Jeremiah Dumas
Alderman, Ward 5
It has been very interesting to read the writings of many in response to a single letter declaring a need for regulation in this community. As I stated, the regulation idea is not a matter of trees, but community health and quality of life.
Interestingly, this has invoked some to produce personal attacks, critiques of quotes and historical writings, and even a more recent asking for my resignation.
Much thought went into whether I needed to respond, but I am responding for the primary purpose of saying that I will not step down and that I feel even more compelled to ensure a higher quality of life for the majority of this community who enjoy living in an properly planned community.
I am sorry, but I am afraid that those of you who value the freedom to do anything and everything that you wish on your property, you are in the wrong city, as well as in the wrong era.
I am not in this fight alone. This City hired a planner five years ago to conduct a comprehensive plan that was not only approved by the city administration of the time, but was vested in the community through a public process of data and information sharing and gathering and brainstorming.
It’s important to note is that at the time, not only were there a mayor and seven aldermen, but the Planning and Zoning commission consisted of twelve individuals, all of which helped produce and adopted the comprehensive plan.
As with most comprehensive plans, pertinent information about the community was gathered and a plan produced that includes, naming a few, a future land use plan and transportation plan.
The beginning section of our plan includes twelve significant findings and are shown below in order as presented in the comprehensive plan:
• The city should be consistent and diligent in enforcing regulations.
• The city should get new, better regulations to help with identified problems.
• The city is unattractive in places; needs better curb appeal.
• Too many multi-family units exist; many are poorly designed, cheaply constructed and in inappropriate places.
• Problems exist with students living in traditional single-family areas.
• Existing ordinances need improving.
• There is too much land zoned for commercial and multi-family uses and in inappropriate places.
• The city’s circulation system needs improvement, appropriately balancing auto, pedestrian, biking and mass transportation modes.
• Public facilities improvements are needed.
• Some areas in the city are deteriorating and need redevelopment. Other areas are doing well and would do better with new zoning.
• The city struggles to develop a budget each year and is operating with one of the lowest millage rates in the state. It needs to develop new sources of revenue, capitalize on existing sources, and provide public facilities as efficiently as possible.
• The city needs to look to its future and begin allowing only environmentally friendly and sustainable development.
What does all this stuff mean? Well a group of 20 elected or appointed citizens, a planning staff, a group of hired professionals, and a public process found a lack of regulations, that we needed to be better at enforcing our regulations, that we had unattractive places, we don’t have enough revenue, we need to embrace bikes and pedestrians, and we need to be better stewards of the environment.
Are all these people Communist/Socialist/dictators? I think not. These are people that care about Starkville.
Are these Republicans/Democrats/moderates? Yes, there were many of each and all of them had the best interest for the City of Starkville in mind and so do I.
I commend all of them for their hard work, foresight, and ability to produce a document that offers a good framework for our growth and development.
It is time to amend our comprehensive plan and regulations will be a significant part of the process.
As the chairman of the comprehensive planning committee, I am glad to lead a committee that is diverse, energetic, and most importantly, a group that knows and understands what it takes to get Starkville to the next level. This group is a proud group of Americans who enjoy freedom, love Starkville, and are volunteering their time for the effort.
?We look forward to seeing you as part of our comprehensive plan amendment public process.
Did you know that the city of Houston, Texas does not have a comprehensive zoning plan? It’s true. If you want to build a house next to a factory, or build a factory next to a school—knock yourself out. In Houston, with few exceptions, you pretty much have the right to develop your property how you see fit.
It seems to me that if a city of 2.3 million people can get along nicely without having a bunch of busybodies at City Hall telling them what they can or cannot build on their property, I figure that a city the size of Starkville could do just as well without a planning committee.
Mr. Dumas speaks of how the city needs new revenue streams. That’s true. But the best way to generate revenue is to incentivize growth. This is accomplished by allowing property owners to develop their land as they see fit.
Over-regulation scares off business. Just ask the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District. It wants to build a 14,000 square foot community center for senior citizens, but the city wants them to spend an additional $25,000 to construct sidewalks—at a place where there are no pedestrians, mind you. Because this cost would put them over budget, they have threatened to cancel the $1.6 million project. It would be tragic if the GTPDD dropped this project, particularly in light of the perilous economic times we now face.
