Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 29 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
City may be sued by land developer
Published Thursday, July 10, 2008
NATCHEZ — The City of Natchez may be facing a lawsuit from Audubon Terrace developers.
Months ago the Natchez Board of Aldermen denied Audubon Terrace developers the right to rezone property purchased to build low-income housing, hence putting a stop to the project entirely.
Now, developer Clifton Philips of Brownstone Developments LLC has filed an appeal to the board’s decision in the circuit court of Adams County.
According to the developer’s attorney Michael Cory, before the developer purchased the land, in the Bluebird Drive area, he was given a letter of assurance from the city that the land was properly zoned.
Cory said the property was zoned open land.
“Historically and according to city ordinance, (you) can build residential communities on that zone,” Cory said.
However, the planning commission cited zoning as the problem when it later turned down their development plans.
To comply, Cory said the developers applied to rezone the area, but that request was denied.
They then appeared before the board of aldermen to gain their approval and were denied as well.
“If we prevail on that, we could start construction on the subdivision,” Cory said.
However, the city could appeal that to the Mississippi Supreme Court, in turn.
City Attorney Everett Sanders said the city has to accept the appeal before signing off on it, which is standard legal practice.
However, he said the city is not in agreement with the wording of the appeal.
“There are things we have problems with in there that they are seeking to have the city admit,” he said. “For example, they’re saying actions of the board were arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. We can’t sign off on something that says that, that basically gives our case away.”
Sanders said he is about 90 percent complete with reworking the appeal’s language to send it back to the developer for approval.
The developer is also seeking damages.
Cory said a notice has been sent to the city.
“Before you can sue a municipality for money damages, you have to give them a notice for intent to file a claim and they have 90 days to respond,” he said.
The notice was sent June 18.
Sanders said the city does not have to respond to the notice, that it’s just a process a complainant has to go through when suing a municipality.
Damages can be sought because the developers relied on the official statement of the city that the land could be used for residential development, then were denied for an “impermissible basis under the law.”
“When they told us we could do it they had the authority and we thought they were correct and we think there are other reasons they denied the subdivision,” Cory said.
Cory said there isn’t an exact total of damages.
“The damages are a moving target, they continue to accrue,” he said. “The cost of buying land, the cost in moving forward with the project, having it delayed, at this point the damages are probably over $1 million.”
Cory said it would be best to avoid a lawsuit.
“We’re willing to work with the city or consider any alternative,” Cory said.
Sanders said right now the notice is being forward to the city’s insurance company where they will make a determination if they want to handle it.
Comments
Posted by grrbrts (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fight...fight...fight....this is just one good example why this city of ours can't grow! Talk about misleading? Just look at the dollar figures accruing! This, I know, would scare any business from (re)locating here...ya think? And to think that this city was once a state capital. Loosen some belt loops officials!
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep, Vidalia is going to grow even more now.
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about standing behind your city officials for once. The people in that area did not want the kind of development they wanted to build, citing trouble with traffic in the area and too large a concentration of residents causing crime in the area to increase. Our police force is stretched thin now.
Posted by Mucasplug (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 4:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good Post Frogprince. Everyone here just wants to jump on everything as negative. The Alderman had a REASON for turning down this bunch. In reply to NtzMom55, with the announcement of huge increases in electric utility rates in Vidalia the bloom is off the rose. Former Mayor Murray who founded the hydroelectirc dam had it set up so Vidalia residents would never have high electric bills, and they used to give rebate checks to each resident. He did not take into account how greedy politicians down the road would drool over that money and eventually grab it away. Alas........
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Isle of Capri should consider making one of its shuttles available for trasnporting the various boards, commissions and foundations to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Unlike the rest of the Tourism Cartel the Isle has shown a willingness to aid the citizens of Natchez in other matters. Natchez can't afford the gas for all these trips!
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said yesterday in another post, Natchez has never been accused of being pro-business anyways.
