Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 36 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Fat Mama’s deal not yet complete
Published Monday, July 14, 2008
NATCHEZ — Days after Fat Mama’s and the city reached a verbal compromise, the written version is still being drafted and awaits finalization.
City Attorney Everett Sanders said Fat Mama’s attorney Bob Latham is working on the draft.
“We’re waiting on them,” Sanders said. “They need to go forward.”
Photo by Steve VanGunda
Fat Mama’s Tamales owner David Gammill waters shrubs he just planted Monday afternoon at their new location on Canal Street.
Latham said he’s been away from his office for a couple of days so he hasn’t gotten around to finishing it yet.
“It’s not a major rush,” he said. “We’re in agreement on what we decided.”
He said he should have it finished by sometime this week.
Once the agreement has been drafted, it will still need to be reviewed before the details of the compromise can be publicly discussed.
On Wednesday, Latham said once it came to the review, there were still opportunities for disagreement.
On Friday David Gammill, owner of Fat Mama’s, said the matter had been “settled in principal.”
Gammill provided no further details.
Sanders said once everything gets settled, it will need to be signed, but he’s unsure of exactly who will need to sign it.
“Once we get the thing into a form, then we’ll look at how we need to execute it,” he said. “I believe that it can just be signed off on by the mayor.”
Last Tuesday, at the Natchez Board of Aldermen meeting, Latham requested a certificate of occupancy for the restaurant but it was granted conditionally due to three issues the planning commission had.
The first was to block off two curb cuts on Washington Street that would allow access to the restaurant.
The entire space between the restaurant and Washington Street is supposed to be green space, not a thoroughfare.
It was the city’s request to block those off with two trees per cut out.
Also, two parking spaces were missing concrete curbs, which suggested to the city that there would be access to the restaurant from Washington Street.
The planning commission was requesting for the restaurant to place a chain across those parking spaces to prevent access.
The final request was to have the asphalt converted into green space.
The certificate of occupancy was issued under the condition that an agreement was reached.
Comments
Posted by starla (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about a special tool to remove the stick from the butts of the planning commission? That oughta do the trick!
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 2:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet they sure wish they had built in Vidalia.
Posted by thelorax (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
well building in Vidalia would have cut out their smoking patrons. That is one good thing about Louisiana, a no smoking place to eat ! No breathing in someone else's cancer stick.
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just wish someone would go ahead and fire the new city planning director that was just hired before he starts to believe that he really is god......
Posted by zzzzipy (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I won't be back in Natchez until Fat Mama's is open for business!!! PROTEST....PROTEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by humorme (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am on the side of FM's all the way. I can't stand the powers that be standing in the way of progress in our city. But, I walked by the site yesterday and something does need to be done with that space! The whole project has made a overgrown and neglected parking lot into a really nice looking business that locals and tourists can enjoy. All but that one spot. Go get a load of dirt and some grass seed and lets get this thing going!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think I will be going to their establishment, as long as they are so cavalier about their responsibilities as citizens.
Cities have the right to address development, cops can put you in jail for the flimsiest of charges, and if people choose to settle in a town, they are beholding to the public authorities there. Those are the facts of being civilized.
Posted by CtheOtherSide (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The whole thing would be so much less abrasive if Fat Mama's hadn't been practically displaced by governmental authorities to begin with. I think they've been more than understanding of the whole ordeal. I'm looking forward to the new Fat Mama's. I've only eaten there twice, but it's a place you just have to like, and I believe there is a big following, and tourists will love its uniqueness, as thousands before already have. The city should be thankful they didn't decide to move elsewhere.
Posted by John (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How would you like a FM on your street? Keep liquor and noisy music, smoke and traffic at bay. Can't do it can we?
