Protest petition: Just do it
This week's column.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Bearing that in mind, state lawmakers have decided not to wait for the Greensboro City Council to hem, haw, ruminate, speechify and attach wholly unnecessary asterisks and conditions to the question of protest petitions.
As they say in the over-priced sneaker business, just do it.
So, Guilford County legislators have moved ahead on their own and filed bills in the state House and Senate that would restore to Greensboro residents a right every other city in the state already has.
Good for them. The lawmakers have simplified a process that the council was making unduly convoluted and drawn-out.
Protest petitions give residents added leverage in discussions of contested rezonings. Residents who own 5 percent of the adjoining land to the rezoning object can force a supermajority vote of the council (at least 7-2) to approve a zoning change.
Greensboro lost its right to protest petitions in 1971, when the City Council at the time stealthily asked for — without public discussion or explanation — and was granted, an exemption from the legislature.
The legislators intend to fix that with bills in the state House and Senate, respectively, that are refreshingly direct in their language and their intent.
City Council members will tell you that they, too, wanted to restore protest petitions. And they voted unanimously on Jan. 21 to ask that the law be reinstated in Greensboro.
“We passed it, period,” said Mayor Yvonne Johnson.
But anyone who attended the Jan. 21 meeting could see the council was clearly conflicted over the issue. It still is.
Councilman Robbie Perkins on Thursday called the bill “The Lawyer Relief Act of 2009” and said it would hurt small developers and infill projects by making the development process more expensive.
The mayor and several others on the council also question the 5 percent threshold. That’s why the council said yes to protest petitions but added a provision that real estate and neighborhood representatives meet to consider recommending possible changes.
The council asked a protest petition proponent, Donna Newton, adviser to the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, and a staunch opponent, Marlene Sanford, president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, to consider possible changes to the protest petitions, as they apply to Greensboro.
The council then would send the recommendations to the legislature in addition to a request for the protest petition bill.
Newton and Sanford were supposed to report to the council on Feb. 17. That may all be moot now.
Local legislators moved ahead without the council and aren’t particularly interested in compromises. “I don’t see any reason to have a separate threshold,” said one of the House bill’s sponsors, Pricey Harrison of Greensboro.
She’s got a point. Some issues are complex and involve more grays than blacks and whites.
This is not one of them.
No need to split atoms or consider how many City Council members can dance on the head of a pin. This problem has a simple fix: Put back what was taken away, without any howevers and wherefores.
The path to restoring the right to protest petitions in Greensboro should have been this simple: Council discusses. Council votes yes. Legislators sponsor the bill in Raleigh. Bill passes. And we move on.
As for the argument against the 5 percent threshold, it should be a nonstarter. The mayor said she worries that it could empower one person to block a development even if a majority of his neighbors approve of it.
But only if the council agrees with him. As with any zoning case, the final decision still would rest with council members, not that one individual.
And there is little evidence to support the belief that the 5 percent requirement has unduly stalled development in any other North Carolina city.
Meanwhile, Newton said she and Sanford have had productive meetings, “but I can’t predict an outcome from them.”
It is still possible, she said, that there may be no recommendations.
Whatever results the meetings do produce, she said, they will have to involve a vote by the full Neighborhood Congress and another City Council public hearing. She is insisting on that.
If the council is smart, it won’t drag this issue any further.
It will let these bills go forward, with its blessings, and put aside talk of proposed changes that have about the same chance of success as the Lions winning the next Super Bowl.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Protest petitions can be a good thing to protect neighborhoods. But with just 5 % adjoining owners being able to command a super majority of Council Members to vote for a re-zoning is patently unfair. It is way out of line and gives far too much power to a minority.
Posted on February 8, 2009 10:18 AM
it was great to see the bills being introduced.
Wayne if it was so patently unfair in the 5% rule then where are all these cities all over this state wanting to change this 5% rule, they are not wanting to change the 5% rule. Believe me in knowing that our neighborhood in High Point used Protest Petition against a major developer and the process worked 5% rule and all.
It is state law and it works as planned, let's try it out in Greensboro for the next 30 years , since they took this right away back in 1971. 5% rule is a threshold but believe me in a lot of cases in Greensboro had well over 30% to 40% and the other night had probably 85% in opposition to a storage facility on fleming road , where are their rights under state law to use protest petitions. It was taken away from them and now it will be a part of the process . Can't wait to see neighborhoods all over Greensboro use Protest Petition's in the zoning process.
There is a reason that the special interest group TREBIC wants to deny the citizens this right under state law because the process in every other city in this state uses protest petitions and it works. TREBIC has had the upper hand in the zoning process in Greensboro for a long time and now it is time to level the playing field and give this right back to the citizens.
Posted on February 8, 2009 5:13 PM
Thanks Droopy Dog
As a retired land surveyor and small time builder I probably am leaning to the developer side and I also agree that neighborhoods have been left out of rezonings. However, I believe the Pacs are the biggest problem. They have the votes and a lot of times its a done deal. Maybe this new law will help. I hope so, but I still think its the PACS.
Posted on February 8, 2009 5:56 PM
believe me wayne PAC are definitely a problem in this state. But giving the right to Protest Petition back for the citizens is the right thing and if all of these PAC's want to abolish Protest Petition for the whole state please do but we had a meeting with a professor at UNC School of Government and he said that the league of municipalities tried for 5 years straight to take this out of the process to no avail.
Posted on February 8, 2009 8:05 PM
Fool with the power of our "masters?" Why that's downright unpatriotic. Oops, wait, they are our servants, not our masters. Why do so few of them understand that simple fact!
Posted on February 9, 2009 10:55 AM
Councilman Robbie Perkins on Thursday called the bill “The Lawyer Relief Act of 2009” and said it would hurt small developers and infill projects by making the development process more expensive
Grensboro City Council member Robbie "Pave It" Perkins needs to rephrase that and say the bill should be called the Isaacson-Allen Relief Act of 2009 since they are the only zoning lawyers in Greensboro who are bought and highly paid for.
Posted on February 15, 2009 8:43 PM