Posted by DUCKHUNTER (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd sure like to know who wrote this article, cuz you've obviously picked your side. You're a newspaper columnist; no wait, that's too nice, you're a person that thinks he/she is a newspaper columnist.....................you're supposed to be non-biased. Thanks for showing just whom it is that you support. Give us citizens a break! Help the city to "bend" the rules for David; just like he was some of the ones around natchez with BIG money who have used it to "bend" a few rules in the past when they wanted something.

Posted by DUCKHUNTER (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That first comment will most likely be censored due to the fact that people don't want to accept the truth.

I'll save it and re-post.

Posted by iluvntz2 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is an editorial in the Opinion section of the paper ---- it's supposed to be an opinion.

FWIW, I'm disappointed that the mayor embarassed another dept. in a meeting and in the press. Not the best way to get the new administration working together.

Posted by buttercup26 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

((DUCKHUNTER)) get off your high horse already along with everyone else who is throwing fits about fat mommas moving just right across the street. why is it such a huge deal i have forgotten due to being distracted of all the back and fourths with this. Am i the only one that has noticed the empty, vacant, grass and weeds growing through the concreted lot? i think ((and remember this is the opinion portion)) they should build!! i personally have only been to fat momma's only a few times due to the parking and not being able to get inside the little door.. let them build, then lets all meet up there and just get 'KNOCKED NAKED' lol i have always loved those little stickers they have!! ;) i'm rootin for ya FAT MOMMA'S!!

Posted by NatchezEnema (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 1:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What the Natchez Democrat needs to remember is that one shoe doesn't fit all. We can sit here and fuss over a tree or a few feet of sidewalk or concrete and the rest of the world keeps turning and going forward. Spend more time on why the schools and streets are in shambles and not a business who pays tax dollars to support these people who mismanage our hospital or let city employee people take OUR city cars home. We need every business possible. When all of the casinos ,hotels and other businesses are busy all the time and we are one easy street, then we will let these pick and choose foundations loose. If I owned this resturaunt I would have never given these city people who shoot themselves in the foot all the time an opportunity to make my life miserable. I would have gone to Vidalia or the coast and opened up. Sad to say, the very people who oppose this business will be the same ones who eat, drink and invite their families to this place when and if it opens. These owners should have just left it a asphalt parking with potholes in it not making a dollar for the city and went somewhere else. Natchez doesn't deserve their tax dollars! Imagine the money that has been spent on these idiots who fought this project or the pecan factory being torn down for the new apartments. That money could have been spent on the food pantry, or to keep holy family school opened or helped the debt at the hospital. Everbody thinks Natchez is about to boom with the New casino and hotels. Same mentality before the convention center opened up. We all know the impact it had. But as long as that ignorant Bubba backwoods pat on the back mentality stays around, the ghost of decline is sure to pop up sooner or later. Attitude effects altitude, and I doubt from any news around here lately that anybody thinks Natchez has a business friendly attitude. Nobody in this world is going to wait for Natchez to get it's s_ _t togeather or stop the infighting. We have sold ourselves to the devil for a little of nothing. Good business, towns,and laws are built on good attitudes and business savy people. We are not living in Miami. Natchez Democrat spend your efforts on watching the goverment waste first. Not the people or businesses that pay the tax money for them to pee off.

Posted by DUCKHUNTER (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 1:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, buttercup, I AM ROOTING FOR FAT MAMA'S. David Gammill is the owner.

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 2:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To bad they can't sue the city for the money they have spent and go to vidalia...David i bet you have wished 100 times over you would have reloacated in vidalia...Petticoat Mafia is something huh??

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Last week the Democrat was all fireworks, flags and God Bless America. Today the DEB displays its total lack of understanding of what last week was about.

Kevin and Julie, we have a republican form of government that splits power up between the only three accepted forms of government political philosophers recognize: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

These commissions and boards that the Democrat so loves are in truth and representataion the aristocratic form of government, government by special appointment.

Putting the power to make law, enforce and judge that law in one aristocratic board is as un-American as it gets. The planning commission should have all these powers?

Doing so would give a few Natchez aristocrats the ability to do what they have been doing: exercise tyranny over the people.

Congratulations to Jake Middleton for knowing a little bit more about our government than the Natchez Democrat.

Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember everyone:

We got into this Fat Mama's mess in the first place because the city "bent the rules" for Fat Mama's in the beginning. Otherwise, they could never have located on that lot.

First under Hank Smith, then under Mayor West, the City Planning Department was basically dismantled. During this period of "no city planning" and "ignore the rules," the Board of Alderman tried to railroad through several pet projects despite the rulings of the Planning/Zoning Commission and the Preservation Commission.