Posted by speakeasy (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
redfusman: what are you talking about? Firing the City Planner? He was hired to guide development according to the pre-established laws which make this city the beautiful place it is. And, business-friendly is creating a level playing field for all participants. Do you really think a classy business wants to be located on that highway through Vidalia? Fat Mamas knew the rules, pushed ahead in spite of neighborhood opposition, convinced the board of aldermen to give them everything they wanted and changed the rules for them and then across town honored the wishes of the existing neighborhood and denied developers an opportunity to build a respectable housing development. (the city is being sued now for that one)
Posted by motown (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i'm sure natchez would be jus fine without fat mama's.. jus one restaurant not a big deal
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not quite so Yeahuhuh. Civil law has as its primary responsibility the protection of the natural, absolute rights of man:
"And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple; and, then, such rights as are relative, which arising from a variety of connections, will be far more numerous and more complicated. These will take up a greater space in any code of laws, and hence may appear to be more attended to, though in reality they are not, than the rights of the former kind."
The right to private property is one of these absolute rights; the right to private property includes by necessity certain other rights such as absolute right to the use of property. Any concession of any right to use demanded by a municipality ought to be accompanied by a payment for that restriction of use:
"So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps be extensively beneficial to the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men to do this without consent of the owner of the land. In vain may it be urged, that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal, to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or no. Besides, the public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's private rights, as modeled by the municipal law."
The Planning Commission and Preservation Commission, having no legal authority to legislate, though they try, are the ones who are cavalier:
"In this, and similar cases the legislature alone can, and indeed frequently does, interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But how does it interpose and compel? Not by absolutely stripping the subject of his property in an arbitrary manner; but by giving him a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury thereby sustained. The public is now considered as an individual, treating with an individual for an exchange. All that the legislature does is to oblige the owner to alienate his possessions for a reasonable price; and even this is an exertion of power, which the legislature indulges with caution, and which nothing but the legislature can perform."
(All quotes from William Blackstone 'On the Absolute Rights of Individuals' and 'Of the Parliament', from lectures detailing the at least five thousand year old development of our law)
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
speak sloppy,
I am growing very tired of the personal attack. If you want to continue...I will come down with both feet....but you can stop now and I will not say another thing about you or you stupidity...I will keep it just my opinion...OK?????
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If any of the board, commission, and ngo groups had any feeling for anything but their own desire, being pursued in contradiction to our idea of rights they could predict with better accuracy whether or not to keep trotting up to the Mississippi Supreme Court in order to lose more cases. These groups simply have no concept of or feeling for rights.
In truth and in all fairness, when the municipality demands so much control of an owner's property the owner should be paid in some manner for the cost so imposed on him, perhaps through tax credits (most likely since the city is broke). Or perhaps those persons demanding an owner's property look a certain way should themselves pay that owner for his acquiesence instead of trying to force it through the courts. Otherwise these aristocratic groups, who do have a limited place in our constitutional government, will demand that the use they decree for an individual's private property will be paid for by the individual.
Keep in mind that in the law and so in the courts the municipality is considered one person and the property owner one person. Can one person demand another spend his money in a particular way? No, he cannot, unless that one person has been given dictatorial power in some way.
All the citizens of Natchez, and of Adams County since there is likely to be a more aggressive drive to consolidate city and county, should ask their aldermen to redefine ordinances relating to private property along lawful lines and to examine how and if power is separated among the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies of Natchez.
Posted by james (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
speakeasy IF YOU WILL POST YOUR NAME WE WILL BE GLAD TO HAVE YOU OVER HERE WHERE THERE ARE A LOT OF NEW BUSINESS'S ARE AT ! OTHER WISE HIDE AND KEEP SLIPPING OVER TO GET YOUR CHEAP GAS AND GREAT VIEWS OF THE RIVER AND NICE PEOPLE !
Posted by triscuit (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It might be interesting to know which "variations" from the approved plans were a result of Fat Mama's trying to bypass authorities and which were instructions by the authorities. When you have multiple approval agencies and multiple inspectors and they're not informing each other about issues they're verbally suggesting, requiring or allowing, you end up with a "fiasco" like Fat Mama's.
I find myself agreeing with redusmfan.
And incidentally, that chain the planner has required will surely compliment the scenic beauty of the neighborhood.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree completely with that triscuit. There need be only one lawfully constituted body for handling these matters with the all the others having an equal to but not greater than any other voice in the creation and enforcement of ordinances.
