Town of Emerald Isle Ex Rel. Smith v. State
1987 N.C. LEXIS 2414, 320 N.C. 640, 360 S.E.2d 756 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative act establishing a public facility at a specific location is a general law, not a prohibited local act, if its purpose is to promote the general public welfare of the state. The legislature holds paramount authority over public streets and may regulate their use, including changing them from vehicular to pedestrian-only, without it constituting an unconstitutional taking of a municipality's property.
Facts:
- Property owners in the Town of Emerald Isle subdivided land and recorded plats that included an offer to dedicate streets, including Inlet Drive, to the public.
- The Town of Emerald Isle accepted the dedication, maintaining Inlet Drive as a public street and receiving state Powell Bill funds for it.
- In 1982, the Town constructed a vehicular ramp at the end of Inlet Drive, providing vehicle access over sand dunes to the beaches near Bogue Inlet.
- The beaches near Bogue Inlet were popular with sport fishermen who regularly operated vehicles on the beach to access prime fishing spots.
- The Town of Emerald Isle regulated vehicle access to its beaches through a local ordinance and permit system.
- In 1983, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted Chapter 539, a law directing the state to acquire property and build a public pedestrian-only beach access facility near Bogue Inlet.
- Chapter 539 also prohibited vehicular traffic on the Inlet Drive right-of-way and on the beaches in four adjacent blocks once the new pedestrian facility was opened, with an exception for emergency vehicles.
Procedural Posture:
- The Town of Emerald Isle and several individual property owners filed a declaratory judgment action against the State of North Carolina in the Superior Court of Carteret County, a state trial court, challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 539.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs (the Town), holding that Chapter 539 was unconstitutional on several grounds, including that it was a prohibited local act.
- The defendants (the State) appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the law was an unconstitutional local act but reversed the trial court's decision on severability, holding the entire act void.
- A judge on the Court of Appeals dissented from the majority opinion.
- The defendants (the State) appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the state's highest court, based on the dissent, and the court also granted the State's petition for discretionary review of other constitutional issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law directing the creation of a public pedestrian beach access facility in a specific town, and which prohibits vehicular traffic on a dedicated town street and adjacent beaches, violate the North Carolina Constitution's prohibitions against local acts, exclusive emoluments, or takings of property without due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Frye, Justice.
No, the law does not violate the North Carolina Constitution. A legislative act establishing a particular public beach access facility to promote the general welfare of the state is a general law, not a prohibited local act. The court reasoned that the traditional 'reasonable classification' test for distinguishing local from general laws is ill-suited for an act that, by definition, must be in a specific location. Instead, the court focused on the act's purpose, finding that promoting public access to the state's valuable coastal resources serves the entire state's interest, thus making it a general law. The act does not grant an unconstitutional exclusive emolument because the vehicle prohibition serves the public welfare by protecting pedestrians at the new facility, and the location is reasonably chosen. Finally, the act is not an unconstitutional taking of the Town's property because municipalities are creations of the state, and the legislature has paramount authority to regulate the use of public streets for the benefit of the public at large.
Dissenting - Meyer, Justice
Yes, the law violates the North Carolina Constitution and is void. The majority creates a new, unsupported standard that renders the constitutional distinction between local and general laws meaningless. Under established precedent, a law directed at a 'specific spot' affecting only four blocks of a single town is quintessentially a local act. As a local act, it violates the specific constitutional prohibition against local laws that 'alter' or 'discontinue' streets, as changing Inlet Drive from vehicular to pedestrian-only access fundamentally alters and discontinues its function as a street. Furthermore, the act unconstitutionally creates a state park via a local act when the constitution requires such actions be done by general law, and it improperly forces a local municipality to bear the maintenance costs for a state facility.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant new framework for analyzing whether a geographically specific law is a prohibited 'local act' under the North Carolina Constitution. By shifting the focus from 'reasonable classification' of places to the statewide 'public interest and concern' of the act's purpose, the court gives the General Assembly greater latitude to enact site-specific legislation for projects like parks, environmental protection, and public access facilities. This precedent makes it more difficult for local governments to challenge state-mandated projects within their jurisdictions, strengthening state power over matters deemed to be of general public welfare, even when implemented on a small, local scale.
