news-record.com

Despite sounder arguments and greater numbers, a group of citizens who support restoring protest petitions in Greensboro chose to settle last week for a field goal rather than a touchdown.

Protest petitions allow, by state law, residents of North Carolina's towns and cities the option to raise the bar for approval in rezoning cases. If 5 percent of the owners of the land adjoining the rezoned property oppose the rezoning, they can force a super-majority vote (at least 7-2 in Greensboro) by a city council to approve it.

Everyone but us

For reasons that are as mysterious as they are indefensible, Greensboro is the only city in the state that does not offer citizens the right to file protest petitions.

That seemed about to change last week until the protest petition proponents seemed to blink and decided to snatch compromise from the jaws of victory.

So, following a hot debate on a frigid night, the City Council voted unanimously to support returning the power of protest petitions to Greensboro residents. Sort of.

In a warm but fuzzy motion, the council endorsed restoring the tool -- provided representatives of the real estate and building industry and the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress can come to terms on the particulars.

Many cited it as a breakthrough for all of the parties involved, including City Councilman Mike Barber. "I think it was a great victory," Barber said the following day. But confusion may have been the biggest winner.

What really happened?

If you ask three different people exactly what the council's vote meant, you're almost certain to get three different answers. Barber's interpretation: that the council supports restoring protest petitions as written into state law. And that changes to the existing law will be made only if they are agreed upon in negotiations between the building industry and the neighborhoods.

But others heard something different -- that the council approved protest petitions in principle but left the details of how they specifically would be applied in Greensboro unwritten and to be determined later.

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.

After all, if the council had said no, local legislators were willing to sponsor a protest petition bill in Raleigh anyway.

This debate, of course, is about more than development and zoning. It's about transparency and accountability. A previous council quietly asked for and received an exemption from the state law in 1971 -- with zero public discussion.

There was plenty of public discussion last week.

Some council members expressed concern with the current state law, which they felt gave residents too much power. Robbie Perkins specifically questioned the 5 percent threshold.

Marlene Sanford, president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, called the law "the tyranny of the minority" while other opponents, all of whom represented the building and real estate industry, called it "un-American" and a threat to the economy.

Proponents argued, more convincingly, that they deserved what residents of all other cities in the state enjoy: a fighting chance to have their voices heard and respected in zoning disputes. In a clever PowerPoint presentation, blogger and petition backer David Wharton cited the heavy influence building industry interests wield on city boards and their power to hire attorneys and lobbyists.

The main recourse of average residents? asked Wharton. Then a pair of praying hands flashed on the screen.

Clear as mud

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.

What if the parties (primarily Sanford and Donna Newton, adviser to the Neighborhood Congress) can't agree on the specifics?

The good news is that both women flatly predicted success, based on their ability to work together in the past. "We'll work it out," Newton said.

But what if they don't work it out? What then?

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.