Posted by motown (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"IF YOU WILL POST YOUR NAME WE WILL BE GLAD TO HAVE YOU OVER HERE WHERE THERE ARE A LOT OF NEW BUSINESS'S ARE AT ! OTHER WISE HIDE AND KEEP SLIPPING OVER TO GET YOUR CHEAP GAS AND GREAT VIEWS OF THE RIVER AND NICE PEOPLE !"
take natchez out the picture and 3/4 of those biznesses would not be there.. ya welcome v-town
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks EnKiKur for the info and the informative letter today.
Posted by natchez1 (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is it just me - or is this getting silly?
Fat Mamas got planning approval for the building, they won the rezoning both in Natchez and at appeal court, they were asked by the City engineer to move the building a few feet so it was not on top of the water main - and then they are shut down by the city planner for moving the building. They are told to plant grass and trees and remove the asphalt and driveway entrances that had been there for 30 years, (which they have agreed to do).
Many businesses are granted approval to occupy the building prior to the landscaping being finished - why can't Fat Mamas?
The Convention Center when it was built showed mature trees and landscaping - and it was years before even grass was planted. (In fact the architect told me at the planning meeting that the architectural renderings that they submitted - omitted the huge air conditioning units on the roof on the Franklin Street side and other unsightly details - roof vents etc, and the pretty landscaping pictured was not in the budget. He told me "that there was not even enough money in the budget for grass."
Why is the removal of the driveways Fat Mama's problem - if the city wants them removed they should redo the sidewalk. They recently redid the entire sidewalk on the other side of the street. They have redone many sidewalks elsewhere if they want the drives removed remove them. Fat Mamas is a huge investment - the tax on the property will increase significantly. If the city and the neighbors let it open it might even make money, employ people and actually become a contributing member of downtown.
The city has ordinances to deal with noise from loud car stereos or from noisy bands. They have open container laws and litter laws, if FM or its customers violates these they should be dealt with. (It would be nice if other people and businesses that break these rules were also dealt with.)
Much has been written about the rezoning, it was legal - the decision was appealed and upheld. We have an existing business in the historic district with a drive through (the Malt Shop) we had a fast food chain downtown for years - Church's both of these businesses had few problems with their neighbors, why the sudden fear that an old established business that is moving across the street will suddenly destroy the historic patina of Natchez? Stop the bitching and let the FM open.
If the world ends then I guess you can say I told you so.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I, too, agree with you EnKiKur...wonder what makes those "greatly appreciated volunteers" on the Preservation Board think everyone appreciates them telling citizens what color paint they can use, what plants to plant, what windows to install, etc. on their own property? Heck, the next thing you know, they will be telling those same citizens what style of clothes to wear on certain dates to keep the area "historic".
Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Posted by jlm448 (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad that this topic has received almost as much feedback as the problems facing NRMC. Natchez will always be my hometown, although oftentimes it seems as if I never really belonged there. I'm certain that if the powers that be were presented the opportunity to burn everything from the city cemetery northward, from St. Mary's eastward, and from the old train depot westward, they would do so in a New York minute. The town is dead, a hovel of dust-bowl steel magnolia golden girl master gardeners reveling in an ignoble past that haunts everyone who is plagued by its memory but themselves. Who cares if the business has a superfluous amount of entrances? Everyone leaving the place has had too much to drink in the first place!
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jlm,
That is why the state made sure to pave 4 lane roads out of Natchez in every concievable direction, so people like you and I, that never really fit in, could leave and let them(the powers that be) squabble themselves into total obscurity on the map of meaningfulness.
I live 100 miles away and only wish that my children could have seen the town that I grew up in...not what Nathez has become. I did not live on snob hill, but we had food, fun, and friends . We did not have to worry about getting shot in the neighborhood behind the Old A&B Motor building and our parents made enough to keep us in clothes and feed us without having to ask for government assistance.
That is not the Natchez that exist today at all.
