Showing posts with label coalition of concerned citizens of the triad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coalition of concerned citizens of the triad. Show all posts
Feb 2, 2010
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
Mar 30, 2009
Protest Petition Party Thursday 7:15 at Natty Greene's Second Floor
The Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad want to invite anyone who had any part in bringing back Protest Petitions to the Citizens of Greensboro to a informal gathering. Above you will see that we are going to get together at Natty Greene's in downtown Greensboro at 7:15 pm on second floor.
It will be great to see everyone who was a part of this process and also to send out a invitation to all in the local blogging community because I think having this blog on Protest Petitions for Greensboro really made a great difference in the process. Come to Natty Greene's and enjoy the night.
Mar 13, 2009
Greensboro Peer Pressure has a post Titled "Loop Holes in Protest Petition"
Local Blogger Diane Davis and her blog called "Greensboropeerpressure" CLICKHERE or click on the title above. Has a new post with a title called "Loop Holes in Protest Petition". She has some great questions like she did on the greenway. It will be great to see some of these neighborhoods all over Greensboro use Protest Petition in the zoning process and hopefully these loop holes can be rctified like for example it might be time to lobby the whole County of Guilford to add Protest Petitions to the county zoning process. Hey another issue our coalition can try to get passed. Nothing like a new challenge but first it might be time to get some politicians who aren't so close to the TREBIC CARTEL if you know what I mean come fall.
Mar 11, 2009
Protest Petition Passing of Bill Informal Gathering at Natty Greene's
Dear Friends,
It is with great pleasure that we would like to have an informal gathering of friends and others who have been a part of passing a bill to restore Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro.
This effort has been going on for well over a year and now that the bill is passed, we thought it might be a great idea to have a informal gathering of people to celebrate and thank everyone who was involved.
We plan on meeting on the second floor of Natty Greene's which is located in downtown Greensboro at 345 S. Elm Street on April 2, 2009 at 7:15 pm.
Thanks to everyone who was involved and would like to see you there .
Keith T. Brown
It is with great pleasure that we would like to have an informal gathering of friends and others who have been a part of passing a bill to restore Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro.
This effort has been going on for well over a year and now that the bill is passed, we thought it might be a great idea to have a informal gathering of people to celebrate and thank everyone who was involved.
We plan on meeting on the second floor of Natty Greene's which is located in downtown Greensboro at 345 S. Elm Street on April 2, 2009 at 7:15 pm.
Thanks to everyone who was involved and would like to see you there .
Keith T. Brown
Coalition of Concerned Citizens of The Triad
Feb 18, 2009
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.
Feb 11, 2009
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
Feb 4, 2009
No Compromise Needed Bill To Restore Protest Petition Has Been Filed
It is with great pleasure and a HAT TIP to Ed Cone that tonight we learn that there is a bill which can be seen by clicking on the title above to see that our Guilford Delegation is in the process of restoring Protest Petitions to Greensboro.In the N.C House it was sponsored by Harrison, Jeffus, Adams and Wiley with a co sponsor in Blust House Bill #64 filed on 2-4-2009.
Then on the Senate side we have Dorsett and Vaughan who have senate bill #67 filed on 2-4-2009.
We will try to keep you informed on how this bill works it's way through the system but it is great to see it come to fruition.
Take a bow to everyone who has helped on this issue for the citizens of Greensboro. A lot of people wanted to know my motives on why someone from High Point is fighting for the citizens of Greensboro. This basic right under STATE LAW was taken away from you the citizens of Greensboro for no reason whatsoever purely political, and it needed to be brought to the proper attention. Now we have a bill to give the citizens of Greensboro the same rights as every other person in this state has. It will be a new day in the zoning process in Greensboro.
Then on the Senate side we have Dorsett and Vaughan who have senate bill #67 filed on 2-4-2009.
We will try to keep you informed on how this bill works it's way through the system but it is great to see it come to fruition.
Take a bow to everyone who has helped on this issue for the citizens of Greensboro. A lot of people wanted to know my motives on why someone from High Point is fighting for the citizens of Greensboro. This basic right under STATE LAW was taken away from you the citizens of Greensboro for no reason whatsoever purely political, and it needed to be brought to the proper attention. Now we have a bill to give the citizens of Greensboro the same rights as every other person in this state has. It will be a new day in the zoning process in Greensboro.