Citizens have rebelled. And those businesses/developers who thought they were getting away with a special deal at the expense of others are now having to fight and scrap for what should never have been allowed in the first place.

The Pecan Factory, Fat Mamas, and now Audubon Terrace just make it PERFECTLY CLEAR to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to understand that CITY PLANNING is key to city growth and that smart growth is planned growth.

Technically, they should all sue the city (I read that Audubon Terrace is), but truthfully, they all knew that they were playing in a high stakes game when they asked the city to overlook or undo laws and regulations so that their projects could go forward.

In the meantime, there were/are plenty of other suitable locations where these projects could have and should have been built without controversy.

Posted by triscuit (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Although I agree that rules should be followed, it seems to me that the Fat Mama's project has been the victim of the system that didn't have one planner for the duration of the project and that didn't have boards and city employees that were communicating with each other and therefore demanding contradictory things, and I think some of this has been reported in the paper. I think Jake was right, make some compromises about this project because the inefficient system has harrassed it unnecessarily, and make sure that future projects are shepherded by city officials and appointed boards that are all on the same page.

Posted by Sasha2008 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay. I have been keeping up with this story for a while now, not as a Natchez citizen, but as a former citizen. It seems like some people in this town are determined to prevent quality growth from taking place, and for reasons such as this, I will never return to this town.

Kids are given education and sent to highly regarding colleges around the country, but no one gives them a reason to return to their roots. Certain people have stonewalled every effort of a young man who just wants to remain in a town that is mostly forgotten and try and bring back some youth and activity when it is so obviously needed.

I’m dumbfounded that such a dispute has occurred over a vacant piece of land - that, by the way, was a COMPLETE eyesore before. I imagine that if Fat Mama’s had not pushed for this piece of property, then it would still be sitting there, collecting rain water in it’s potholes and allowing mosquitoes to fester in the filth. It’s a restaurant. Not a bar, or a strip club, or, gasp, a casino. Take a look around that town…you see all kinds of establishments that promote bad habits on a daily basis and they are welcomed with open arms.

And as far as the “green space” goes - since when did it become the responsibility of business owners to clean up the city’s mess? Come on. If you really want businesses to seriously consider locating there, give them a reason and work with them. Otherwise, in a few years from now, these people who have prevented good growth from occurring will be dead and gone - and so will your precious little town because no one allowed anything worthwhile to become established and prosper.

It’s time to open up your eyes and join the rest of a country that is thirsty for economic growth. And, yes, that does mean that a little “give and take” will have to occur - especially if the rules you have in place are ancient and ridiculous from the get go.

Posted by lovethiscity (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember the editorial that read "We don't need a prison here we are a tourist town?" Remember the editorial "We need to pave our streets and clean up this tourist town?"
Remember the editorial that said we should pay our policemen better and have a recreational complex?" Fat Mamas was sued by the people that live in that area and by friends of the Planning Commission and they got beat in every court in the county, and may i remind you, The Mississippi Supreme Court on the very issues they are still trying to shove down a business that makes Natchez an attraction to tourist from everwhere. Remember Ben Hillard with his dirty clothes, beard and nasty look holding a sign in front of the pecan factory saying "Please don't tear down this historic building?" Natchez is doing its best to help its' businesses survive much less expand and be able to do things that make us a tourist attraction and a place people can afford to live in.
Thank-You Gammills for your loyalty and not moving across the river when it was so tempting and costful to you. The people in Natchez should be ashamed of themselves for giving you the grief you have endured instead of supporting you on your loving of this city.

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sasha2008 you hit the nail on the head....

Posted by unclered (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The owners of Fat Mama's should not have agreed to follow the zoning codes if they were not going to do so. They were given a list of the ordinances to comply with before they began construction. They agrees to follow these then failed to do so. Why did the Gammills do this? And why should the city waive these zoning ordinances just for them? All they did at Tuesdays meeting was show how they have not complied with the cities zoning codes, laws that all cities have.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sasha, you took the words right outta my mouth. 50 yrs ago the rules and regulations that were put into place to bring the tourist here, are now causing a slow death to our city. Tourism, is no longer the drawing point for Natchez and the sooner our city leaders wake up to this fact the better it will be for Natchez. It's time to get with the21st century and burn those old decrepit rules and regulations. Keep the tourism, but on the back plate as a bonus for visiting Natchez, instead of thinking that's the only reason for people to come to Natchez. It's actually keeping people from coming here to relocate.

Posted by NJM (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i agree...fire39212

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad the Democrat took my position on this matter.

