Should We Protest the Protest Petitions?
With an 84-28 vote, the general assembly approved a bill that would do away with protest petitions as part of the city zoning process.
Under normal circumstances, a rezoning requires a simple majority vote by the city council. However, if contested by either 20% of those inside the area to be rezoned or 5% of those within a 100 foot buffer around the area, the requirement becomes a super-majority of city council and the mayor, or 9 votes total.
We had an intriguing discussion on this possibility at the last CAUTION meeting and I wanted to open up discussion to folks here at PunditHouse. Some thoughts…
A “purest”, being opposed to zoning at all, would likely support the move. After all, why should the use of anyone’s private property be subject to the will of government at all? In this case, by eliminating neighboring property owners’ ability to “complain” about the use of property that someone else owns, we are moving one step closer to Libertarian Nirvana.
Another view suggested that while the move was OK, property owners who are affected by a zoning change (or the use of another’s property in general) should be allowed to take civil action against the owner for damages…if they are real and provable.
For example, say the property I own has a market value of $250,000. My neighbor decides to open up a porta-potty company and store the extra “sheds” on his front lawn.
As a result, the marketability of my home is diminished and if I go to sell, I would get less than it was worth previously. Essentially, the neighbors use of their property has negatively affected my property.
Zoning didn’t stop the occurrence in the first place (because there wasn’t any), but would the threat of being liable for damages of value mitigate the lack of zoning and instill a sort of self-regulating community standard?
A third view opposed the elimination of protest petitions citing that we should all have the right to protect the value of our property from someone that would do harm. After all, protection of property is a valid use of government.
Without citizens having the ability to fashion a legal “defense” of their neighborhood, it would only invite cronyism as those connected to government could ram through any zoning changes they desired. There would be no reason to even work with neighbors on compromises as there would be no need to convince a council super-majority that the change is a good idea.
Big business/Big Government wins, the little guy loses.
As this bill is now before the Senate, there is still time to voice an opinion.
Any thoughts on the previous three positions? Any different take all together?
I got my start in volunteering here by trying to work with the citizens on several rezoning’s in the University area. I currently sit on the executive boards for the NEC (North East Coalition) and DSRCO (Derita Statesville Road Community Org). Part of the reason we purchased the house we have is because the HOA has standards. By purchasing, we agreed with them – they provide consistency to the neighborhood. Contrast that to a client I had in Cleveland County whose house was worth about $285,000 UNTIL somebody in the next lot decided to raise pigs.
Residents of Mecklenburg have lived with zoning laws for many years / decades. The protest petition is a way to give voice to the minority – not dictatorial, the rezoning can still pass (and usually does, stats anyone?) with a super majority.
Another aspect of this is that governance by the most local level possible seems to also be violated here.
I feel like a yo yo…
Yesterday I wrote to my Senator who replied this measure was taken out of the bill and the protest petition was safe. Now your article says they passed a bill nullifying the protest petition and provisions for that?
What is going on???
Maybe it was slipped into the motorcycle safety bill…
I just sent an email to my Senator to find out what happened. I hope to get a reply. We’ll see.
Cheryl, I feel ya. Not being in Raleigh and not being able to follow step by step every piece of legislation…it gets confusing for the average Joe to know the status of everything…especially when the political rangling really heats up.
According to a News and Observer article that came out last night, “So far House Republicans have pushed for repeal of the practice, while Senate counterparts so far have protected it.”
As of Friday (yesterday), when the Senate approved the version of the bill that didn’t address protest petitions, it appeared as though the legal maneuver might survive the session.
“The question,” Martin said, “is whether the House will concur with that.”
So now I guess it’s back in the House’s hands.
Personally, I really have a distaste for various proposals getting dropped in random pieces of legislation that have little to nothing to do with the original purpose. I know after crossover nothing “new” is allowed to be filled, but amendments to current items are allowed. That’s when everything gets confusing.
Here’s a law for you. One bill, one issue. Period!
Now that would be a constitutional amendment I could get behind.
