Protest petition passed ... probably
Following a hot debate on an icy cold night, the City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to support returning the right of protest petitions to Greensboro residents. Sort of.
In a fuzzy motion following a lively debate, the council endorsed restoring the tool -- provided representatives of the real estate and building industry and the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress can come to terms on the particulars.
Greensboro is the only city in the state that doesn't allow protest petitions. The City Council quietly asked and received an exemption from state lawmakers in 1971. No one seems to know why or how this occurred, or why it was done with zero public discussion.
There was plenty of public discussion Wednesday night.
Some City Council members expressed concern with the current state law, which allows the owners of 5 percent of adjoining land to a proposed rezoning to request a super-majority vote of the council (7-2 in Greensboro) to approve that rezoning.
Marlene Sanford, president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, called the law "the tyranny of the minority" while other opponents, all of whom represented the building and real estate industry, called it "un-American" and a threat to the economy.
Proponents argued that they deserved what residents of all other cities in the state enjoy: a fighting chance to have their voices heard and respected in disputes against real estate interests.
In a clever PowerPoint presentation, blogger David Wharton cited the influence industry interests wield on city boards and its power to hire attorneys and lobbyists.
The main recourse of average residents? asked Wharton. Then a pair of praying hands flashed on the screen.
The bad news is that Wednesday's vote lacked clarity and is missing the most critical aspects of the law: exactly what it will say.
What if the parties (primarily Sanford and Donna Newton, adviser to the Neighborhood Congress) can't agree on the specifics?
The good news is that both women flatly predicted success.
"We'll work it out," Newton said.
Comments (11)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Mr. Johnson said: ". . . the current state law, which allows the owners of 5 percent of ADJOINING [emphasis added] land to a proposed rezoning to request a super-majority vote of the council (7-2 in Greensboro) to approve that rezoning."
But the news article today (by staff writer Amanda Lehmert) stated: "If 5 percent of NEARBY [emphasis added] property owners sign the petition . . . ."
Which is correct -- "adjoining" property owners or "nearby" property owners?
Posted on January 22, 2009 11:16 AM
Mr. Johnson said: ". . . the current state law, which allows the owners of 5 percent of ADJOINING [emphasis added] land to a proposed rezoning to request a super-majority vote of the council (7-2 in Greensboro) to approve that rezoning."
But the news article today (by staff writer Amanda Lehmert) stated: "If 5 percent of NEARBY [emphasis added] property owners sign the petition . . . ."
Which is correct -- "adjoining" property owners or "nearby" property owners?
Posted on January 22, 2009 11:17 AM
Strictly speaking, according to the statute, the owners of "five percent of a 100-foot-wide buffer extending along the entire boundary of each discrete or separate area to be rezoned."
Posted on January 22, 2009 12:44 PM
Thank you for the information on the 100' buffer zone. I'll be back later with questions and comments regarding the 5% figure.
Posted on January 22, 2009 1:10 PM
See Allen, it can be done. You can be passionate and involved in a subject that benefits the G-Boro taxpayer. YOU CAN DO IT!!
Posted on January 22, 2009 2:41 PM
Sanford and Newton have nothing to do with how this law is going into the books if restored.
Because of the confusion at vote time some council members will have the excuse of thinking a compromise was expected.
Posted on January 22, 2009 2:42 PM
something stinks on this compromise, allen time to do some digging
Posted on January 22, 2009 7:53 PM
In addition to prayer ("Dear Jesus, please don't let money change hands near my pseudo-pastoral, hyperinsulated suburban enclave. Amen."), the "average citizens" involved might consider giving democracy a chance.
Doing some quick calculations, 5% would look to add up to one person. Finding one person willing to tell another what to do with his property shouldn't be difficult.
Posted on January 22, 2009 11:36 PM
In addition to prayer ("Dear Jesus, please don't let money change hands near my pseudo-pastoral, hyperinsulated suburban enclave. Amen."), the "average citizens" involved might consider giving democracy a chance.
Doing some quick calculations, 5% would look to add up to one person. Finding one person willing to tell another what to do with his property shouldn't be difficult.
Posted on January 22, 2009 11:36 PM
Allen, it might have been nice three yrs ago if you would have editorialized urging facts before personalities. (see today's lead editorial)
Somebody is going to have to take the bull by the horns here. The council is in a huge Mexican standoff -a huge war between the Pro-Wray/ Pro Mitch factions. It has and is going to cost hundreds of thousands of wasted money. It's going to cripple Yvonne. This gvt. is and will become increasingly unmanageable. It doesn't matter which faction is right or wrong any longer. It doesn't matter who's fault it is. The impasse can only be broken one way. You know it. Everybody knows it. You have to say it. If the people themselves don't see they're running the ship into the ground, people like you are going to have to tell them or else the wheels are just going to spin on and on and on.
Posted on January 23, 2009 9:02 AM
Allen, if Mitch was just another town mgr. who wasn't perceived as the figurehead of some racial cause celebre', who eventuated the grinding halt effective city governance, and put the town in the bind of potentially paying hundreds of thousands of liability judgements you obviously would have called for the man's head a long time ago.
You have to get past your own involvement in this cult of personality.
Posted on January 23, 2009 9:25 AM