Jan 29, 2009
Blogging History of Protest Petitions For Greensboro Thanks To Ed Cone 1 Year Anniversary 2-2-2008
The history of how a lot of this started can be chronicled at edcone's blog CLICKHERE or click on the title above.In a section on right hand side of blog is the categories section where Protest Petitions is there.
Back on February 2, 2008 a lively discussion got the blogosphere on board as to why and how Greensboro was exempted from Protest Petitions.Then Ed Cone suggested you need to get a blog, sure why not.
It is coming up to close to a year since the blog has been in existence and with over 88 post since last year it is amazing how far it has come.
This blog is dedicated to all the people of Greensboro who for over 37 years have not been getting a fair shake in the zoning process with this exemption of Greensboro from Protest Petitions.
This blog will not let up until we get confirmation from our State Legislators that a bill has been signed and Greensboro abides by Protest Petitions in the zoning process.
It is hard to thank everyone personally as to their commitment on restoring Protest Petitions to Greensboro. Please note that it was a joint effort by a lot of people who made this happen.
The next step in this process is to let your state legislators know how important this is to bring this back to Greensboro.
Have a great day and thanks to the blogosphere who has been there since day 1.
Back on February 2, 2008 a lively discussion got the blogosphere on board as to why and how Greensboro was exempted from Protest Petitions.Then Ed Cone suggested you need to get a blog, sure why not.
It is coming up to close to a year since the blog has been in existence and with over 88 post since last year it is amazing how far it has come.
This blog is dedicated to all the people of Greensboro who for over 37 years have not been getting a fair shake in the zoning process with this exemption of Greensboro from Protest Petitions.
This blog will not let up until we get confirmation from our State Legislators that a bill has been signed and Greensboro abides by Protest Petitions in the zoning process.
It is hard to thank everyone personally as to their commitment on restoring Protest Petitions to Greensboro. Please note that it was a joint effort by a lot of people who made this happen.
The next step in this process is to let your state legislators know how important this is to bring this back to Greensboro.
Have a great day and thanks to the blogosphere who has been there since day 1.
Jan 27, 2009
Make A Statement Show Up at Joint Meeting Between Greensboro City Council and Guilford Delegation of State Legislators
DATE: January 27, 2009
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Mitchell Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEMS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Meeting with Guilford Delegation
On Friday, February 6 staff will hold a technical briefing with the Guilford Delegation to Raleigh to review Annexation and Jordan Lake policy, both major items of concern for the city. We will also take the opportunity to encourage the delegation to protect state-shared revenues for municipalities as they look at the budget for this year and next, share the City’s legislative agenda and economic stimulus projects. This meeting is part of our on-going legislative advocacy efforts.
________________________________________________________
This would be a great time to let your State Representatives know that you want Protest Petitions back in Greensboro as State Law mandates.
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Mitchell Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEMS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Meeting with Guilford Delegation
On Friday, February 6 staff will hold a technical briefing with the Guilford Delegation to Raleigh to review Annexation and Jordan Lake policy, both major items of concern for the city. We will also take the opportunity to encourage the delegation to protect state-shared revenues for municipalities as they look at the budget for this year and next, share the City’s legislative agenda and economic stimulus projects. This meeting is part of our on-going legislative advocacy efforts.
________________________________________________________
This would be a great time to let your State Representatives know that you want Protest Petitions back in Greensboro as State Law mandates.
Jan 25, 2009
She Made Me Post This or She Would Not Speak To Me Again
Citizens of Greensboro are fortunate to have the strong voice of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens to advocate for your interests. I commend Keith Brown for his power-house efforts to promote the long over-due Protest Petition that unfortunately has been compromised by City Council.
The undue influence of property developers and corporate interests in local government is not representative of the population at large and diminishes the public trust and threatens private property rights. Financial systems and democratic government are ultimately based on trust of the administrators, and clearly can and will collapse when administered by avaricious, unethical individuals. When this issue comes before the Guilford delegation of the NC General Assembly, I believe they will wisely support the request of "the people".
Cathy M. Poole
1607-A Squire Davis Road
Kernersville, NC 27284
Phone: 336-869-0256
cathypoole@northstate.net
The undue influence of property developers and corporate interests in local government is not representative of the population at large and diminishes the public trust and threatens private property rights. Financial systems and democratic government are ultimately based on trust of the administrators, and clearly can and will collapse when administered by avaricious, unethical individuals. When this issue comes before the Guilford delegation of the NC General Assembly, I believe they will wisely support the request of "the people".
