The Editorial Board of the Asheville Citizen-Times adopted and regurgitated yet another specious argument from the Mayor - in an effort to pretend the city and its inhabitants are being unfairly victimized by the evil Republicans in Raleigh.
One of the powerful benefits of single-party, political machine control over the city is the ability to craft and contain narratives. A malleable media is essential to this endeavor, and is often aided when the political machine is of the left - as the people employed to inform the public often are ideological comrades to those shaping the debate.
To wit, a weekend editorial in the paper is nearly identical to the soliloquy delivered by Mayor Esther Manheimer at a recent City Council meeting - complaining about the restraints placed upon the City of Asheville by the North Carolina General Assembly as undeserved, unbearable, and the cause for the ills afflicting the municipality. The argument is as lazy as it is misleading.
The Editorial Board (whose composition remains unidentified on the website) uses a development proposal before the county to make their case:
What’s wrong with this picture?
A developer wants 802 apartments, vacation rentals and senior housing, as well as 14,400 square feet of retail space and 50,400 square feet of office space, on 68 acres on South Bear Creek Road. The land is bounded by Asheville on three sides and is near an Asheville park.
To answer the question - nothing is wrong with that picture. Buncombe County has jurisdiction over the zoning that is not incorporated into the city. So, the project is in the county pipeline - not the city's. As it should be. The project is not located in the city.
But the Editorial Board wants us to think this is wrong for some reason.
Why the county? Why isn’t this land in the city, where it belongs? The people who will live there will be using the city’s infrastructure and services. Why shouldn’t they be paying their fair share in support of the city?
First, what city infrastructure is being used? The water system is supported by the ratepayers' bills. The Editorial Board does not provide any specifics of their malcontent. But it's certainly rooted in an understanding that their audience requires no such evidence. Simply squawking about "paying their fair share" suffices to whip the mob.
Further, note the assumption (again, without any supporting evidence or argument) that the land "belongs" in the city. Why? Because it is surrounded by city land? Isn't the city bounded on nearly all sides by the county? Does that require the city to default to the county? Of course not. The Editorial Board's weak assertion here rests on the assumption that the natural state of things is for the city to eat into the county jurisdiction - but not vice versa. It betrays a fundamental and unstated belief that the county must cede territory and authority - but never gain it from the municipalities. It's a one-way street that always favors Asheville. I suspect their view would be different if the City was run by Republicans and the County by Democrats.
Ironically, it's this attitude among city leaders that is responsible for much of the acrimony that led to the restraints upon its intentions.
Next, the Editorial Board offers the gullible assurances to prop up their prejudices that Asheville is victim or hero - never the villain.
Because the state has punished Asheville for electing members of the wrong party to city office. The state has put many restrictions on the water system and at one point tried to seize it without compensation. The city sued and prevailed in the N.C. Supreme Court.
Once again, the Board offers no proof of this accusation - which would prove difficult as there is ample record to explain why the fight over the water system was waged. Notably, the City of Asheville's corruption of the revenue streams, duplicitous interactions with neighboring governments, and mismanagement of the system were all cited as compelling reasons for reorganizing the water system into a regional utility.
It's not because the City of Asheville is run by progressives on City Council. It's because of how Asheville officials have behaved. Which is why, as the Board noted, "Most cities can require that land be annexed as a condition of providing water service. Asheville cannot." This is due to a century-long fight over water rights. Not because the mean Republicans don't want Asheville to sprawl. The Sullivan Acts were Democrat-on-Democrat legislation.
The Editorial Board knows this, as is obvious by its dismissive admission: "There’s a lot of history in this, going back to how the city arguably mistreated residents of special districts established a century ago, but the effect nevertheless is to remove a tool for annexation in the here and now."
In other words - We know Asheville abused its neighbors and continues to threaten to do so, but Asheville is still the victim here.
The Board also laments the loss of involuntary annexation - which has been virtually eliminated statewide. This isn't an Asheville-specific law. No city is allowed to annex neighboring areas without giving one year notice and holding a vote among the affected residents. Prior to this law, involuntary annexation was a mechanism Asheville abused.
Finally, the Editorial Board rolls all of these distinct and different grievances into a defense of the Council's opposition on adopting district elections.
[T]he state needs to stop treating Asheville differently than other cities.
A good place to start would be to stop trying to force the city to adopt district elections for City Council. The at-large system is working. In a 2017 referendum, three of every four voters supported the status quo.
That should be enough for Raleigh to start setting this picture aright.
I will not litigate the benefits of district elections for the citizens of Asheville, as it's obvious the purpose of the Editorial Board's propaganda is not to examine what is best for the citizens. I will simply note that the Board makes precisely zero arguments about why the current At-Large system is better for the citizens of the city.
Indeed, the current system produced the results the Editorial Board laments.