Greensboro City Council Member Zack Matheny and Just How Does The Local Developers Feel about Protest Petition?

The above video is from the Greensboro City Council meeting on February 2, 2010 where there was a rezoning case off of elm street and cornwallis in Greensboro with the abutting neighbors filed a protest petition on this case. Let's take a  look at a little history on just how they got to this point in a post on this site titled "Greensboro City Counciul Member Zack Matheny has a Golfing Buddy,Campaign Donor and Rezoning Case with Protest Petition" CLICKHERE .

 As seen from the above video it seems like the local developers are none too happy with the new law for the citizens of Greensboro. As the councilman stated the local developers are "frustrated" with the Protest Petition. 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. It is time for the developers to actually talk with the neighborhoods and put plenty of conditions on these properties like what you saw in this elm street case even though it passed with a protest petition filed.

We need to remind everyone in Greensboro that the local special interest group Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition "TREBIC" , fought to have your rights as a citizen of this state taken away from denying this state law from you. There was a coalition of folks all over this area who worked their butt off for you to have this right back some 30 years later. As you can see from your local councilman the developers are frustrated because of this bill and what you heard tonight then it was all worth it.

Enjoy having protest petition as a part of the zoning process and in this case you win some and you lose some but as you can see this was a far cry from what they wanted at the beginning of this process granted single family residential was the ultimate goal but there are a lot of conditions on this property you wouldn't had if there was not a protest petition as a part of the process

Preserving the Written Minutes of The Meeting Where Protest Petition's Were Put on Legislative Agenda on 1-23-09

BELOW THE FOLD IS THE OFFICIAL MINUTES FROM THE January 23, 2009
Greensboro City Council meeting where Protest Petitions for the citizens of Greensboro was put on Legislative agenda for the State Legislators. It was a impressive show of force to see the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad, League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad, and Greensboro Neighborhood Congress come together to make this happen for the citizens of Greensboro. It was also a real rude awakening to see the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC), Greater Greensboro Realtors Association,Greensboro Homebuilders Association, Triad Apartment Association, National Association of Industrial & Office Properties try to deny the citizens of Greensboro the right to use Protest Petition in the zoning process. This post is here to record the history of Protest Petitions for Greensboro and what happened on January 23, 2009.

________________________________________________________
Mayor Johnson indicated that Numbers 11-20 would be skipped to address Number (21) of Item #28, theProtest Petition segment of the 2009 Legislative Agenda. Mayor Johnson introduced and read into the record that
the City will seek legislation to repeal a local act passed in 1971 exempting the City from state law concerning petitions of protest on zoning matters.



Repeal of the law will subject the City to the provisions of 160A-385, which
will require rezonings to pass by a three-quarter vote of Council, rather than a majority vote, when a proper protest petition is submitted. Mayor Johnson indicated that speakers would have twenty minutes for and against the
category and conversely, five minutes of rebuttal.


Mayor Johnson asked if anyone wished to speak in support of Number (21) of Item #28, the 2009Legislative Agenda:


Jack Masarie, 3 Garden Lake Circle, spoke in favor of the protest petition; the importance of providing
clear procedural and representation items for property owners in close proximity to development; and the
importance of representation, communication and procedure.


Art Davis, 910 Ross Avenue, representing the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, indicated that theprotest petition process was essential to effective communication for residents involved in controversial rezonings;
encouraged reinstatement of the protest petition to ensure neighborhood development; and supported utilizing theprotest petition as a participation tool for residents.


Kathleen Sullivan, 5302 Lange Trail, representing the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, requested Council reinstate the protest petition tool which would act to check-and-balance development; and cited the example
of the Twin Oaks Golf Course infill development project.

Sharon Hightower, 6 Bells Court, spoke in support of the protest petition process because it emphasizedinclusion within the development process, allowed community input into the development process, and that stated
that Greensboro’s regulations should reflect protest petition regulations of other municipalities.


David Wharton, 667 Percy Street, spoke in support of the protest petition with a PowerPoint presentation,concern regarding the proportion of representation of real estate members on city boards; legal representation of
real estate industry; funding of industry professionals by regional and national firms; lobbyists intervention into landuse public policy; and to correct the imbalance between political and regulatory interests. (A copy of the
PowerPoint presentation is filed as #R-2 which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of these
minutes.)


Willie Taylor, 808 Sea Carriage Crossing Lane, representing the League of Women Voters, spoke torestore the protest petition in the spirit of collaboration and trust between developers and residents.


Colin Kelly, 3614 Gainsboro Drive, spoke in favor of the protest petition process and the need for itsreinstatement.


Susan Taaffe, 2511 Wright Avenue, spoke in favor of the protest petition and requested audience membersto stand in support thereof.


Donna D. Newton, 1 Gwyn Lane, representing the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, spoke to the rightof the protest petition to the citizens, emphasized the rights of transparency and equity; and mentioned that the right
had been removed by the former Council in 1971 without any public discourse.


Mayor Johnson then asked if anyone desired to speak in opposition to Number (21) of the 2009 LegislativeAgenda:


Algenon Cash, 405 Battleground Avenue, spoke in opposition of the protest petition; stated that duringeconomic downturns, the protest petition would be counter-productive relevant to inefficient regulation; that the
current rezoning process was not broken and did not require fixing; that passing a protest petition regulation would weaken private property rights by allowing as few as one person to impact majority rule; and that strengthening
regulations would deter economic growth.


