To adopt or accept? That’s the question the Greensboro City Council is pondering these days.
During its last two meetings, the council has been presented with plans that could alter the city’s future radically in either a good way or a bad way, depending on your perspective. In both cases, the council voted to “accept” those plans rather than “adopt” them.
What’s the difference? Council members provided various explanations as they debated the proposed Downtown Area Consolidated Plan at the Jan. 18 meeting.
Council member Nancy Vaughan explained that when the council “accepted” a proposal — she used rezoning as an example — “means it will be used as a guideline but doesn’t give it any more sway. Adoption means people would expect it to become law.”
Council member Robbie Perkins offered another viewpoint. “The difference between accepting and adopting this plan is huge,” Perkins said. “We have to decide if we’re going to make downtown as good as it can be or if we’re just lukewarming the deal.”
The difference between adopting and accepting the plan is huge because adopting it would bring significant changes to Greensboro’s downtown that would have implications for taxpayers.
Topping the plan’s objectives is completion of the proposed downtown greenway. Funding is a major issue — Greensboro recently missed out on $14.6 million in federal transportation grants that would have rounded out the greenway’s $26 million price tag.
The plan also calls for the city to “incentivize quality mixed-use development.” It cited Greensboro’s Southside development as a “prime example where local government support improved a community.” Based on property revenues, the city should “recover its $6.3 million investment in less than 25 years.”
But incentives are necessary, the plan acknowledges, because “sales prices and rents are not high enough to make most projects financially feasible.” Furthermore, “recent developments have showed that sales of upscale residential space, with prices to match, haven’t performed as expected.” Another feature of the plan is to “create a signature performing arts center” for downtown.
Plans for a new downtown performing arts center have been bandied about for years, but funding and land acquisition have proved problematic.
Concerns also have been raised about the respective fates of Greensboro’s other performing arts centers, the historic Carolina Theater and the Greensboro Coliseum Complex, which includes 52-year-old War Memorial Auditorium.
Council member Zack Matheny emphasized that while he was a downtown booster, he also expressed concern about the fate of the auditorium, which he strongly supports.
The aging auditorium has serious infrastructure and sound problems, but no funds are available for a major renovation after Greensboro voters rejected a $50 million bond referendum in 2008.
“As much as I support downtown Greensboro, I support the coliseum, because we still have some issues about what we’re going to do with War Memorial Auditorium,” Matheny said.
With that in mind, Matheny made a substitute motion to “accept” rather than “adopt” the downtown consolidated plan. Matheny’s motion passed by a 7-2 vote, with Perkins and Dianne Bellamy-Small voting “no.”
The issue of “accepting” versus “adopting” was raised two weeks earlier at the council’s Jan. 4 meeting, when it was asked to approve a Sustainability Action Plan.
The sustainability plan’s stated goals were to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, provide for economic development opportunities, promote improved quality of life and save taxpayer money.”
The plan’s anticipated benefits included “more green jobs, improved air quality, improved public health, and greater educational opportunities.”
More specific goals include “providing greater infrastructure for mass transit, cycling and other non-vehicular travel options” and “encouraging increased density, a mix of land uses, and more integrated links between transportation and land use.”
The estimated cost of implementing the plan is $9.3 million, not including grants already secured from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Block Grant program.
There was very little debate or discussion following the presentation by plan supporters, which included former Mayor Yvonne Johnson, who lost her re-election bid in 2009, and local businessman Joel Landau, who lost his bid for a City Council seat in 2009.
But as the plan came up for a vote, council member Trudy Wade moved that the council accept the plan, going so far as to specifically instruct the city attorney that the word “accept” replace the word “adopt.”
Wade’s motion passed by an 8-0 vote. Council members did not clarify the meanings of the terms “adopt” or “accept,” but as the next meeting would show, they will pay close attention to the wording of various proposals coming before them.
Sam A. Hieb is a contributor to Carolina Journal.