Cathy M. Poole
1607-A Squire Davis Road
Kernersville, NC 27284
Phone: 336-869-0256
cathypoole@northstate.net
Fox 8 WGHP on Protest Petitions
Fox 8 WGHP has a segment about Protest Petitions, CLICKHERE , or click on the title above. Donna Newton said somebody mentioned using Protest Petition's well that somebody has been on board since day 1 and his name is Keith Brown.
It is time that the state legislators will see through this compromise crap and make Greensboro comply with the law.
It is time that the state legislators will see through this compromise crap and make Greensboro comply with the law.
Jan 22, 2009
The Speech That You Didn't Hear Last Night
*MADAM Mayor, City Council Members
The North Carolina General Assembly can create new law and destroy old law. Cities like Greensboro are subject to state control which is exercised by laws enabling or directing the local units to act in the manner desired by the state.
In 1971, local elected officials passed a bill under a cloud of politics to exempt Greensboro from North Carolina General Statute,160a 385 and 386 called a “Protest Petition”. This exemption never should have been made in the first place.
But it is bad public policy when you have politicians secretly putting in these exemptions without any public input.
To hear Gary Rogers from the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC) state that Greensboro back in 1971 had the foresight to exempt themselves from this statute is condescending to the citizens of Greensboro. No, Mr. Rogers, it was not foresight. It was an effort to take away a right of the citizens of Greensboro to use the petition power against unwanted rezoning development in established neighborhoods.
Let’s get a few facts straight on the 5% rule. Back in 2005 the State Legislature made a change to the statute and every city in North Carolina except Greensboro abides by this change to the 5% rule, and as stated by David Owens from the Institute of Government the league of municipalities for over 5 straight years has tried to abolish this statute to no avail.
Please don’t deny the citizens of Greensboro this right to Protest Petitions when to change the 5% rule it will have to come at the state level. You might not like the 5% rule but if only 5% of the neighbors are against the rezoning and it be one owner than I hope you as a council will call them out on that point and vote accordingly.
What about the 30 to 40 to well over 60% of property owners who would like to use Protest Petitions in Grensboro zoning cases against these land owners or developers.You have taken their right away by not allowing them the use of Protest Petitions.
Such parties argue that if Protest Petitions are brought back to Greensboro then in-fill development will be a problem. They suggest that the exemption will aid growth, and not having the exemption will hurt growth, isn’t that countered by the fact that Raleigh & Charlotte which have Protest Petitions have grown faster than Greensboro over the time period the exemption has been in effect?
Protest Petitions level the playing field for residents, especially when pro-development members of the City Council are making rezoning decisions.
Because I live in High Point and not Greensboro my neighborhood had the right to use a Protest Petition against Blue Ridge Companies who is a gold star member of TREBIC, not once but twice in a highly contested rezoning case off of Highway 68 and Wendover Avenue. As a witness as to how Protest Petitions work in the zoning process citizens in Greensboro should also like to have this powerful tool as their voice against encroaching development, which was the case in Blue Ridge Companies and what they had planned.
It is not fair to the citizens of Greensboro that every other city in this state abides by Protest Petitions but Greensboro is exempted. This makes no sense. It is time for a bill to be passed to make the City of Greensboro be consistent with all the other municipalities all over this state. From Charlotte to Wilmington to Greenville to Raleigh to Asheville to Winston Salem to High Point.
The North Carolina General Assembly can create new law and destroy old law. Cities like Greensboro are subject to state control which is exercised by laws enabling or directing the local units to act in the manner desired by the state.
In 1971, local elected officials passed a bill under a cloud of politics to exempt Greensboro from North Carolina General Statute,160a 385 and 386 called a “Protest Petition”. This exemption never should have been made in the first place.
But it is bad public policy when you have politicians secretly putting in these exemptions without any public input.
To hear Gary Rogers from the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC) state that Greensboro back in 1971 had the foresight to exempt themselves from this statute is condescending to the citizens of Greensboro. No, Mr. Rogers, it was not foresight. It was an effort to take away a right of the citizens of Greensboro to use the petition power against unwanted rezoning development in established neighborhoods.
