EdCone.com

Zack Matheny: "Developers are frustrated because we passed the Protest Petiion. They're frustrated because it's not as easy, you've got to have more support from Council...it's tough, when you've been doing business for 20 or 25 years, to change that. Neighbors are stepping up more..."

He gently admonished developers to speak more carefully and with consideration for their newly-empowered neighbors.

Keith Brown: "How do the citizens of Greensboro feel for the past 30 years? The local developers are frustrated but the citizens of Greensboro have been getting the shaft in the zoning process for a long time."

As for the rezoning at hand, well, we've covered that before: "The hard truth is that it's been Dunkirk ever since the Regions building went up, which is a lesson to neighborhoods across the city: give them an acre and they'll take a block."

UPDATE: A commenter says preservationists have tried to put money behind their efforts, but have been rebuffed by the developers.

City Council vote for rezoning at Elm and Cornwallis fails to meet the margin dictated by protest petition law. Another vote may happen soon. Briggs has the historic preservation angle; another group that had been opposed rezoning was ready to accept the revised Stratton plan as the best deal they were going to get, but let it be known they would fight further encroachment on the neighborhood.

At what point do proponents of preserving the Commencement House have some obligation to do more than fight the current property-owner's plan, i.e., put some money and plans of their own on the table?

Protest petition bill to become law.

13 months ago, public discussion began in earnest. As you can see from that post and the comments, Keith Brown and Tom Phillips were already on the case. A lot of the subsequent work was done offline, and via old media. But this strikes me as a pretty good example of the dynamic discussed here.

So now we've got our law back. Let's see how it works in practice, and consider proposing modifications if they seem necessary.

House passes protest petitions for Greensboro quickly and unanimously; on to the Senate.

This time, the City Council really, really endorses protest petitions.

And acknowledges the irrelevance of its own process: "[Yvonne] Johnson said since the council already agreed to ask the legislators to restore the petition, the state of the negotiations did not matter."

"Don was pleased to co-sponsor Senate Bill 67 titled Greensboro/Restore Zoning Protest Rights. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Katie Dorsett." Posted at 6:40 PM by State Senator Don Vaughan at his Facebook page.

A quick comment from his wife, Nancy Barakat Vaughan: "Good work! I see that the House posted a bill (#64) with the same name sponsored by Representatives Harrison, Jeffus, Adams and Wiley. It was co-sponsored by Rep. Blust."

Dr. Wharton passes along an email from the City (emphasis mine):

At Wednesday night's City Council meeting, the Council voted to ask the State Legislature to reinstate the protest petition for residents of Greensboro. Separately, Council asked the Neighborhood Congress, the League of Women Voters, and TREBIC to try to reach an agreement on changes that could make both sides comfortable with the legislation, specifically in the percentage of nearby property owners required to trigger the supermajority vote. If that agreement is reached by February 3, it will be submitted as a local bill along with the request to reinstate the protest petition in Greensboro.

So: the City is asking for the restoration of protest petition rights.

It may also ask for changes in the existing law, if a compromise can be reached.

I thought that was evident from the staff comment during the meeting, but it's good to have it cleared up.

What really happened in the protest petition vote?

All hell should break loose if the result is anything other than what Barber suggests it should be, which is what staff said clearly at the meeting: "[T]he council supports restoring protest petitions as written into state law. And that changes to the existing law will be made only if they are agreed upon in negotiations between the building industry and the neighborhoods."

What a sloppy way to run a City Council.

Alert reader Patrick describes last night's Council debate on protest petitions as "a sorry spectacle" and asks about the "confused, inarticulate and intimidated majority" of the Council, "Had they not thought about this before they got there?"

The choice presented last night was between no protest petitions and a petition law that many view as over-strong. As Dr. Wharton has said, given the power of the developers, an over-strong petition is better than no petition.

What a shame the council ducked this issue for so long.

If some compromise version of the petition law is viable, they could have made that the focus of their preparation in past months, and worked with the community to make that the goal, and passed it last night. Greensboro might have had its own version of the protest petition, one that met the concerns raised by the Council and the needs of the people.

Instead, the Council dithered in the face of rising popular interest (which Robbie Perkins anticipated almost a year ago), and set themselves up for exactly what they got: the likely restoration of the law as it exists across the state, with some crumbs tossed in to appease their consciences and the real estate industry.

City Council passes protest petition recommendation.

Congrats to the folks who worked hard to make this happen. Keith Brown, take a bow. Don't forget former Councilman Tom Phillips, a voice in the wilderness back when nobody was talking about petitions.

It's not entirely clear what else the proposal to legislature will say, but the sense of the meeting was that the request to restore the right to protest petitions stands on its own.

It may be that the existing state law can be improved. Good for Greensboro if we can help spark that process. But it looks like we'll be doing it from inside, as petition-empowered citizens.

Goldie Wells argued well for the petitions. Robbie Perkins inadvertently gutted a key no-petition argument when he talked about the great stuff happening in other NC cities. Those cities, of course, have the right to protest petitions, which clearly have not hobbled development of the type he envisions.

