The Preliminary Injunction remains pending and was continued until July 20.



Registered motor vehicles and business non real estate related property were not part of the reappraisal controversy that led to the adoption of SB 889.



For vehicle owners, that represents approximately a 37% higher city tax rate 79.85¢/$100 than the 58.30¢/$100 rate discussed at the public hearing.



More importantly:



• The Court did not dismiss the case.

• The Court did not rule that Plaintiff lacks standing.

• The Court did not rule that the City's actions complied with North Carolina law.

• The Court did not decide that the budget challenge lacks merit.



Had the Court believed the lawsuit was legally deficient, frivolous, or incapable of succeeding, there were procedural mechanisms available to dispose of it immediately.

Instead, the Court set the matter for a full Preliminary Injunction hearing.



That hearing will address the central issue in this case:



Did Greensboro present one budget to the public for hearing and then adopt a materially different budget without providing the notice and public hearing required by North Carolina law?



That question remains unanswered.



The City is free to argue its actions complied with the law.



The Plaintiff is entitled to argue otherwise.



On July 20, the Court will begin deciding which position is correct.



A procedural victory on a TRO is not the same thing as a victory on the merits.



Plaintiff isn't asking the Court to impose a second-hearing requirement under Chapter 159. The hearing required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 159-12 never occurred with respect to the budget actually presented for adoption. The June 2 hearing addressed a 58.30¢/$100 rate; the budget adopted on June 16 imposed a 79.85¢/$100 rate that was never the subject of any § 159-12 hearing.



Link in the comments



Hartzman v City of Greensboro