Jeff Yetter, 905 Cornwallis Drive, spoke in opposition to the protest petition stating that infill developmentwould be the focus of protest petitions; North Carolina was on a national target list for development; requested
Council to not deter smart growth and infill development; and expressed his concerns regarding the impact of theprotest petition regulation on job creation.


Steve Batts, 4804 Thacker Dairy Road, representing the Greensboro Homebuilders Association, spoke inopposition to the protest petition.


Betty A. Smith, 3907 North Elm Street, representing the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association, spokein opposition to the protest petition; stated that the current rezoning process was effective; cited the rezoning case of the Lake Jeanette area; expressed her concerns for private property rights; and stated that realtor attendance was low due to the council meeting conflicting with the North Carolina Association of Realtors’ quarterly meeting.


Ron Guerra, 115 South Westgate Drive, representing TREBIC, spoke in opposition to the protest petition; stated the real estate industry was already heavily regulated; indicated that neighbors meetings with developers was
an essential part of the TREBIC credo; and stated that the threshold percentages are too high.


Marlene Sanford, 115 South Westgate Drive, representing TREBIC, the Triad Apartment Association, the Greensboro Landlord’s Association, spoke to the fairness of the protest petition whereby rezoning opponents have
an unfair advantage over the applicant in lieu of the applicant being considered guilty until proven innocent; protest petition represents a tyranny of the minority; public policy should not be conducted based on the fact that everyone
else is doing it; and spoke her opposition to the statistics presented regarding the Boards and Commissions’ members backgrounds.


Mayor Johnson called for speakers in rebuttal, supporting Number (21) of the Legislative Agenda:


David Wharton, 667 Percy Street, spoke to the role of communication and cooperation between government, residents and developers; stated that the current economy is affecting homeowners’ equity; denied that one person could prevent a rezoning; opposed evidence that the protest petition would create sprawl by stating Greensboro currently has sprawl; and supported the statistics presented in his PowerPoint presentation.


Mary Burritt, 2016 Fleming Road, spoke in support of the protest petition and emphasized constituent support and expressed her apprehensions concerning the rezoning process.


Mayor Johnson responded that Council was attempting to find a compromise between the real estate industry and property owners.


Mayor Johnson then called for speakers in rebuttal, opposing Number (21) of the Legislative Agenda:


Ron Guerra, 115 South Westgate Drive, spoke to the negative perception of negotiations relevant to development projects; and the lack of statistics indicating the number of rejected projects based on protest petitions;
and stated his opposition to the five percent threshold.


Betty A Smith, 3907 North Elm Street, reiterated her opposition to reinstating the protest petition.


Marlene Sanford, 115 South Westgate Drive, spoke to sprawl, density and geography; and expressed willingness to work with the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress and the League of Women Voters to discuss
different standards for the protest petition in the case that Council voted for its reinstatement.


Councilmember Matheny moved to close the public hearing; Councilmember Wade seconded the motion which was adopted by voice vote of Council.


Council discussion mentioned the need for affordable housing in Greensboro for first-time homebuyers; expressed the concern of the protest petition’s impact on community relations; encouraged favorable methods of urban planning with residents, staff and developers; the necessity of a communication tool between residents and government; questioned the appropriateness of the five-percent threshold; expressed concerns about infill development, redevelopment and residential deterioration along major corridors; and the need to compromise
between real estate and residential interests.


Attorney Wood detailed the protest petition process consisting of the developer meeting with protesters to discuss conditions; subsequently, the project could proceed or not; finally the project would be presented to Council for voting.


Donna D. Newton stated that the Neighborhood Congress would be willing to discuss amending the protest petition with the real estate community after the protest petition right had been reinstated in Raleigh. Council discussion emphasized the lack of public records of discourse regarding the exemption that was adopted by the City Council in 1971.


Councilmember Wells indicated that the protest petition was a state law that Greensboro citizens should be allowed the basic right along with rest of the populous; and that the threshold percentages could be amended by the
Legislature.


Mayor Johnson commented that if Number (21) passes, ask that the State Legislature revisit the whole area of protest petition, and the percentages, and the standards, because the rezoning criteria and process has changed;
you could add that if you pass this as a request of the Legislature.

Councilmember Bellamy-Small moved that we send this forward with the Mayor’s comment added to it, leaving it for us to tweak the percentages and the number of votes whatever, but giving us some flexibility; so you reinstate it but give us still the opportunity to work with folks who put it to make it fit for Greensboro. Attorney Wood proceeded to summarize Council’s intentions. Councilmember Barber interjected with an option to ask the Legislature to allow Greensboro to establish a local ordinance. Councilmember Wells made a motion to send it, Number (21), so that it be repealed so that the citizens
would have their right. Councilmember Barber’s friendly amendment that supplemental language subsequent to the protest petition being reinstated that we take your (TREBIC, Neighborhood Congress, League of Women Voters)
collective proposal on percentages and detail to the Legislature, as well. Attorney Wood clarified that if Council voted tonight to include this in the Legislative Agenda Packet, it would go to Raleigh then we could send a related
bill within the timeframe for local bills to the Legislative Study Commission to be considered. Councilmember Barber summarized that the expectation is that you mail it by February 3rd, and that the protest petition goes and the
recommendation goes at the same time. Mayor Johnson added that a local bill to be structured and be consistent to their agreement. Councilmember Wells accepted the friendly amendment and moved Number (21) remain on the
Legislative Agenda. Councilmember Bellamy-Small seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll-call vote: Ayes: Barber, Bellamy-Small, Groat, Johnson, Matheny, Perkins, Rakestraw, Wells and Wade.
Noes: None.

