Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 14 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Housing group upset over meeting
Published Saturday, January 26, 2008
NATCHEZ — Representatives for the Audubon Terrace housing complex said Friday that they had a good reason for canceling a meeting with the Natchez aldermen Thursday.
The aldermen expressed frustration that the meeting was canceled on short notice.
Andrew Smith, a consultant for the Audubon development group, said the meeting was canceled because vital transcripts, in the city’s possession, were given to Smith and their attorney Michael Corey without sufficient time for them to study the transcripts and make an informed presentation to the board.
Smith said the transcripts in question were from a Nov. 15, meeting between the Terrace’s representatives and the planning commission.
At that meeting, the commission decided not to grant a change of zoning that would have allowed the Audubon Terrace project to move forward.
The proposed project would build a low to mid-income housing development in the neighborhood of Bluebird Drive.
Smith said the first meeting between the board and the builders was canceled because the transcripts were never provided to them.
The second meeting was also canceled because Smith said while the transcripts were turned over they were not turned over with sufficient time for the Terrace’s representation to review them.
City Planner Dennis Story said he gave the transcripts to the city attorney, Everett Sanders, to turn over to the Terrace.
“We provided them with the information they needed in a timely fashion,” Sanders said.
However Smith and Corey did not share that feeling.
After Thursday’s meeting Alderman James “Ricky” Gray also expressed concerns about a land study, near the proposed project site, that says an unused stretch of railroad has ties that have been treated with creosote.
Those ties, the study says, contaminate the soil.
Gray said the study, provided to him by Audubon Terrace, has him concerned that building near the land could cause undue health problems to residents living near the site.
Smith said he has since provided the city with evidence to the contrary. “That issue has been rectified,” he said.
Smith said the ties have been removed and the soil underneath them has been removed and replaced.
However the city planner, city engineer and the city building inspector all say they have seen no such report nor do they have knowledge of the report.
In addition, Story said he is unaware of any work that would have removed the ties and replaced the soil.
Both Smith and Corey said they will be present at the Feb. 26 aldermen meeting to address the board.
“We are looking forward to resolving this matter,” Smith said. However, as of now it’s unclear just how much resolution the matter will actually see.
“If 99.9 percent of the people who live in the area don’t want this project, why do they want to shove it down their throats?” Gray said.
Comments
Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on January 26, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like Mr. Smith is up to the same shenanigans as when he was City Planner--incomplete paperwork, missing reports, assigning blame elsewhere, etc. Why is the city of Natchez even considering doing business with any company in which he is interested? He has given every indication that he cannot be trusted.
Posted by silly_willy_24_7 (anonymous) on January 26, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
maybe ol' bucket can lay out a hundred grand of the city's money for a consultant to look into this matter!!!
Posted by xenon314 (anonymous) on January 26, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
“If 99.9 percent of the people who live in the area don’t want this project, why do they want to shove it down their throats?” Gray said.
HA! Not to beat a dead horse, but 99.9% of the people near the new Fat Mama's didn't want the project in their back yard, and it was completely shoved down our throats.
I warned everyone...if it can happen in our neighborhood, then it can happen to yours...
It's called "setting a precedent". Most folks thought I sounded a lot like Chicken Little...and now this. Folks on Bluebird Drive, I will pray for you.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on January 26, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Compare this so-called housing "development" with what New Orleans has gone through! Should Natchez have to up with an item like this?
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on January 26, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen! Xenon314.
Posted by genlee (anonymous) on January 26, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry but Canal St. is the busiest street into downtown and that spot has always been commercial (I'd have to check with the history buffs but I think maybe even industrial). To try and disallow Fat Mamma on that street is ridiculous. In fact, I cannot think of a more appropriate spot.
Posted by shedevil (anonymous) on January 26, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Xenon314...people like you are why things are so bad around here now.Im glad to see Fat Mammas building their new building...from what i heard its only one person that doesnt want it in her back yard...maybe she doesnt have as much pull around town as she thought she did.
Posted by itsawounderfullife (anonymous) on January 26, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know this doesnt pertain to the sub. in the article, but in regards to an earlier post GO FAT MAMMAS!!!!
Posted by MSneighborhoods (anonymous) on January 27, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The City officials are lying. The developer's attorney (not Mr. Smith) did not receive the information from the City in a timely manner. The Planning Commission voted to deny this matter on November 15th. On November 17th the developer's attorney wrote the city planner and mayor to inform them of the appeal of the planning commission's decision. In this letter, the attorney requested a copy of the official transcript of the November 15th meeting so the he could begin preparing for the appeal hearing. The appeal hearing was set for December 18th. On December 17th the developer's attorney contacted the city (mayor, planner, and city attorney) via written communication to inform them that he had not received the transcript and due to this, he requested that the hearing be postponed.