Let’s get a few facts straight on the 5% rule. Back in 2005 the State Legislature made a change to the statute and every city in North Carolina except Greensboro abides by this change to the 5% rule, and as stated by David Owens from the Institute of Government the league of municipalities for over 5 straight years has tried to abolish this statute to no avail.
Please don’t deny the citizens of Greensboro this right to Protest Petitions when to change the 5% rule it will have to come at the state level. You might not like the 5% rule but if only 5% of the neighbors are against the rezoning and it be one owner than I hope you as a council will call them out on that point and vote accordingly.
What about the 30 to 40 to well over 60% of property owners who would like to use Protest Petitions in Grensboro zoning cases against these land owners or developers.You have taken their right away by not allowing them the use of Protest Petitions.
Such parties argue that if Protest Petitions are brought back to Greensboro then in-fill development will be a problem. They suggest that the exemption will aid growth, and not having the exemption will hurt growth, isn’t that countered by the fact that Raleigh & Charlotte which have Protest Petitions have grown faster than Greensboro over the time period the exemption has been in effect?
Protest Petitions level the playing field for residents, especially when pro-development members of the City Council are making rezoning decisions.
Because I live in High Point and not Greensboro my neighborhood had the right to use a Protest Petition against Blue Ridge Companies who is a gold star member of TREBIC, not once but twice in a highly contested rezoning case off of Highway 68 and Wendover Avenue. As a witness as to how Protest Petitions work in the zoning process citizens in Greensboro should also like to have this powerful tool as their voice against encroaching development, which was the case in Blue Ridge Companies and what they had planned.
It is not fair to the citizens of Greensboro that every other city in this state abides by Protest Petitions but Greensboro is exempted. This makes no sense. It is time for a bill to be passed to make the City of Greensboro be consistent with all the other municipalities all over this state. From Charlotte to Wilmington to Greenville to Raleigh to Asheville to Winston Salem to High Point.
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.
Jan 19, 2009
The Big Guns Are Coming Out , Roy Carroll Speaks Out On Protest Petition
Greensboro News & Record's Amanda Lehmert has a new article in the online edition of paper titled "Council to Discuss Protest Petitions".CLICKHERE
Here are a few quotes that are gems to hear.
Roy Carroll , developer and remember Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins is his leasing agent at his Center Pointe development CLICKHERE for that report, Quote "Protest petitions can and are used to try to extort all kinds of things out of property owners. Not just developers, but property owners. It is something I have seen firsthand the negative effects of, Carroll said."
Hey Roy Carroll there are also positive effects on having the ability to use Protest Petitions just ask the neighborhood in High Point called Sutton Place.Nice to say that neighbors are extorting you.
Greensboro City Council Member Robbie Perkins had this to say"If we are going to have a protest petition law, it needs to be based on realistic parameters. I don't think 5 percent is a realistic parameter to cause a super majority vote," Perkins said.
Hey Robbie Perkins then why don't you become a state representative and change the law. This is a state statute and to deny the citizens this right is unfair.
Greensboro City Council Member Dr. Trudy Wade had this to say,"Councilwoman Trudy Wade said she would be interested in getting together a committee that can write legislation everyone can agree on."
Dr. Wade , there is no compromise on this issue it is a North Carolina General Statute 160a-385 and 386, the 5% is the law that every city in this state abides by. If you want to change the law then support Greensboro having this right then lobby the whole state but beware the League of Municipalities tried for 5 years straight to no avail as David Owens from UNC School of Government has said before.
Greensboro City Council Member Zack Matheny had this to say"We need to review our zoning process. Is it broken? Do we need to fix it? Are the neighbors winning?" Councilman Zack Matheny said. "I will tell you, in my cases, the neighbors are winning."
Zack Matheny thinks that the neighbors are winning, oh really. Please go ask the neighbors off of new garden road who had to come up in front of council to have the lawyer continue the wedding planner at the last minute then right before it goes to council he withdraws the case. If you saw how that process worked and how the neighbors who were dead set against the wedding planner if they would have even hinted at a Protest Petition then the ridiculous rezoning case would have never got off ground and the neighbors would not have had to come to council twice to be turned away with barely any notification.