Protest Petition: Company Politics in Greensboro

Protest petition: Company politics in Greensboro

Jordan Green has a new report on Protest Petitions and the history of what happened. To see the whole article you can click on the title of this post or click on the title under the Yes!Weekly logo.

Below is a few of the paragraphs that caught my attention and would like to address a dig from former Greensboro attorney Jesse " Skip" Warren.

The mysterious disappearance of the protest petition from Greensboro’s legal code in 1971 transpired without political record.

Then-City Attorney Jesse “Skip” Warren drew up the city’s legislative agenda in 1970, and took responsibility for the action in a Jan. 21 memo to the current council.

“As former city attorney with the city of Greensboro for approximately forty one years, I have always felt that NCGS 160A-385 et seq (Protest Petition Law) is arbitrary, capricious, impulsive, whimsical and unfair and should either be repealed, or else leave the city of Greensboro out from under it,” he wrote. “I own no property here except for my residence and have no business relationship with any developer or real estate firm. In other words, I have no conflict of interest.”

More than three decades later, the political dynamic has shifted decisively. In the space of one year, a lone activist from High Point launched the cause of restoring the protest petition in Greensboro, and enlisted the support of the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress and the League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad, who in turn compelled the city council to request restoration of the provision. Guilford County’s legislative delegation has pledged swift passage of the legislation, ignoring vocal objections from the politically powerful real estate and development industry.

Warren concluded his memo with a curt swipe at protest petition activist Keith Brown. “It is also noted that the leader of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad has his residence in High Point,” he wrote.

As you can see what from the former Greensboro city attorney Skip Warren he thinks that state law is arbitrary. Let's take a look at the definition of arbitrary

arbitrary defined "1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law

To me NCGS 160a385 and 386 is fixed by state law, wow thanks for screwing the citizens of Greensboro for over 37 years because you thought this statute was arbitrary but as we have seen and read it seems that there was a concerted effort to take this right away from the citizens and people like you who took this away from the citizens of Greensboro without any public knowledge and what the article states as informal meetings are called backdoor politics at it's best.

To hear Jesse Warren 41 year city attorney for Greensboro call out the motives of Keith Brown is laughable and has no place in the discussion but if he wants to add to the people who have called out my motives from me being from High Point go right ahead because you have some great company in Robbie "Pave It " Perkins to talk to about my motives, CLICKHERE to see what Robbie"Pave It " Perkins had to say about Keith Brown the non vested interest in High Point.Also found out that Greensboro City Council member Trudy Wade wanted to also know my motives as well.

Let me say that this whole time the motives for me was for the Citizens of Greensboro to have the same rights as any other citizen had in this state and it was a total injustice that Greensboro was exempted from this state law.

It is great to get the attention and to have people call out my motives on this issue but to hear people call me up and ask about their zoning case and to give them advice about their options, it will be great to let the people call me in High Point and ask how did you use Protest Petition in the zoning process against a TREBIC member and a major developer in the triad area.

It will be my community service to let people in Greensboro know about Protest Petition how it works and what you can do as a community to combat some of this unwanted development in your established neighborhood .It will also be a great day when we know that a bill has been signed in to law as well.

In conclusion it was a pleasure to be a part of this movement to bring Protest Petitions back to Greensboro and to know that you as a citizen have the same rights as me who lives in High Point your red headed step child municipality next door.

Greensboro Neighborhood Congress Now On Board , No Compromise Needed State Law Is State Law

Below the fold is the letter from the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress on their commitment to reinstating Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro, with no compromise needed since a bill has already been filed . If you want to follow the bill click on the School House Rock Bill in top left corner of blog.

We have also heard from State Representative Pricey Harrison today and here is what she had to say "Now that our committee assignments have been made, I am going to push for an early hearing on the bill for which I am a primary sponsor on restoring the protest petition to the citizens of Greensboro,
House Bill 64*. It is great news to hear and see everyone come together to bring back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.

UPDATE 2-14-09
State Senator Don Vaughan had this to say in a online newsletter

"On the local level, I was very pleased to co-sponsor Senator Katie Dorsett’s Senate Bill number 67 titled Greensboro/Restore Zoning Protest Rights. Senator Dorsett had prepared this Bill during the previous legislative session, but due to outstanding issues it was not introduced until this session. The bill simply repeals state law 1971-29 excluding Greensboro from the Zoning Protest Rights provision and that “this act will become effective when it becomes law.” I look forward to a swift passage."

Hopefully TREBIC can see the writing on the wall and back off the opposition to this bill and accept what every other city in this state abides by in North Carolina General Statute 160a-385 and 386.State law is state law, 5% and all.

Below is the letter sent out from Greensboro Neighborhood Congress.


