McCrory's yes-but approach

Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, September 22, 2013.

Gov. Pat McCrory took a yes-but approach to some of the regulatory reforms enacted by the legislature this year.

He signed the 59-page regulatory reform bill but issued executive orders that softened two troubling provisions.

Now, some lawmakers are questioning whether what McCrory did amounts to issuing line-item vetoes — a power North Carolina’s governor lacks.

Experts say that question would have to be decided in court, but there’s no need to go there this time. McCrory offered convincing justifications for his executive orders.

One “reform” written by the legislature was to allow leaking from trucks hauling solid waste. Apparently, haulers were finding it inconvenient to comply with the previous law requiring them to carry garbage in “leak-proof” containers. They wanted a standard of “leak-resistant.” That’s too porous when the goal is to keep public roads — including those leading through residential neighborhoods and past schools and playgrounds — as clean as possible.

In his order, McCrory noted that the weaker provision conflicts with the state’s obligation to maintain public health and safety. So he directed officers of the State Highway Patrol and Department of Public Safety to continue citing solid-waste haulers that allow leachate to escape from their loads.

The second order had to do with billboards. The new legislation allows cutting of more trees and other vegetation along highway acceleration and deceleration ramps when motorists’ view of legally sited outdoor advertising is obstructed.

McCrory’s order made two significant changes. One was to say that the Department of Transportation could authorize a “one-time modification of the cut or removal zone that will permit the sign to be more clearly viewed.” The original language would allow repeated modifications. The second was to direct that the department “consult with local municipalities before approving plans” for more clearing of vegetation. The legislature intended to give no voice to local governments. As a former mayor, McCrory decided to stand up for city interests.

The governor said his order is supported by the state’s responsibility to regulate outdoor advertising along roadways “in order to promote the safety, health, welfare of our local communities ... while preserving and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of the highways.”

His order is ambiguous in that it doesn’t indicate whether municipalities can block tree-cutting within their city limits. The answer is likely not. But state officials at least can consider local concerns and, because of the executive order, give weight to the value of scenery. While billboards often provide information the public wants, advertisers don’t have to get everything they want every time. Sometimes, cutting wider swaths of vegetation really isn’t necessary or in the public’s interest.

McCrory could have vetoed the entire regulatory reform bill, but he supported most of its provisions. He did the next best thing by using his executive authority to improve two of its faulty components. Did he overstep? The legislature should leave that question alone this time.