Meet candidate for Harnett County Commissioner, Eric Stevenson

Eric Stevenson is running for Harnett County Commissioner in District 2.

Each candidate received the same invitation and questions. Responses are published individually.

Questions for Candidates Seeking the Office of County Commissioner

Question 1. Read the following and explain your support for oversight committees.

Dr. Michael Cline, North Carolina’s state demographer, projects the state’s population will reach 11.7 million by 2030, enough to add an additional congressional seat after the 2030 Census. North Carolina is also expected to surpass Georgia and Ohio to become the seventh-largest state in the nation in the early 2030s.

Addressing growth while protecting assets and mitigating school district needs requires collaboration, and citizens demand transparency.

In city councils, school boards and county governments, developers, investors, and realtors hold offices, some with planning board members as relatives by blood or marriage.

There is no oversight to prevent facilitating urban sprawl either through tweaking land use plans, by extending infrastructure that invites future development corridors, or by allowing developments “by right,” or by denying evidence in quasi-judicial hearings.

Administrative teams, including planning boards, surrounding elected officials are their paid employees.

When citizens with security clearance volunteer on oversight committees (The three counties have bountiful military residents.), their statuses would relieve concerns about possible leaked information during real estate purchases, which are negotiated under general statutes during closed sessions.

According to general statutes, a committee may be formally adopted as part of the board to advise on real estate purchases in closed sessions.

Oversight committees working with governments would provide input without loyalty restraints because they would not be paid employees or compensated volunteers. They would keep records of the meetings for public release after transactions to show who recommended purchasing compromised property or industrial-zoned businesses into rural areas or who may facilitate working with selective organizations.

Oversight committees, selected for specific career experience and who work outside of county and municipal government, would bridge transparency, could help protect rural farmlands, and provide insight to multi-faceted issues for stronger outcomes.

Collaboration and transparency are preventative measures. Read an example here.

Answer: I support citizen oversight committees. What I’ve seen firsthand is that major land anddevelopment decisions are often made without enough independent review, even while residents express concerns about conflicts of interest, favoritism, or environmental impacts.

We have thousands of retired military residents in this county including myself. People with decades of experience handling sensitive information and making high-stakes decisions. They would bring independence, objectivity, and credibility to oversight roles because they are not paid employees and do not answer to political leadership.

Oversight committees would provide:

• Clear documentation of how decisions were made

• Protection against unethical influence or nepotism

• Independent review of rezoning, infrastructure extensions, and land purchases

• Better environmental safeguards, especially for groundwater and rural areas

I’ve shared with commissioners that if we claim transparency, then allowing informed citizens to participate in review processes should not be controversial, it should be standard. Thesecommittees strengthen trust, and trust is something the public has  restored.

I support citizen oversight committees. What I’ve seen firsthand is that major land and development decisions are often made without enough independent review, even while residents express concerns about conflicts of interest, favoritism, or environmental impacts.

We have thousands of retired military residents in this county including myself. People with decades of experience handling sensitive information and making high-stakes decisions. They would bring independence, objectivity, and credibility to oversight roles because they are not paid employees and do not answer to political leadership.

 Oversight committees would provide:

• Clear documentation of how decisions were made

• Protection against unethical influence or nepotism

• Independent review of rezoning, infrastructure extensions, and land purchases

• Better environmental safeguards, especially for groundwater and rural areas

I’ve shared with commissioners that if we claim transparency, then allowing informed citizens to participate in review processes should not be controversial, it should be standard. These committees strengthen trust, and trust is something the public has repeatedly said they want restored.

Question 2: Public board discussions help the public learn alternative viewpoints and reveal new information, which may lead to a stronger solution than what was originally proposed as the only solution. When a dominant leader opposes differing viewpoints, communication stops, and the opportunity for growth and transparency disappears. How do you plan to negotiate with dominant board members to work for what is best for the citizens?

Answer: At county commissioner meetings, I have already demonstrated how I handle difficult discussions: respectfully, professionally, and with a commitment to facts and community impact.

