For generations, zoning and land-use decisions in North Carolina have been made by local elected officials who live in the communities affected by those decisions and answer directly to local voters.
Yet two bills moving through the General Assembly—SB 1047 and SB 445—continue a troubling trend of shifting authority away from local governments and toward state mandates that benefit well-connected special interests.
If you’ve already read about these bills and would like to take action, please take a few minutes to copy and paste the email lists we have prepared for you:
If you use Outlook for email:
Click here for the NC House list.
Click here for the NC Senate list.
Click here for the County Commissioners list.
If you use something else for email:
Click here for the NC House list.
Click here for the NC Senate list.
Click here for the County Commissioners list.
Sample Email:
Dear Senator/Representative,
I am writing to express my concern about SB 1047 and SB 445.
These bills continue a troubling trend of taking land-use and zoning decisions away from local communities and placing them under state mandates. Local elected officials are in the best position to understand the needs, infrastructure, and character of their communities, and they are directly accountable to the citizens they serve.
I believe decisions about growth, development, and zoning should remain as close to the people as possible. SB 1047 and SB 445 reduce local control, limit public input, and make it harder for communities to shape their own future.
Please oppose these bills and stand up for local self-government in North Carolina.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[City/Town]
The Erosion of Local Control
In a representative republic, decisions should be made as close to the people as possible. Local officials understand the character of their communities, the capacity of their infrastructure, and the priorities of their residents.
SB 445, the Regulatory Reform Act of 2026, weakens that principle by requiring cities and counties to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs), often called “granny flats,” and by-right residential redevelopment in many commercial and industrial areas. The bill overrides numerous local zoning restrictions involving density, parking, building height, and rental use.
SB 1047 takes the same approach even further.
The legislation expands permit choice protections and imposes rigid state-mandated deadlines, often referred to as “shot clocks,” for local land-use decisions. In some cases, if a local government fails to meet those deadlines, projects could be approved automatically.
Less Public Input, More State Control
Supporters argue these measures will streamline development and reduce bureaucracy.
But streamlining often comes at a cost.
Together, SB 445 and SB 1047 make it more difficult for local governments to update zoning standards, gather meaningful public input, negotiate development conditions, and thoroughly evaluate projects that may affect neighborhoods for decades.
When state government dictates how quickly local decisions must be made, communities lose the flexibility needed to address unique local concerns.
Who Benefits?
The most important question North Carolinians should ask is simple:
Who benefits from these changes?
Certainly not the residents who attend town council meetings, planning board hearings, and county commissioner meetings to voice concerns about traffic, infrastructure, school capacity, public safety, and neighborhood character.
The clearest beneficiaries are large development interests seeking faster approvals and fewer local obstacles.
The primary sponsor of both SB 445 and SB 1047, Senator Steve Jarvis, is a general contractor by profession. At the same time, many provisions contained in these bills closely align with priorities long advocated by development organizations and home-building interests.
That raises an important question: Why are state legislators reducing the authority of locally elected officials while advancing policies that primarily benefit industries many of them work in or closely associate with?
The Bigger Issue: Self-Government
The debate over SB 1047 and SB 445 is about far more than zoning regulations or development approvals.
It is about self-government.
These bills continue a broader trend of concentrating power in Raleigh while reducing the ability of local communities to determine their own future.
North Carolinians should decide whether they want growth and development policies shaped by local residents and local elected officials—or by state mandates influenced by developers, lobbyists, and special interests.
The question is not whether communities should grow.
The question is who should have the authority to decide how that growth occurs.
Should North Carolinians continue to shape the future of their own communities, or will those decisions increasingly be made in Raleigh?