[Durham INC] The land vultures want to see protest petitions go away

[Philip Azar]

I think he's making one point and drawing way too much from it -- that ownership of 5% of adjoining property having the right to trigger a protest petition (introduced in 2005) is too low a threshold, and that therefore the right to file a protest petition (existing since 1920 or thereabouts) should be eliminated completely.  

That, at least, is the way I see it, Philip

Note:  Analysis assumes facts depicted in article are accurate.  No independent research has been done.

On Jul 24, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Richard Ford <rbford at aim.com> wrote:

> I am not familiar with the recent history of protest petition legislation. 
> 
> It would be great if someone commenting could respond to Terrell's points.
> 
> Dick
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Pat Carstensen <pats1717 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> From Tom Terrell, who makes his dough fighting your right to control what happens in your back yard, has his say in the Greensboro paper.  Folks are encouraged to comment on it!
>> 
>> http://www.news-record.com/opinion/columns/article_62c389d2-effe-11e2-aff9-0019bb30f31a.html
>> 
>> Conclusion: There is no other circumstance in our local, state or federal systems of citizen-elected government where one unelected person can force a 75 percent majority vote on any decision, whether it relates to taxes, schools, public safety, public health, civil rights, military intervention or court appointments. None. Protest petitions for routine zonings should be no exception.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Durham INC Mailing List
>> list at durham-inc.org
>> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20130724/98ea4bce/attachment.html>