bakst

RALEIGH – North Carolina’s Urban Redevelopment Law is so vague, it allows the state to seize private property with just the thinnest of excuses. That’s according to a Spotlight report…

North Carolina needs a constitutional amendment to protect property rights that will contain very specific language. This approach will ensure that courts are unable to undermine the rights that the amendment is designed to protect. The amendment should define key terms such as “public use” and expressly prohibit all takings for private use, including those for economic development purposes.

RALEIGH – North Carolina lawmakers need to amend the state’s Constitution to give property owners more protection against governments’ use of eminent domain powers. That’s the finding in a new…

North Carolina recently filed a lawsuit going after private restraints of trade. But if the state really wants to reduce unfair trade practices and help consumers, it should eliminate or modify its own anti-competitive policies. The certificate of need law, occupational licensing, and other state-imposed restraints of trade hurt consumers and the economic freedom of North Carolinians.

RALEIGH — Attorney General Roy Cooper recently filed a lawsuit against a gasoline distributor for alleged price fixing, but if state officials were that concerned with restraints against trade, they…

RALEIGH — The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London drastically weakened the property rights of all citizens, according to a new analysis published today by…

The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Kelo v. City of New London drastically weakened the property rights of all citizens. North Carolinians can protect themselves by amending the state constitution. An amendment is necessary because state legislation does not provide adequate protection of property rights. All fundamental rights, especially property rights, should be protected in the state’s highest law, the state constitution.

North Carolina law limits the establishment and relocation of new-vehicle dealerships in “relevant market areas” where the same make of car is sold. This law was enacted due to the belief that dealers were in an unequal bargaining position with manufacturers. This rationale is now obsolete. Research also indicates that such laws hurt consumers. No justification exists to continue granting special privileges to dealers, especially when those privileges come at the expense of the public.