Jackson Jambalaya

I read that over the weekend, so I had a little time to think about it. I'm convinced that the difference between Jackson's situation and Detriot's (sic) is that Detriot hit rock-bottom while Jackson continues to be propped up by well-intended folks who prevent property values from dropping to a point that attracts the artistic, bohemian types who begin the upward spiral of depressed areas. Where are the "creatives" in Jackson? Not downtown.

In Jackson, developers are looking to make an immediate $100 BILLION DOLLARS on each renewal project, so owners of vacant lots and shotgun shacks try to extract holdout prices from developers in order to get their share of the $100 BILLION DOLLARS.

I'll bet you 10 to 1 that Detriot's revitalization began when property owners finally began selling at a fraction of the assessed value. I'll also bet we'd find that creatives with nothing to lose -- and not much more than that to spend -- were able to find a place (home, bar, restaurant, etc.) and use their talents to fix it up in to something others thought was cool or trendy. What I'll bet you wouldn't find is a handful of 60-something developers looking for government handouts in an effort to finance the carpet bombing of pseudo-prosperity in depressed areas.

If Downtown Jackson had been allowed to fall/fail 15 years ago, we'd be a few years into the cycle of rebirth by now. Instead the pig keeps getting new coats of lipstick.

Maybe the JFP could change their name to the DFP and move.

The same thing could be said about Jackson/Ridgeland/Madison/Brandon. Back in the boom, it seems like it was cheaper and easier to buy land and throw up new construction instead of picking up distressed property.

Took 51 from Canton to Jackson yesterday. Despite all the new construction in Madison and Ridgeland, it appears that what I would think are the prime locations in Madison and Ridgeland are still occupied by junky commercial and light industrial properties.

Still don't understand why 51 from State Street to past Jackson street hasn't been bought, razed and rebuilt.

WLBT did a story last night about a Mississippi College grad in his 20's who's trying to rehab some houses in Jackson. It was a good story. It touched on the ridiculous hurdles and bureaucratic behaviors that Jackson demonstrates regularly. The guy in the story appears to have the smarts to get things going one house at a time. But I'm afraid it is an awfully uphill battle for him.

Here's the story: http://www.wlbt.com/story/15023803/taking-back-our-neighborhoods-alabama-avenue

I read an article this weekend about BEARS that are taking up residence in bombed out parts of Detroit.

I read an article this weekend about BEARS that are taking up residence in bombed out parts of Detroit.

And all this time I thought they were doing that in the woods.

10:12 a.m., have you taken the time to actually go back and read what you posted? That makes ABSOLUTELY no sense at all! Essentially, what you offered was "The older people should have let the city go down (fail) so the younger people could have had an opportunity to come in and pick it up for a song and rebuild it in the "right" way." WTF? The objective, from a land owner's perspective, IS to prevent property values from falling. That's called smart investing! It's not the objective (obligation) of the land owner to let their property values decline to the point that "creatives" can then afford it. Unbelievable! No, I'm guessing you must be one of those young, creative, self-proclaimed bohemians who feels they should be entitled to come in and get downtown Jackson "right" this time. Seriously, go back and read what you wrote. You should feel embarrassed!

3:07, I agree with you completely. The idea that people are supposed to throw up their hands and yes, intentionally let their property fall into neglect and desperate condition just to give some young,creative bohemian type a better deal is a by-product of entitled thinking. You "owe" it to them! Damn. No wonder why this country, this city is in the shape it's in. Let it rot to the ground so some nampy-pampy can get it cheeeeper because we ooooowe it to them. That kinda blows my mind which is hard to do because I'm a pretty cynical old witch. But at least 10:12 just came on out and said it.

The problem is, the landowners downtown are older weathly folks...
who, will profit nicely if the city is kept up or if they try to sell it later to the "creative" type. If they can't get it in this lifetime, it will be passed on to children.

Either way, what happened in Detroit is a bit different that what has been discussed here. Clearly in Detroit there was massive "white flight" due primarily to extremely violent crime, here it is a "general drain" of all landowners who are desperate to sell or at a minimum forced to rent to preserve any future value they might receive if the city does turn around. The problem is the lack of leadership and development downtown is a catalyst for more to leave Jacktroit every day.

I'm telling you, Detroit as I remember it Late-80's, once you passed 8 or 9 mile was a desert. Nothing. Flat ground with streets. Up from there, they tried to burn another mile every Halloween.