The city promised to get the information to the attorney. As of January 10, 2008, the attorney still had not received the information so he again wrote to the city to request the information so that he could be prepared for the January 24th meeting. The attorney received a copy of tape recording of the meeting via US mail on January 22, 2208, two days before the scheduled hearing. He immediately contacted the City Attorney, mayor and planning office to inform them of his receipt of the material. At this point he was informed that there was going to be a 6-0 vote to deny the case. The mayor suggested that he postpone the matter indefinitely for the following reasons: (1) It is an election year; (2) if he waited there may be time to get three votes for the project; (3) the developer could meet with the area residents; and (4) something may be done to get the project approved.
As you all know, this is Natchez and people do talk a lot. As for the first comment about Mr. Smith, he is no longer working for the City. The City is the one who did not provide the paperwork, did not give adequate notices, did not do what they were supposed to do.
In today's newspaper, the City Engineer, City Planner, and Building Inspector say they knew nothing about an environmental report. I say to the community, check the file. In order to clear the site plan review committee, the engineer asked for an environmental report on the site. The environmental report was provided. It was one of the conditions stated in the engineering department's letter to the developer. Not to mention that the City gave the developer a letter saying that the property was zoned for residential development and no other approvals were needed. Talk about incompetency. Whew!!!
Posted by MSneighborhoods (anonymous) on January 27, 2008 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The environmental report was done in two phases. Phase I indicated that there was an area of concern. The area of concern was the location of the abandoned railroad track. The Phase I report recommended a Phase II assessment of area of concern. When the Phase II assessement was done, it recommended removal of the cresote cross ties and removal of the soil (approximately 4 feet) in the area around the cross ties. The level of cresote in the area was not a threat. During the site plan review process the City Building official, Mr. Paul Dawes saw the report and commented about the low level of concern.
At the planning commission meeting, which was taped in September, the City Engineer responded to one of the Planning Commissioner's question about the possible contamination. He said that he had seen the report and that the report indicated that there were no contaminants in the area. In the newspaper today, he is telling a lie by saying he had no knowledge of the report.
The development is an affordable housing opportunity for low-moderate income individuals in the Natchez community. Everyone deserves an opportunity to own a home. There are people living in apartment complexes in Natchez who have been renting since the 1970s. If this program had been available then, they would now be homeowners.
Natchez needs housing - NIMBY is respected - however, the Natchez community should not discriminate against low-moderate income individuals. It is wrong. This development meets all of the applicable city regulations. The only reason that the Mayor and Board are against it is because the people say they don't want it in there back/front yard. Again, this should be respected. Where do we draw the line between what is right and what is wrong? Is it right or wrong to discriminate against low - moderate income people? Is it right to allow a neighborhood to discriminate against low-moderate income people? Is it wrong for low-moderate income persons who are renting to have a chance to own a home? Is it wrong to do the right thing?
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on January 27, 2008 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How are the low-moderate income people going to get the mortgages needed for these homes given the bail-outs that are being proposed to fix the home loan debacle now? Go on aol and read today's stories about the fixes proposed. All the fixes include limiting mortgages for people who cannot afford them.
Posted by MSneighborhoods (anonymous) on January 27, 2008 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The people will lease the homes during the period of the tax credits (approximately 10 years). The lease payment is based on their income. After successfully leasing the homes during the tax credit period at an amount that is affordable based on the household income, they will continue to pay another 6 to 7 years and they will own the home. During the lease period they are taking classes on credit, financial literacy, home upkeep, etc. The classes are offered by the development's management company. The overarching goal is to get the people who are leasing the homes to become homeowners after the tax credit period expires.
Posted by wonderingirl (anonymous) on January 27, 2008 at 4:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know this comment will not be well received by bleeding heart liberals but I don't care at this moment. Why is it always the middle class working that is left with the struggle of providing for their own while paying taxes to provide for lower income? Mortgages are part of the struggle for this group. Most never own a new home and have to spend 20 to 30 years of their working lives paying off housing loans on older homes which they have made repairs on. Home ownership is supposed to be part of "the great American dream" achieved through hard work and saving . People often have to limit the size of their families in order to achieve this. Choices have to be made. There are are many middle income families living in apartments driving older model cars who will not qualify for these homes so they can continue to try to save their down payments while their tax dollar supports projects such as this. In other words, they will have to remain responsible for their own futures if they are ever to own a home. Don't get me wrong. We are not talking about the homeless or even Habitat For Humanity. We are talking about taking people from government subsidized rent housing and putting them in brand new homes that they will own with very little investment. Working and making more money would only raise their house notes so why do it? I am very much for "the great American dream" for hardworking people who might could use a hand with a tax cut. What I don't support is this"great American giveaway project!"
Posted by shedevil (anonymous) on January 27, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Welcome to Natchez politics MSneighborhoods
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)