An opponent of the Friendly Avenue rezoning argues that Robbie Perkins should recuse himself from the upcoming vote.

As noted previously, if a second councilman is rendered hors de combat and the other members hold steady on their previous votes, we might see Greensboro's City Council unable to render a decision  on a  high-profile issue.

Any parliamentarians out there able to confirm that a 4-3 "yes" vote, with the remaining two votes off the table, would doom the rezoning effort?

Comments

[Don Laygey]

Why do you hate Heath Ledger?

[Patrick]

I haven't looked at the rules to determine the effect of members' recusal on the number of votes required to approve the zoning, but whatever it is, the recusals will not make the council "unable to render a decision." If approval requires a certain number of affirmative votes and that number cannot be mustered, then a decision will be rendered in the negative. Even if, after the recusals, five affirmative votes would be required for approval, there are five-plus members eligible to vote who could approve it if they were in favor of it. If it doesn't get the required number of votes, it will fail, which is a decision. I understand the point you're making about representatives of development interests holding seats on the board, but arguing that the board is paralyzed into indecisiveness by that is misleading.

[Ed Cone]

I take your point, Patrick -- I guess this would play more toward poetic justice than actual paralysis.