Finally a Local News Station with a Report on Protest Petition WXII 12 , Where is Fox 8 and News 2

Had a blog post the other day in regards to where was our local media in reporting to the citizens in the Triad to the repeal of Protest Petition by a bunch of crony capitalist who want to reduce the bargaining power of neighborhoods in regards to rezoning cases all over this state.

Well now we have WXII Channel 12 in Bill O'Neill

who came by to interview me in regards to this issue since me and a big group of citizens in Greensboro fought very hard to get this back to the citizens of Greensboro to see them totally want to repeal the whole statute from the laws 4 years later.

Here is the video and post titled BILL WOULD ELIMINATE PROTEST PETITION

Thanks for the interview and to talk about this issue and as we speak this bill has been referred back to the rules committee in N.C Senate and hopefully it will stay there and not get out to vote on this bill before the end of session.

I can still hear birds chirping at Fox 8 and News 2 where are you?

Protest Petition Will Play a Part in Property Off of Alamance Church Road for Continued Zoning Case

UPDATE #2 this zoning case did pass the greensboro city council on 2-15-2011 with a vote of 8-1 with tdbs the no vote  even with a protest petition filed.

UPDATE

This was in the agenda for next weeks Greensboro City Council meeting.

19. Ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-5 (Conditional District-Residential Multi Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for property located at 1419 Alamance Church Road, generally described as north of Alamance Church Road and west of Zornbrook Drive. (Council District: 1) (roll call vote) (Attachment #19 (PL(Z)10-14) to Councilmembers) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 18TH, 2011 MEETING OF COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER ADVERTISING. A VALID PROTEST PETITION HAS BEEN FILED. _________________________________________________________________________________
The Greensboro News and Record on their online version which you can't link to states that this zoning case below has a valid Protest Petition filed :

22. Ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-5 (Conditional District-Residential Multi Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for property located at 1419 Alamance Church Road, generally described as north of Alamance Church Road and west of Zornbrook Drive. (Council District: 1) (roll call vote) (Attachment #22 (PL(Z) 10-14) to Councilmembers) COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 15, 2011 MEETING OF COUNCIL.


The  Carolina Peacemaker has a post after the case went in front of zoning board back in December of 2010 titled "Residents Object To rezoning on Alamance Church Road", CLICKHERE

The lawyer for the applicant is none other than Marc Isaacson the son of King Zoning Stud Henry Isaacson. As you can see right before this case was to go in front of the Greensboro City Council the lawyer looked into his playbook to continue this item till next month as usual. This continuence by our local lawyers is getting very old. It is time for the neighborhood to sit down with the applicant and get as many conditions on this property as possible or if the applicant will not budge then it is time to see how the Protest Petition works in front of council.

We will see what happens in front of Greensboro City Council but it is great to see neighborhoods all over Greensboro finally get the chance to use this state law in the zoning process. It should have never been taken away from the citizens of Greensboro but glad to see it used in plenty of zoning cases .

N.C. House Rep.Pricey Harrison Should Be Very Proud of Her Role in Restoring Protest Petition to Greensboro

Yes Weekly! with a blog post from Jordan Green talks with  N.C. House Rep. Pricey Harrison . In this candidate profile here is what she had to say about Protest Petition for Greensboro.CLICKHERE for the blog post.

"  She’s particularly proud of her role in restoring the protest petition, a mechanism by which a certain threshold of neighbors to property proposed for rezoning can force the city council to muster a supermajority for approval, to Greensboro.



“I strived hard to get our [Guilford County] delegation's support,” Harrison said. “I spoke out pretty often about it. Not everybody was on board. There was also significant resistance from the developer community.”

Rep. Pricey Harrison worked very hard to return this state law back to the citizens of Greensboro, she should be very proud of this accomplishment . It was a long hard fight to bring this back to the citizens of Greensboro and Pricey Harrison was the first state representative who wanted to learn about this travesty and do something about it and she did with this House Bill #64 CLICKHERE

Protest Petition for Greensboro Will Now Be Official on the City of Greensboro Code of Ordinances

The City of Greensboro at the June 16, 2009 meeting will officially have Protest Petitions as part of the Code of Ordinances. This is great news for the citizens of Greensboro to see this happen and we will see if any of the council members want to speak out in regards to this ordinance.Here is a link to the agenda . If you want to see the agenda CLICKHERE , then click on June 16, 2009. You can also see the council meeting tonight as well at this location.

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.

Sedalia Knows, High Point Knows and Greensboro Who Wants To Be The First

There was two post today in the Greensboro News & Record in regards to zoning cases in Sedalia and High Point North Carolina and both had a common cause, PROTEST PETITION.

