Three proposed amendments to the North Carolina constitution are on the ballot for Tuesday’s election.
One would require the state to limit how much local governments can raise property taxes in one year. It’s a Republican response to rising property values — which often means higher property tax bills.
WFAE’s Steve Harrison joins All Things Considered host Nick de la Canal to talk about this amendment and what it would mean.
Nick de la Canal: Three amendments are on the ballot: One caps the state income tax rate at 3.5%. Another requires photo ID for mail voting. And then we have a property tax cap, part of a national trend. Tell me about that.
Steve Harrison: Seven states are considering similar caps, and the movement appears to have begun in Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has mused about eliminating the property tax altogether.
As we all know, home values are skyrocketing throughout much of the country and even if local governments lower their rates, homeowners still have higher bills. That’s happening here in Charlotte.
On top of that, the value of office buildings is falling, so homeowners have to carry more of the burden to pay for local government.
De la Canal: So, North Carolina Republicans have joined the movement.
Harrison: They have. Here’s House Speaker Destin Hall back in the spring:
Hall: Our constituents are telling us that property taxes are out of control.
Harrison: Rolling back taxes is really the principal mission of North Carolina Republicans, and this amendment…in theory…fits in with that.
De la Canal: But many people think these amendments were also put on the ballot to give conservatives something to be excited about for this election.
Harrison: Absolutely. Republicans were looking for something to counter President Trump’s low approval ratings.
But western Carolina political science Professor Chris Cooper thinks people aren’t paying enough attention.
Cooper: The notion that North Carolinians were not going to show up and vote from the Republican persuasion, but now they are because of a constitutional amendment, is on there, frankly that stretches credibility for me a little bit.
De la Canal: Okay, so maybe the political strategy isn’t really paying off. Let’s talk about the actual amendment and what it would do. The language is pretty vague.
Harrison: It really is. The income tax amendment’s 3.5% cap is set in stone. If that passes, it’s very, very hard for a future legislature to undo that. Legislators would have to place a new amendment on the ballot, and voters would have to say yes.
The property tax amendment is very different.
De la Canal: Because it just says the legislature will place some sort of limits.
Harrison: Right. We have no idea what those might be. The rate of inflation? Or a formula that includes population growth plus the rate of inflation?
And because lawmakers would set these caps, future legislatures could simply revise them and make them more or less strict. The amendment would set only some sort of limit.
De la Canal: And the city of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have come out against this.
Harrison: They have. But it’s not just local governments in blue areas. The County Commission in conservative Union County opposes it, too.
The amendment is expected to pass, and the legislature probably will write the implementing language in December, immediately after the election. But look for a bipartisan push from local governments.
Here’s Joy Hicks with the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners:
Hicks: When this passes, we’re going to have to make sure that whatever action the General Assembly takes next will still safeguard the ability for local governments to be able to respond to the needs of their communities.
Harrison: One more thing: Historically, managers in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have tried to hold off on tax rate increases for as long as possible because they want to please their bosses, who are council members or commissioners, who are elected.
But I spoke with former Charlotte City Manager Curt Walton. He said the new normal may be for managers to propose small tax increases annually, at the limit or just below.
So instead of, say, a 7% tax hike every four years, we could get 2% hikes every year.
De la Canal: Something to think about at the bottom of the ballot on Tuesday.
Harrison: Absolutely. It’s expected to pass, but there has been little polling.
