news-record.com

The right to file a protest petition is about as commonplace in North Carolina as sweet tea and barbecue.

High Point has it. Winston-Salem has it. So do Charlotte and Raleigh.

But not Greensboro.

In 1971, the City Council quietly asked state lawmakers to exempt Greensboro from the state protest petition law. Now a growing -- and vocal -- number of residents sat they want the current council to return what was taken away. The council will decide Wednesday night whether to ask county lawmakers to sponsor a bill that would restore the right to file protest petitions in Greensboro.

Local residents are right to wonder why they are they exception to the rule. And to be angry about it.

The law originally was placed on the state books in 1923. If the owners of at least 5 percent of the adjoining land to the proposed rezoning sign a protest petition, it says, they can force a minimum three-fourths vote by a city council to approve it.

The refrain against allowing protest petitions is familiar now: They would strangle development with the unreasonable demands of a vocal few. And, in a swooning economy they would jeopardize jobs and growth. Some critics also complain that the 5 percent threshold for signatures is too low -- that the desires of only a few could outweigh the best interests of the majority.

But an expert on rezoning, David Owens, of the School of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill, says that's unlikely. "If there is frivolous, parochial opposition to development that is good for the city," Owens says, "you're going to get a three-fourths council vote (for the development) anyway."

Further, there is scant evidence of protest petitions stunting growth in other cities.

More significantly, protest petitions are seldom used in North Carolina. For instance, of the 2,167 rezoning petitions filed in 2005, Owens found in a statewide study, only 134, or 6 percent, involved protest petitions. And only four were denied as a result of a protest petition.

In fact, the greatest impact of a protest petition lies not in its actual use but in the threat of its use. If anything, that threat encourages developers and residents to collaborate rather than fight.

At least some state lawmakers agree and could move forward with a protest petition bill even if the council opposes it. Said Rep. Maggie Jeffus of Greensboro in an interview last week: "I'm almost certain a bill will be filed."

Marlene Sanford, president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, contends that developers already reach out to the communities they affect. If that's so, then they should have nothing to fear.

The council should say yes to protest petitions, and state lawmakers should follow suit.