Blog

©2026 Abby Black

We need to talk about this. A bill prohibiting local governments from limiting short residential dwellings on commercial properties undergoing redevelopment is about to pass the Senate and head to Governor Stein’s desk.

Senate Bill 445, the Regulatory Reform Act of 2026, under Section 13, will amend Article 7 of General Statute Chapter 160D so that local governments are mandated to permit residential buildings in zones that are non-residentially zoned, such as business, commercial, and light industrial.

The only way a local government can legally prohibit residential in non-residential zones if there is preexisting contamination, or if this is a property that had no prior development.

My biggest concern is that this law will require every single residential building in non-residential zones be no less than 60 feet tall, or 4-6 stories. It doesn’t matter what the local UDO says is a building’s height limit. If a developer wants to put residential in a redeveloped property not zoned for residential, that residential building WILL be no less than 60 feet tall.

We need to talk about this right now, because the Senate convenes tomorrow morning and it’s unclear when S445 will be placed on the floor calendar.

Contact your senator if you think this is a bad idea. You can find out who your senator is at this link: https://www.ncleg.gov/FindYourLegislators

You can read the bill here: https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2025/Bills/Senate/PDF/S445v5.pdf

May 28, 2026
©Abby Black

Yesterday in the NC Strong Update, Governor Stein gave his opinion on income taxes regarding the Constitutional amendment to adjust the state income tax rate cap, which will come before voters this November.

I think Governor Stein is in error when he said that further decreasing the state income tax will only benefit the rich. If the rate is Constitutionally applied equally across all levels of income/earnings, then everyone keeps more of their wages to do with as they wish, keeping the power with We the People. When the rate is equal, it is fair and just.

I can understand Governor Stein’s point that decreasing income tax means that raising state employees’ salaries is harder. The DAVE Act, which was ratified last August, currently has the NC Auditor’s office finding positions and vacancies producing waste in the state government. If those can be removed or trimmed, that will help mitigate the state employee salaries problem without suffocating the general public with unnecessarily higher income taxes.

I’m also looking forward to seeing the local government property tax limitation on my ballot, especially since Wake County is one of the most expensive in the state, and is currently in 2nd place in raising property taxes faster than 98 other counties. My entire tax return from last year’s federal income tax went to my home’s property tax. I am very unhappy about that. I am like everyone else in that I can use that property tax relief, whereas the Wake County Commissioners are deciding on a budget that raises property taxes again.

Reflecting more on the above, I decided to reread “The Continentalist No. VI” by Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, written on July 4, 1782. While the subject debates the hitherto-yet-unwritten Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, Hamilton also discusses the merits and detriments of taxes, namely those of property and sales and how they relate to private wealth.

Hamilton argues that we should prioritize local goods over foreign imports: “Particular caution ought at present to be observed in this country, not to burthen the soil itself and its productions, with heavy impositions; because the quantity of unimproved land will invite the husbandmen to abandon old settlements for new, and the disproportion of our population for some time to come, will necessarily make labor dear, to reduce which, and not to increase it, ought to be a capital object of our policy.”

Hamilton states that sales tax is the best method to fairly tax the rich, as the rich will obviously pay more for expensive goods and the less wealthy will buy something cheaper: “it should be remembered that it is impossible to devise any specific tax, that will operate equally on the whole community. It must be the province of the legislature to hold the scales with a judicious hand and ballance [sic] one by another. The rich must be made to pay for their luxuries; which is the only proper way of taxing their superior wealth.”

Hamilton continues that property taxes are the accepted norm but thinks those who assess the value of that land will degenerate the property tax into an arbitrary evaluation of worth: “Indeed many theorists in political œconomy [sic] have held, that all taxes, wherever they originate fall ultimately upon land; and have therefore been of opinion, that it would be best to draw the whole revenue of the state immediately from that source, to avoid the expence [sic] of a more diversified collection.

…

Do we imagine that our assessments opperate [sic] equally? Nothing can be more contrary to the fact. Wherever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbours [sic], they will abuse it. Their passions, prejudices, partialities, dislikes, will have the principal lead in measuring the abilities of those over whom their power extends; and assessors will ever be a set of petty tyrants, too unskilful, if honest, to be possessed of so delicate a trust, and too seldom honest to give them the excuse of want of skill. The genius of liberty reprobates every thing arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man by a definite and general rule should know what proportion of his property the state demands. Whatever liberty we may boast in theory, it cannot exist in fact, while assessments continue. The admission of them among us is a new proof, how often human conduct reconciles the most glaring opposites; in the present case the most vicious practice of despotic governments, with the freest constitutions and the greatest love of liberty.”

I think this is a fascinating glimpse into a Founding Father’s insight, and I encourage you to also read this document. Let’s talk about it.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0031

May 19, 2026
©Abby Black

NC Constitutional Amendment Senate Bill 1080: Lower Taxes for All NC just passed the Senate 30-18. It heads to the House of Representatives. If S1080 passes the House, it will appear on our ballot in November. Let’s talk about it.

