The Greensboro City Council unanimously backed the protest petition for zoning requests at last night’s meeting, although exactly what they signed off on remains unclear.

Proponents of the protest petition cheered after the council’s vote, and Cone is pretty excited this morning. But I have to question what was accomplished, considering the fact that the council’s motion allowed for a compromise between citizens and the real estate industry. Passing motions with instructions to work out the details later is a trademark of dysfuntional government and often leads to no meaningful change.

The problem is the two parties are so far apart on the issue that you have to wonder what kind of compromise can be negotiated. What you have to remember is developers believe that zoning standards in Greensboro are already way too strict, while the protest petition, with 5 percent of residents being able to require a 75 percent council vote, only tightens the screws.It’s hard to imagine what number would be acceptable to developers —- 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent? By the same token it’s hard to imagine what number residents would tolerate if they’re already pushing for (in my opinion) an overly restrictive 5 percent.

It will indeed be interesting to see what numbers each side comes up with before the legislative agenda is sent down to Raleigh in February. Even more interesting will be the reaction of development-friendly council members Robbie Perkins, Mike Barber and Sandra Anderson Groat if the two sides can’t reach an agreement.

Following the protest petition debate, I was very interested to see what the council would do with the next item on the agenda — a request for a $100,000 economic incentive for a five-story, mixed-use building on Elm Street.

The developers want a forgivable loan to buy a city parking lot to use as part of the development, and I admit I was surprised at the opposition to the request. A couple of downtown businesses owners told the council that they’ve gutted it out on South Elm without the help of economic incentives, while others complained that the purchase of the lot would eliminate much-needed parking spaces. If a “City Council Special” was offered up on this item, then it would seem to me that the council would be overly interested in the rights of one group of citizens while ignoring the rights of another group — with taxpayers’ money on the line, no less.

null

That didn’t happen —yet— as the council voted to table the issue until the Feb 3 meeting, but not before rejecting a Barber motion to pass the incentives request and —-you guessed it — work out the parking problems later.

By the way, council member Goldie Wells was in rare form last night, getting into heating debates with both Perkins and Barber, prompting Barber to declare “no more coffee for Goldie tonight.”