My approach is shaped by my 20 years of military service, where diverse viewpoints and chain-of-command environments were normal, but the mission always came first.

When faced with a dominant board member who attempts to shut down discussion, I plan to:

1. Bring factual, community-sourced evidence to the table. This is the same approach I

used in public comments about senior care and social worker shortages, where

commissioners and citizens saw the data clearly.

2. Shift the conversation back to citizen impact. When I spoke at the meeting, I centered

everything on seniors, families, and the real-world experiences of residents, not politics.

3. Remain composed and mission-focused. Strong leadership doesn’t require volume, it

requires clarity.

4. Engage citizens in the process. When the public is informed and present, it is much

harder for any one board member to dominate the narrative.

5. Build respectful working relationships. Even strong personalities soften when they see someone who shows up prepared and consistently puts the community’s needs first.

My negotiations will be grounded in the same consistency I have already shown at county meetings: calm, factual, and fully focused on what’s best for the people.

Question 3: What is your position on recent zoning decisions and land-use disputes, including those involving schools, subdivision expansion, and farmland conversion?

Answer: I have spoken to several Commissioners about the balance of growing our County and preserving rural Harnett County. Harnett County cannot continue approving development without aligning growth with infrastructure, school capacity, and environmental responsibility.

My position is:

1. Infrastructure must come before rezoning not after.

Speaking with a few Commissioners I clearly stated that roads, EMS, and schools are already strained. Approving large subdivisions without first addressing these needs forces residents to pay the price later.

2. Farmland and rural communities must be protected.

Once farmland is gone, it never returns. Recent land-use decisions risk accelerating the loss of agricultural land, something many residents spoke about during meetings.

3. School sites must be selected with safety, traffic, and long-term planning in mind.

Several disputes in Harnett County illustrate possible unclear planning and rushed decision making. I have told commissioners and residents that we must stop placing schools in locations that create avoidable safety and accessibility problems.

My views are not theoretical they are the same concerns I’ve already raised publicly. Growth is good, but reckless growth harms families.

Question 4: What types of businesses or industries should your county attract or avoid? Should the county hold the economic development associations financially accountable for attracting businesses with potential environmental impacts?

Answer: Harnett County should welcome industries that strengthen families, create stable jobs, and protect our land and water.

We should attract:

• Advanced manufacturing

• Clean energy and technology

• Healthcare and life sciences

• Logistics companies that fit within proper corridors

• Veteran-owned and small businesses

• Workforce development partnerships with schools and colleges

We should avoid industries that:

• Pose environmental risks to groundwater or the aquifer

• Bring heavy industrial waste or pollution

• Are incompatible with schools or residential areas

• Overwhelm rural communities without offering real benefits

Economic development groups should be held financially accountable when their recommendations bring environmental or long-term harm. That is not anti-growth it is pro community. Incentives must come with clear accountability and transparent tracking.

I’ve already shared with commissioners that growth should not be “growth at any cost.” The community deserves better.

Question 5: Do you support the state’s Rural Infrastructure Authority grant programs and similar incentives? Why or why not? (Read about the reuse programs here and the push for industrial businesses into rural areas here.)

Answer: Yes I support the Rural Infrastructure Authority grant programs when they are used responsibly, transparently, and in alignment with the community’s long-term vision. I have said publicly that Harnett County must strengthen its infrastructure, especially in areas experiencing rapid population growth.

RIA funds can help us:

• Improve water and sewer capacity

• Revitalize older commercial areas

• Support job creation

• Upgrade rural infrastructure

• Prepare sites properly before development occurs

However, incentives should never pressure the county into accepting environmentally risky industries or poorly planned industrial sites. Grants must be tied to clear outcomes, public reporting, and environmental responsibility.

My position is the same one I’ve shared at commissioner meetings:

We need infrastructure support, but not at the expense of our rural communities or

environment. Proper oversight is non-negotiable.

Jan. 27, 2026

Stephanie M. Sellers

Submit news tips, events and interview requests to editor@sandhills.news.

Sandhills News is plain-English local government reporting that explains how decisions affect your land, taxes, schools and rights.