Besting the real estate industry is not easy in this town. We're learning that people can do it if they are informed and organized. That 9-0 Council vote was significant for its margin as well as its outcome. We're not quite to the point where the role of the web in local politics is so routine that it goes without mentioning, but we're getting there.

PPFG is unimpressed by rhetoric from real estate honchos and elected officials (some people are both) in advance of the City Council vote on protest petitions.

Yes Weekly on the upcoming Protest Petition vote: "Perkins, Matheny and Barber, who rely on the Greensboro real estate industry for part or all of their livelihoods, are clearly conflicted between the wishes of that industry's most influential professional organization and the interests of Greensboro citizens who want a say in the way their neighborhoods are zoned. As such, they should recuse themselves from the vote."

A Little Urbanity covered David Owens presentation on Protest Petitions; documents posted at the link.

I know that TREBIC is scared to death of the protest petition, but it needn’t be. Owens’ research shows that protest petitions are used quite infrequently, and they certainly haven’t hampered growth in Raleigh and Charlotte, where they are used most often. But they have encouraged developers, neighborhoods, and cities to cooperate more.

Isn’t that what everyone wants?

It's what everyone says they want, which isn't always the same thing. Robbie Perkins made soothing noises about the petitions last year; how will he stand on the issue when it counts? Will The Rhino dare to buck its advertising base on this one?

Dr. Wharton: "The Protest Petition would help restore the balance of power between neighborhoods and the real estate industry. I'm for it."

Whether you agree with him or not on this issue (I do), Wharton's opinion is one to take seriously, and I hope the media and the City Council will give his words due consideration.

"The presence of a protest petition option may also lead to greater amounts of communication between the requesting party and property owners surrounding the site on some rezonings."

Sounds good to me.

From a memo to City Manager Mitch Johnson from Planning Director Dick Hails, who recommends that the report be brought to Council.

Ryan Shell says a lot of people oppose protest petitions because they "are worried about urban sprawl."

Really?

The sprawl argument has been raised by a serious advocate of thoughtful development, Dr. Wharton. I agree with Wharton that protest petitions would bring risks as well as rewards, as does any powerful tool. Like him, I tend to favor the restoration of petition rights, but my primary goal is to see some serious public discussion of the issues at hand.

I wonder about the anonymous opponents mentioned by Ryan, though. Are they concerned about sprawl, or is that a convenient dodge? I ask this because the famous TREBIC letter includes some platitudes along those lines. It would be interesting to see these anonymous opponents step forward, so we can measure their words of concern about sprawl against their actual track records in that area. Ryan says there are a lot of them, surely he can find a few to speak on the record.

Meanwhile, Roger Greene takes Robbie Perkins to task for his brush-off of the noisy bloggers who focus on the petition issue. I think RG is right that bloggers (not to mention newspaper columnists) represent a larger constituency here.

But as KB says in the subsequent comment, people need to do more than write about petitions -- they've got to get involved.

Remember: The Net is not about the Net.

Blogs aren't going to force the City Council's hand -- but people who organize in the real world might.

Allen Johnson on protest petitions: "[T]he council's silence only feeds the perception that it is predisposed to side with developers...Love it or hate it, the bill never got a fair hearing. More discouraging than the squelching of the idea was the squelching of the discussion."

I love the wide-eyed commentary from council members who seem baffled by the fact that no such discussion took place in time for the short session. What kept them from bringing it up?

Perkins is on the record: "Greensboro developers need to reverse the perception that they get everything they want. Otherwise, the pendulum will swing and development in the city will be severely curtailed. If the end result [of protest petitions] is higher quality development and restored trust in the approval process, I am supportive of the effort."

Somebody needs to hold the Man Who Would Be Mayor to his word.

This subject deserves open discussion by Greensboro's elected leaders.

Keith Brown annotates the TREBIC letter on protest petitions.

TREBIC vs. protest petition: "Noticeably inactive on the issue is [the] Greensboro City Council."

Who got to the local legislative delegation and persuaded them not to press for protest petitions?

The answer is unsurprising: the local real estate group and a prominent, politically-wired construction company. You can read the emails after the jump.

And so it falls to the Greensboro City Council to decide what comes next.

The developers have made their case against protest petitions. Will anyone step up to argue in favor of discussing them? Will our elected officials consider this topic, or will the developers call the tune?

The Cornwallis/Lawndale group, the neighborhoods near Friendly who recently lost to Mega, David Craft, Robbie Perkins...will anyone take the lead?

UPDATE: Local delegation won't propose protest petition bill for GSO because the city council didn't weigh in on the issue.

Interesting that Phil Berger was the lead vote against it, as it's a Greensboro issue and his relationship to Greensboro is the most distant of any "local" legislator.

Thanks for your leadership, city council!

You can contact council members here.

Keith Brown has an opinion column in this morning's N&R supporting protest petitions for Greensboro.

The silence of our city council on this issue is deafening.

Robbie Perkins said not long ago, "Greensboro developers need to reverse the perception that they get everything they want. Otherwise, the pendulum will swing and development in the city will be severely curtailed." He also said, "Protest petitions do not seem to have slowed other cities down. If the end result is higher quality development and restored trust in the approval process, I am supportive of the effort."