This is like follow the bouncing ball (bill). Thank you Christian for your explanation. Sen. Harrington did get back to me with a shorter explanation, but yours makes better sense to me…at least I could follow it, even though she said much the same thing.
I’m with you this throwing things into various bills that are incongruous…just because they can. Right, Zon…we could get behind that. One issue at a time in one bill at a time.
Because of just going through this protest petition situation here in Gastonia, I see the need to keep it in place. Without it, there would have been a rezoning smack in the middle of an area that would have impacted a lot of properties, to their detriment. The property owners surrounding the parcel in question would have been S.O.L. I think it was a narrow escape, even with the petition in place. It worked as it should have. Thankfully.
I hope the House backs off of this issue. I’m sure there is a lot of high dollar lobbying going on to get rid of the petition law.
Thanks, Christian.
I think the heart of the matter is where do the rights of land use reside. In municipalities where zoning and use are more heavily regulated, consistent with the will of the residents of those municipalities, there is opposition to the new legislation because it removes a tool for residents to have meaningful improvements consistent with the aesthetic needs of the area. The General Assembly clearly feels its prerogative outweighs the regulatory authority of the municipality.
Just like zoning requirements are established and enforced at the local level, so too should the decision to allow, or not allow, protest petitions.
What this law is all about is the powerful building and development lobbies are looking to neuter local zoning rules. And our General Assembly, just like with other powerful corporate interests, are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidders in order to give them their way.
Shameful, but hardly surprising. It is indicative of where our representatives loyalties are.
Just when I think these idiots can not get any more vile….
The right to seek redress from/input to your government is a basic right. The fact that these crooks are so willing to sell these rights to the development lobby is disgraceful. John Locke himself would not advocate poisoning a well on your property just because you “own” it.
I Love how our alleged small government, local control Republicans are all tarted up and selling their wares up and down Edenton St. like the big government prostitutes that they are. They want – from Raleigh – to decide local school issues, local zoning laws, to wrest control of the airport from the city and give it to a ‘centralized board.’ Now that they have centralized the power of the government, how are they gonna feel when that power reverts back to the Dems? And TRUST ME – it will.
Private property ownership and usage is also a basic right. Zoning steals that right for government to control and play politics and patronage games. If a bunch of NIMBYs want to hold back progress and prevent someone from using their own land, let them form an LLC and buy the property.
Glad you feel that way…I will be setting up a gay porno shop and strip club next door to your house with a Fracking well in the back. And since a creek flowing on my property to your water supply is on MY property I will be dumping my used motor oil and household sanitation into it.
I’m thinking a Hog Rendering plant on the other side might be a nice addition.
He might need a job, so that would work out well.
Houston has no zoning and gets along quite well
BCG – Preventing harm is what the civil courts are for. No need for intrusive, expensive, and non-productive regulations. If you harm him or his property, and finds out about it, you get sued. If you lose, you pay (or go bankrupt) If you don’t harm him or his property, and he simply doesn’t like your porno shop, strip club and fracking well that’s his problem. He is free to sell it and move. In this event, both of you have maintained your property rights and liberties. To do otherwise (through zoning) is to violate both of your property rights.
I feel confident that any strip club you’re associated with won’t last long.
Bring it.
Max – I agree completely. Our Creator gave us our body and brain, therefore we own that. Our bodies and brains are our FIRST piece of private property. Logic would extend that ownership to our labor, and thus also to the fruits of our labor. And that would include the land we own as a result of our labor. Therefore, to tell someone they cannot do X with their property in the absence of harming others is to tell them they are not a free human being.
“in the absence of harming others” is the key phrase. If many people surrounding a property would lose the values of their property based on what that individual property owner does, then what do you suggest for a remedy? If one person’s property value is damaged by their neighbor, what is the remedy? Let’s surmise that the surrounding property owners do not wish to purchase the property in question or cannot afford do that. Let’s also surmise that zoning is in place to create an orderly plan for areas and that people invested in their properties based on that zoning. (I have no idea how Houston deals with this, but I have heard that before…that they have no zoning.) We are discussing Euclidean zoning which has its benefits and also has had its detractors in the APA who are pushing mixed use development whereby commercial retail is thrown in smack in the middle of residential areas or vice versa. Some may like that, but others may not. This should not be done by force. Eliminating the protest petition leaves no room for solving the situation. A civil remedy would be after the fact, charges could not be brought without the harm already being caused. The protest petition is a preventative measure in a “rezoning” case, and allows a hearing before the councils who decide if harm would be caused or not. This seems reasonable to me.