POST #1
Rezoning for Sedalia Thrift Store still unresolved CLICKHERE

Here is a segment on the article

"After an hourlong public hearing on rezoning a portion of a 5.79 acre-tract to accommodate a thrift shop and the presentation of a petition signed by surrounding property owners, the Sedalia Town Council voted 3-2 in favor of the rezoning.
However, because a petition has been presented to stop the rezoning, pending its validation, the rezoning request would have to pass with a vote of 4-1. If it is found that the petition is not valid, the zoning request can pass with a simple majority."

POST # 2
High Point says no to expanding apartment complex CLICKHERE

Here is a segment of article

Residents from nearby subdivisions, made up mostly of single-family homes, twin homes and town homes, said a three-story apartment building would not fit in with the surrounding neighborhood and would decrease the value of their properties, long-term investments they defended with protest petitions, pictures of the neighborhood and testimony from residents and one property manager.

Protest Petitions were front and center on these 2 cases and it is great to see neighborhoods all over the triad area use this state law . Now it will be interesting to see how the Greensboro City Council will take to this state law. It might be tough being the first one to use it, if the council wants to make a statement with their reluctance for this law to begin with, we will see what happens in the future.

Good News Protest Petition is Now Online for the Citizens of Greensboro

Press Release from the City of Greensboro on Protest Petition for Greensboro below. Also if you want to see the form click on the title above or CLICKHERE

CITY OF GREENSBORO
Contact: Rawls Howard
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone: 373-2748



Right to Protest Petition Granted Back to Greensboro Citizens

GREENSBORO, NC -- (March 23, 2009) – The right to protest petition has been granted back to citizens of Greensboro. The North Carolina General Assembly ratified a bill on March 5 that removed Greensboro's exemption from the protest petition requirements found in North Carolina General Statute 160A-385.
Previously, the City of Greensboro had special legislation in place that exempted it from the State’s protest petition requirements. With the removal of this exemption, Greensboro City Council must now follow special voting procedures when addressing rezoning matters where a valid protest petition has been submitted. Specifically, if a valid petition has been submitted in accordance with the standards set forth under State law, any action taken by Council on a rezoning item can only pass by a super-majority vote. In the case of a full, nine-member voting Council, seven votes would be required to take action or pass an item.
State law sets out procedures that must be followed and standards that must be met in order for a protest petition to be considered valid. For more information about the requirements and procedures for submitting protest petitions, call the City's Planning Department at 373-2144. Also, learn more about the protest petition online at http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/departments/Planning/zoning/ProtestPetitions.htm.

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

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.

Lead Editorial Greensboro N&R "Filling In The Blanks" on City Council's Staged Compromise

Lead editorial in the Greensboro News and Record today Sunday January 25, 2009 with the headline "Filling In The Blanks", CLICKHERE or click on the title above.

Here is a few quotes from the lead editorial

"At least give the backers of protest petitions credit for finally budging the council on this issue. But they could have accomplished even more if they had stuck to their guns, called the council's bluff and forced a yes or no vote with no asterisks attached

The bad news is that the council's vote lacked clarity and is missing the most critical aspects of the law: exactly what it will say.

Sometimes a simple question deserves a simple answer. Either you are for the protest petition or you are against it. The council skirted making a clear-cut call and settled for indecision over leadership.
And ambiguity over clarity.

______________________________________________________

What part of state law does the Greensboro City notunderstand. I hope the Guilford delegation at the state level will see through this charade and pass a bill to make them comply with NCGS 160a385 and 386 then let the TREBIC CARTEL lobby the whole state to change the law .

This special compromise is a joke and needs to be called out. It is amazing to see that they don't like the bill and want it changed even though in the past 37 years they have never even had protest petitions and haven't even tried it in the zoning process. How can you as a council make the decision that the threshold is too low when you have never even done it in over 37 years.

Amazing and to think that Donna Newton and Marlene Sanford are experts in zoning laws and processes to come up with their so called compromise. The whole thing sounds fishy and am sure they want to delay the whole process before it goes to the state level.

It is my opinion that the Greensboro City Council muddied the waters with this so called compromise so that they want they state legislators to delay this bill to make Greensboro comply with STATE LAW. If they can delay this bill long enough then it will never makes it's way through the process and look who doesn't have Protest Petitions in Greensboro because it was sent in too late, you the citizens of Greensboro

The Greensboro City Council can now say that they are for restoring protest petitions to Greensboro but let's see how the state level reacts to this last minute compromise. It would have been political suicide to deny this right to the citizens but they were appeasing the TREBIC CARTEL with this so called compromise .