Posted by DHOLMES (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Things change...its not the natchez we grew up in, but I moved back from NOLA to raise my daughter in Natchez because compared to that city, Natchez is still a great place to be and to grow up. Maybe if you didn't live 100 miles away you could see the things in Natchez that are good.
The real problem with Natchez is ignorance..I am not talking about you, I am talking about the poor education system that is turning out a generation of "have nots".
Posted by Inquirer (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so happy to see Fat Mama's getting closer and closer to their goal. They never asked for what has happened and the only thing they are trying to do is to continue to do business in Natchez. People should be more supportive, after all, it could be you someday. I know I would be seeking their advice on what to do. Good Luck Fat Mama's!!
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dholmes,
Yes, the lack of decent educational facilities has been discussed on here over and over. The complete system needs to be overhauled. I was on the high school campus about a year ago for work ...bidding work.. and it looked like the old fayette high school that I worked on back in 1986 on a construction crew.
I fear that Natchez is headed to a level 1 classification and the result will be state oversight for all the children. This may be a better idea than having the bobbleheads running it that are in charge now......
Posted by speakeasy (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
redfusman, I meant no personal offense to you. Sorry I didn't see this earlier, just got home from work. Please do not take my comments personally. I'm just defending a guy who was hired to do a job and seems he's doing his job. Hopefully, he won't bend the rules just to please the politicians. That's the problem here.
Posted by pbnj (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE! I'M MOVING TO CANADA.
Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Letschat, a town is made by the people who live in it. Fayette is not dead. It's full of life and nice and caring people. I'm for so am one. We are working on our own community. We just have few resources, but does that make us dead? I don't think so. Besides, Fayette is not associated with the topic on here. This is Natchez we are talking about.
As far as Fat Mamas, David has done just about everything that the city has asked him to do, only to get more and more problems. I've sit back and read comment after comment about how the plans should have been done to meet the city's requirements in the first place. Well, they were and they were approved. That's all I have to say about that. The building looks wonderful inside and out. I'm waiting for the Grand Opening. I commend David Gammill for his patience, because he sure does have it.
Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't take this the wrong way, Letschat.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
draw, I hope Fayette will take advantage of the upcoming mayor's conference to get some aid for Fayette. As long as money is being spent it is only proper Fayette get some of it. I for one would like to see Fayette revitalized. Fayette does have some resources- cultural resources.
Fayette sits in farming land. One aspect of Sustainable Development, New Urbanism and Conservation Economy is local production of food for local markets. Fayette is in a very good position to be a new agricultural center in line with these concepts.
Jefferson County already has one large produce farmer, and there could be many more smaller ones, producing food not just for the locale but for export to other nearby cities. Fayette could become a center for organic, high yield food production using newer techniques not relying on monoculture.
The people of Jefferson County are people of the land, and that is no small thing. Land is your resource, and along with that you have the role of Fayette in the civil rights movement so that should qualify Fayette for some part of the Preserve America funding.
Has Fayette's mayor been invited to the conference?
Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EnKiKur, thanks for your ideas. I know someone I can share them with. I know that our community is coming together to discuss ways to bring our little town foward. I just hate when people down-grade us, but like I said, we are good people. We just don't have much, but we have each other.
I just hope that Letschat, didn't take what I said seriously. It was a response, not an argument. But, I try not to get off the subject, although it happens.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
draw, ya'll have Alcorn A&M up there. Alcorn could play a big role in developing these sorts of ideas.
Posted by overthehill60 (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone that has a problem with the post EnKiKur makes is only because they can't understand them. I wish I were 1/10 as intellegent because I would be posting the same thoughs. So EnKiKur keep your post coming most of us enjoy them.
BYE BYE pbnj enjoy you life! Maybe then you will relaize how great America (especialy the South) is.
redusmfan ... I agree with you I wish our kids knew the life we had growing up in Natchez. Those were the good old days that can't never be repeated!
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Still seems like the Natchez City Government still needs to stay "out" of private business more!The Business Community needs to move forward and the Mayor and the Board of Alderman need to assist the Business in question and get it open! Hang in there Fat Mama's! The new Mayor needs to step up and get the so-called papers signed and get this matter over!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)