Cheryl – Re: “If many people surrounding a property would lose the values of their property based on what that individual property owner does, then what do you suggest for a remedy?”
Each of them can file a civil suit. Or, ever hear of a class action lawsuit? Or, they can move. Or, they can buy offending property. Or, through a variety of non-violent and lawful manners they can convince the offending owner to change his ways. With such a myriad of solutions, why do we need to use the threat of violence (as in government force) to solve what is inherently a civil issue? Are we not smart enough or too scared to stand for ourselves?
Re: “A civil remedy would be after the fact, charges could not be brought without the harm already being caused.” So you want to preemptively punish people who haven’t done any harm. Land of the free, riiiiiight.
The Freedom for you to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Replying to Kayser…
You have argued with me before on another subject some long time ago when I learned that you will not agree to see any validity to any points but your own. While it’s a good thing to hold to your convictions, this particular issue (that occurred in my city) impacts more people than just the one (offending) property owner and I don’t believe can be seen in isolation.
Your argument is to wait until after harm is done and then sue. My argument is to resolve the issue before the harm is done. I am not talking about “punishing” people. Re-zoning involves a taking, which I believe is a 5th Amendment issue. If I own property and someone adjacent or near my property does something to harm the value of my property, that is a taking without compensation. I guess that could result in a lawsuit after the fact, but why should the potentially harmed property owner not speak up before hand and protect the value if at all possible? Why take that option away? And of course I am not talking about “punishing,” but if a threat is present, there are such things as injunctions and restraining orders….no? You made an unnecessary leap that is a red herring in this case.
If my points are well grounded in the Rule of Law and support the rights given to me by my creator as a free person (which include Private Property Rights) then there is no validity in conceding them to another point of view. Show me how your argument meets these two fundamental principles and I will change my point of view.
We can argue semantics, but if you restrict, regulate, or otherwise prevent someone from doing whatever they want with their property PRIOR to them harming another then you are quite simply, by definition, punishing them for doing nothing more than increasing the statistical likelihood that they might do something bad. This is the problem will most laws in our country – we restrict freedom based on nothing more than an assumption that something bad will happen. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
The easiest example of this is speed limits. Why should we be punished (with restictions, backed by fines, and enforced by violence) if we drive faster than some arbitrary limit even if we don’t harm anyone or their property? The answer is, of course, that we are punishing the speeder for simply increasing the likelihood that something bad will happen. In other words, we are punishing them for increasing risk. If they accept that risk – along with the consequences – and nothing bad happens, why should the state benefit from that? It’s almost like a tax on risky behavior. Zoning restrictions are the same; they presuppose (and thus punish by restriction) that people will cause harm to others when in fact, no harm has yet occurred. And, like any law based in this way, this creates moral hazard whereby the enforcers may allow some people to cross the line where others are not. This is an abuse of the Rule of Law even if cloaked in prosecutorial discretion, whereas, if the harmed party takes the case to court once harm can be proven, both Private Property Rights and the Rule of Law are equally held up for all.
I guess, in short, I believe that most people do not willingly want to harm other people or their property. Therefore, I would err on the side of increasing liberty and dealing with the small number of people who do cause harm versus punishing everyone in the worry that someone might cause harm.
If the only thing preventing someone from doing (civil, not criminal) harm is the threat of a lawsuit there will be a lot more harm and a lot more people getting away with it. Our courts are already a year behind schedule or more. That approach would shut down the economy.
So all the people who don’t do wrong now would go out and start doing wrong tomorrow if we didn’t punish them with preemptive laws, right? Kind of like everyone would go out and start smoking pot if it was made legal?
You got that right.