We welcome letters to the editor’s desk on any topic. Our ideal length is around 400 words or less, but if they need to be a little longer, that’s fine. We reserve the right to edit or add context when necessary. We ask that submissions come with your name and where you live (no street address necessary, just your neighborhood, town, city, etc.). Criticisms are welcome, but we ask you to try to keep it civil.
Send your letter to BSchachtman@whqr.org — or by mail, if you're old school, to WHQR Public Media 254 N. Front Street, Suite 300, Wilmington, NC 28401.
This edition’s letter, “Who pays for growth?” comes from Bill McHugh, an attorney and former Leland Town Councilman. His professional experience, advocacy, and public service have focused on accountability, responsible growth, and the effective management of public and private resources. He lives in Leland, North Carolina, with his wife and daughter.
***
Brunswick County’s wastewater challenges are a reminder of how difficult it can be to keep infrastructure capacity ahead of growth. According to an October 22nd report by Port City Daily, the county is considering wastewater treatment expansions costing hundreds of millions of dollars, including one proposal estimated at $700 million.
These challenges raise an important question for every community in the Cape Fear Region: How do we grow responsibly while protecting the quality of life and affordability that brought people here in the first place?
Growth brings jobs, housing, new businesses, and economic opportunity. But it also creates demands for roads, water and sewer capacity, schools, parks, and public safety services. Those needs do not always arrive at the same pace as development, and meeting them can be expensive.
Responsible growth means looking beyond the next development proposal. It means understanding existing infrastructure capacity, anticipating future demand, and considering how new development will affect a community over time. Infrastructure cannot be an afterthought.
North Carolina’s state laws make meeting this challenge more difficult. Unlike many states, North Carolina does not allow local governments to impose broad impact fees to help pay for roads, parks, schools, and public safety facilities needed as communities grow. State law does permit some water and sewer system development fees, but those are subject to specific requirements and strict limitations.
That leaves local governments with fewer options for making new development pay its fair share of infrastructure costs. Those costs don’t disappear, though. They end up being covered by utility customers, property taxpayers, or other public funds. Too often, that means existing residents are left picking up the tab for growth.
During my four years on Leland Town Council, from 2021 through 2025, I saw firsthand how difficult these choices can be.
In 2024, for example, Leland considered a budget proposal that included a substantial tax increase to fund new projects, amenities, and infrastructure. Residents were right to question whether that level of spending was necessary and affordable, and ultimately, the budget was rejected.
But the discussion highlighted a challenge every growing community must confront. As a town grows, officials must consider how to provide adequate public safety, maintain infrastructure, preserve green space, and invest in amenities residents value. All have costs, and balancing those priorities is a fundamental responsibility of local government.
Not every proposed investment is necessary, and not every project should move forward. Taxpayers deserve careful spending, clear explanations, and a voice in decisions affecting their finances. But rejecting a particular proposal does not eliminate the underlying needs. Delaying necessary infrastructure improvements can leave communities facing more expensive choices later, often all at once.
During those same years, Leland strengthened fire and police services and pursued conservation efforts that protected more than 1,500 acres. Growth matters, but so does what a community preserves, the services it provides, and the quality of life residents enjoy.
Local governments, developers, and utility providers need to be working from the same reliable information about available capacity and future needs. Decisions about new development should account for the roads, utilities, and other public services that development will require, not just the homes or businesses being proposed.
North Carolina must also look at whether local governments have the tools they need to manage growth responsibly. Towns and counties need the ability to assess reasonable impact fees on new development, with appropriate safeguards to protect property owners and ensure those fees are tied to the actual costs of serving that development.
Local officials also need the flexibility to respond when circumstances change. The anti-downzoning provisions added to SB 382, a disaster relief and budget bill, are an example of state lawmakers limiting that flexibility. Whether local governments should have that authority, and where the limits should be, deserves a serious discussion in Raleigh.
For Leland and the surrounding communities, the goal should be simple: plan for growth in a way that makes sure our infrastructure, public services, and budgets can keep up.
No plan can account for every possibility, and people will always disagree about priorities and costs. But we can plan ahead, make thoughtful decisions about where to invest, and be upfront with residents about what those decisions will cost.
Growth alone is not a measure of success. The real test is whether our infrastructure, public services, and protection of our natural resources can keep pace with it. We should welcome new residents and economic opportunity, but we also have a responsibility to protect the quality of life that made this region attractive in the first place. That takes planning, investment, and an honest conversation about who pays for growth.
***
Development and its discontents are a fairly bipartisan issue, and over the last few years we’ve heard local officials focus acutely on the need to ‘manage’ growth. Compared to a decade ago, when we saw a boom in mixed-use developments in Wilmington, including several controversial projects along Military Cutoff Road, City Council members and County Commissioners have been cautious lately. In Brunswick and Pender counties, I’ve seen similar pushback on the aggressive development, especially where roads, schools, and water and sewer are struggling to keep up.
North Carolina has long leaned toward being a Dillon’s Rule state, where local authority exists only where it's granted by the state legislature. Local municipalities and counties do have some authority, but on several key fronts, the state has worked to remove local control. We're definitely not a Home Rule state, where the local government has more authority.
McHugh cites the state’s anti-downzoning law, which passed in late 2024 as part of a bill putatively aimed at disaster relief for Hurricane Helene victims. The provisions have since snarled conversations about increasing stormwater management requirements and protecting tree canopies and wetlands – moves that would effectively reduce the allowable density on a given property. The state has also taken specific action in Brunswick County to curb Leland’s voluntary annexation power.
More recently, Republican leaders put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would allow the General Assembly to set limits on local property tax increases. (The amendment is silent on what those limits might be; Republican leadership has said they'll sort that out later.)
On the face of it, you could see how that ballot measure would be popular: who wants higher taxes? It’s also been framed as a way for Republicans, who enjoy a majority in the General Assembly, to protect residents who live in Democrat-controlled metro areas like Charlotte, Asheville, and Wilmington from excessive taxation. Democrats have criticized the move as hamstringing local government, and also as a way to try to keep control even if they lose seats in the General Assembly, a kind of 'zombie' legislative power.
Certainly, things could change, and despite the fairly effective gerrymandering of state districts, we could see the Democrats return to state power and consider legislation aimed at shaping local decisions. Conservatives might feel differently about 'home rule' if the shoe were on the other foot, with state Democrats telling local Republicans what to do.
There's plenty that can and should be explored in terms of partisan policy preferences. But I think you could also see this story in terms of Raleigh restricting local control. Sometimes, that plays out along party lines – but not always.