The arrogant power-grabbing continues on Jones Street

Published May 16, 2013

By Chris Fitzsimon

by Chris Fitzsimon

The General Assembly is always chaotic during the week of the crossover deadline and this session is no exception with rushed committee meetings, late night sessions, and supplemental calendars issued for the House and Senate floor listing what will be debated and voted on.

Even for legislative insiders like lobbyists, reporters, and staff members, it’s difficult to keep up. For the general public, the people lawmakers are supposed to be working for, it’s impossible.

But you don’t have to be an insider or understand the mechanics of parliamentary procedure to get one clear message from the lawmakers this week.

The folks in the majority in the General Assembly think they know better than anyone else about what should be happening in North Carolina, better than city councils and school boards, better then public health experts and law enforcement officials, better than scientists in the executive branch of state government, even better than the businesses leaders they claim they are trying to help create jobs.

And since the lawmakers apparently think they know better, they are insisting on being in control of as many things as they can.

It is not a new theme for this General Assembly. The unprecedented legislative power grab has been happening all session, but the crossover deadline has brought forward a blizzard of examples of legislative arrogance and overreach.

A proposal in the Senate would nullify any local regulations banning smoking in outdoor areas, including community college campuses, beaches, and parks. The legislation specifically says that no local anti-smoking ordinance could be stricter than state law and there is no state law.

Local community colleges that want to keep smokers away from classroom buildings would be out of luck. City officials would not only be forbidden from banning smoking at parks and local concerts, the legislation would not even allow local governments to set up smoking and non-smoking sections.

Senator Buck Newton, the bill’s primary sponsor, wants more power over the public health policies at your community college campus and local parks than the folks who run them. He knows better.

A proposal that passed the House Monday night would no longer allow local government workers like police officers and firefighters to have their union dues voluntarily deducted from their pay.

No one is required to do anything. It is completely voluntary and the public safety workers and other local employees who have chosen to do it have been granted that right by their local city council. But that doesn’t matter to Rep. Bill Brawley, a key sponsor of the bill.

Brawley will decide what police officers and firefighters can have deducted from their paychecks, not the employees or the city that pays them. Brawley knows better.

The folks in the majority especially think they know better about how to protect North Carolina’s natural resources, or more correctly, how not to protect them. A Senate bill would remove regulations that govern the construction of hardened structures or jetties off the coast.

That comes just two years after the General Assembly voted to allow the construction of just four jetties with key restrictions in place. The structures had long been banned in North Carolina because of compelling evidence that while they may delay beach erosion in one targeted area, they increase erosion in nearby areas.

Geologists have long opposed ending the state’s ban on the hardened structures in their efforts to protect the state’s coastline. Sen. Bill Rabon knows better and wants to remove all restrictions and regulations.

Many law enforcement officials believe there are too many guns on the street and often support buyback programs that purchase guns that are then destroyed by local police departments. A House bill would not only prevent that happening, it would also ban judges from ordering weapons seized in a criminal case destroyed.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jacqueline Schaffer apparently believes that it’s better to have those guns on the street even if the local police department or a judge in a criminal case disagrees. She knows better.

There are plenty of other well publicized examples, a Senate plan to take control of local school buildings away from school boards, a push to repeal environmental rules protecting Jordan Lake, and a weakening of energy efficiency standards for new buildings. Those are all happening this week.

Lawmakers have already advanced proposals to take airports and water systems away from local governments, tell doctors when they are allowed to perform legal medical procedures, prohibit cities from banning guns in parks and greenways, and abolish renewable energy standards that business leaders support. The list is a long one, but all the items come from the same place.

The folks running Raleigh now, the ones who claim to be for small, less intrusive government want more control over your lives, your health and your city and county. They simply know better.

May 17, 2013 at 9:21 am
Jerry Wright says:

As a taxpayer, I do not want the State to collect anything but Taxes and Fee's. We do not need to collect union dues or any dues for any organization. Separation of state and political, profesional.Trade and other entities. Collection of due's indicates official endorsement of a particular organization.

May 24, 2013 at 5:28 pm
norm kelly says:

so where were you when the dems were in control of raleigh? what was your response when dems thought they knew better? government control of my life is something that seems to be inherent in all politicians these days. it's just a matter of what part of my life they want to control that determines whether they are a dem or a repub.

smoking remains a legal activity. when dems want to prevent people from smoking anywhere, it appears to be OK. but when repubs step in and say that legal activities can be done in public places, this is somehow wanting to control my life? freedom to do something versus restrictions on doing something. one is control, the other is freedom.

when the dems prohibited smoking at all NC restaurants, did Chris complain about taking control away from either patrons or owners?

tell doctors when they can perform medical procedures? what's better: state control of doctor's behavior or federal control? either stinks. the more local the control is, the better. of course, not controlling the relationship between my doctor and me is the best solution. where was Chris when other aspects of my doctoral relationship was being interfered with? i opposed obamacare from the beginning because socialized medicine fails everytime, everywhere it's tried. obamacare is step 1 in socialized medicine in the US. did Chris oppose obamacare? did he write a long dissertation about why it was going to stink?

public employees union dues taken out of paychecks and paid directly to the union by a government agency seems like a conflict of interest to me. removing this from government control makes sense. government employees, covered by a union, negotiate with government representatives concerning contract renewals. then the same government agency pays the dues to the union that they were negotiating "against". clearly a conflict of interest. the entire government employee union is a conflict of interest. there should be a way to remove politicians from the entire negotiating process. something has to change, so why not start with making the union member pay their dues directly to the union, rather than the government agency paying to the union. there may be nothing going on behind those closed doors, but there could be.

which business leaders support renewable energy standards? if the solar power generators want to protect the standards because it benefits their specific business or perhaps even hurts their competitor, isn't this a conflict of interest? if the standards can only be supported by having government subsidies, then perhaps the standards shouldn't be protected.

government control of my life is bad regardless of what party the politician belongs to. leave me alone. treat me fairly, like everyone else in the state, and stay out of my business.