________________________________________________________


"The Greensboro Neighborhood Congress ultimately voted and unanimously decided upon the following with regard to the Protest Petition:

That Greensboro have the Protest Petition as it currently exists in state statute;


That, at this time, the state statute not be amended by a local modification only for Greensboro; and


That we, along with TREBIC, follow the work of the N.C. State Legislative Study Commission on Urban Growth and Infrastructure Issues study on this issue; and

That the Congress continue its dialogue with The Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition on this issue.

In deference to the request of the Greensboro City Council, members of the Congress and TREBIC and others have spent a great deal of time discussing and thinking about this state law. The following factors ultimately guided the Congress vote:

The boundaries of the Congress are the City limits. Given that the City has had no experience with this state law, the Congress does not think we should recommend changes to it just for the City.

One consideration was to recommend a change for the state, but the Congress ultimately decided that was beyond our purview. Again, without any experience with the law in the City and the fact that it does not appear to have presented a problem to any of the other cities in the state, the Congress decided it is not in a position to make a statewide recommendation.

Also given the experience statewide, the Congress believes that the degree of opposition to the Protest Petition is unfounded.

The bill has already been introduced in the State House and Senate and our understanding is that only one of our state legislators has any interest in receiving a suggestion for change from Greensboro.

We are hopeful that TREBIC will be willing to continue with us in watching how this law plays out in Greensboro so that if we see that it does indeed present real problems to the community, we can come together with a recommended solution."

NC Bills Would Restore Greensboro Protest Petition

The Greensboro Telegram has a new article online with the title "NC Bills Would Restore Greensboro Protest Petition", click on the title above or CLICKHERE

Here is a paragraph from the article.

"New bills have been introduced in both the NC House and Senate to restore the right for adjacent landowners to use protest petitions in zoning cases in the City of Greensboro. The bills appear to fully restore those rights, as opposed to compromise efforts mentioned earlier that some feared would water down the petition's effectiveness.

In the North Carolina House, bill #H64 was filed on February 4th by Representatives Pricey Harrison (D), Maggie Jeffus (D), Alma Adams (D), and Laura Wiley (R). The bill was also co-sponsored by John Blust (R)."

This bill is now in the hands of our State Legislators we hope that it will make it's way through the process smoothly. We will see and if you want to see it's progression there is a section in the top left corner of blog that will take you to the state web site on bills. All you need to do is click on the School House Rock Bill and if you want to see this great video CLICKHERE to see the School House Rock Bill

Protest Petition is Coming to Greensboro

It was a loooooooonnnnnnnnngggggggg night but wanted to let everyone know that PROTEST PETITIONS FOR GREENSBORO will need to be changed to PROTEST PETITIONS IN GREENSBORO. Will report more tomorrow but a little hint in that Greensboro City Council Goldie Wells was spot on with every point she had on Protest PEtitions tonight to the point where the crowd was cheering everytime she spoke about Protest Petitions for the citizens of Greensboro. The Greensboro City Council passed it with a 9-0 vote but had a lot of compromises which will be reported later.

Willie Taylor Wants Everyone in Greensboro To Know Your Rights Were Taken Away

The Greensboro News and Record has a Letter to the Editor titled "Greensboro Residents Deserve Petition Rights", CLICKHERE or click on the title above.

This letter was written by Willie Taylor who is a member of our Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad and is also a member of the League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad. Willie Taylor also this past week went to the press conference by some members of the Greensboro City Council here is that post, CLICKHERE

Please Join Us and Please Read this Post for a Brief History of Protest Petitions in North Carolina

Please join the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, the League of Women Voters and the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad at the City Council on Wednesday, January 21 to support the reinstatement of the right of Protest Petition to the citizens of Greensboro. Why is Greensboro the only major city in the state without the right of Protest Petition? The answer is because the Council in 1971, without any public discourse, voted to ask the state to take that right from our citizens.

Below is detailed information about Protest Petitions written by Professor David Owens of the UNC School of Government in Chapel Hill. Professor Owens gave a wonderful and informative presentation on January 13 at a gathering sponsored by the League of Women Voters. We are grateful to Willie Taylor of the League of Women Voters for bringing Professor Owens to Greensboro.

Protest Petitions

David Owens
School of Government
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


1. Legal Issues

Background

While landowners and neighbors are significantly affected by zoning, the choice to change zoning regulations is a discretionary policy choice of elected officials. Neither landowners nor neighbors can be given a veto over proposed zoning changes.
Yet from the outset of local land use regulation, its proponents have concluded that those most directly affected by zoning need a degree of protection from unwanted changes in the land use policies that have relied upon. The protest petition was included in the nation’s first comprehensive zoning ordinance, New York’s 1916 ordinance. The legal architect of the New York ordinance noted that the provision for a protest petition was “a device for the protection of the property owner” and that its purpose was “to prevent easy or careless changes in the zoning regulations. . . . The 20 percent protest will often prevent impulsive or improper map changes.”
This same provision for a protest petition was included in North Carolina’s 1923 zoning enabling act to provide a degree of certainty and stability of zoning while allowing the governing body sufficient flexibility to amend the ordinance to reflect changing needs and circumstances.

