Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 18 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Ball's lawsuit was in city's best interest
Published Sunday, June 1, 2008
Kirk Bartley, not a resident of Ward 3, recently wrote a letter to The Natchez Democrat in support of Bob Pollard for alderman of Ward 3. He devoted more than half of his letter to reasons not to vote for Gwen Ball, all of which were related to the present administration’s condominium fiasco.
On behalf of Gwen Ball and as a resident of Ward 3, I want to correct the erroneous information provided by Mr. Bartley. Gwen was not a part of a lawsuit related to the demolition of the old pecan factory and the rezoning of the same. Gwen was one of the plaintiffs in a law suit related only to how the property was sold and that it was sold for less than the appraised value. If asked, I am sure that former city attorney, Walter Brown, who represented the city in the suit, will confirm this.
Gwen’s participation in the lawsuit demonstrates her concern for the rights of the citizens of Natchez. The mayor and board of aldermen had no public hearings to seek input from citizens before deciding to sell one of the city’s most valuable pieces of real estate.
The city solicited proposals, chose Worley-Brown, LLC, and sold the bluff property for less than the appraised value with no public input. Further, the city agreed to invest the proceeds from the sale into infrastructure costs related to the condo development, resulting in net income of zero for the City of Natchez. The development was also residential, generating no sales tax for the city. Lastly, the city agreed to allow Worley-Brown, LLC, to deny public access to the walk along the bluff edge of the property, a major portion of the river walk enjoyed by a large number of our citizens and visitors.
Gwen Ball is not anti-development. She likely would have embraced one of the proposals submitted to develop the bluff property had she and the public been given the opportunity to review the proposals before the selection was made. One proposal was for a multi-use development that included a trendy rehabilitation of the Natchez pecan factory for restaurant and retail use, a small number of residentially scaled condominiums at the northern end of the property, the reconstruction of the historic lighthouse to serve as a public observatory and an open plaza for public viewing of sunsets. This development actually included detailed plans and cost estimates, complied with all local and state regulations, and posed no threat to bluff stability. The city would have made a profit on the sale of the land and received continuing sales tax income from the businesses located in the pecan factory. The bluff walk would have remained open to all our citizens and visitors.
Because the city chose a project that defied local ordinances and state regulations, today we see only an overgrown lot that is an eyesore in the historic district. It is truly sad that a good citizen has to sue to try to get open government instead of back room and bar room deals made to favor political cronies. Gwen Ball is passionate about Natchez and has proven that she will work for the good of the entire community. With Gwen, you can be sure that you will have an open and honest government that solicits public input, listens to all sides of an issue, and works to build consensus.
Jan Priester Byrne
Natchez resident
Comments
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 2:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for the well written and informative letter Jan.
Posted by oldsaw (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 2:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One problem..the Surpreme Court court rule the city did nothing wrong! Ms. Ball's actions cost us all loads of money.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 3:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Supreme Court ruling cost the city a ton of money oldsaw. Much more than what Ms. Ball cost the city.
Posted by Natchezms (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What Jan may have been too polite to say was that Kirk Bartley is hardly a disinterested citizen - he works for Worley, the developer of the condos.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What needs to be asked is why the city would make a decision that does all the things Jan says, and one more. It creates an edifice on the bluff that crams as many people into as small a place as possible. Why?
Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Jan.
When I read Mr. Bartley's letter to the editor, I was overwhelmed by how inaccurate it was! Knowing that he works for Worley explains it. However, I have always been of the opinion that Mr. Worley really doesn't understand the facts of the PF site. The Worleys put up the money, but they have relied on others -- their local attorney (Waycaster) and their partner (Brown) -- to tell them what is what.
Back to the election:
I say "Gwen Ball for Alderman and City Council Watch Dog." We need at least ONE PERSON on the council who is brave enough to play that role.
If Ms. Ball is elected, then EVERY ONE OF US IN NATCHEZ WILL BENEFIT FROM KNOWING WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN OUR TOWN.
If you are interested in fairness, opportunity and an even playing field for all, vote Ball.
As for Bob Pollard? I can't think of anything he has done other than follow the herd into the back room.
Gwen Ball will take a flashlight into the backroom ... and I'm sure that scares the wealthy and powerful behind-the-scenes movers and shakers who prefer the dark.
Posted by unclered (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oldsaw: The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the city could sell the property at the price it did, nothing more. The mayor and alderman were in violation of the law (a court order) when they demolished the building and the site has since been ruled unstable for condo development by engineers. West should have gone to prison over this.
Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW!
I learned this morning that Jan Priestly's original letter to the editors of the Natchez Democrat included the following statement:
"Mr. Bartley did not acknowledge that he worked for Ed Worley of Worley-Brown, LLC, developers of the proposed condominium project".
This sentence was apparently omitted or deleted by the Democrat's editorial board.
Surley, the editors will want to run a correction on this important oversight in tomorrow's paper. It's important that all readers understand where Mr. Bartley was coming from and not just those of us who read online.
After all, journalist are supposed to "shine the light." That's why we have the constitutional right to freedom of the press, isn't it?