If the property had the zoning it needed, then let them build. If they do not have the zoning when they bought the property, then shame on them for spending that money .
But history has shown that municipalities never like low income projects . It has always been NIMBY ( Not In My BackYard). I have some low income apartments right down the road from where I live and we do not have any trouble here with the people. The police department drives through on a regular basis and the folks there do not bother any of us in our neighborhood. It is all about the people. It is a choice. Everybody has a choice. If they choose to be thugs, then the police here will haul them away and through the key away.
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Low incoming housing is never a beneficial thing for any community. It is something that is required, but never desired, like a landfill. I think we have plenty of low income housing in the area, anymore would just make an already troubled city, more troubled.
Posted by natchez1 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike - $140,000 houses are not low income - that is a more expensive house than the mean cost of a house in MS.
Whether the houses in 15 years would have turned into slums is the unknown factor.
I am glad the Democrat's staff read the Misslou Magazine, Peter had this as his headline in his paper yesterday. The law suit was filed June 18th - Peter's paper only comes out every two weeks - why did the Democrat's ace reporters sit on this story?
Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are hard working people in Natchez that can't afford a $140,000 home but we want to GIVE it to people that live and survive on the government. I know I'm going to tick some people off but I can deal with that as long as I'm stating the truth.
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ntz1 - Where are you getting the $140K house price from? The articles I have read have these houses as being rentals for the first 15 years/
Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And how much rent will be paid by the tenant? The rest will come out of your pocket and mine. The right thing to do is to build the homes for "working" families or people who have made an honest living and have retired or nearing retirement. But, not only in MS, but the whole country (that I have by the way, been proud of since I became aware of pride as a child) has this mistaken notion that we must constantly be giving things away to people who don't earn and therefore don't deserve these things.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The federal government says that 41% of the people in our 8 state development region live below the poverty line. 41%.
It would be better if they were all homeless, wouldn't it? Like in Calcutta, or Bombay.
Natchez needs to face the fact that for all its caviar dreams it is a city of the poor and the working poor. Yes, it is distressing to people of refinement who get their welfare to support their businesses and not their households, but short of extermination how can the problem be solved?
Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There needs to be guidelines in place that are actually respected. Such as a maximum amount of time someone can be on assistance without acquiring a job. And that you aren't eligible for Soc. Sec. unless you actually paid Soc. Sec. If the government would concentrate on bettering the citizens of this country instead of giving money to the people who are not citizens, to start businesses and go to universities for free we probably wouldn't have the multitude of freeloaders. These are just a couple of examples, there are hundreds more.
Posted by natchez1 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike - see the new Misslou Magazine - Yes they are rentals for the first 15 years then they can be bought for $140,000. By everything I have seen they will be a big improvement over the houses many people live in. Until I read comments in the blog I thought virtually everyone was supportive of Habitat houses, but in Natchez it is amazing how many people are against affordable decent housing.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would imagine in 15 years $140K will be a good price for a home. Do the tenants have to rent them for the entire 15 years in order to purchase them?
Where is this located? I am not familiar with that street.
Posted by natchez1 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
happybunny
I reread the article in Misslou Magazine - after 15 years the tenants can buy them for $70,000 - half price - construction cost is $140,000. Sounds like a deal. 65 new houses in a not great part of town.
Posted by wonderingirl (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These are not Habitat houses that are being proposed. These are houses to be paid for with tax money. The people who get Habitat houses help with the labor of those houses and then assume a mortgage. These are brick homes worth at least $140,000. How many working people in this town do you think live in houses that are worth much less, yet they have worked all their lives to pay for them? Home ownership should be part of the great American dream, but not part of the great American give-away. Also, this is not a charitable organization that is planning this developement.What makes it worth their time to file suit? Tax money of course! If the people who get the houses can not afford housing, then where does the profit come from on these houses for the developers? Tax money! So while the middle class struggles to pay for their own housing along with an ever increasing cost of living, their higher taxes will be used to provide brand new brick homes to be given to people!
