Allen ParnellLTE

Published: Jun 8, 2005
Modified: Jun 8, 2005 7:45 AM

Invisible fences

Exclusion of African-American neighborhoods from Pinehurst, Southern Pines and Aberdeen and control of their property through extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ), reported on in your June 5 article "Pinehurst in black and white," is a common pattern in towns across North Carolina. The UNC Center for Civil Rights' Invisible Fences conference examined the extent of racial exclusion. It is clearly the result of the annexation laws and practices in North Carolina, where primarily high-value properties are annexed.

The degree to which this racial segregation is an unintended consequence of annexation practices or conscious manipulation of these regulations is unclear. What is clear is that ETJ as practiced by many towns violates the fundamental democratic principle that individuals should have a representative voice in government decisions affecting their homes. Many excluded African-American neighborhoods are kept under extraterritorial control in perpetuity so the residents will never have a democratic voice in the government that has control over the value of their homes.

Last year The N&O reported on the involuntary annexation of high-valued properties by Cary. Most residents of these involuntarily annexed areas opposed annexation. North Carolina's annexation laws were described in one article as being progressive because they allow growth of tax bases that benefit all residents. The other side of the story -- that minority neighborhoods around towns are rarely considered for annexation even if they wish it -- is rarely examined. The use of annexation laws to create racial segregation can hardly be considered progressive.

Allan Parnell

Mebane

(The writer is vice president of the Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities, which has worked with the UNC Center for Civil Rights on annexation issues with support from the Racial Justice Collaborative.)