Statute

The provision in North Carolina zoning law -- G.S. 160A-385(a) -- for a protest petition is mandatory for cities. The protest petition is available whether or not it is mentioned in an individual zoning ordinance. There is no statutory authorization for the protest petition in the county zoning enabling legislation so counties do not have the authority to use the protest petition. The exception to this general rule is where the General Assembly has modified the generally applicable law as it applies to a particular city or county. For example, local legislation adopted in 1971 removed the protest petition for Greensboro, while local legislation adopted in 2003 extended the protest petition to Durham County.
The protest petition only applies to zoning map amendments. It arises either when neighbors object to the rezoning of a parcel or when the owner objects to a rezoning proposed by the government or the neighbors.

Applicability

If a sufficient number of those most immediately affected by a zoning change object to a proposed zoning map 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.

It does not apply to the initial zoning of an area being added to the territorial coverage of an ordinance, whether by annexation or by an extraterritorial ordinance. Amendments to special or conditional use districts and conditional zoning districts are also exempt from the protest petition, provided that the type of use is not changed, the density of residential use allowed is not increased, the size of nonresidential development is not increased, and any buffers or screening is not reduced. Amendments to individual conditional or special use permits are quasi-judicial rather than legislative zoning decisions and therefore are not affected by a protest petition.

Supermajority vote computation

When a valid protest petition has been filed, G.S. 160A-385(a) provides that adoption of the proposed amendment requires the favorable vote of three-fourths of “all the members of the city council.” A member who is absent is counted as a member of the board for this computation. When a city council member is present but does not vote (without being excused from voting by the board), the member is counted as having cast an affirmative vote. G.S. 160A-385(a)(1) provides that for purposes of the protest petition, vacant positions on the board and members who are excused from voting are not to be considered as “members of the board” in computing the requisite supermajority.

Qualifying area

The qualifying areas for a protest petition include either the property being rezoned itself or some portion of the 100-foot-wide strip immediately adjacent to or across the street from it. A qualifying area is just that—an area, not 20 percent of the frontage of the area being rezoned nor five percent of the landowners in the qualifying area. Because a property’s adjacent status triggers the protest eligibility, courts in other states have held that the qualifying area need not be within the zoning jurisdiction of the local government making the zoning amendment. G.S. 160A-385(a)(2) provides that the 100-foot buffer qualifying area is measured from the property line of any parcel subject to a proposed rezoning.
This statute provides that the petition must be signed by the owners of either:
(i) twenty percent or more of the area included in the proposed change, or
(ii) five percent of a 100-foot-wide buffer extending along the entire boundary of each discrete or separate area proposed to be rezoned.
A street right-of-way is not considered in computing the 100-foot buffer area as long as that street right-of-way is 100 feet wide or less. This is illustrated in the chart below.

Procedures

G.S. 160A-386 establishes several procedural requirements for protest petitions. The petition must be written. It must be signed by property owners. The petition must specifically state that it protests the proposed zoning change. The petition must be presented to the city clerk two working days (excluding weekends and holidays) before the day of the hearing to allow the clerk time to determine its sufficiency and accuracy. Cities may require that the petition be on a form provided by the city and that it contain “any reasonable information” necessary to allow the city to verify the petition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the city may rely on the county tax listing to determine the ownership of qualifying areas.
A person may withdraw his or her name from the petition at any time prior to the vote on the proposed zoning amendment. Only those rezonings that have a sufficient number of qualifying protests at the time of the vote trigger the three-fourths vote requirement.

2. Experience with Use.

Even though the protest petition has a long history in zoning, it is not frequently a factor in North Carolina rezonings. Overall, two-thirds of the responding cities in a 2006 SOG survey reported no protest petitions had been filed in the previous year. However, there are distinct differences in the responses based on the population of the reporting jurisdiction. Only 12 percent of the cities with populations under 10,000 reported receiving any protest peti­tions in the previous year. By contrast 50 percent of the cities with populations between 10,000 and 25,000 received a pro­test petition and 71 percent of the cities with populations over 25,000 received one or more protest petitions. In fact, three municipalities—Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham—accounted for nearly a third (31 percent) of all the reported valid protest petitions in the state.

Frequency filed

The overwhelming majority of rezoning petitions are not subjected to a protest petition. Responding municipalities reported a total of 134 protest petitions filed in the previous year that were determined to be adequate and thereby required a supermajority vote for adoption of the rezoning. These same municipalities reported consideration of 2,167 rezoning petitions in the previous year. Thus only 6% of the municipal rezoning petitions had a sufficient protest so as to subject the proposed rezoning to the supermajority vote requirement.

Effect on decisions

Even when a valid protest petition is filed, it rarely has a direct effect on the outcome of the proposed rezoning. Only four of the 2,167 rezoning petitions considered in the past year had a different outcome as a direct result of a protest petition. Survey respondents reported the final outcomes of 88 of the 134 rezoning petitions that had triggered valid protest petitions. Of these 88 rezonings, 43% did not receive a simple majority vote in favor of the rezoning and thus would have failed even if no protest petition had been filed. 52% were adopted by a governing board majority of three-fourths or more, thus passing despite the protest petition. Only 5% -- four cases -- of the rezonings subject to a valid protest petition received a majority favorable vote but less than a three-fourths majority, thus failing to be adopted as a direct result of the protest petition.