You can also add Lawndale Avenue to Westridge Road to Rehobeth Church Road to Elm Street & Cornwallis to Horse Pen Creek Road to Garden Lake Drive to Guilford Hills area with Rices Toyota to Pisgah Church Road to Hill Top Road. There are plenty of cases where the neighborhoods are not getting a fair shake and to deny them this right to a Protest Petition is not right.
It seems like the TREBIC contingency will be out in full force with Roy Carroll saying that neighbors are extorting him. That will be a great argument to hear from Roy Carroll on wednesday if he speaks on this issue.
Let me leave you with a quote from Donna Newton at the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress"We should not be the only city in the state of North Carolina that doesn't have this right," said Donna Newton, liaison to the Neighborhood Congress." That is correct and we will see what happens on Wednesday.
Here are a few quotes that are gems to hear.
Roy Carroll , developer and remember Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins is his leasing agent at his Center Pointe development CLICKHERE for that report, Quote "Protest petitions can and are used to try to extort all kinds of things out of property owners. Not just developers, but property owners. It is something I have seen firsthand the negative effects of, Carroll said."
Hey Roy Carroll there are also positive effects on having the ability to use Protest Petitions just ask the neighborhood in High Point called Sutton Place.Nice to say that neighbors are extorting you.
Greensboro City Council Member Robbie Perkins had this to say"If we are going to have a protest petition law, it needs to be based on realistic parameters. I don't think 5 percent is a realistic parameter to cause a super majority vote," Perkins said.
Hey Robbie Perkins then why don't you become a state representative and change the law. This is a state statute and to deny the citizens this right is unfair.
Greensboro City Council Member Dr. Trudy Wade had this to say,"Councilwoman Trudy Wade said she would be interested in getting together a committee that can write legislation everyone can agree on."
Dr. Wade , there is no compromise on this issue it is a North Carolina General Statute 160a-385 and 386, the 5% is the law that every city in this state abides by. If you want to change the law then support Greensboro having this right then lobby the whole state but beware the League of Municipalities tried for 5 years straight to no avail as David Owens from UNC School of Government has said before.
Greensboro City Council Member Zack Matheny had this to say"We need to review our zoning process. Is it broken? Do we need to fix it? Are the neighbors winning?" Councilman Zack Matheny said. "I will tell you, in my cases, the neighbors are winning."
Zack Matheny thinks that the neighbors are winning, oh really. Please go ask the neighbors off of new garden road who had to come up in front of council to have the lawyer continue the wedding planner at the last minute then right before it goes to council he withdraws the case. If you saw how that process worked and how the neighbors who were dead set against the wedding planner if they would have even hinted at a Protest Petition then the ridiculous rezoning case would have never got off ground and the neighbors would not have had to come to council twice to be turned away with barely any notification.
You can also add Lawndale Avenue to Westridge Road to Rehobeth Church Road to Elm Street & Cornwallis to Horse Pen Creek Road to Garden Lake Drive to Guilford Hills area with Rices Toyota to Pisgah Church Road to Hill Top Road. There are plenty of cases where the neighborhoods are not getting a fair shake and to deny them this right to a Protest Petition is not right.
It seems like the TREBIC contingency will be out in full force with Roy Carroll saying that neighbors are extorting him. That will be a great argument to hear from Roy Carroll on wednesday if he speaks on this issue.
Let me leave you with a quote from Donna Newton at the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress"We should not be the only city in the state of North Carolina that doesn't have this right," said Donna Newton, liaison to the Neighborhood Congress." That is correct and we will see what happens on Wednesday.
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
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
Greensboro Zoning Petition Group To Seek NC Help from The Greensboro Telegram
This is a new online news organization called The Greensboro Telegram CLICKHERE . Randall Gregg interviewed Keith Brown for a article called
"Greensboro Zoning Petition Group To Seek NC Help",
here is a few paragraphs from the article and if you want to see the whole article CLICKHERE or click on the title above.
"The protest petition is designed to allow neighborhoods and neighboring landowners to have more input in development, said Brown.
As an example, Brown said that in High Point -- where the protest petition is still in use -- a recent rezoning for a development that included an apartment complex and restaurants near the Wendover Avenue and Highway 68 intersection was opposed by neighbors. They signed the protest petition and the developer's proposal was defeated at the High Point City Council level, as it did not get the "supermajority" needed.