If you want your voice heard you can e-mail your state representatives and let them know you want what every other citizen who lives in a municipality has , which is North Carolina General Statute 160a-385 and 386, no delay . Below are the new e-mails for the Guilford delegation at the state level .

GUILFORD DELEGATION E-Mail Addresses
House
Alma Adams House District 58 Alma.Adams@ncleg.net
John Blust House District 62 John.Blust@ncleg.net
Pricey Harrison House District 57 Pricey.Harrison@ncleg.net
Maggie Jeffus House District 59 Maggie.Jeffus@ncleg.net
Earl Jones House District 60 Earl.Jones@ncleg.net
Laura Wiley House District 61 Laura.Wiley@ncleg.net

Senate

Phil Berger District 26 philbe@ncleg.net
Stan Bingham District 33 stanb@ncleg.net
Katie Dorsett District 28 Katied@ncleg.net
Don Vaughan District 27 Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net

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.

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.

Triad Real Estate and Building Indusrty Coalition Talking Points Memo Exposed

Below the fold is a talking points memo that came out from the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition(TREBIC). Let's go back in history to around May of 2008 where this special interest group flooded the e-mail boxes of the Guilford Delegation in the State House with this memo and you can also see the annotated version as well.

The title of the post was "TREBIC propaganda letter to the State Legislators with comments."

CLICKHERE to see the post or click on the title above.

This newer version of TREBIC's talking points is pretty much the same as before but with a few more condescending words to say about the citizens of Greensboro. For example , "But neighborhoods frequently oppose these unfamiliar concepts ". Neighborhoods all over Greensboro are very familiar with these concepts and for TREBIC to say that is pathetic.

Another point to ponder is to hear this, "If we have to allow Protest Petitions because “everybody else does”, then we also have to outlaw the rental inspection program, the Citizen Initiative Petitions and any other unique programs. "The rental inspection program has nothing to do with Protest Petitions and to see
TREBIC get a hold of the RUCO board to water down the program to practically nothing and wanted to do away with the whole program CLICKHERE and to hear about the never used Citizen Initiative Petition is a complete joke. How many times has the citizen initiative petition been used in the past 30 years? Neighborhoods all over Greensboro have been going to the zoning process with one hand tied behind their back and it is finally time for the hand to be untied and level the playing field.

There has been talk about how giving this right back to the citizens of Greensboro would hurt jobs. This statute has nothing to do with one job. If it was a job issue then why has Charlotte and Raleigh grown faster than Greensboro when both of those cities have Protest Petition's on the books.

It is time for everyone in Greensboro to understand why the special interest group is fighting this tooth and nail .

It is time for the citizens of Greensboro to know that every city in this state abides by Protest Petition's and it is not antiquated but the exemption of Greensboro is.

It is time for the citizens of Greensboro to have this right to a Protest Petition in the zoning process.

It is time to tell the Greensboro City Council how you feel.

It is time to also let your North Carolina Guilford Delegation know how you feel.

All of this can be done by looking at this blog on the left hand side and e-mail the Guilford Delegation and the Greensboro City Council.

IT IS TIME FOR ALL THE CITIZENS OF GREENSBORO TO JOIN US ON JANUARY 21, 2009 TO TELL THE GREENSBORO CITY COUNCIL "BRING BACK PROTEST PETITIONS TO GREENSBORO"

Below is the newer version of TREBIC talking points.

________________________________________________________
Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition

TREBIC opposes rezoning Protest Petitions in Greensboro.
Proponents claim that “everybody else has it” and “we need to level the playing field.”

Consider this…

EVERYBODY ELSE HAS IT?
- None of the 100 NC counties allow Protest Petitions.
- While some other states do allow protest petitions, it is not pervasive and we have found no states that allow a mere 5% to lodge a protest.
Furthermore:
- We’re one of only half a dozen or so NC cities with a rental unit inspection ordinance.
- We’re one of only 10 cities that allow Citizen Initiative Petitions that take ordinances to a citywide referendum (remember the baseball stadium vote a few years ago?) (source-IOG)
- We’re 1 of only 2 cities that allows Citizen Initiative Petitions apply to rezonings. (source-IOG) This is apparently why we were exempted from the Protest Petition in 1971.
If we have to allow Protest Petitions because “everybody else does”, then we also have to outlaw the rental inspection program, the Citizen Initiative Petitions and any other unique programs.

LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD?
Protest petitions were “born” in the early 1900s because getting information to the public was difficult. Now, nearly 100 years later we’re in the “information age” and the problem no longer exists.
- There are strict rules for public notice, and TREBIC supported Greensboro’s recent change to earlier, more widespread notification rules and website posting of rezoning information.
- Most developers voluntarily meet with neighbors. Greensboro’s draft land development ordinance officially encourages this and so does TREBIC.
- Rezonings already require a 2/3 vote to pass (6 of 9 votes), or else a second reading at the next meeting, giving opponents 2 to 3 extra weeks to lobby the issue further.
- Greensboro’s Conditional Use Rezonings are legislative rather than quasi-judicial, to allow neighbors more effective involvement in the process, and TREBIC supports this.
- NC’s protest petition process allows a mere 5% of owners within 100’ to trigger a requirement for a 75% vote of the full council (not “those present”) to pass the rezoning. In Greensboro that’s 7, so it essentially gives just 3 Council members veto power over rezoning decisions. It is patently absurd that a mere 5% of neighbors can so severely curtail someone else’s property rights. You can change the US Constitution with less than that!

GOOD GROWTH MANAGEMENT?
"Infill" development and redevelopment was not an issue a century ago, but it is now. Smarter growth management plans like Greensboro’s Connections 2025 Comprehensive Plan promote infill, higher densities and mixed uses. But neighborhoods frequently oppose these unfamiliar concepts and allowing protest petitions will make it even harder to achieve them. The draft revamped Land Development Ordinance seeks to implement these concepts while mitigating impacts on existing neighborhood, so neighborhood conflicts should be minimized in the future. In the interim, Conditional zoning is used to mitigate site specific issues.

Greensboro goes to great effort to balance business friendliness with neighborhood stability. Protest Petitions are a step backwards and just another road block in the way of and already reeling industry that is responsible for building local government tax base. Frankly, the protest petition is antiquated and should probably be repealed statewide.

Lunch With The League January 13, 2009 Topic: PROTEST PETITION

Lunch with the League

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

“The Protest Petition”

Speaker: Dr. David Owens, Gladys H. Coates Professor, CLICKHERE
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,” CLICKHERE
May 14 1008: “Get on board protest petitions.” CLICKHERE

Yes Weekly Jordan Green analysis,
February 12 2008:
“A rezoning chronicle: “How Greensboro lost the protest petition;” CLICKHERE
Editorial June 30 2008: “TREBIC vs. Protest Petition.” CLICKHERE

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: http://us.mc387.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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!

GREENSBORO CITIZENS Mark Your Calender for January 21, 2009 PROTEST PETITIONS is on the Agenda

Mayor Yvonne Johnson made a motion even before the agenda started to delay talk on bringing back PROTEST PETITIONS to Greensboro till the January 21, 2009 Greensboro City Council Meeting. If you want to see what the Mayor had to say CLICKHERE then proceed to December 2, 2008 at the 13:45 minute mark on video. Then at 2 hours and 25 minute mark they passed a motion to continue Protest Petitions to January 21, 2009 with a 9-0 vote for item #25.

Here is what Mayor Johnson had to say,"There has been several calls about Protest Petition and a lot of people thought it would be on in January and I would like to know if you had a problem having it on the agenda for January 21, 2009.Is that all right that we do that a number of people had called and I got the message that many of them thought that it would be on in January and I think we need the time to really get a good history of how this started, what's different,what we are doing is it marketability different etc. etc.. All in favor say I and nobody was opposed."

If you as citizens of Greensboro don't think you need Protest Petitions , all you need to do is know that the special interest group Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition are fighting this issue tooth and nail on bringing back Protest Petitions to the zoning process and deny you as a citizen the right to a Protest Petition in the zoning process.

As a Triad resident it is amazing to know that there is a North Carolina General Statute 160a-385 and 386 where every city in the state of North Carolina abides by this city general statute except Greensboro . This means that if you want to fight a zoning case and are none too happy with the case brought before the city council that every other city can bring to the council a valid Protest Petition from High Point to Summerfield to Jamestown to Pleasant Garden to Kernersville to Raleigh to Charlotte and let's add Murphy to Manteo but not Greensboro.

You might not think or know much about Protest Petitions or how they effect me in the zoning process until it happens to your neighborhood. There has been plenty of rezoning cases just in the past year and the past month and even next month where it seems like neighbors in Grensboro and Greensboro only where having a Protest Petition would have been warranted and used for numerous reasons.

For example it looks like neighbors off of cornwallis and elm streets are none too happy with this rezoning case coming in front of the zoning commission CLICKHERE , and a local blogger by the name of David Wharton had this to say at Ed Cone's blog, "And yes, Keith, I do support the protest petition, and think it would be very useful in this situation!"Thanks Mr. Wharton for the endorsement of bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.

This blog cannot stress enough how important it is to show up in force at the Greensboro City Council meeting on January 21, 2009 to show support and speak to the council how you feel.