A valid protest petition can, however, affect the zoning process in an indirect but significant manner. The approval rate for projects subject to a protest petition was reported to be 52 percent, compared to a 76 percent approval rate for rezoning petitions overall. This lower approval rate indicates that the depth of opposition reflected by a protest petition frequently convinces a majority of the city council to oppose a rezoning. In addition, an actual or threatened protest petition may encourage the landowner, the neighbors, and the city to negotiate prior to a vote on the rezoning, which can in turn lead to project revisions. So the informal impacts of a protest petition are typically more substantial than its formal impact.

David W. Owens Gladys H. Coates Professor of Public Law and Government School of Government CB 3330, Knapp-Sanders Building University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3330 919-966-4208 (voice) 919-962-0654 (fax) owens@sog.unc.edu

Barber Hints at Passage,Wade Won't Say, and Matheny Stands There Like a Lump On A Log

Three Greensboro City Council members held a news conference today to talk about a myriad of issues involving the City of Greensboro. In attendance were Mike Barber, Trudy Wade and Zack Matheny.

CLICKHERE to see the video or click on the title above

Item #9 was about Protest Petitions in Greensboro

Here is what Mike Barber had to say at the 12:46 mark on video

"We believe that the Protest Petitions will likely be included in our legislative agenda on Wednesday night. Based on our conversation with other council members the 5% threshold seems a bit low that the state is currently operating under. But that alone will not likely keep this council from sending it up with the other items to consider."

This is great to hear from Greensboro City Council member Mike Barber on this issue to the citizens of Greensboro. Then around the 32:10 mark of video, Greensboro citizen Willie Taylor spoke about the public trust, and how the community becomes disenfranchised with the council on zoning issues in their neighborhood. Willie Taylor believes that bringing back Protest Petitions will make a better place for the neighborhoods and the developers, and land owners. After hearing David Owens and his speech earlier in the week she can see Greensboro as being a better place with Protest Petitions.

Then on video Amanda Lehmert asked Mike Barber where he stood on the issue . He then passed it over to Trudy Wade.

Trudy Wade then said this,"we want to have the same rights as others. She then said that she is not going to take a right away from Greensboro that Charlotte has." But Trudy Wade won't commit till the citizens have been heard on Wednesday. To hear her say that she is not going to take away a right Charlotte citizens have . We know that every city in this state abides by Protest Petitions , so in conclusion it would mean to anyone who saw the video that she is for reinstatement of Protest Petitions, we will see.

One aspect everyone is soooooooooooooooooooooooo hung up on is the 5% rule. Let get a few facts straight on this issue . Back in 2005 the North Carolina legislators changed the way Protest Petitions were calculated because some properties were not squared properties so to get a 20% of a side of property wasn't a good part of the law. So the legislators came up with a formula that since 20% of corner makes for 5% of one side they said that 5% will be the new law or you can call David Owens from the Institute of Government he explained it to us very eloquently.. The city of Greensboro can get hung up on the 5% fine then lobby the whole state to change the % rule but don't hold the citizens from having Protest Petitions when every other city in this state abides by this 5% rule in Protest Petitions.I don't see Mayor Smothers from High Point or Pat McCrory from Charlotte have a platform for getting rid of Protest Petitions. It makes for better neighborhoods and better development.

There was another Greensboro City Council member Zack Matheny in attendance who was there and had this to say about Protest Petitions for Greensboro, "absolutely nothing".

Our coalition cannot stress the importance of everyone all over this triad area of North Carolina to say to the Greensboro City Council to
"Bring Back Protest Petitions to Greensboro"

all you need to do is on the left hand side of blog is a link to the City of Greensboro e-mail center.

A Little Urbanity: Still More About Protest Petitions Thanks Again David Wharton Part Deux

A Little Urbanity: Still More About Protest Petitions

David Wharton has a new article over at his blog called A Little Urbanity CLICKHERE in regards to bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.

On January 13, 2009 the League of Women Voters of the Triad held a luncheon with the speaker being David Owens from the UNC School of Government his picture is above from the luncheon.

David Owens spoke for about an hour on the subject of Protest Petitions in North Carolina. Thanks to David Wharton on his blog because there are scanned documents that are a must read on Protest Petitions provided by David Owens.

It was great to see Greensboro City Council member Goldie Wells in attendence at the luncheon. But an invitation was given to all the Greensboro City Council members to listen to an expert in the field on zoning laws in North Carolina especially in regards to Protest Petition .Since the whole Greensboro City Council members didn't show up for the luncheon except for Goldie Wells it is in their best interest to read the documents over at A Little Urbanity click on the title above.

It is great to get more post on this issue and to see what David Wharton has to say is correct.

There was one person in attendence who I had the opportunity to talk to after the meeting and it happen to be former Greensboro Mayor Carolyn Allen , here his her bio "Mayor Allen, whose public service extends back over more than 30 years, will mark 10 years of service on the Greensboro City Council in December of 1999 having first been elected as an at-large member and Mayor Pro Tem in 1989 and again in 1991. In 1993, she was elected Mayor of Greensboro, the first woman to hold this office. She was subsequently re-elected twice (in 1995 and 1997)." (source Greensboro press release from 1999). While talking with Carolyn Allen after the luncheon the question was asked are you for bringing back Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro. The ex mayor said YES and I said can I quote you on that and she said YES. It is great to hear a ex city council member and ex mayor come out in support of Protest Petitions for the citizens of Greensboro let's see on Janiary 21, 2009 where the current members stand.