Furthermore, for an editorial to come down on the side of compliance is not an arbitrary position. While I have regularly posted that the Democrat should not choose up sides in contests of political choice, this is not an election. We do not make systems of rules and then the strict matter of opinion is whether the malfeasant get support in breaking the rules. We should not anyway.

Anyone who does not like rules should live in the woods like I do.

For Enkik, our resident conspirophobe to come down against the Democrat in this matter is disappointing insofar as he contrasted this with all the apple pie freedom talk of last week. If freedom to be your own man is at the heart of being an American, and we have so many of the perpetrators of victimless crimes in jail right now, to demand that freedom swings on a city's right to plan is nuts.

I'm sorry. Cities can tax within their boundaries, spend more than the county within their boundaries, pass special laws to regulate the masses within their boundaries, and enforce these laws and procedures within their boundaries. This is probably among the most clear cut cases of when someone should love it or leave it.

Fat Mama's JUST COMPLY.

Posted by DIXIEGAL21 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To Sasha2008

You nailed it girl! Listen up Natchez!

Posted by buttercup26 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

((DUCKHUNTER)) i do apologize... i have read sooo many articles and soo many comments on this issue that i must of had them bundle into one.. SORRY :( do forgive me

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am with Sasha.

I have been saying on this blog for 9 months that Natchez and the old blue-haired brigade need to loosen up so people will want to come for a while.

But this is Natchez. They will never learn. It is sad. Just sit back and slowly die. It is already happenening. Just like New orleans...your young people will leave and never come back. If you do not believe it, just look at the census statistics for the last 30 years. Once My last 2 relatives leave Natchez, I will never ever be back down there. I only go now to visit them.

If this town would only ....WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by downhome (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thank god redusmfan

Posted by downhome (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you are not coming back

Posted by observer (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 3:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What on earth made the family that owns and runs Fat Mama's think that just because they are "Old Natchez" and "nice guys" and know the "right people" they have any more right to break and ignore the laws than the rest of us? It was arrogance, pure and simple, that has caused them all this trouble. The Planning Commission is in place to protect ALL of the people, not to cater to a select few.

Suppose, for example, you bought a house in a subdivision neighborhood with covenants in place. Would you not be upset if a McDonalds was built on the vacant lot between you and your next door neighbor? Would you not expect the covenants to be enforced?

From the remarks some of you have made you would just say "Oh, that's progress and McDonalds has a right to change or ignore the zoning rules and the covenants because they're bringing great business to town. The day and night in and out traffic, odors, signs, trash, drive through and speakers won't bother me at all!".

Yeah, right. You and your neighbors would be breaking down the doors of City Hall to get justice.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 5:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

observer, Mama's did not break any rules. I don't see any greenspace at the convention center hotel or the convention center- it appears what many of you csll rules are highly arbitraray, mainly the fantasies of Seibert and Miller. As for those curb cuts, they look like the same ones that were there when the Garden Club was using that space as a parking lot- no complaints about traffic flow back then.

The Wensel House landscaping is not so wonderful either.

Sometimes I wish a few of the northerners around town would take their dog and pony show back up where they belong.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Their scalawag friends can go with them.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Back up north with the carpetbaggers.

Posted by priya (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How far did Mama's move? It looks to me a street is what seperated the old Mama's to the new Mama's. How much noise is there going to be different? there is a whole bunch of dirt roads and pot holes, and they are worried about a parking lot and a curb???

Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no blue haired mafia. Only people who know each other's dirt and/or cooperate with each other for their own best interests. There is not a group of old ladies who run everything in Natchez. That's what the wannabee's would want you to think. That makes them feel superior while you make yourself feel inferior to them. That's business as usual and has been for ages, here and everywhere else.

You have more power as a group of regular citizens than you think. Never marginalize it, doubt it or give it away to some idea of an imagined group conspiring against you . Besides that, you now have a group of "real" people in office representing you. You should be watching them for signs of turning to the dark side and nipping it in the bud.

I once worked for a man that was not very well liked by many people including me. But, I took one morsel of wisdom from him that makes so much sense. He said, "Don't come to me with a problem unless you think you have a solution." In other words, don't gripe about problems and then be dissatisfied when you didn't try to make a difference.

After awhile, the griping just blends into the background noise and nobody hears it, which only frustrates YOU.

Posted by observer (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, when all of these folks go to Fat Mama's to celebrate and get "Knocked Naked" I guess the neighbors will just have to close their shutters, lock up the kids, turn up their radios and dream of the days when a "weed covered lot" and a busy street protected them from the intrusion of such commercial ventures.