Posted by natchez1 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wonderinggirl,
You are right these houses are subsidized by tax dollars. Like Habitat homes though if properly managed and run they do allow people to buy a house who would not qualify normally.
This program though should be more successful than rehabbing old homes for rental, where the developers get a huge tax break and then walks away from the rehabbed houses and they fall into disrepair. These houses if you pay your rent and look after them you get to buy them for a great price.
The concept is good - whether it will work will depend on the vetting by the developer and the people who live there.
Yes most people in MS do not live in a house worth 140,000. Unless the developer wins - they won't in Natchez either.
Posted by Zhena (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel they deserve compensation! Natchez wronged them.
We need more educated, experienced and business minded, elected officials. Remember this next election!
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The way things are going right now, there will only be about 10,000 left when the next election rolls around and they will forget why these people were elected in the first place.
Posted by wonderingirl (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not only are we not talking about Habitat homes, we are not talking about homeless people. We are talking about people living in government subsidized housing and rental apartments now. What's wrong with that for helping people with housing needs? If they don't have money for rent now where will 15 years of maintenance bills come from? Why should they move out into new homes and leave behind working people in the apartments next door who are trying to pay rent and save toward a home? Some years ago, government grants were used to paint and fix up houses in different areas. Since then there has been no money for upkeep so guess how they look now? Square one! I just don't think that the "poor Class" should be elevated to a position of having more with less responsibility than the working or retired middle class can obtain while paying taxes.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can see you are going to take global socialism pretty hard wonderingirl.
Let me teach you to vision a more progressive world. Close your eyes and take a few deep breaths, then imagine:
Imagine a sun dappled world full of happily singing brids flitting here and there among tall beautiful Guardians whe stroll among the common people decreeing goodness wiith the wave of a hand: "Build this, tear that down! Plant this, drink that!"
Wonderful, isn't it? Vision the goodness of a world there is no right or wrong, only social duty; a world where there is no repsonsibillty for anyone, even you. Wouldn't you like to know your house, food, job and medical care will be provided for you with no thought on your part?
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wonderingirl you are so right...That's one thing wrong with this world now. So many hand outs...
Posted by lookingout (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i think wonderingirl has a good point my husband works and we struggle to pay our bills and our houe isnt woth 140,000 why should he pay for people that dont work to live better than we do thats crazy that people would be for that idea
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The way I see it, the Cory fellow said they were assured in a letter from the city that the land was zoned properly...BEFORE the purchase. The city shouldn't have made such a bold move if they had no intention of allowing them to build in the first place. How wishy-washy can they be? Yall are right. Very anti-business.
Was a petition circulated by the homeowners in that area? It seems I remember that the people there were not happy about the prospect.
Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with wonderingirl too. She made some VERY valid points. And EnKiKur, I know that was sarcasm but actually the only part of the vision that I would like would be the part about not having to worry about it. Even with 2 incomes coming into our home we still have to worry about things and I have a feeling it's only going to get worse. We don't live beyond our means but the way things are headed we may end up there soon.
Posted by DUCKHUNTER (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sarcasm, you want sarcasm, "I love the socialist idea." Yeah, okay, let's all work our a**** off in order to pay for those 40 oz drinking, porch dwelling, child factories to just sit and watch us drive to and from work while we pay for them to live in $140,000 homes, while we, ourselves live in homes that cost on average or less than $85,000 and struggle to make ends meet while trying to give the few children that we have the means necessary to make it in this world while all the while teaching those $140,000 home-owners' children to just dwell on the porch and watch us go to work to make them some more money. Cuz bein' a socialist and all, you (sittin' on your porch) make what I make.................You're welcome, kiss my a**.
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 2:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen Duckhunter....You said it all there...
Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you whole heartedly DuckHunter. That was my point. Unfortunately I do work really hard and my husband does too but for some reason it's not affecting that part of my body. LOL!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)