments containing starter houses, and rental property.
5. It is secretive.
Walnut Creek attempted again to gain its ETJ without a notification to the public. This was deceptive at best and was certainly not demonstrative of an entity that cares what those in the proposed ETJ desire or think. Although they are within the law to do so, it does not show an act of good will toward the persons in the surrounding area. Legally the public within the ETJ only has to be notified when ETJ will be exercised. Walnut Creek only published a letter when the public was outraged at what was going on. History is the best predictor of the future and this event is a picture of how things will be done in the future with Walnut Creek.
6. It is un-challengeable.
Walnut Creek intends on the planning board to be comprised of a “proportionate” number of people. This means that any standard set forth and enforced in an exercised area of the ETJ which property owners find grievous, will not be able to be successfully challenged. Walnut Creek can ensure that the number of people living within Walnut Creek will always be higher than the number of property owners affected in the exercised area of enforcement within the ETJ.
7. It is un-believable. Walnut Creek expects property owners in the proposed ETJ to believe:
A. Walnut Creek only wishes to enforce areas within ½ mile limit, when the legislature typically grants 1 mile increments for ETJ.
B. Walnut Creek will have “different” standards for the ETJ than for inside Walnut Creek.
C. Walnut Creek’s definition of what constitutes a “favorable look” will not be cumbersome or prohibitive for property owners.
D. Walnut Creek’s definition of “unfavorable growth” will not inhibit business, agriculture and industry in the future.
E. Walnut Creek is not interested in annexing any property.
F. Walnut Creek is not interested in collecting taxes or fees.
