news-record.com

BY MARLENE SANFORD

Protest petitions are a bad idea that gets worse the more you think about it.

Their purpose is to make it harder to rezone property. In this recession, the last thing Greensboro needs is to signal that we don't want development and job growth.

But even more troubling is that protest petitions are just plain undemocratic.

Proponents say it "levels" the playing field with a big stick against developers. What it really does is stand democracy on its head by giving one property owner -- a rezoning opponent -- an unfair advantage over another property owner -- one who wants to rezone his or her property.

It assumes the arguments of one property owner are always compelling and deserve advantage, while the arguments of the other property owner are always suspect and should be hobbled.

Consider the reverse: If the owners of 5 percent of the land next to a rezoning sign a support petition, then it takes 75 percent of the City Council to REJECT it. Ridiculous? Of course. It is tyranny of the minority.

It is actually easier to change the U.S. Constitution than to get a rezoning approved under a protest petition.

Proponents argue that "everybody else does it." But none of the 100 North Carolina counties has it (legally).

And if we're governing by the lemming model, then we have to get rid of anything else that is unique, like RUCO and the Citizen Initiative Petition (which some remember is why we got the protest petition exemption in 1971). More important, history is full of things that "everybody" used to do, until we grew to understand that it wasn't fair and equal treatment for all.

Our zoning process isn't broken. We've made changes to give neighbors more effective involvement. Developers meet with neighbors (or suffer the consequences), compromises are made, some applications are withdrawn, some are denied. It is a very rare case that remains so legitimately controversial that there is a close vote by the City Council.

Smarter growth-management plans like Greensboro's promote infill, higher densities and mixed uses. But neighborhood opposition is a very real barrier to these planning concepts, and protest petitions make it even harder.

Proponents say that because only four cases statewide in 2006 were affected by protest petitions, they have had no great impact on development in other cities, and they must be OK.

We say if they have had no great impact, what is the compelling reason to pass such an unfair ordinance in the first place?

Protest petitions are just one more blow to thousands of hardworking people and their families in an already reeling industry that has the very difficult job of building the local tax base.

The writer is president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition.