The issue of property rights and related issues pertaining to the constitutional rights of our citizens have received little attention in this primary campaign, despite their importance as part of the foundation of our individual freedom. Throughout my career as a lawyer and a judge, I have been committed to the concept of protecting the rights of individuals against the overreaching power of government. This belief is at the core of my philosophy of how government should and should not operate. Unfortunately, I am convinced that one of my primary opponents, Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, has a dramatically different view of government and its powers than I have. A comparative view of our records should indicate this clearly.
 
Forced Annexation: growing the tax base at your expense
One of the primary areas of difference is our view about forced annexation: the power of cities like Charlotte to force county residents to become city residents without giving them the right to vote on that decision. This local government power utilized extensively during Pat McCrory’s time as city councilman and mayor of Charlotte inevitably results in a dramatic increase in taxes for those people forcibly annexed. Mayor McCrory has been a advocate of this process while I have consistently opposed the practice as being unfair to these citizens even if it was permissible within the law.
 
Amendment 1: public debt with no right to public approval
In 2004, a proposed constitutional amendment was submitted to the voters of the state for the purpose of creating a new type of bond called tax increment financing bonds (TIF). The real purpose behind Amendment 1 was to remove the constitutional right of the voters to approve or disapprove tax increment financing bonds. The public was intentionally misled by a million dollar media campaign aimed at convincing voters that Amendment 1 was about jobs and economic development. It wasn’t. It was about eliminating the constitutional right to vote for these bonds. It was TIF bonds, issued without a vote of the citizens of Roanoke Rapids, that funded the Randy Parton Theater scandal. Pat McCrory was described in a recent news column as the “cheerleader” for this amendment. I opposed the amendment then, and have consistently fought to have the effect of the amendment reversed.
 
 Certificates of Participation: as if TIF Bonds weren’t enough
Our state constitution also protects the property rights of citizens by requiring their approval when government incurs substantial debt through the issuance of bonds. In an effort to avoid giving citizens their constitutional right to vote, a device called Certificates of Participation (COPs) has been devised and utilized by the General Assembly and numerous cities, including Charlotte. For example, even though voters in Charlotte had rejected a proposed tax increase to fund a new basketball arena downtown, under the “leadership” of Mayor McCrory the arena was built anyway primarily using borrowed money obtained through a Certificate of Participation. COPs allow public officials to create public debt without voter approval and represent a philosophy of government that I think is fundamentally wrong and potentially in violation of our State Constitution.
 
Targeted Incentives: taking your money is taking your property
Our state constitution provides that taxation and the expenditure of your tax dollars must be for a public purpose. I have consistently opposed the use of your tax dollars to subsidize individual corporations as a violation of the constitution. Regrettably, beginning in the 1990s the courts of this State re-wrote over my dissent this provision of the constitution to allow these so called incentives to be given away. I opposed it then and I oppose it now. Mayor Pat McCrory favors targeted incentives and has used them in Charlotte. In fact, McCrory has said that he sees the governor’s responsibility to travel the country and the world to try and lure companies to North Carolina, presumably using your tax dollars as subsidies.
 
Condemnation of Property: the ultimate infringement
The infamous Kelo case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court allows Government to condemn the private property of one person and eventually turn over the use of that property to another person or corporation who can use it more profitably in the name of economic development. I oppose that practice and have spoken out against it and any variations of its use by government in North Carolina.   
So the bottom line is simply this: if you are concerned about property rights and other constitutional rights and how state and local governments have infringed upon those rights, then you need to carefully study the records of the candidates for governor in this coming election.  I think the record is abundantly clear about our differing philosophies on the power of government and the rights of citizens

 ###