Privilege Licenses, Selective Enforcement, and the Question of Favoritism: Is Hamlet Helping Small Businesses Succeed or Making It Harder for Them to Survive?
An Investigative Editorial | October 14, 2026
HAMLET, NORTH CAROLINA — In a small town where economic development, job creation, and attracting new businesses should be among the highest priorities of local government, a troubling question deserves public attention: Why are some businesses required to pay for the privilege of operating while others are not?
More importantly, is this difference the result of North Carolina law, or could local enforcement practices create opportunities for favoritism, selective treatment, and unnecessary government interference?
For business owners investing their own money, employing local residents, and attempting to contribute to Hamlet’s struggling economy, these questions are more than political talking points. They concern fairness, economic opportunity, and the proper exercise of government authority.
North Carolina has already eliminated broad privilege-license taxation for most businesses and many professionals. Yet certain privilege licenses remain, and Hamlet’s published municipal ordinances continue to contain provisions addressing the taxation of businesses and occupations.
This creates a situation that deserves examination.
Is Hamlet applying only those privilege-license requirements that remain legally authorized, or are outdated ordinances and inconsistent practices placing unnecessary burdens on businesses?
And perhaps most importantly, are all similarly situated businesses being treated equally?
What Is a Privilege License, and Why Does It Exist?
A privilege license is a government-issued authorization or tax associated with conducting certain business activities within a jurisdiction.
Historically, North Carolina municipalities charged businesses annual privilege-license taxes simply for operating within their boundaries.
Unlike a building permit, fire inspection, health department approval, or professional certification, a traditional privilege-license tax often had little to do with determining whether a business was safe, qualified, or capable of operating.
It was primarily a revenue-generating tax.
A business owner could already be paying property taxes, sales taxes, employment-related taxes, rent, utilities, insurance, and other expenses, yet still face an additional charge for the privilege of conducting business.
For decades, these taxes affected numerous businesses and professions throughout North Carolina.
However, the General Assembly eventually recognized the need to change this system.
In 2014, state lawmakers repealed the general municipal privilege-license taxing authority under North Carolina General Statute § 160A-211, with the repeal becoming effective July 1, 2015.
This eliminated the broad authority municipalities previously possessed to tax businesses simply for operating within their jurisdiction.
North Carolina subsequently repealed its annual state professional privilege-license tax under § 105-41, effective July 1, 2024.
These legislative changes significantly reduced privilege taxation.
But they did not eliminate every specialized license or business-related tax.
And therein lies the controversy.
If North Carolina Eliminated Privilege Licenses, Why Are Some Businesses Still Paying?
Although the General Assembly repealed the general municipal privilege-license tax, certain specialized privilege-license requirements remain authorized under separate state statutes.
Among the businesses still affected are establishments selling beer and wine.
Under North Carolina General Statute § 105-113.77, municipalities generally must issue corresponding local licenses for certain businesses holding state alcoholic beverage permits, subject to statutory exceptions.
The annual municipal license taxes include:
| Type of business activity | Annual base license tax |
|---|---|
| Selling beer for consumption on the premises | $15 |
| Selling beer for consumption off the premises | $5 |
| Selling wine for consumption on the premises | $15 |
| Selling wine for consumption off the premises | $10 |
These amounts generally apply to the first license of each type, with additional licenses of the same type potentially subject to higher statutory rates.
These municipal charges are separate from the substantially greater costs associated with obtaining state ABC permits.
For a restaurant, pub, or similar establishment, the local privilege-license fee may be relatively small compared with overall operating expenses.
But the principle remains significant.
Why should one type of business pay an additional municipal privilege tax when many other businesses have been relieved of that burden?
The immediate legal answer is that the General Assembly has retained different requirements for different activities.
But that does not prevent citizens from questioning whether the remaining distinctions represent good economic policy.
Businesses That Generally Do Not Have to Pay the Former Municipal Privilege-License Tax
Following the statewide repeal of general municipal privilege-license taxation in 2015, ordinary businesses are generally no longer required to pay that former broad tax simply because they operate within city limits.