The time is now to let your Greensboro City Council Members know how you feel

about bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro. All you need to say is

BRING BACK PROTEST PETITIONS TO GREENSBORO

Here are some ways to get in touch with Greensboro City Council members

1. A presonal visit (this is perhaps the most effective way)

2. E-mail the Greensboro City Council members ( to the left hand side of blog is a link to do just that or below is their e-mail)

3. Call them using phone numbers provided(taken from city web page)

4. Write them at: p.o. box 3136, Greensboro N.C. 27402-3136

5. send fax (fax numbers were taken from city web page)

Council Members

YVONNE J. JOHNSON (Mayor)
P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 274023136.............................373-2396
(home) 375-5173
(City business) 253-7012
FAX...................................574-4003

EMAIL: yvonne.johnson@greensboro-nc.gov

SANDRA ANDERSON GROAT (Mayor Pro Tem) (At Large)
412 Arlington Street, Greensboro, NC 27406 (business).......................................................... 273-9066
(home)........................................................................... 282-9047
FAX...................................273-5451

EMAIL: sandra.anderson@greensboro-nc.gov

ROBBIE PERKINS (At Large)
1612 St. Andrews Rd., Greensboro, NC 27408
1001 W. Friendly Ave., Suite 601, Greensboro, NC 27401 (business)..................................... 358-3219
FAX...................................373-0260

EMAIL: robbie.perkins@greensboro-nc.gov

Mary C. RAKESTRAW (At Large)
P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
101 East Avondale Drive, Greensboro, NC 27403
(home).....................................852-8639
(voice mail)............................373-2987
FAX...................................574-4003

EMAIL: mary.rakestraw@greensboro-nc.gov

T. DIANNE BELLAMY-SMALL (District 1)
P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
3211 Delmonte Drive, Greensboro, NC 27406
(voice mail)................................ 373-2286
FAX...................................574-4003

EMAIL: bellamy.small@greensboro-nc.gov

GOLDIE WELLS (District 2)
4203 Belfield Drive, Greensboro, NC 27405-6309 (home)....................................................... 621-0634
Voice Mailbox................................................. 373-2391
FAX...................................375-1675

EMAIL: goldie.wells@greensboro-nc.gov

ZACK MATHENY (District 3)
P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1000, Greensboro, NC 27401 (business).....................................232-1900
(voice mail).......................................

373-4638
FAX...................................574-4003

EMAIL: zack.matheny@greensboro-nc.gov

MIKE BARBER (District 4)
807 Greenwood Drive, Greensboro, NC 27410 (home)............................................................ 852-0195
1101 W. Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27403 (business)....................................................... 273-4884
FAX....................................273-4874

EMAIL: mike.barber@greensboro-nc.gov

TRUDY WADE(District 5)
P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
1 Creswell Court, Greensboro, NC 27407 (home).................................................................... 323-6480
703 W. Main St., Jamestown, NC (business)............................................................................. 454-3171
(voice mail)........................................................................ 373-3688
FAX....................................454-2865

EMAIL: trudy.wade@greensboro-nc.gov

A Little Urbanity: More on Protest Petitions, Reversal of Fortune Thanks David Wharton

A Little Urbanity: More on Protest Petitions


David Wharton who runs a blog called A Little Urbanity CLICKHERE , has a great post on restoring Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro.You can click on the title above to go to his site.


Here is a quote from David Wharton"Over the past year I've changed my mind on this issue. I used to think -- as the real estate industry does -- that the petition puts too much power in the hands of too few people."Then he talks about how fair it isn't and gives some great examples to ponder about a special interest group called TREBIC. It is great to hear David Wharton change his mind on the issue to bring back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.

Over a edcone's site CLICKHERE here is what ed had to say about David Wharton and his post.

"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."

With the help of the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress,League of Women Voters of the Triad, Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad, residents from all over the Triad including High Point and support from those in the blogosphere who got this ball rolling on this issue close to over a year ago. It is time to speak up and be heard. January 21, 2009 is the start of this process but everyone needs to remember that this is a State of North Carolina issue and need to let your state representatives know how you feel that this isn't fair to the citizens of Greensboro that they don't have the right to a Protest Petition in the zoning process to have against unwanted development in established neighborhoods.

PEOPLE POWER by YES! WEEKLY on PROTEST PETITIONS

Jordan Green from Yes! Weekly has a new article called "People Power" CLICKHERE or click on the title above, which talks about the upcoming meeting at the Greensboro City Council in regards to giving the right to a Protest Petition in zoning cases back to the citizens of Greensboro. Remember that every city in this state abides by Protest Petition but not Greensboro . It is not fair to Greensboro residents in this regards but to hear Greensboro City Council member say this in the article

" Echoing TREBIC’s argument, at-large Councilman Robbie Perkins predicted the protest petition will fail to gain the council’s support.