But if you can't show up please either e-mail the Greensboro City Council CLICKHERE , or call Mayor Yvonne Johnson at 336-373-2396 or CLICKHERE for the Mayor's information.

BRING BACK PROTEST PETITIONS TO GREENSBORO

Time to Bring Back Protest Petitions To Greensboro Round #2 Repost to Refresh Memory

The Coalition of Concerned Citizens Member Keith Brown wrote a Guest Column to the Greensboro News And Record on Thursday May 15, 2008, click here to comment.

Greensboro residents want rights on zoningBy Keith Brown
Thursday, May. 15, 2008 3:00 am

The N.C. General Assembly can create new law and destroy old law. Cities such as Greensboro are subject to those laws, unless state legislators allow an exception.

In 1971, local elected officials supported a bill under a cloud of politics to exempt Greensboro from N.C. General Statutes 160a-385 and 386, which created what formally is called a "protest petition." This exemption never should have been made in the first place and is bad public policy.

Protest petitions are used if a certain percentage of property owners most affected by a zoning change object to the rezoning. These residents may petition for a super-majority vote of at least 7-2 to approve the rezoning if the council has 9 members.

Protest petitions level the playing field for residents, especially when pro-development members of the City Council are making rezoning decisions.

Professor David Owens of the UNC School of Government says, "The provision in North Carolina zoning law for a protest petition is mandatory for cities." His use of the word "mandatory" demonstrates that Greensboro is not following a law every other city must follow. As stated before, the General Assembly can destroy old law, and this exemption is definitely old law.

To hear Gary Rogers from the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC) say that Greensboro, back in 1971, had the foresight to exempt itself from this statute is condescending to citizens here. No, Mr. Rogers, it was not foresight. It was an effort to take away a right of the citizens to use the power of petitions against unwanted development in established neighborhoods.

Those who oppose protest petitions in Greensboro say they would discourage in-fill development. They say the current exemption aids growth, and not having the exemption would hurt growth.Yet Raleigh and Charlotte have protest petitions, and both have grown faster than Greensboro since the exemption has been in effect.

Because I live in High Point, my neighborhood had the right to use a protest petition against a major developer not once, but twice, in a highly contested rezoning case off N.C. 68. I'm certain Greensboro citizens also would like to have this powerful tool as their voice against encroaching development.

Why not let the Guilford County legislative delegation push a bill to make the city of Greensboro comply with this state law? This would give Greensboro residents the same right as other North Carolina residents who live in cities.

Thirty-seven years is long enough. Let your state legislators know you would like to have protest petitions back in Greensboro.

I will leave you with a quote from a Greensboro resident who said it well: "It's time that citizens had a way to stop the business-as-usual crowd from developing our quality of life out of existence."

Keith Brown lives in High Point and is a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of The Triad.

Round #2 with Marlene Sanford and TREBIC Asking ? to NC Planners

It looks like Marlene Sanford President of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition AKA "TREBIC CARTEL" is trying to ask questions to the N.C. Planners. Here is what she posted on the list serve of the N.C. Planners.

2 Questions on Rezoning Protest Petitions:
1- Do any of you cities NOT have protest petitions?
2 For those of you who have them, if your “protester” criteria is different from “5% of owners within 100 feet” , what is it?
3 If you have an experienced opinion/example about the pros and cons and are willing to share it, please do.

Thanks!
Marlene Sanford
________________________________________________________

As you can see Marlene Sanford has already started trying to find answers from N.C. Planners all over this state.Let me help you out in answering these questions you have posted on the list serve.

Question #1 is NO , Greensboro is the only city that doesn't abide by this North Carolina General Statute and it is time for that to change in 2009

Question #2 is NO, This is a North Carolina General Statute nobody has their own version of Protest Petition but Greensboro who got exempted from this bill 37 years ago under a cloud of who knows what happened, and it is time for that to change in 2009.

Question #3 here is your experienced opinion, our Neighborhood in High Point had the right to use Protest Petitions in a major rezoning case and for the citizens of Greensboro to not have Protest Petitions is a total injustice to them.Go ask Blue Ridge Companies.

Let me give TREBIC a few pointers. If you want to take on this fight to deny the citizens of Greensboro this North Carolina General Statute go right ahead. We already know about your modus operandi with your mass e-mail to the State Legislators back in May 2008, CLICKHERE to see the annotated letter. Your efforts will be watched by many and reported by me. So in the end it should be in your best interest to let a bill get passed to let the citizens of Greensboro use Protest Petitions in zoning cases all over this great city and if you fight this bill than you will feel the repercussions for a very long time.Take your pick.