Examples include:
| Business category | General municipal privilege-license tax |
|---|---|
| Clothing and apparel stores | Generally not required |
| Furniture stores | Generally not required |
| Hardware stores | Generally not required |
| Bookstores | Generally not required |
| Gift and souvenir shops | Generally not required |
| Hair salons and barbershops | Generally not required |
| Auto repair shops | Generally not required |
| Construction contractors | Generally not required |
| Electricians and plumbers | Generally not required |
| Cleaning and janitorial services | Generally not required |
| Computer repair businesses | Generally not required |
| Marketing and consulting firms | Generally not required |
| Ordinary restaurants and cafés | Generally not required |
| Bakeries | Generally not required |
| Non-alcohol-serving entertainment venues | Generally not required |
| General retail stores | Generally not required |
| Photography businesses | Generally not required |
| Landscaping businesses | Generally not required under the repealed general tax |
| Office-based service businesses | Generally not required |
These exemptions from the former general municipal tax do not mean the businesses are exempt from every licensing, regulatory, or tax obligation.
For example, a restaurant selling beer or wine may still owe a specialized municipal alcohol privilege-license tax. Certain occupations may require professional licenses, and specialized business activities may be subject to other legally authorized fees.
North Carolina also prohibits municipal privilege taxation of certain utility-related businesses, including specified electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and video-programming providers.
Additionally, the state’s 2024 repeal of its professional privilege tax removed that particular annual tax from many professions, including attorneys, physicians, accountants, architects, engineers, dentists, real estate agents, and others.
This creates an important economic-policy debate.
If North Carolina has determined that broad privilege taxation is unnecessary for so many businesses and professions, why should additional categories of entrepreneurs continue to face such requirements?
Is Hamlet Picking and Choosing Who Must Pay?
This is where the issue becomes especially important for local residents and business owners.
North Carolina law can legitimately impose different requirements on different types of businesses.
That alone does not establish unfair treatment by Hamlet.
However, a much more serious concern would arise if the city required certain businesses to obtain licenses while allowing other businesses operating under the same legal classification to avoid paying.
Imagine two establishments in Hamlet.
Both sell beer for consumption on their premises.
Both hold the necessary state ABC permits.
Both operate within the same municipal boundaries.
Both are subject to the same statutory licensing provisions.
Yet one is required to purchase a municipal privilege license while the other is permitted to operate without paying.
If such a situation exists, the public deserves an explanation.
Why would one business be required to comply while another is not?
Who makes those decisions?
What written policies govern the process?
And are those decisions documented?
The government should never be permitted to pick winners and losers among similarly situated businesses based on personal relationships, political influence, or favoritism.
This article does not establish that Hamlet has engaged in such conduct. No verified business-by-business licensing records have been presented demonstrating selective enforcement.
Nevertheless, the potential for inconsistent treatment is precisely why transparency is necessary.
The City of Hamlet should be able to explain who must pay, who does not, and the legal reason for every distinction.
The Question Nobody Should Be Afraid to Ask: Does Favoritism Exist?
Small towns often operate within close-knit social and political circles.
Business owners may know elected officials personally. Some may have longstanding friendships with members of city government. Others may be newcomers without established connections.
These relationships are not inherently improper.
But they make consistent and transparent government procedures particularly important.
Could a business owner with political connections receive more favorable treatment?
Could a business that supports local officials be treated differently from one that openly criticizes them?
Could a business owner who questions city decisions face stricter enforcement than someone who remains silent?
These are legitimate questions for public examination.
They are not findings that any Hamlet official has engaged in misconduct.
However, favoritism does not always announce itself openly. Inconsistent enforcement can be difficult to identify without reviewing government records.
For that reason, the city should disclose its licensing standards, the number of licenses issued, the revenue collected, and the procedures used to determine exemptions.
The goal should be to establish whether the rules are being followed consistently.
If they are, the records will help demonstrate that.
If they are not, the public deserves to know why.
A business owner’s relationship with City Hall should never determine whether the law applies to that business.
Hamlet’s Own Ordinances Raise Legal Questions
The City of Hamlet’s published Code of Ordinances contains provisions that deserve closer examination.
Section 10-30 describes a privilege tax levied on businesses and occupations under authority conferred by state law.
