A-1 Pallets on Mill Street in Jackson has been the subject of much controversy recently as Mayor Frank Melton seeks to demolish it, calling it an "eyesore". The business is owned by Monte, a candidate for Hinds County Tax Assessor, and Charlotte Reeves, former Jackson mayoral candidate. The Reeves obtained a restraining order preventing Jackson from condemning and demolishing their business, appearing on local talk radio shows while granting interviews in which they defend their business (See below for links to media coverage.).
Mayor Melton has been persistent in his crusade to tear down the pallet-recycling plant. The Reeves won a temporary victory in court last week against Mr. Melton: A Jackson business that Mayor Frank Melton has vowed to demolish obtained a judge's approval Friday to extend a temporary restraining order against the city.
Also, the restraining order was expanded to ban not only the city, but also the mayor, city employees and any independent contractor with the city from demolishing any structures or buildings at A-1 Pallet, 1000 N. Mill St., "or to in any way interfere with business operations of the plaintiff until further order of this court." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707210351.
Also, the restraining order was expanded to ban not only the city, but also the mayor, city employees and any independent contractor with the city from demolishing any structures or buildings at A-1 Pallet, 1000 N. Mill St., "or to in any way interfere with business operations of the plaintiff until further order of this court." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707210351.
Independent contractors? That must mean the Mayor cannot hire the Wood Street Players Lawn Service crew for a Ridgeway Street reunion after exchanging lawnmowers and weedeaters for sledgehammers and blowtorches.
The restraining order was sought because the Mayor "vowed again today to tear down A1 Pallet, a day after the Jackson Historic Preservation Commission granted the owners a 60-day reprieve from demolition.
Looking down from the Fortification Street overpass onto the five-acre property with reporters and news photographers, Melton said he planned to override the commission’s ruling and proceed with demolition when the weather was more agreeable." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/NEWS/70711032
Looking down from the Fortification Street overpass onto the five-acre property with reporters and news photographers, Melton said he planned to override the commission’s ruling and proceed with demolition when the weather was more agreeable." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/NEWS/70711032
Part of the plant was a Mill that is over 100 years old and thus the basis for the historical preservation controversy.
One aspect of the news coverage of this controversy that has been lacking has been visual coverage of the plant itself through the use of photos. Is this business an "eyesore" as the Mayor called it and a hazard to the surrounding community or is it an viable business with historic value to the community that needs to be protected? Photos have been taken and a link provided to an album of them online so that a more thorough review of the plant and the surrounding neighborhood can be made by the citizens of Jackson: http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w222/prplhze2000/A-1%20Pallets/
I have had no contact at all with Mr. and Mrs. Reeves or their representatives. I am undecided as to whether this plant is an eyesore and should be torn down using proper legal channels or if it is indeed a historic structure and should be incorporated into any urban renewal projects as it sits less than a mile from downtown Jackson.
One idea that might be looked at is that of building a wood fence. It is the back part of the plant that is an eyesore. Erecting a wood fence would go a long way in hiding the more non-aesthetic features of the plant. One must also ask (this was suggested by DWF) if the Reeves have looked at getting a grant to restore the mill, convert part of it to a museum that shows how the mill process worked while leaving the business in place, thus improving the area. Working on such a project is not as fun as swinging sledgehammers but there would be something for everyone if undertaken by all parties concerned.
However, the print media has not taken advantage of the internet to give Jacksonians the whole story. Since the issue at hand is the appearance of the plant and the surrounding area, it would seem that the media should show us what it looks like instead of merely describing it in a few written words.
Media Coverage:
http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=6820605&nav=menu119_3http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=13710_0_4_0_C
Note to news organizations that use photos and story, including link listed above to photobucket album, please cite to http://www.jacksonjambalaya.com/
Note: There are spelling errors in the quotes. Several. I left them in there in an example of the "jackassery" part of this blog.
5 comments:
So I'll ask you: Why do you think Melton really wants to get rid of A-1 Pallets? I'm drawing a blank.
I honestly don't know. There are railroad tracks across the street. Abandoned shotgun houses adjacent to it. I can see anything residential going up that close to so many RR tracks. Who would want to live there that had a choice? I can see where when you look down Mill Street you are looking right at the King Edward Hotel only a half mile or so away you don't want a blight so close. WHen you come down Fortification from N. State Street it looks like an eyesore.
However, I do not know what the explanation is for Melton's haste on tearing down the business.
Whose district is it in...?
Hey,
Someone told me about your blogs on A-1 Pallets, and I must say that I do like the photos you have included. I've led a couple of protests on their behalf because I felt that the owners were being picked on, and I thought that someone should bring attention to it. It has not been easy, but I think that it's worth the effort if the rights of residential and commercial property owners are protected.
Thanks for the nice words and glad you liked the site. Personally I think both sides are right and wrong. Melton is right, is an eyesore and that back half of it looks horrible. The Reeves should've at least made an effort to cover that up with a wooden fence or some kind of metal slats placed in the fence and shrubbery.
I think they are right in their principles though in that it is a viable business, is in compliance etc. There is a reasonable alternative: eminent domain.
However, i think both sides are missing the boat and favor what I posted above, which is mill restoration grants and project. I think it meets the needs of both side and has not been addressed by anyone.
Post a Comment