This amendment to the North Carolina State Constitution basically codifies the General Assembly’s work over the past decade to lower the state income tax rates. This amendment puts a firm income tax rate cap at 3.5% for all North Carolinians.

During floor debate, amendments proposed would make S1080 so it’s “3.5% unless you’re one of the top 1%, in which case you pay whatever legislation says you pay,” or “3.5% unless you make less than the current state median income.”

Both of these amendments were tabled (not added to S1080). Personally, I see that as a good thing, because the Constitutional Amendment as-is applies the law fairly and evenly across the spectrum of North Carolinians’ wages.

The first proposed amendment punishes the wealthy because they happen to be richest, and is fundamentally unfair because it holds the top 1% apart from the rest of the state population. “The NC Constitution does not apply to you because you are the richest.”

The second proposed amendment punishes North Carolinians making above the state median income. It discourages people from rising above that median, because why try and be wealthy if you’re just going to get taxed for it once you cross that threshold? “The NC Constitution does not apply to you because you are the poorest.”

Is the state income tax within a Commissioner’s jurisdiction? Not at all. But what comes from the General Assembly effects all North Carolinians, and it’s worth paying attention to those chambers, especially because this bill directly effects my finances.

April 28, 2026
©Abby Black

The North Carolina General Assembly entered their short session April 21, 2026. Among the numerous bills under consideration at this time, Senate Bill 214 is currently highlighted by citizens and legislators for ethical issues.

Franklin County discloses on their county website that they have pursued access to Kerr Lake water since 2017 in anticipation of a significant population boom and increased water utility needs. Currently, Franklin County sources water from the City of Henderson, the Town of Louisburg, and the City of Raleigh. Franklin County attests that those sources will not address the County’s future water requirements. In August 2025, Franklin County signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the US Army Corp of Engineers for a water reallocation study.(1)

In a North Carolina General Assembly Conference Committee substitute on April 22, Section 5 of Senate Bill 214 permits the Franklin County Board of Commissioners to exercise annexation and condemnation power over real property in neighboring Halifax, Vance, and Warren Counties without the consent or approval of those counties’ Board of Commissioners.(2) Representative Winslow of District 7 stated during House floor debate on April 22, 2026 that the bill allows Franklin County to pursue annexations only in the name of water access.(3)

In an official statement on April 27, Representative Winslow stated that 20 years of “good faith negotiations between Franklin County and Henderson have yielded little progress on securing adequate additional water at reasonable rates,” adding that negotiations included the City of Henderson charging Franklin County water utility recipients rates “nearly four times higher” than residents in Henderson are charged in their utility bills.

Moreover, Representative Wilson asserts that S214 “does not authorize” Franklin County to acquire the City of Henderson’s water treatment plant, and that Section 5 is “strictly for constructing a raw water line from Kerr Lake.”(4)

While the above is the intention behind Section 5, it is not actually spelled out in Section 5, and that makes all the difference in interpretation of the law.

Understandably, the predominant concern amongst other North Carolina state legislators and local municipalities is that Section 5 will set a precedent. The list of counties from which Franklin may acquire land may be expanded, or the legislature may grant other counties in North Carolina similar powers over their neighbors.

The question arises: Does Section 5 of S214 nullify county sovereignty over lands within their own borders?

On April 28, 2026, a Conference Committee report disclosed that members of the House and Senate agreed to resolve their differences and delete Section 5 in its entirety.(5)

Let’s talk about it.

April 24, 2026
©Abby Black

I’m hearing a lot of discussion about how the Town of Wake Forest is working with legislators to restore downzoning authority to municipalities. Let’s talk about it.

The downzoning prohibition was made law upon passage of Senate Bill 382: Disaster Relief-3/Budget/Various Law Changes in 2024. It means that municipalities cannot decrease residency on a piece of land; for example, Wake Forest downzoning an area from General Residential 5 (5 homes per acre) to General Residential 3 (3 homes per acre).

The intention behind the prohibition was to protect western North Carolina property owners whose homes and belongings were washed away in Hurricane Helene floodwaters from municipalities that might designate their property as open space or for resource harvesting. Instead, municipalities need to request the property owners’ consent to the zoning change.

Because the ban affected all counties, Wake Forest suspended our Draft UDO until the Town is certain it won’t violate the law. Instead, the Town has been rezoning in a “piece meal” fashion, section by section instead of in broad sweeps, as the Town attains property owner consent. This law does not keep property owners from pursuing a zoning change on their own volition.

The argument against the downzoning prohibition is that it hamstrings municipalities from exercising development standards by requiring officials to responsibly reach out to each individual property owner. If a property owner says no, then the government can only work around the property.

In short, I hold the opinion that downzoning is not only a blow to eminent domain, but that property owners are empowered by the downzoning ban because municipalities have to receive consent from property owners to change the residency of the property.

What do you think? Let’s talk about it.