Posted by gwenball (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was shocked when I read Jan Byrne's Letter to the Editor in this morning's paper. The natchez Democrat staff omitted very pertinent information from this letter, which was a response to a letter by Kirk Bartley, published in Friday's newspaper. The staff omitted Jan's reference to Kirk Bartley's employment by Ed Worley of Worley-Brown, LLC.
When Kirk Bartley's letter appeared on Friday, The Natchez Democrat did not acknowledge Bartley's bias in favor of his employer, whose development project was the basis of the attack against my candidacy. Usually, newspapers acknowledge the bias of a letter writer or columnist, if they know it. Since the Natchez Democrat did not acknowledge the bias, I assumed that the paper was unaware that Mr. Bartley worked for the Worley family.
My assumption was wrong. The Natchez Democrat does not want its readers to know that Kirk Bartley works for the Worley family, because the staff deliberately removed that information from the letter, a copy of which I received from Jan. The letter was otherwise unedited.
I will keep "beating the open government drum" (editorial, Natchez Democrat, June 1, 2008) in the hope that voters, politicians, and the Natchez Democrat will eventually fall in step to the beating of that drum.
Gwen Ball
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep it up Gwen. I'll give you a hand.
Posted by jfinley (Julie Cooper) on June 1, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All,
I'd like to clear up the comments about the sentence that was omitted from Byrne's letter.
I did cut it for two reasons. First, because of deadline constraints Saturday I wasn't able to confirm the statement. I also deleted a statement about Ball in Bartley's letter Thursday for the same reason.
Second, Byrne's letter was more than 500 words long. Our policy states that letters should be less than 500. Combined with a long Top of the Morning by Mr. Schoby, there wasn't any wiggle room. Something had to be cut for space, and the sentence without confirmation was obviously the first place to cut. The statement in question seemed like a logical cut because it did not directly relate or connect to the rest of the letter and its omission wouldn't harm the meaning of the rest of the letter.
As our policy states, we reserve the right to edit for space.
No ill will was meant to any of the parties.
Thanks
Julie Finley
Posted by Natchezms (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Julie - give me a break!
"Deadline constraints"? Then why did you pick this particular sentence to delete.
"Did not relate to the rest of the letter"? Are you kidding? The fact that Bartley works for Worley is EXTREMELY pertinent.
The letter was too long? Bartley's letter was 588 words long, but Byrne's was only 581. Why is hers too long but his isn't.
When you screw up, you should admit it - and apologize. In this case, you should reprint the letter in its entirety.
Posted by speakeasy (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've been watching this with interest. Ms. Finley's excuse that the Worley/Bartley relationship was unknown. Don't believe it for a minute. Why does everyone else in town know this and Cooper & Finley don't? From what I understand they do know.
Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Ms. Finley. You allowed your readers to be misread. That's the bottom line.
This "omission" is a gross violation of the journalist's professional duty, especially the duty of one who holds the title of managing editor.
Mr. Bartley's relationship to W-B should have been disclosed when you first published his letter.
In addition, you elected to publish statements in Bartley's letter that were patently false. Yet, you claim you were able to "fact check" these statements?
Ms. Byrne's letter should be reprinted so that those who only read the print version of the paper will be fully informed.
Also, you should inform your readers as to "why" you are reprinting the article. Call it an oversight if you will. Most will be able to read between the lines. Especially since it happened on the same day that your editiorial board elected to endorse Ms. Ball's opponent.
Of course, it would have been good if in the past, the Democrat had published a full report explaining the facts (both sides) of the law suit and fully explaining the final decision. But this was never done. Instead, you only printed half truths and self-serving quotes from the city and the W-B developers calling the citizens who filed the suits selfish.
The Natchez Democrat has done a real disservice to the community in the matter of the Pecan Factory fiasco, as is evidenced by the ongoing comments of bloggers, faithful readers, who still do not know what happened, why it happened or what the current status of the second lawsuit, filed by the city against the Department of Archives and History, or the public safety issues surrounding the Pecan Factory development.
Too bad and too sad for Natchez.
Posted by MikeGemmell (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm very disappointed that the complete text of Ms Byrne's letter to the editor was not published in full. Ms Finley's explanation as to why the letter was edited was very weak. If it's true that there is a connection between Mr. Bartley and the condo developers, then a complete reprint of Ms Bryne's letter to the editor (in Monday's edition) is in order.
Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Typo correction. First line of my above post should have said
"You allowed your readers to be misled." Not "misread."
Posted by unclered (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not the first time Letters to the Editor and blog posts unflattering to Bartley have been edited or deleted. On the other hand, the Democrat has consistently published editorials written by Kirk Bartely over the years that have been nothing more than slander.
Add to this the paper's endorsement of Pollard on the day of the "edited" article and this whole thing stinks. Finley and company have no credibility on this one.
Posted by iconoclast (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Natchez Democrat ran an article on Kirk Bartley last year when he was St. Patrick dated March 14, 2007. In the article it states he works for Worley, yet now the Democrat says they cannot confirm that Bartely works for Worley. Anyone believe this?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)