As a candidate for Greensboro City Council District 4, I am raising the alarm about House Bill 765, a bill currently moving through the North Carolina General Assembly that directly threatens Greensboro’s ability to govern itself.
This bill would strip local municipalities of zoning authority, prohibiting cities like Greensboro from enacting zoning regulations that are more restrictive than state law. Even more troubling, it would impose state-mandated minimum density requirements based solely on population, without regard for local infrastructure, safety, or neighborhood character.
For decades, Greensboro has successfully balanced growth with neighborhood preservation through thoughtful zoning that reflects our unique needs. Local leaders and residents understand the fabric of our community far better than distant legislators in Raleigh. House Bill 765 would undermine this by forcing high-density development—even where it doesn’t fit—causing traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and declining property values.
Greensboro’s City Council has already unanimously opposed this bill, with Mayor Nancy Vaughan warning it could remove essential tools that protect property values and ensure sustainable development. Other towns, including Huntersville and Cornelius, have also voiced strong opposition, recognizing the danger of a one-size-fits-all approach to zoning.
Let’s be clear: while affordable housing is a critical issue, HB 765 is not a thoughtful solution. Rather than supporting affordable housing in partnership with local governments, this bill would hand over power to the state, wiping out decades of local planning expertise and public input.
As your future City Council representative, I pledge to fight tooth and nail to keep zoning decisions local. We must preserve our neighborhoods, protect our quality of life, and resist this legislative overreach.
Local voices matter—and we must make sure Raleigh hears us loud and clear.
Nicky Smith,
Candidate, Greensboro City Council – District 4
I wish you well but I don’t believe Greensboro has ever had balanced growth and thoughtful zoning as to many pockets had to be paid off.
This issue is not clear to me. If the City Council is for it, I am against it. That’s my uninformed opinion, and I’m sticking to it……
It’s ironic if not a touch poetic that Nancy and the council now opposes stripping zoning authority from Greensboro, considering many of them appeared perfectly comfortable watching the same thing happen to Summerfield, if not quietly cheering it on. I told Greensboro legislators months ago: ignore small-scale corruption and it will metastasize. Power grabs don’t stay local for long. Greensboro officials didn’t listen, and I doubt the folks in Raleigh will either. But hey why learn from history when we can reenact California’s planning follies in real time.
“it would impose state-mandated minimum density requirements”
Okay, I’m confused. Does that mean we can’t have fewer than a given number of houses or people in, say, a square mile? If there aren’t enough houses or people to reach the minimum, will someone or someones be forced to build and move into the area to reach the minimum?
I’m seeing a camel with STATE LEGISLATURE plastered on it poking it’s nose under the tent labeled LOCAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS.
But hey, what do I know.
The majority of the zoning requests that come before cities and counties are granted. Council members and county commissioners disregard community concerns. An example is the school proposed for Boylston Rd and N. Bunker Hill Rd in Colfax. The proposed school is not a neighborhood school. There are few children living in the area. The community opposed the school for sound reasons. But Skip Alston, Annie Oakley, Guilford County School Board, and county commissioners all support the unwanted and unneeded school. The county paid more than market value for the land and now plans on spending well over $60M to build the school. Of course, we know that in the end the school will cost upwards of $100M not counting the interest on the bonds that are being used to build the school. It is not too late for property taxpayers to march on City Hall and the GC School Board. Schools do not pay for themselves, property taxpayers do. The airport overlay was changed to allow for the school to be built. Who was responsible for that? The dirty dealings that go on without the property taxpayers knowing about it. They are expected to pony up more and more money. I do not live in District 4, but if I did, I would NOT vote for Nicky Smith.