My heavens, if we weren’t spending so much money on committees that meddle in the affairs of private landowners—or ordering people to build sidewalks where they are unnecessary—maybe our fair town would have a bit more economic development, and by extension, a bit more tax revenue to support necessary services, such as our police, fire, and sanitation departments.
Imagine, if you will, a Starkville without a comprehensive zoning plan. It’s easy if you try. Businessmen like Larry Tabor could purchase vacant property like the University Inn and develop it right now without having to get permission from the Board of Aldermen. Then when people like the CottonMills developers—who, by the way, haven’t exactly been in any real hurry to clean the rubble from the old Starkville Theater, much less to build their lauded development—raise Cain about their neighbor’s developments, they would have the right to buy him out—at a premium, no less, further driving property values. But instead, by injecting itself into the debate, the Board of Aldermen has killed a shovel-ready development while simultaneously devaluing an already depressed piece of property. (After all, who is going to buy the University Inn now that the Board of Alderman has subordinated its development to that of the CottonMills property?)
As the Tabor/CottonMills debacle proves, zoning ordinances pit neighbors against neighbors, forcing the Board of Aldermen to play favorites instead of treating all landowners equally. But of even greater import, restrictions on the use of property devalue property. When the entire universe of potential property buyers is restricted by the arbitrary whims of city planners, demand is thereby reduced. When demand plummets, so do property values. When property values drop, so does tax revenue.
Frankly, I trust the people of Starkville to handle their own affairs. Starkville needs leadership that is less concerned about appearances and more concerned about substantive issues. We need leaders that will run the buses, so to speak, instead of running our lives.
Matt,
Have you ever been to Houston? As native Texan and someone who has spent several years of his life in Houston, I have NEVER heard of anyone describe Houston as the utopian model you seem to envision. Never.
Neal,
As a native Texan who spent several years of your life in Houston, did you do anything to address the lack of zoning that you presently seem to bemoan? If you did, how successful were you in convincing your neighbors to support your position?
It seems to me that if Houston’s problems are the result of a lack of zoning, then you–and 2.3 million of your closest friends–would have stormed the proverbial Bastille by now to demand that City Hall do something about it. But since you probably didn’t…. I can only infer that the majority of Houstonians are pleased with the freedom they now enjoy.
Matt
One more thought….
The Board of Alderman seem focused upon making Starkville beautiful. They are so focused upon making Starkville beautiful that they don’t want people to cut trees in their yards without city permission. After all, we wouldn’t want the few hundred people who drive down our city streets each day to see a delapidated mess of a yard. Fair enough.
But then, when CottomMills destroys the Starkville Theater, leaving a prodigious pile of rubble as well as an old Pizza Hut sign that still reads “Now Hiring” next to Highway 12–the busiest thoroughfare in our fair haven–where thousands upon countless thousands of people can see this mess each day, we turn a blind eye to that. Eighteen months later, that mess is still there. Why?
Why does the Board of Alderman allow developers like CottonMills to keep a mess in their proverbial yard, but the average person can’t do anything to their property without the city’s permission? Is the city showing favoritism to CottonMills? Or is the City simply cleaning the outside of the proverbial bowl without addressing what’s inside?
Just wondering.
Matt
Matt,
Again, I am fairly new to Starkville, So I am not very familiar with any “tree” issues and am vaguely familiar with the CottonMills and definitely see your point. I can guarantee you that as a newcomer it was impossible to turn a blind eye to the condition of the city. I distinctly remember the fear and anxiety the I felt whenever I saw Starkville for the first time. My wife and I were looking for apartments and we entered town on HWY 182. We were so taken aback by the condition of the town that my wife began crying. I could not believe that a town with a major university was in such disrepair. If our circumstances had been different we would have left town without even considering living here. Since then I have come to find some of the “charm” Starkville offers, but lets not kid ourselves, the general condition of many parts of town are less than ideal. It appears that complacency is the major culprit. If for no reason other than to generate new ideas, I appreciate any attempts by any politician to elevate the quality of life for its citizenry. Whether we agree or not, at least bold actions seed dialogue.
Well said, Neal.