After looking at what’s on the books at the state, if I were voting on that particular piece of legislation today, I couldn’t support it,” said Perkins, who is president of NAI Piedmont Triad, which advertises itself as the largest full-service, privately owned real estate services firm in the Triad. The company holds a “silver” membership in TREBIC. "

Then Marlene Sanford from the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition had this to say, "President Marlene Sanford, whose organization provides government advocacy to Guilford County trade associations and businesses, said members feel “very strongly” about preventing the restoration of the protest petition. “It’s an antiquated policy and it needs to be done away with statewide,”

As you can see the special interest group want to deny you the citizen of Greensboro the right to a Protest Petition but keep in mind that if you were in any city all over this great state then if you had a zoning case in front of a City Council and wanted to use the Protest Petition you could do that. Just on principal this is a total injustice to you as a Greensboro citizen.

In this article Robbie Perkins had this to say"It’s an antiquated statute that’s been out of date for some time, so we shouldn’t jump on the bandwagon just because everyone else has.” This is not jumping on the bandwagon this bandwagon has been available to citizens of this state for a very long time , here is what is antiquated the exemption of Greensboro from this statute.

But let's look at the other side of coin and in the article Donna Newton from the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress is quoted as saying this, "Our position is that this is a right and recourse that has been taken from the residents of Greensboro,” said Donna Newton, advisor to the congress, “while the whole rest of the state continues to have the right. And we want it reinstated.”

Also in the article and we have a post here on the upcoming meeting, "The protest petition has also received formal support from the 112-member League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad". The League of Women Voters has been on board this issue since the beginning and would like you to come and hear David Owens from the UNC School of Government speak next week on Protest Petitions, CLICKHERE for details.


The best part of the article is to hear this"Should the council vote down the protest petition, the NC General Assembly can still pass legislation to restore it without a formal request from council. NC Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Guilford County Democrat, has promised to introduce such legislation when the General Assembly reconvenes later this month. " All along this has been a state issue from the beginning to help and remedy a total injustice to the citizens of Greensboro.

Read the article or pick it up at a newstand in the Triad.

The time is now to write your Greensboro City Council members and let them know you want Protest Petitions Back in Greensboro.All you need to do is go to the left hand side of this blog and click on Greensboro City Council e-mail center. While you are at please e-mail the State representatives from Guilford County on bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.

Greensboro Neighborhood Congress is 100% Behind Restoring Protest Petition's to Greensboro

The Greensboro Neighborhood Congress is a organization comprised of neighborhood organizations representing neighborhoods all over the City of Greensboro. The Greensboro Neighborhood Congress is made up of well over 46 member neighborhood organizations that include well over 16,000 households.These neighborhoods are located throughout Greensboro's five voting districts making the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress one of the most socio-economically and racially diverse organizations in Greensboro.
source(letter to the Department of Justice on March 12, 2008)

What is the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress?

Mission Statment:

The Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, a city-wide alliance of neighborhoods, seeks to improve the quality of life within the City of Greensboro by addressing issues of city-wide importance and by empowering neighborhoods to resolve neighborhood-specific concerns.
_______________________________________________________

The Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad would like to thank the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress for their support on this issue and below is what Donna Newton from the Neighborhood Congress sent out to all the members.

As most of you know, the Greeensboro Neighborhood Congress voted to support the reinstatement of the right of Protest Petition to the citizens of Greensboro. At this time, Greensboro is the only City in the state that does not have this right.

The League of Women Voters also supports the Protest Petition and is sponsoring a presentation by an expert on the subject as described in the flier below.

Please register and join me on January 13 to hear this presentation.

The City Council will hear comments regarding the petition at their meeting on January 21 and then vote on whether to support the protest petition in their legislative agenda. The Congress will be represented at the January 21 meeting to present in favor of reinstituting the Protest Petition. Please join us then as well. We will need a strong showing at that meeting.

Lunch with the League
League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad
Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 12:00 noon
Holy Trinity Episcopal Church, Haywood Duke Meeting Room
605 N. Greene St. near downtown Greensboro

“The Protest Petition”

Speaker: Dr. David Owens, Gladys H. Coates Professor,
Public Law and Government
School of Government, UNC-CH

Dr. David Owens, an expert on land use topics, the scope of local government authority, planning legislation and urban growth management, has been a member of the Institute of Government since 1989. Prior to that, he was an attorney and senior planner for the Planning Office. He received a graduate planning degree and law degree from UNC-CH.

About the Protest Petition:
This is a North Carolina general statute (160A-385(a) that gives residents of a neighborhood an opportunity to protest rezoning and land use requests. All major NC cities except Greensboro have the protest petition.

References: Greensboro News & Record editorials, March 2 2008: “The right to protest,” and May 14 1008: “Get on board protest petitions.”
Yes Weekly Jordan Green analysis, February 12 2008: “A rezoning chronicle: “How Greensboro lost the protest petition;” Editorial June 30 2008: “TREBIC vs. Protest Petition.”

The January 13, 2009 program is free. Everyone is invited. Reservations are necessary if you’d like to have lunch at a cost of $8.00 per person. Make reservations by Friday, January 9 and please arrive at noon on the 13th if you plan to have lunch. Reservations: tkwhitacre@triad.rr.com or call Trudy Whitacre at 336-643-2131.

Don’t miss this vital opportunity for greater understanding of the need for transparency and citizen participation in decision-making!