Q&A: Republican county commission candidates

Growth is the magic word in the Iredell County Commission race this year.

Residents of Iredell County want to know how prospective candidates, both Republican and Democrat will handle the issues resulting from the influx of residents over the past couple of years.

For the past 14 years, Republicans have dominated the board, and the aim of the party is to elect three strong candidates to continue that tradition.

This year, incumbents Godfrey Williams and Ken Robertson are joined by Gene Houpe, Scott Keadle and Brad Howard are running for the three slots up for grabs on May 6.

It’s time to find that happy medium between preserving the county’s heritage and progress, the Republican candidates for Iredell County Commission said.

In order to do that, candidates told the R&L how they would tackle zoning challenges, school construction and growth management.

How would you handle controversial zoning cases?

Houpe: You do have to take them on a case by case basis. I would use more of a common sense approach, and ask will it harm the environment and will it harm their neighbors property.

Sometimes, you get into issues about the biodiesel and things, as the other commissioners have said you are going to have friends on both sides of the issues.

It comes down to what is your zoning ordinances going to allow you to do.

Howard: I would make my decision by considering all sides of the issue. I would investigate the pro and con of the impact to neighboring citizens and the county at large. I would make no decision where I could not defend my reasoning by fact. My judgment would be impartial, and in the best interest of all. I would make the decisions without allowing friendships or emotion to sway my judgment.

Keadle: The city of Houston, Texas has no zoning – never has. I get up every morning and look at the national news to see if anyone down there has turned into a pillar of salt, and so far it hasn’t happened. I use this as an example to point out that we don’t need zoning as badly as we think we do. Having said that, I realize that we already have zoning here in Iredell County, for better or for worse. If we are going to have zoning, then Scott Keadle will abide by the law, and there will be no arbitrary zoning by my vote.

Robertson: All zoning cases should be handled the same regardless if they are controversial or not. What I have tried to do is look at the area, look at the current land use plan, and make some sort of determination if it appears the proposed use is consistent with our stated policy. Because the land use plan is old and has been ignored in some cases, I also look at what can only be described as our “unstated policy“, or in other words, what have we done in previous similar situations.

I think the current board begins with the point of view that basically believes someone who owns the property has an inherent right to do what they want with that property. We begin to deviate from that very broad assumption as we learn the impact their proposed use will have upon the immediate surrounding property owners, and the county at large.

I have opposed some rezoning for subdivisions because they were going to be located on roads that were already too congested according to DOT estimates, and the children from the proposed subdivision would attend a school that is already over capacity, and there are no approved financial plans to build a school to educate the children if they were to move into that subdivision.

Williams: In general I am a strong supporter of property owner’s rights. In most cases I believe that a person should have the right to build or develop his property as he desires. However, as a commissioner we must look at each zoning request on a case by case basis. We must determine if by re-zoning properties to a different level the adjacent neighbors will undergo financial or physical harm. Sometimes this decision can become difficult to determine. In most cases I rely heavily on the decision of the planning staff and the planning board. Occasionally during the process of the public hearing further information will be presented to help confirm my final vote.

What did you think about the failed building permit moratorium for Brawley School Road? How would you have handled things differently?

Houpe: The county attorney had advised the commissioners that moratorium was illegal.

Out of a 1,000, you were only going to affect 114 lots on that area anyway. The housing market has slowed down on its own enough to do more good.

We have to come up with a better land use plan. I’m looking forward if I’m elected to make sure that is put in place. I think that is going to be a very important aspect for moving forward.

Howard: Brawley School Road has been developing haphazardly for many years. This area of Iredell County is somewhat of an anomaly. It is a 10 mile, 2 lane, dead-end road; with 1 point of entry and exit. You must leave Unincorporated Iredell County and cross into the Mooresville City limits before you can exit the peninsula. It’s residents are essentially living on an island. The issues with traffic are the effect of several decades of growth and a lack of proper planning.

The issues with the road itself we must yield to our elected state representatives and N.C. Department of Transportation.

The attempted building moratorium on Brawley School Road stood without merit. The evidence of vested rights that was presented, left the current board with little or no choice in this matter. This issue was a clear infringement on individual property rights against the land owners. As a commissioner, it is your obligation to protect the citizens of the county.

Multi-million dollar legal battles with land owners would hardly be in the best interest of the citizens of Iredell County.

I would have been honest with the folks on Brawley School Road from the beginning. It was evident from the time that a moratorium was proposed, that it would not have held up in court. The citizens should have been explained that in detail at a much earlier time.

Keadle: It turned out to be against the law. Even the original proponents ended up deciding that it wasn’t an option. I don’t know that I would have handled it any differently than the current board, who collectively researched the option and then decided it was unviable for statutory and constitutional reasons.

Robertson: We never voted on a moratorium because non was ever formally proposed. We discussed it as an option. We have also discussed other options that were not voted upon.

We did explore placing a building permit cap on Brawley School Road only. It was my understanding this option had the best chance of surviving a court challenge. That point of view was based upon months and months of research by our planning department in consultation with the University of North Carolina School of Government. On the day of the vote, I was informed some additional legal research had been presented to the county attorney by some developers in the county. I met with the County Attorney, the County manager, the planning department head, and Commissioner Steve Johnson a few hours prior to the vote. After that meeting, I believed the County Attorney was less confident we could prevail in a legal challenge.

In hindsight, I thought our research was complete, but it was not.