Many parts of Starkville are ugly. Do we have the will to fix it, or are we just going to let the status quo further entrench itself into our community.
Can city planning get out of hand with over regulation? Of course it can. Does Starkville need better regulation than has been in place for most of the last fifty years? It seems obvious to me that the answer is yes.
We can stimulate the economy all we want, but until we spruce up the place, the businesses that Mr. Wilson feels would flock here if laissez faire were given sway might move in, but all of the employees who can afford it will live elsewhere.
The whole sidewalks in the industrial park thing is a bit of a chicken and egg proposition. perhaps there are no pedestrians because there are no sidewalks. As a bike rider, there are large sections of town I don’t like to ride in because they are dangerous. Not that I want to ride on the sidewalks, but I do wish that we had thought about walking and biking as well as driving in our neighborhood designs over the last half century.
The situation at Cotton Mills is terrible, and I do think that the city should force the owners to clean up the area. I could list several other locations as well.
BTW, Houston is a development nightmare, with sprawl like you would not believe. The lack of an agrarian peasant uprising does not mean that the people love it.
Tony
Saying that Houston is a development nightmare is like saying, “People don’t go to Walmart because it’s crowded.” The very fact that there is sprawl is ipso facto proof that the city is running out of room. Why is the city running out of room? Because lots of people want to live there, work there, and trade there–all at the same time. Are there some who hate the sprawl? Of course! But there are obviously more people who like it–or at the very least, choose to tolerate it– than don’t. Otherwise, the proverbial “Wal-Mart” wouldn’t be so crowded.
I guarantee that if the City of Starkville would deregulate its entire approach to city beautification, the beautiful people of this city would figure a way to shine. What we need are leaders who can draw this out of people instead of imposing it upon them. We need leadership that will set an example instead of playing favorites (a la CottonMills).
Matt, you need to do a little more homework before holding Houston up as supportive of your argument. First, you say that “The very fact that there is sprawl is ipso facto proof that the city is running out of room.” OK. But you’re missing the point: the “room” has been unwisely used, thereby creating an inefficient mess of sprawl and standstill traffic. Your post is the first time I’ve ever heard sprawl being equated to success!
Second, although Houston doesn’t have a “comprehensive zoning plan,” many studies have concluded that the city–through municipal ordinances–probably has MORE control over land use than other cities that have a zoning plan. These ordinances transcend mere zoning restrictions. They address issues ranging from parking lot sizes to setbacks to paint color, hardly indicative of the free-market ideal you imagine. A cursory search on Houston zoning will bring scads of information about these ordinances, which act as a de facto city zoning plan. Municipalities can call it what they like–but they all realize the need for strategic zoning and land-use restrictions.
Starkville, with strategic planning and fresh ideas, could be so much more than it is today.
DJS,
This is interesting. By your estimation, Houston has “MORE control over land use than other cities that have a zoning plan” by virtue of its ordinances which act as “a de facto zoning plan.” Yet, by your estimation Houston is using its space inefficiently–leading to “sprawl and stand still traffic.”
Based upon your analysis, it seems as if there is a correlation between government control and inefficient development. The MORE a city controls land use (whether by piecemeal ordinances or comprehensive planning), the MORE sprawl and stand still traffic is created.
@Matt Wilson
Hi Matt, I grew up in Houston and I can assure you that you really don’t want to point to Houston as a planning model to which we should all aspire. You seem to suggest that the lack of change to Houston’s predicament amounts to approval but the city was well established before people looked up and said, “Wait, living in a patchwork of sprawled chaos isn’t so great. Maybe we should do something about it.” The problem is, of course, that it’s difficult to change a hundred years of development in twenty years. Please believe me when I say that they’re trying and that most Houstonians see the un-zoned sprawl as a situation to be remedied, not celebrated. No, I don’t have any surveys or data to back this up. I only offer it as an observation of someone that lived there for 17 years.
I don’t think Starkville will ever grow to Houston-esque proportions (no petrochem and all) but I do believe we are at something of a crossroads in our development. We can continue to grow willy-nilly and end up with an ugly non-place (lookin’ at you Columbus and West Point) or we can take control and a conscious role in deciding what we want our town to be like 20 years from now. As you can imagine, I support the latter. I support it because I believe that Starkville will benefit economically more by being a nice place to live than by simply being business friendly. I’m not sure why we can’t have some of both, but that seems to be the tenor of this debate.
