Comments by CitizenSane
Page 1 of 13 | Next
Posted on July 11 at 8:19 a.m.
Remember everyone:
We got into this Fat Mama's mess in the first place because the city "bent the rules" for Fat Mama's in the beginning. Otherwise, they could never have located on that lot.
First under Hank Smith, then under Mayor West, the City Planning Department was basically dismantled. During this period of "no city planning" and "ignore the rules," the Board of Alderman tried to railroad through several pet projects despite the rulings of the Planning/Zoning Commission and the Preservation Commission.
Citizens have rebelled. And those businesses/developers who thought they were getting away with a special deal at the expense of others are now having to fight and scrap for what should never have been allowed in the first place.
The Pecan Factory, Fat Mamas, and now Audubon Terrace just make it PERFECTLY CLEAR to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to understand that CITY PLANNING is key to city growth and that smart growth is planned growth.
Technically, they should all sue the city (I read that Audubon Terrace is), but truthfully, they all knew that they were playing in a high stakes game when they asked the city to overlook or undo laws and regulations so that their projects could go forward.
In the meantime, there were/are plenty of other suitable locations where these projects could have and should have been built without controversy.
Posted on June 1 at 8:42 p.m.
Typo correction. First line of my above post should have said
"You allowed your readers to be misled." Not "misread."
Posted on June 1 at 4:46 p.m.
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 on June 1 at 10:20 a.m.
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 on June 1 at 9:53 a.m.
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 on June 1 at 9:39 a.m.
Well, this may explain the Democrat Editorial Board's outright refusal to report on the well-documented safety issues regarding the current plan for development of the Pecan Factory site. On their desks sit all of the engineering and geological reports regarding this project. Yet, don't look to your local newspaper to inform you on this topic. It's not going to happen.
I see that Jake Middleton, in his advertisements, is taking credit for any and everything that could possibly be perceived as positive during past adminstrations, including the $26 million soil-nailed wall experiment in our loess bluff. I wonder if he will take "credit" when the wall and the bluff collapse because of unsafe development, above and below the bluff?
One of my chief concerns about Mr. Middleton is that when you talk with people who live in his ward, many of them follow him not because of what he will do for their ward or the whole of Natchez, but because he gives them the impression that he is the champion of the little man AGAINST the evildoers who live and work downtown. Yet folks think he will be a "consensus builder?" I don't get it. Sounds more like a remarkable chameleon ... in other words, first and foremost, he is a politician.
Mr. Graning is"Natchez first." His focus is on what he "will" do for all of us. Education, balanced budget, healthy economy.
Also, Graning promotes fair business dealings for everyone, not just a few political cronies with special interests. Everyone will have a chance under Graning.
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 behind-the-scenes movers and shakers who prefer the dark.
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 Mr. Graning and Ms. Ball are 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 Graning and Ball.
Posted on May 30 at 6:03 a.m.
Once again, certain of you bloggers are blathering on about "downtown" Natchez versus "the rest of us" or "old Natchez" versus the people.
Good grief.
Get over it.
This is so ridiculous.
You sound like children.
People who have lived here for generations upon generation and people who live and work downtown have a right to representation just as much as you do.
You probably don't even realize that the historic district was carved up into multiple wards years ago to effectively disenfranchise the downtowners. They basically have no representation in city government these days.
Stop focusing on what you think "others have" that you "have not" and start focusing on what you need for your own neighborhoods etc.
I never read "we need this or that in our ward..." I only read your complaints and whines. On and on about how "old Natchez" holds you back and "downtown" gets too much attention.
Maybe the biggest problem in Natchez is your own lack of vision for the neighborhoods and communities that you call home... and your absurd fixation on what you perceive others have that you "have not." Do you elect your alderman based on their vision for your ward or their vision for doing in downtown and Old Natchez and tourism? Sounds like you're fixated on the latter.
Grow up.
Stop paying so much attention to trying to "take away" from downtown and start paying attention to building up other sections of Natchez -- like your own ward.
Unfortunately, however, it is obvious that some of you will never be happy until all of your phantom "blue hairs" are dead or run out of town and downtown Natchez is effectively leveled and all the tourism jobs are gone the way of Johns Mansville and IP.
Will that make you happy? No, of course not. Because then you might actually have to make a positive contribution to the community, instead of just complaining about the efforts that others make to boost our economy and our city.
Posted on May 27 at 8:21 p.m.
Destiny, I mean this sincerely: You and others like you have got to get over this resentment of those associated with the so-called Pilgrimage. Yes, there are some who are involved today who are totally caught up in the fantasy of it all and don't think about the full story. That is sad.
However, most of the so-called "Old Natchez" "blue-hairs" that I know are totally in favor of the Forks of the Road project and other black history projects.
In fact, it was the Natchez Garden Club (the group that founded the Natchez Pilgrimage in 1932) who rescued the William Johnson House, one of the first black history sites to be saved in Natchez. This was long before the National Park Service came to the rescue.
Also, you may not be aware of the tremendous work that the Historic Natchez Foundation has done over the decades to research and document the African-American History of Natchez.
I look forward to the day when we can all come together on our love for Natchez and her storied and conflicted past and stop blaming the phantom blue hairs and garden club ladies for our failings as a community.
Finally I totally agree with Constance: Natchez is a national treasure!
Posted on May 20 at 8:37 p.m.
I think Forks of the Road is a great project.
I don't understand why the Friends think NPS involvement would be a negative. Seems like keeping NPS out of it is slowing it down. I thought NPS already funded the feasibiity study.
That needs to be explained.
Page 1 of 13 | Next
Posted on July 14 at 8:17 a.m.
EnKiKur -
Some of your posts are so intelligent and well thought out, then some of them, like several above, are just juvenile.
Your ongoing issues with "aristorcrats" and your calling out and pointing of fingers at Marty Seibert and Ron and Mimi Miller makes me wonder if your real beef is something personal.
It's our CITY GOVERMENT and our wheeling-dealing, me-first, selfish players, not Siebert or the Millers, who destroy the future of Natchez.
As observer pointed out, "preservation is not just about old houses. It is about a liveable community for everyone." Seems to me I got a lecture from you once about New Urbanism (maybe that was someone else).
New Urbanism is about liveable communities. Not creating a perfectly preserved "mauseleum of a town" to be observed from the outside in only, but a place that can be lived in.
New Urbanist study Natchez, Miss, the Spanish Town Plan, as a model for planning brand new communities from the ground up. Downtown Natchez is the perfect blank slate ... a new urbanist community waiting to happen.
But that requires VISION and REGULATIONS. Can't just be the "anything goes" approach that you advocate.
Even cities that have no historic value (like New Urbanist villages built from ground up) have codes, ordinances and regulations.
There is no conflict between the tourism industry and progress and growth. There is a conflict between self-interested city leadership/self-interested developers/no city planning AND the best interest of local business, economic growth and the community.
Back to Seibet and the Millers, I'm sure you will find that none of them has ever accepted a personal bribe in exchange for their support for a development project. Just a little something to think about.
On Compromise isn’t always the answer