How's that going?

N&R says legislators should restore GSO's right to protest petitions.

Our delegation is leaning in that direction, but it would help to have the GSO City Council come out in support of the petitions.

If only there was a way to contact council members...

Protest petitions for Greensboro discussed in Greensboro.

Keith Brown says, "Tonight in Greensboro at the City Council Chambers from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm is a great time to Lobby your State Legislators on any issue you think needs to be addressed. Like Protest Petitions in Greensboro."

Keith Brown says Guilford County legislators seemed supportive of the right to protest petitions for Greensboro when he met with them this week.

League of Women Voters on protest petitions: "The Legislature will reverse this exemption, IF all members of the Guilford County delegation request it. Therefore, it is important for those delegates to hear from YOU."

(via PPIG.)

My newspaper column is about protest petitions for Greensboro.

One interesting quote, from City Councilman and developer Robbie Perkins, who leans in favor of restoring the petition right:

Greensboro developers need to reverse the perception that they get everything they want. Otherwise, the pendulum will swing and development in the city will be severely curtailed.

People are being heard.

Read the whole thing after the jump.

Yvonne Johnson responds to my email query on protest petitions: "I'm still studying this and weighing the pros and cons." She says she's conferring with a lot of people, including "communities" and TREBIC, about Pricey Harrison's bill.

Binker covers the latest on protest petitions for the N&R. He found someone to speak against the petitions -- the  president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition.

City Councilman Zack Matheny weighs in with an answer to my question: "In what way is Greensboro unsuited for the protest petition rights granted citizens of her sister cities?"

Zack says, "Greensboro is different than Raleigh and Charlotte based on the amount of development and jobs that those areas have experienced versus our city."

I and other commenters don't find the answer compelling. Feel free to weigh in -- probably better to do it on the original thread than to start over on this one, so I'll close comments here.

This should be a fine moment in local politics: an elected official joining a public conversation about an important issue. Maybe others will join him.

Let's show the guy some respect for paying attention and jumping into the fray. This is not the time or place to vent about whatever might bug you about Greensboro, politics, Zack, etc.

If people are met by a mob, they have a reason to ignore us. Let's not blow this opportunity.

I will police this thread if necessary. Thanks to all for a smart, on-point discussion of protest petitions in Greensboro.

My City Council rep, Zack Matheny, was quoted in this morning's News & Record editorial on protest petitions, saying "Greensboro is a different town."

It's a fascinating statement. Citizens of Greensboro might not deserve a right granted to citizens of other North Carolina cities because..."Greensboro is a different town."

Development hasn't been impeded in Charlotte and Raleigh, but "Greensboro is a different town."

Jordan Green explained one way Greensboro might have been different when the right was taken away in 1971 -- our City Council was small, and the supermajority needed to override a petition was an uncomfortably high hurdle.

But those numbers changed years ago.

So here's my question to Zack Matheny: What's the difference? In what way is Greensboro unsuited for the protest petition rights granted citizens of her sister cities?

N&R lead editorial: "Greensboro property owners are due the same right to petition state law allows residents of other cities."

Previously. Related.

Weigh in while you still can on protest petitions for GSO at the N&R YVATT blog.

Question of the Week over at the N&R's Your Voice at the Table blog: "Should Greensboro residents have the right to challenge City Council zoning decisions through protest petitions?"

I bet I know how this guy votes.

Interesting to see if blogs and email lists can get a reasonable number of people to weigh in on the question.

A blog dedicated to restoring protest petitions to Greensboro.

Jordan Green looks at the history of Greensboro's exemption from NC's protest petition law (some discussion here, including comments).

One reason for GSO exceptionalism seems to have been the disproportionate power the supermajority provision could give two individuals on a seven-member City Council; GSO has since moved to nine members.

Robbie Perkins and Yvonne Johnson tell Greene they are interested in the subject.

A key passage: "Planning Director Dick Hails recently wrote to Keith Brown, a High Point man campaigning to restore the protest petition in Greensboro, that the idea had been proposed several times by council members in the past few years. 'In each case,' he said, 'there was not a sense that the majority of council wanted to pursue the matter, and there was not any follow up on the issue.'"

My sense is that follow-up is not going to be a problem this time, at least in terms of community activism.

Important article; read it here.

UPDATE: In the comments below, a discussion about GSO's exemption from this "mandatory" provision, with input from UNC prof David Owens.

The seemingly unchecked power of developers around here may derive in part from the purposeful removal of one of the intended checks on their power.

Will protest petitions play a role in GSO's zoning wars? "The provision in North Carolina zoning law for a protest petition, G.S. 160A-385(a), is mandatory for cities. The protest petition is available in all cities, whether or not an individual zoning ordinance includes provisions for it."

More from UNC prof David Owens: "If a sufficient number of those most immediately affected by a zoning change - the owners of 20 percent of the land included within the rezoning or the owners of five percent of a 100-foot wide buffer around the property being rezoned - object to a proposed zoning amendment, the amendment may be adopted only if approved by three-fourths of all the members of the governing board. This requirement applies to repeal as well as to amendment of a zoning ordinance."

Thanks to alert reader KB for the pointer.