Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 17 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
City planning office is key to engine failure
Published Friday, May 16, 2008
The first car I ever drove was a hand-me-down from my dad.
It was a white Mazda he bought in the early 80s. He ran that tin-can of a car into the ground before handing it over to his son.
It was my first introduction to cars and car maintenance.
Like a teenager, I paid little attention to those important things like rotating the tires and changing the oil.
Most of all, I gave little thought to those squeaks and groans that occasionally would come from the front of the car.
As long as the car ran down the street, I was happy.
That was until a hot rainy afternoon, when my car began to lose power and eventually stall, leaving me stranded on some West Alabama country road.
Had I paid attention to the tell-tale signs I would have realized much sooner that I had a cracked distributor cap.
To be honest, I didn’t realize that the car had been misfiring for a while.
It was a life lesson about the importance of car maintenance.
Interestingly, a car’s ignition system and city government have a lot in common.
Take the recent situation with Fat Mama’s Tamales for example.
As the newspaper’s Web editor, I have read numerous arguments for and against the construction of Fat Mama’s Tamales.
Preservationists are up in arms about violations to approved plans. This includes the construction of the tamale stand some 50 feet closer to Washington Street than what was originally OK’d by the city preservation commission.
Pro-business groups are pointing fingers saying that once again businesses and jobs are being forced out of downtown Natchez.
Tempers have flared; lawyers have been called — all because the city’s engine has a cracked distributor cap.
Just like a car engine, the city’s engine relies on the efficient and accurate distribution of power.
Before the 1990s a car used a distributor to complete this task. It was the nerve center of the ignition system. It made sure that the spark fired to the proper cylinder through the spark plugs.
When the spark plugs did not fire correctly, the engine ran rough or not at all.
From my perspective, much of the frustration, emotion, pointing fingers, wasted time and money could have been prevented if the city was firing on all cylinders — especially in the city planning office.
In the last four years, four men have sat at the city planner’s desk in city hall.
Wednesday night, it was revealed that the city planning commission recommended changes to Fat Mama’s plans. These were changes the restaurant owners put into place — some of the very changes that were in question.
What happened next was a series of bumbling moves by a city planning office that was being run without a leader.
Instead of resubmitting the plans to the city preservation commission, Fat Mamas was given the go ahead for construction.
The city planning office was misfiring and nobody in city hall was paying much attention.
It wasn’t until Fat Mama’s had a roof on their building that the current city planner shut down the project because of numerous violations — violations that should have been caught well before construction.
All of these violations could have been prevented and so could the needless spectacle that has resulted.
It is but one example as to why efficiently run departments are vital to city government.
In the last four years city leaders have continued to allow the planning office to misfire. Instead of paying attention to the city’s engine, the city has allowed a bad situation to get worse.
Hopefully a new board of aldermen and new mayor will realize this and get the city’s engine running smoothly again.
Ben Hillyer is the web editor of The Democrat. He can be reached at ben.hillyer@natchezdemocrat.com.
Comments
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice analogy Ben...there has been negligence in this area, which is very sensitive in this city...any new mayor and aldermen must balance the need to grow with the need to preserve what we have, it almost always ticks someone off, but a lot can be averted if everyone knows the rules and plays by them...unfortunately, from what you state, the rules weren't plainly stated...it's not fair to the citizens, owner, contractor or the planning commission, who have acted without proper leadership for too long.
Maybe we need new leadership, a new distributor cap.
Posted by dangyankee (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 2:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, this IS the south . . . .
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 5:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was 12 years old before I knew that damn and yankee were two different words.
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
you know what the difference between a damn yankee and a yankee is? Yankees move back north, damn yankees stay in the south. There is your laugh for the day.
Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very good Ben. I knew there had to be more to this story and you gave us the underlying reason for all the hooplah. Thanks!
Posted by Preacher (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The city planner has never been paid enough for the job they are asked to do. I wouldn't want to be the rat in that maze with big dogs at one end and cats at the other. The restrictions and ordinances created by the city and preservationists over the years ties their hands with very little room to wiggle. In addition, there are many times just like this when they are conlsulted after the fact, and then get the blame for something they did not do. We need someone in that office who is well qualified, well respected and well paid. Maybe then we can keep one for a while and stay on top of our future planning needs.
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
<<dangyankee>> I have to disagree with you here. It is not the 'south' . It's NATCHEZ!!!!!!
Posted by dangyankee (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Destiny, I stand (or sit, actually, at the moment) corrected--you are absolutely right.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
very good column. Hopefully someone in City Hall is reading it too.
Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Ben,
I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the part where you reinforce the misconception that preservationists are somehow anti-business and anti-economic growth.
Nothing could be more untrue.
Better said: There is a faction of the pro-business group that is decidedly anti-preservation. They won't be satisfied until all evidence of Natchez' history is obliterated.
Why is it that this faction of the pro-business group can't co-exist peacefully with other sectors of our economy? Like our heritage preservation industry, which is directly responsible for more than 2000 jobs and $900,000 in annual city taxes.
Posted by NatchezEnema (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What are you talking about, if you lifted the hood on this ride, there probably isn't an engine, or a steering wheel for that matter.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hello ya'll , Change can be good . Thank you Ben for putting things in perspective for us . Dang Yankee , maybe you need a change of scenery . I LOVE NATCHEZ ! If you can't stand the heat ,get out of the kitchen . And Destiny , I can't help but wonder where your future will take you .
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point Southernbelle!
Posted by loneconservative (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe the people on the planning commission understand the realities in construction and use common sense to accomplish things. The preservationist sit back and hand out dictates. I don't claim to know but have seen both sides of situations like this. The way it's structured probably needs to change.
Posted by triscuit (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Ben. This mess is far from straightened out. The different review agencies (planning, inspection and engineering) need to come together and decide what the hell they're doing. I'm not attempting to discredit any one individual, but they all end up being idiots without a logical mode of operation and some basic communication. The way it's currently set up, any one person in the process could delay a legitimate development indefinitely, and even for personal reasons. I hope the mayoral candidates read your words with an open mind, and I hope the planning commission does too.
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems that some of the loudest voices in the other blog are silent now.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)