The ordinance includes language allowing certain license taxes to be adjusted by the City Council.
However, the broad municipal privilege-license taxing authority that historically supported many such ordinances was repealed in 2015.
This creates an important legal question.
Has Hamlet updated its licensing ordinances and administrative practices to reflect the changes in North Carolina law?
Or does the city continue publishing provisions that may no longer be enforceable in their original form?
An outdated ordinance is not necessarily evidence of illegal taxation.
Municipal codes sometimes retain provisions that have been superseded by state legislation.
But a city cannot rely on an obsolete grant of taxing authority to collect money that state law no longer permits it to collect.
Under N.C.G.S. § 160A-206, municipal taxing powers must be specifically authorized by the General Assembly.
That principle is fundamental.
A municipality cannot create a tax simply because it wants additional revenue. It must have lawful authority to impose it.
If Hamlet is charging a general business privilege-license tax under a repealed statutory authorization, affected business owners may have grounds to question those assessments.
Whether a particular charge is lawful depends on the exact tax, the statutory authority supporting it, and the circumstances of its assessment.
Could Hamlet’s Privilege-License Practices Be Legally Challenged?
Several potential legal issues deserve consideration.
1. State-law preemption
North Carolina municipalities do not possess unlimited taxing authority.
When the General Assembly repeals a particular municipal taxing power, a city generally cannot continue exercising that power without another valid statutory authorization.
Any privilege tax imposed under a repealed provision could be vulnerable to challenge.
2. Unequal treatment and selective enforcement
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment generally requires government to treat similarly situated persons consistently unless a legally sufficient reason justifies different treatment.
However, not every difference in enforcement amounts to a constitutional violation.
Different business categories may lawfully be subject to different tax rules.
A stronger legal concern would arise if officials intentionally treated substantially identical businesses differently without a rational justification, or acted for an unlawful discriminatory or retaliatory purpose.
Such a claim would require evidence.
3. Improper exemptions or waivers
If state law requires a particular license, municipal officials generally cannot excuse selected businesses from compliance merely as a personal favor.
Any exemption must have a lawful foundation.
A city should therefore maintain written documentation explaining the legal basis for exemptions or waivers.
4. Unauthorized fee amounts
Where state law establishes specific municipal license-tax amounts, local officials must comply with applicable statutory restrictions.
A city cannot simply increase a state-controlled tax beyond the amount permitted by law.
5. Outdated ordinances and misleading requirements
Even where an obsolete ordinance is not actively enforced, its continued publication may create confusion for entrepreneurs.
Business owners should not have to hire an attorney simply to determine whether a city ordinance still has legal effect.
These concerns justify a review of Hamlet’s licensing practices, although they do not independently prove that any particular fee has been collected unlawfully.
Why Can Cary Decline Certain Licenses While Hamlet Cannot?
One of the most revealing aspects of North Carolina’s privilege-license framework is found in N.C.G.S. § 105-113.71(c).
This provision identifies the Town of Cary as having authority to decline certain municipal beer and wine license requirements.
The law therefore recognizes that at least one municipality may operate under an exception to requirements imposed elsewhere.
Hamlet is not named in that provision.
This means Hamlet cannot simply claim Cary’s exemption without appropriate legislative authorization.
But it raises an important policy question.
Why should a comparatively prosperous municipality have statutory flexibility that a financially challenged small town does not possess?
Wouldn’t a community struggling to attract new businesses benefit from having similar authority?
Wouldn’t eliminating unnecessary licensing costs and paperwork make more sense in places where entrepreneurship and job creation are desperately needed?
Hamlet’s elected officials should consider petitioning the North Carolina General Assembly for comparable statutory relief.
The objective should not be to disregard state law.
It should be to change unnecessary laws through the proper legislative process.
A Town That Needs Businesses Cannot Afford to Discourage Them
Hamlet has a rich history, particularly through its connection to the railroad industry.
But history alone does not guarantee economic prosperity.
A successful future requires private investment, occupied commercial buildings, sustainable employment, and a municipal government committed to economic development.
Consider a hypothetical entrepreneur investing $100,000 to open a restaurant in downtown Hamlet.
That investment could include renovations, equipment, furnishings, insurance, licensing, and initial operating expenses.