And yes, EnKiKur, there are indeed rules, and zoning is the name of the game. Smart growth and planning are essential for survival as a place people want to live and work in. Had Natchez wanted the kind of growth some of you advocate we could have had a town of strip malls long ago. Then we would have descended into oblivion like most little Mississippi communities, especially those not on a major highway.

As long as we have the river, the bluffs, the view, and a good planning commission who won't cave in, we should be safe. These things are worth saving. Preservation is not just about old houses. It is about a liveable community for everyone.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Natchez isn't practicing smart growth observer. That is a specific term for a specific type of development. If Natchez were practicing smart growth there would not be so many mistakes, miscommunications, unclear center of authority and so many bad feelings. And I do believe that spot Mama's is sitting on is zoned commercial.

Smart growth is based on involvement of the whole community, a consensus arrived at in charrettes and not in the caprice of an aristocratic board.

Smart growth takes three things into account. These three things are economic development, the environment, and social equity.

Natchez is not a smart growth community in at least these ways:

The old homes are very inefficient in terms of energy usage and that is a burden on the environment. Smart growth cities feature walkable neighborhoods and some type of efficient public transit. Smart growth cities allow people of all economic spectrums to enjoy urbanism, not just the urban elite. This is where the idea of social equity comes in. Pleasant places should be for all, not just for some. Development downtown is geared to high end condos few people, if any now, can afford. Smart growth is not about moving all the poor out into projects on MLK.

These are just a few of the things Natchez is not. In downtown smart growth greenspace, a term used in ignorance and for convenience over in Natchez currently, is in fact a form of dead capital. Smart growth involves efficient land use and high density population.

What the situation is with Mama's and the Wensel House is that one business venture does not want another business venture nearby. It is entirely possible the guests of Wensel House will enjoy being able to just slip over to Mama's for a meal and a drink. How much more walkable could you get? Mimi Miller is being selfish and petulant in my opinion. Don't the automobiles of her guests make noise driving down the alley to her parking space? Yes, they do.

Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the city wanted that greenspace so badly, why did they not get permission to dig out that parking lot and use it for fill in another project? They could have done that years ago and gotten rid of the eye sore that was there before.

This has nothing to do with the tree or the greenspace. This is about greed and jealousy. There is already traffic noise on Canal St.. Fat Mama's is not going to bring it to the area.

If you want to talk about what the curb will do to the traffic, why don't we discuss the idiots that planned the repaving of Canal street? The ones that had them pave it up to the railroad crossing and left 40 feet of potholes on the other side. Who did we pay to think that up? There's some food for thought.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Natchez wants to embrace Smarthgrowth the city should contact Duany Plater-Zyberk and avail themselves of the professionals who developed the concept.

Can't see it happening though, because Natchez has one lawyer and one architect and DPZ doesn't play ball that way. And of course everything would be done out in the open through public meetings. And there would be some fees involved and Natchez is of course broke- although there might be some grant money available from The Trust for Sustainable Development if Natchez could make a committment to a worthwhile project encapsulating all the concepts of sustainable development.

Vidalia would probably be a better project for DPZ because our mayor is not locked in the past.

i just went and looked at Mama's new building and to me it looks just right. And then I went over to the Vidalia Riverfront where people were walking and running up and down the riverwalk and kids were laughing and yelling as they played in the fountain. Vidalia has a community feel to it. I just don't get that sense in Natchez.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On another note, Yeahuhuh, no matter what body sovereign power is contained within, in our tradition of laws the responsibility of that sovereign is to the people and not the other way around.

That tradition has protected Fat Mama's so far, and I expect it will continue to do so. An agreement made under duress is no real agreement and Fat Mama's has been under duress. Whenever something seems wrong it probably is and as our law tradition is so ancient the obstacles put in Fat Mama's path have probably already been addressed at some time.

Fot instance those curb cuts. If I were Fat Mama's and had the money I would press that issue. It seems wrong to deny a business access to an available public street so it probably is wrong. I would be willing to bet there is some precedent somewhere in support of Mama's right to access Washington Street, it just needs to be found.

Posted by observer (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I meant "smart" as in intelligent. The zoning was changed to accomodate Fat Mama's. There are other neighbors who objected to the point of filing a law suit. (And some people seem to know an awful lot about petulance)

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When it comes to zoning changes observer the question is not whether some few people object. The question is whether or not the change causes harm. What did all the courts say? They said "no harm".

So why is it the defenders of law don't defend this law that allows Fat Mama's to be where they are? Use of property is a changing thing, always has been and always will be. There used to be a train yard on the property, then a parking lot. Were either of those residential? So it stands to reason that at some time in the past that lot was zoned commercial, then residential, now back to commerical.

