Posted by firered (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it should read at the end if they do not have the proper upkeeping. I don't think they should go around demolishing any vacant house just the ones that are an eyesore or are a thorn in a neighborhood's side (dens of illegal activity).

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who is to say if the house is an eyesore or a thorn? Mayor West, no doubt. He is the DullDozerDude! And I purposely spelled it that way. Natchez has enough to do fixing streets and they are not doing that. All the neighbors that witness people going in for drug deals or to sleep illegally should report the people every time they see them. Eventually the pd would have to do their job arresting these people. If every voter let the judges know that their jobs are on the line, they would start sentencing some of these criminals and we would not have to be bothered by them.

The posters on here are always against the little blue-haired ladies telling you what color to paint, but you would invade a person's private land holding to destroy it. Something stinks here.

Posted by ijohnson (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 1 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Absolutely not! If it's a crack house, maybe . . . especially if the owner is not securing it properly and has allowed it to become a blighted property with unpaid back taxes. Otherwise, if the City of Natchez "demolished vacant houses", With the state of our economy right now, I guess many $100,000+ foreclosed properties would be fair game, too!

Posted by picture_music101 (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YES!!!!!!!!WHY WASTE LAND ON HOMES THATS YARDS ARE GROWN UP AND HOUSES FALLING A PART????REBUILD FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED A HOME OR WANT TO MOVE TO A NEW HOME DO WASTE LAND!!!

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This isn't a yes or no answer . It should have maybe as a possible answer . Not all empty houses should be condemned . Some just need someone to give a little T L C .

Posted by cynthiafleming (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would hate to see homes that could be remodeled, destroyed. It is amazing to me to see what a difference can be made in a home with alittle money and TLC. This is especially true of older homes. They don't build them like that anymore and these homes were built to stand the test of time. Unfortunately few people, especially those in government positions, have the vision to see past the unpainted trim and broken windows. It would be wonderful to have a home with it's own personality and not just the cookie-cutter homes so common in our builders plans today. I hope Natchez treads slowly to destroy what may make a wonderful home for a young family wanting to raise their family there.

Posted by silly_willy_24_7 (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

of course they should be demolished and parking lots should be built. but the problem arises when the property owner tries to have work done, they spend more time and money trying to get the proper permits and run out of money before the work starts. the only requirement to cleaning up a junkpile, or putting on a fresh coat of paint, should be to submit a photo to the ND with the caption, " historic Natchez home, come visit!!" i think the permit would arrive in the mail the next day.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the homes that can restored should be. As long as the wood in the inside is still good, the house is. They can be used for businesses or homes for people. Someone can probably buy these homes for little of nothing, which would be a good investment for them, especially if they use them for rental properties. I think tearing them down should be the last option. I see this being done all around the MLK Street area. This provides a home for a family.

Posted by DUCKHUNTER (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FIRST, DEFINE WHAT A VACANT HOUSE IS; THEN CONSIDER TAXING EXTRA OR CHARGING PER MONTH THE LANDOWNER AN EXTRA FEE TO KEEP IT. THAT WOULD BE REVENUE, "FREE" REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

Posted by DUCKHUNTER (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IF IN HOUSE CONTRACTORS WOULD STOP TRYING TO GOUGE PEOPLE AROUND HERE REFURBISHING COULD BE DONE ECONOMICALLY.

Posted by grrbrts (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bankers are the key element to housing. If a house can be restored feasibly, then it should be. If it has to be demolished, then so be it. That, in turn, leads right back to the bankers. I mean, what does it take (cost-wise) to ripe one apart? In the end, either of the two, will not only help the city (the details are too long to list here), it will help the economy. Just think of what goes into building a house. There will be carpenters, plumbers, landscapers, electricians, and many others. All these lead to one major factor, jobs. Yes, we may loose a piece of history, here and there, but the outcome is enormous!

Posted by LeadPaint (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why should my house be torn down when you were the one that moved in as my neighbor?
Didn't you see the eyesore when you were shopping for your home?
So you think you can just move in and be dictator because you have OCD and cut your grass every day @ 5?

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey duckhunter,

I do remodeling, and I do not gouge. When I give a quote, I show where the money is going and how much it cost. I can not hold down the cost of materials, and my helper has to pay his bills too. My wife has a few requirements, she requires a real roof over her head and lights have to be on and food has to be on the table. Anything that may be left at the end of the month is fluff. But for the last year, there is not any fluff around. Not even here wher I am now..And I have done work in Natchez in the last year. I have done a job for a couple of people down there.