The business might hire eight local employees.
Those employees would earn wages and spend part of their income in the community.
The restaurant could attract customers who also visit nearby shops and businesses.
The property owner could benefit from rental income, and improvements to the building could contribute to the local property-tax base.
These benefits are not guaranteed, and the entire amount of economic activity would not become municipal tax revenue.
Nevertheless, a successful business could generate far more long-term economic value than a small annual privilege-license fee.
Now consider what happens when a potential investor views Hamlet as a place where business requirements are confusing, inconsistent, or unnecessarily burdensome.
That entrepreneur may simply choose another community.
A $15 or $25 annual charge alone is unlikely to determine whether a major business investment succeeds.
But when fees are combined with unclear procedures, administrative delays, inconsistent enforcement, and uncertainty about government expectations, the cumulative effect can discourage investment.
For a community seeking economic growth, perception matters.
Hamlet should strive to become known as a town that welcomes businesses, not one that makes entrepreneurs question whether the rules will be applied fairly.
Would Hamlet Actually Lose Money by Eliminating Unnecessary Privilege Licenses?
Supporters of municipal fees may argue that every source of revenue is important to a small-town budget.
That argument deserves consideration.
But revenue should be measured against the costs of administering and enforcing the program, as well as the broader economic consequences.
Suppose a municipality collects $15 annually from 100 businesses under a particular license classification.
That produces $1,500 in annual gross revenue.
From that amount, the municipality may incur administrative expenses associated with issuing licenses, processing payments, maintaining records, and enforcing compliance.
This is a hypothetical example, not a statement of Hamlet’s actual collections.
Now consider the economic value of attracting one additional successful employer.
The resulting wages, property improvements, business purchases, and customer spending could substantially exceed the amount collected through a small licensing program.
Not all of those benefits flow directly into municipal revenue, but they can strengthen the local economy.
Before defending every remaining licensing fee, Hamlet should calculate how much the requirement actually generates and how much it costs to administer.
If a fee is optional and produces minimal net revenue, eliminating it may be a reasonable economic-development decision.
If the fee is mandatory under state law, the city should pursue legislative changes rather than simply refusing to collect it.
Should Hamlet Become a More Business-Friendly Community?
Hamlet has an opportunity to distinguish itself from other communities by making the process of opening and operating a business simpler, clearer, and more predictable.
The city should consider several reforms.
First, review every municipal privilege-license requirement. Identify the precise statutory authority supporting each tax and eliminate any general business privilege taxes that are no longer authorized.
Second, seek legislative relief from unnecessary specialized licensing requirements. Where state law mandates a municipal license, the city should determine whether an exemption or statutory amendment could benefit local economic development.
Third, publish a transparent business-license schedule. Entrepreneurs should be able to determine their obligations without navigating outdated ordinances or receiving conflicting information.
Fourth, ensure consistent enforcement. Businesses operating under the same legal classification should face the same requirements unless a lawful distinction applies.
Fifth, measure the economic impact of licensing. The city should compare actual revenue and administrative costs with the potential benefits of simplifying business operations.
Sixth, establish a business-friendly startup process. New entrepreneurs should receive clear information about zoning, inspections, permits, taxes, and other obligations before committing substantial funds.
These changes would not eliminate legitimate health, fire, building, zoning, or alcohol regulations.
They would instead help ensure that government requirements are lawful, necessary, and consistently administered.
Eight Questions Hamlet City Officials Should Answer
The Hamlet City Council and city administration should publicly address the following:
- Which businesses are currently required to obtain municipal privilege licenses, and what state statute authorizes each requirement?
- How many businesses in Hamlet currently pay privilege-license taxes, and how many operate without paying them?
- Are all businesses holding the same types of permits subject to identical municipal license requirements?
- Has Hamlet granted any exemptions or waivers, and what legal authority supports those decisions?
- How much revenue has the city collected from privilege licenses during the past three fiscal years?
- Has the city reviewed and updated its ordinances following the repeal of general municipal privilege-license taxation in 2015?
- Has Hamlet considered asking the General Assembly for authority comparable to Cary’s statutory exemption from certain municipal beer and wine licenses?