If you’re not familiar with The Woodlands do a Google search for it. It is the best counter – argument I can think of to the notion of using Houston as a model for growth. It perfectly illustrates that lots of people want strong planning and order and, yes, trees – to the tune of a population that grew from 0 to almost 100,000 in 36 years. The Woodlands was specifically created as a refutation of Houston.
Look, I understand where you’re coming from. I understand that you believe that such control restricts your liberty and i will agree with you 100 percent that it does. I am just submitting that none of us lives – or wants to live – in an absolutely free society. The question is: how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice for order? I guess I am just willing sacrifice more than you. In this case. But, I’d bet my eye-teeth that there are other issues for which you would agree to a greater restriction of liberty than I would.
Glen, you make some valid points. However, let me tell you where I am coming from.
I rent a home in Starkville. I don’t own property here. In fact, I may not for at least a couple of years (for pecuniary reasons). So its not like I resent the City telling me what I can or cannot build on my property; as of right now, the City is not telling me to do anything. But I live here, and therefore, I do have a vested interest in what happens here. So in one sense, I have a measure of objectivity since I am not directly impacted by the rules, but, at the same time, it’s not like I am some stranger who is meddling with the affairs of this fair town.
Be that as it may, I am not particularly concerned about my own liberty. Rather, I am concerned about the liberty of the citizens of Starkville, and how attempts by the BOA to restrict this liberty have yielded counterproductive results. For instance, the City wants to micromanage how trees are cut in our yards ostensibily to preserve our town’s beauty; yet, when a building like the Starkville Theatre is demolished, the City seems unconcerned about the unsightly appearance of the rubble some 18 months later. Why is this? Why does the BOA turn a blind eye to the biggest eyesore in town to micromanage the trees in a federally subsidized housing project? To add insult to injury, when a local developer wants to fix up the eyesore that is adjacent to this pile of rubble, the BOA won’t let him because it offends the very developer who owns the unsightly pile of rubble.
Apparently this is the BOA’s school of thought: If a poor person wants to cut a tree in his yard, in a neighborhood with limited traffic, he darn well better not! (But if a rich conglomerate wants to leave a huge mess on a vacant lot where 10,000 or more people see it every day… well, that’s ok.) If this is not arbitrary and capricious behavior, I don’t know what is.
It’s this arbitrary and capricious behavior that demonstrates the high-handedness of the BOA. If they were consistently fair in their dealings, that would be one thing: I would be more inclined to support their beautification projects and the like because they would at least be consisently enforced, treating each person equally. But since they want to pick apart the little guy while giving the big guy a pass, I don’t trust them to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their property.
Matt, that was a nice post hoc attempt, so let’s go with it.. According to you, the ordinances caused the sprawl. Also, according to you, sprawl is a symbol of success. So….I suppose that the governmental ordinances should get the credit, instead of the blame?
In reality, Glen is correct when he says that the city has attempted (especially over the last twenty or so years) to reign in the unregulated mess. You could make an argument about the wisdom of some of those regulations (and you would be right to do that), but don’t confuse the cause and the effect .
The BOA’s failure to address the theatre site is troubling. But that doesn’t in any way translate to “Houston has no zoning and look what a success it is! WE should do that!”
@Matt
I whole-heartedly agree with you that the giant pile ‘o rubble needs to be dealt with. But, I don’t think it’s necessarily some sort of class-based injustice as (if I understand it correctly) the poor people you mention are living on city land and the pile ‘o rubble was bought and paid for by private parties. The city has more power to do things in the former than it does in the latter. Do I have my facts straight? I’m sure someone will correct me if it’s not. Anyway, I suspect there are legal reasons why the Aldermen haven’t seen to this in a more timely manner. Would Mr. Dumas (or anyone else) care to shed some insight on why that festering eyesore is still there? Can we, as citizens, organize a cleanup? It’d take a lot of heavy equipment – and may be beyond our means – but I’d rather at least try to take action than gripe about waiting for someone else to do it.