Williams: I felt we had ample justification to try to place a moratorium on new residential construction on Brawley School Road until after the widening of the road has been completed. I felt it could have been justified based on the issue of public safety if nothing else. To be legal, a moratorium cannot be open ended. In other words it must have a starting time and an ending. That time could have been determined by the DOT’s own project timeline. Although the county has no real control of road building, they do have the responsibility for public safety on those roads. As in most cases, commissioner’s decisions are never black and white. The final decision to not try to go forward with a moratorium was based on the likelihood that my proposal would not hold up in court.

What are your ideas for growth management?

Houpe: I think if you can get people to the table all of them are more than willing to work with you.

I want people to have individual property rights. I think we need to get the developers to the table. They will phase in developments, if you ask them to. The good developers are interested in building a community.

I think in the past we haven’t done a great job in getting everyone to the table and not letting them have their say.
It’s about how you treat people on a daily basis. To me, its all about communication.

I think we are part of a larger region whether we want to or not. The north end of the county has different needs than the south end of the county.

Howard: The Commissioners must adopt a comprehensive land use plan for Iredell County. This tool can be used to ease our growing pains being felt throughout the region. I will work with the municipalities and county staff and administration to adopt policy that is in the best interest of all the citizens of Iredell County. People choose Iredell for its quality of life. I will focus to protect the unique characteristics of each region of Iredell County. I am a proud product of Iredell County. I hope that my son will be as proud of Iredell as I, and generations before me have been.

Keadle: The County Commission is very limited in its ability to stop growth. The best we can do is plan adequately, and in advance, for the inevitable growth that market forces and economics bring. In addition, there are some things that we can do to help build our tax base and keep the growth from choking our roads and schools. We should do everything possible to discourage the high-density residential growth that has resulted in high taxes in many other counties. We should send a clear signal to discourage illegal aliens from coming to Iredell county and overcrowding our schools, roads, health departments, and welfare offices. We should support the sheriff’s office when they send the message that criminals would be better off living somewhere else.

Robertson: First of all, unless there are three commissioners willing to stand up and support some growth control measures that will actually do something to slow the rate of residential growth, nothing will be done.

The planning board submitted a long list of options to slow the rate of residential growth. If the public elects three commissioners who are supportive of the effort, I believe we should revisit their proposals.

Williams: When the County’s new comprehensive county-wide land uses plan is adopted later own this year, we should stick to it and not allow it to be amended without ample justification.

I believe we should avoid the release of our zoning authority to municipalities at the request of developers when the result will increase the density level of the property. The release of Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) is a common request when property is to be voluntary annexed. The county cannot deny this annexation, but by denying release of ETJ, it can cause delay of additional subdivisions until normal annexation does occur.

I believe its time we look at developing an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for Iredell County. An ordinance of this kind could be developed for the high growth areas of the county where the infrastructure is lagging. It would require certain infrastructure, including schools, in place before residential development could begin.

What did you think of the recent COPs sale? Did the commissioners handle it properly?

Houpe: In my opinion, they handled it wrong. An expenditure that large needs to go to the people.

You still work for the public. If you go in and just start spending money, you are not going to be in office very long.

If its not an emergency I think the voters have to have a choice. I personally give the public more credit than some people do.

We have to provide the schools for students. You have to sit down with the school board and decide what is the minimum that we have to have.

Howard: I commend the current board of commissioners for being able to sell COPs without the need of a tax increase. The citizens elect commissioners who they feel have their best interest in mind and will represent certain values and virtues.

There are certain major expenditures that must be put to the people; without doubt if the outcome would be an increase in tax. That is why you elect your representatives. If you disagree with them and their decision making ability, the citizens will speak and vote them out of office. If they make sound choices and decisions for the citizens, then they will be re-elected.

Keadle: I am in favor of General Obligation bonds. I feel that the spirit of the state law mandates that debt be voted upon by the citizens. There are some difficulties with these bonds and the referendums associated with them. Among those difficulties is the common use of “extras” attached to bonds in order to get them passed. I think that with strong leadership and careful explanation we can pass the necessary school bonds without any of the extra fat attached.

Robertson: The commissioners are REQUIRED to build schools if we allow school children to move into our county. The School Facilities Task force made the list of projects for the COPS bond.

Commissioner Steve Johnson and Commissioner Marvin Norman were on that task force and voted for the recommendation. Based upon their support for those projects, the only question was how to borrow the money. The COPS bonds do not require voter approval and they cost much less to administer. Typically General Obligation bonds, which require voter approval, are augmented with many other additional projects to gain broader voter approval. The net result is that GO bonds tend to be bigger than they absolute need to be, and they cost more to administer. The COPS route is cheaper for the taxpayer, so if we are forced to borrow money, this is a cheap way to do it.. Now if taxpayers do not want to see their taxes going up to build more and more new schools for children who have just moved into the county, they need to support some residential growth limiting measures before the children come here. Once the kids are here, the die has been cast, and school facilities must be provided whether the taxpayers approve or disapprove the General Obligation bond.

Williams: I would have preferred dividing the COPS into two separate bonds as we did in 2005. Placing half in a COPS bond for those projects that needed immediate attention, and placing the other half on a voter approved GO Bond.

Posted on 05/01/08 at 08:36 AM
Iredell County •County Commission • (0) Comments

You must be logged in to post comments. Please Log in or register.