- What safeguards prevent personal relationships, political influence, or disagreements with city officials from affecting licensing enforcement?
The answers should be supported by official records, with disclosure subject to applicable confidentiality laws.
These are reasonable questions for a government that serves the public.
The Public Has a Right to Know Who Pays and Who Doesn’t
North Carolina’s public records laws provide mechanisms for residents and journalists to request many types of municipal records.
A review of Hamlet’s licensing records could help determine how the city administers its requirements.
Useful records would include adopted fee schedules, applicable ordinances, license counts by category, aggregate revenue reports, written enforcement policies, and records explaining exemptions or waivers where disclosure is legally permitted.
Some business-specific tax records may be protected from disclosure by state confidentiality laws.
Even so, aggregate information and written policies could provide meaningful insight.
If the city is applying the law consistently, public disclosure can help establish confidence in its practices.
If inconsistencies exist, those records can provide the basis for corrective action.
Transparency should not be viewed as a threat to local government.
It is one of the foundations of accountable government.
The Real Question: Is Hamlet Open for Business—or Only for Certain Businesses?
The future of Hamlet should not depend on who knows whom, who supports which elected official, or who has the strongest personal relationships within city government.
It should depend on whether entrepreneurs are willing to invest, whether businesses can operate successfully, and whether local residents have opportunities to earn a living.
North Carolina has already moved away from broad privilege-license taxation.
Hamlet should make certain that its municipal practices reflect that legislative decision.
Where specialized licenses remain legally mandatory, the city must administer them properly.
Where exemptions are legally available, the city should consider whether using them would serve the public interest.
Where state law prevents local flexibility, city leaders should consider advocating for legislative reform.
And where questions arise about whether similar businesses are being treated differently, officials should respond with documentation rather than leaving residents to speculate.
A small town cannot afford to create the appearance that government favors certain businesses over others.
Nor should a municipality retain unnecessary licensing requirements simply because they have existed for decades.
Conclusion: The Privilege of Doing Business Should Not Depend on Political Privilege
Hamlet needs more businesses.
It needs more jobs, more investment, more commercial activity, and more opportunities for residents to build successful futures without leaving their community.
What it does not need is uncertainty about whether businesses are being charged fairly, whether licensing requirements remain legally valid, or whether some establishments receive treatment unavailable to others.
The question of favoritism must be answered through evidence, not rumor.
But that evidence should be available for public examination to the extent permitted by law.
If Hamlet’s licensing practices are lawful and consistently enforced, city officials should have no difficulty explaining them.
If outdated requirements remain, they should be corrected.
If improper charges have been collected, the city should examine whether affected businesses are entitled to refunds or other remedies.
And if the General Assembly has created an unnecessary disparity between municipalities, Hamlet’s leaders should advocate for changes that benefit their community.
A thriving town is not built by collecting every possible fee from those willing to invest in it. It is built by encouraging businesses to open, helping existing businesses remain successful, and treating every entrepreneur fairly under the law.
The people of Hamlet deserve to know whether their city is doing exactly that.
Because ultimately, the most important question is not how much the city can charge for the privilege of doing business.
It is whether Hamlet is truly open for business—and whether it is equally open to everyone.
Editorial note: This article examines public policy, statutory licensing requirements, and potential legal questions. It does not establish that the City of Hamlet or any named official has engaged in unlawful taxation, selective enforcement, corruption, or favoritism. Business-specific conclusions require further review of municipal records.
Principal Legal References
- North Carolina General Statutes § 160A-206 — Municipal taxing authority.
- Former N.C.G.S. § 160A-211 — Repealed general municipal privilege-license tax.
- N.C.G.S. § 105-113.71 — Municipal beer and wine licensing provisions and exceptions.
- N.C.G.S. § 105-113.77 — Municipal beer and wine privilege-license taxes.
- Former N.C.G.S. § 105-41 — Repealed state professional privilege-license tax.
- City of Hamlet Code of Ordinances, § 10-30 — Published privilege-tax provisions.
- North Carolina Department of Revenue — Privilege-license tax guidance and repeal notices.
The legal references describe the statutory framework; current enforcement and collections in Hamlet have not been independently established through municipal licensing records.