According to Brown, the developer came back and worked with neighboring residents to address some of the issues they were concerned about, such as increased setbacks from neighboring properties, eliminating drive-throughs in the proposed restaurants, and reducing the ability of apartment dwellers to peer into neighbors' back yards."We hashed out a lot of problems," said Brown.
After the conditional requirements were agreed upon and placed on the development, the neighbors withdrew their protest petition and the rezoning was approved, said Brown."
As you can see from the above in the article our neighborhood in High Point called Sutton Place had a rezoning case where we had the right to use the Protest Petitions. It was a very long process but after it was said and done the developer got their apartment complex and our neighborhood got our conditions put on the property. It was a win win scenario. If this would have been in Greensboro with no rights to use Protest Petition then you would have seen a different outcome and the neighborhoods going to the table with one hand tied behind their back this being no right to use the Protest Petition.
It is not fair to the citizens of Greensboro that they don't have the right to use Protest Petition and I urge everyone to talk to your Greensboro City Council members and let them know you want the same rights as every other citizen who lives in a city has.
Jan 18, 2009
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
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
Jan 16, 2009
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.
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.
Jan 14, 2009
Greensboro City Council Members Perkins, Matheny and Barber Recuse Yourself , Yes Weekly Editorial
In this weeks Yes! Weekly editorial it talks about next week's vote of the Greensboro City Council to have this as a part of the legislative packet for the state of North Carolina on restoring Protest Petition's to Greensboro .
Here is part of the editorial and if you want to see the whole editorial CLICKHERE or click on the title above.
"But 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."
"Lawmakers May Say Yes Even If Council Says No" Post from Allen Johnson at Greensboro News and Record
Greensboro News and Record Editorial Page Editor Allen Johnson has a new post titled
"Lawmakers May Say Yes Even If Council Says No"
on his blog called "Thinking Out Loud" CLICKHERE , or click on the title above
as stated before in a post yesterday North Carolina State Representative Maggie Jeffus was in attendence at the luncheon with the professor from UNC School of Government David Owens speaking about Protest Petitions in the State of North Carolina.
Allen Johnson writes this in his post
"When asked if the county legislative delegation would move forward with a bill to re-establish the right to use protest petitions to Greensboro -- even if the council opposed it -- Jeffus said: "I think probably we will. I'm almost certain a bill will be filed."
Jeffus added: "You pick your battles and I think this is something people want."
This is great to hear from our State Representative Maggis Jeffus. You can also add State Rep. Pricey Harrison who said she will introduce a bill with or without the support of the Greensboro City Council.
Let's see where the Greensboro City Council stands on this issue are they going to be for the citizens to get this restored or are they going to be for the special interest group called TREBIC. Take your pick but as we heard yesterday Mayor Yvonne Johnson is again running for mayor of Greensboro and today Amanda Lahmert stated that Zack Matheny is also going to run again. It will be a interesting night to say the least.
The reinstatement of Protest Petitions has to come from the state delegation and if you as citizens of Greensboro want this right restored to you it is beneficial that you e-mail your state representatives which are located on the left hand side of blog.
"Lawmakers May Say Yes Even If Council Says No"
on his blog called "Thinking Out Loud" CLICKHERE , or click on the title above
as stated before in a post yesterday North Carolina State Representative Maggie Jeffus was in attendence at the luncheon with the professor from UNC School of Government David Owens speaking about Protest Petitions in the State of North Carolina.
Allen Johnson writes this in his post
"When asked if the county legislative delegation would move forward with a bill to re-establish the right to use protest petitions to Greensboro -- even if the council opposed it -- Jeffus said: "I think probably we will. I'm almost certain a bill will be filed."
Jeffus added: "You pick your battles and I think this is something people want."
This is great to hear from our State Representative Maggis Jeffus. You can also add State Rep. Pricey Harrison who said she will introduce a bill with or without the support of the Greensboro City Council.
Let's see where the Greensboro City Council stands on this issue are they going to be for the citizens to get this restored or are they going to be for the special interest group called TREBIC. Take your pick but as we heard yesterday Mayor Yvonne Johnson is again running for mayor of Greensboro and today Amanda Lahmert stated that Zack Matheny is also going to run again. It will be a interesting night to say the least.
The reinstatement of Protest Petitions has to come from the state delegation and if you as citizens of Greensboro want this right restored to you it is beneficial that you e-mail your state representatives which are located on the left hand side of blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