The neighbors had a right to file a lawsuit. Their view has been heard so now it is their job to follow the decision of the court.

Fat Mama's cannot predict what Siebert or Miller are going to like or not like that is not specifically spelled out in ordinance. No one else can either. This is why the city needs to look at the ordinances and at the legislative and executive relationship betweeen the elected public officials who are sworn to serve the public, and the appointed boards who swear no oath. The Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission cannot be allowed to make arbitrary decisions about a thing after it is built: these arbitrary decisions amount to ex post facto law and that is forbidden in our tradition.

And yes, some of us do know a thing or two about petulance as observed in the profane temper tantrums thrown by certain Natchez luminaries in an adjacent county.

If anyone in Natchez is going to assume dictatorial power it should at least be someone the people have elected.

Posted by DHOLMES (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish the Fat Mama's situation could have been worked out in a better way. It's a good business and one that we need to see prosper...after all we need places for TOURISTs to go after visiting the antebellum homes!

The owners are old natchez and were arrogant....David's uncle - an ex-Supervisor - boasted of his power to get the zoning changed. Just because everyone likes the margaritas doesn't mean it was done correctly.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, the place looks great, it fits right in. It is only fair they got that spot since they are leaving the old spot so the NPS can do what it wants.

Mimi's house is still lovely and I think she will find the presence of Fat Mama's a lot less disturbing than she imagines.

I did notice today that there is an unsightly roof vent on the Trinity Episcopal Church at Commerce and Washington, there are numerous business with no greenspace, and there is a house on Main, right on Main mind you, that was built in 1830. The front door of that house has a lintel that is decidedly off-level, noticable from the street. In addition some of the shutters of the Armstrong Library are falling off their hinges and the paint is just simply awful- I have a complete aversion to flaky paint and sagging shutters!

I did notice one particularly attractive large white house in the 400 block of Union St. that is a credit to the city; inhabited no doubt by upstanding and honest people, Presbyterians I would say, judging by the fresh and stately appearance of the structure.

Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur -

Some of your posts are so intelligent and well thought out, then some of them, like several above, are just juvenile.

Your ongoing issues with "aristorcrats" and your calling out and pointing of fingers at Marty Seibert and Ron and Mimi Miller makes me wonder if your real beef is something personal.

It's our CITY GOVERMENT and our wheeling-dealing, me-first, selfish players, not Siebert or the Millers, who destroy the future of Natchez.

As observer pointed out, "preservation is not just about old houses. It is about a liveable community for everyone." Seems to me I got a lecture from you once about New Urbanism (maybe that was someone else).

New Urbanism is about liveable communities. Not creating a perfectly preserved "mauseleum of a town" to be observed from the outside in only, but a place that can be lived in.

New Urbanist study Natchez, Miss, the Spanish Town Plan, as a model for planning brand new communities from the ground up. Downtown Natchez is the perfect blank slate ... a new urbanist community waiting to happen.

But that requires VISION and REGULATIONS. Can't just be the "anything goes" approach that you advocate.

Even cities that have no historic value (like New Urbanist villages built from ground up) have codes, ordinances and regulations.

There is no conflict between the tourism industry and progress and growth. There is a conflict between self-interested city leadership/self-interested developers/no city planning AND the best interest of local business, economic growth and the community.

Back to Seibet and the Millers, I'm sure you will find that none of them has ever accepted a personal bribe in exchange for their support for a development project. Just a little something to think about.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CitizenSane, when I use the word aristocrat I am using it in the traditional manner, as one of the three forms of government. Aristocracy is held to be wiser but less honest than democracy as aristocracy refers to larger holders of property who will seek to protect their interests as a matter of course. This is just the case in Natchez.

Fat Mama's existence in no way infringes upon the Miller's property. It would be pretense to assume that this is not the real issue here. The Millers do not want Fat Mama's next door. But, the Miller's property rights extend only to their own property and not to the property belonging to Fat Mama's.

It appears to me that Fat Mama's has a larger proportion of grass to concrete than any other downtown business, except for maybe the Miller's B&B. Why should Fat Mama's be held to a different standard than the convention center or convention center hotel? Those buildings are also examples of modern interpretations of older styles, just as Fat Mama's is. And by the same architect, aren't they?

One aspect of New Urbanism that has been called into question and even addressed in one of DPZ's journals is the question of "gentrification". Gentrification is the same as it has always been, aristocratic presence.

Posted by triscuit (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Presbyterians. EKK, you crack me up.

Posted by Tamales (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. All this about where to make tamales.
http://www.TheTexasTamaleWarehouse.com