@3:07 (and cynicalwitch, to a lesser extent),

Apparently I touched a nerve. After reading our respective posts, I agree that a significant amount of embarrassment is warranted... but not on my part.

I should probably clarify that when speaking of selling property at a fraction of its assessed value, I was referring to the bombed out parcels that are nearly indistinguishable from the pictures of Detroit that we've all seen over the years. Beyond that, you ask "WTF?" Well, here's "TF" in your parlance...

In Detroit, I'm willing to bet that people took whatever capital they could recover from their downtown property and put it to use somewhere else. In downtown Jackson, everyone is convinced that their unused property is a gold mine and they're just waiting on a sucker to make them a millionaire. Result? Have a look at the Sun and Sand and everything north and west of it. I beg, no I defy you to tell me how those property owners are "prevent(ing) property values from falling."

I fault the "old" people for doing two things: 1) dumping money into revitalization efforts too soon and 2) keeping dilapidated property values artificially high. Number 2 is partially a result of #1. Number 1 is particularly galling because they use gimmick financing for these projects that, directly or indirectly, takes money from our pockets. If they would limit their grandiose projects to what they could afford without tax credits, tax deferments, tax increment financing, special purpose taxes, etc., it would remain foolish, but at least not in a way that is costly to the rest of us.

If you understood me to be advocating for handouts to hippies, go back and try reading my original post again. Today's dilapidated property in downtown Jackson is not worth what it will be worth one day when downtown is actually revitalized. But as long as absent property owners continue to have unrealistic ideas about their property's value, downtown Jackson will remain the cesspool that it is today. And don't tell me about the Electric Building or the King Edward. Those projects simply confirm that you can, in fact, polish a turd. For every one of those, there are plenty of A-1 Pallet companies and Jitney Jungle warehouses.

Finally, you guess wrong about me. I'm actually far from one of those creative types. I am, however, enough of a realist to recognize that they are the root of sustained revitalization.

The article that Kingfish posted is a good one and it shows how a depressed downtown area can be revitalized. Your comments illustrate why Jackson will not follow a similar path.

I had this conversation 10 years ago, we're having it today and, if the delusional keep throwing good money after bad, we'll be having this conversation in another 10 years.

Good Lord, from where do you people come?!? I addressed 10:12 in my 3:07 response, then comes 4:39. You claim the "problems" to be:

1. "The landowners downtown are older weathly (sic)folks..." Huh? Are you serious? You mean the same older "weathly" folks who came up with the idea and, subsequently, the money, to take the RISK to purchase the property downtown? You mean the same folks who INVESTED in downtown to MAKE money? Are those the "problems" of whom you speak?

2. "....who, will profit nicely if the city is kept up" Well, that doesn't sound fair, does it? The city should be allowed to go to hell, so those older, wealthy, risk-taking folks won't be allowed to make a profit. That'd make you feel better, wouldn't it? (BTW, they should be forced to pay their fair share of taxes, as well....Greedy bastards!!!)

3. "or if they try to sell it later to the "creative" type." Wait, wouldn't everything have to go to pot for this to happen? Haven't we already established that the "creatives" will require that the city be allowed to decline so that those same ingenious people can swoop in and right all the past cultural and architectural wrongs?

4. "If they can't get it in this lifetime, it will be passed on to children." Yep, and that's the most unfair prospect of all. Why, those children hadn't even worked for it. It was simply given to them (no wait, is that children or creatives...now I'm confused)

The rest of your argument is equally preposterous, so there's no reason to go into that at this point.......

Downtown Jackson cheerleaders will likely seize onto this and say, "SEE?" as if Jackson and Detroit are completely analogous. The problem is that all these analogies neglect the basic fact that these hip, artsy, revitalized downtown areas are created by the residents, NOT some master planner in a far away developer's office, where the primary concern is revenue.

"If you build it, they will come" is a nice sentiment for a fantasy movie about ghostly baseball players, but the denizens of these art districts can sniff an ersatz rat a mile away. One thing they eschew is the whole notion of "pre-fab" (for lack of a better term). Try as he might, a real estate developer can't create the genuinely eclectic. A planned arts district has all the soul of a movie set, and those most likely to inhabit such an area are neither fooled by nor satisfied with a ready made community that paints a phony sheen on an antiseptic environment.

Jackson is not Detroit, nor Atlanta, nor New York. Leave aside those cities' population advantages and just consider how many people work in those downtown areas. Downtown Jackson is almost entirely government, with a bank or two on the side. For most area residents, proximity to downtown does not improve access to their workplace. Neither are there grocery stores, pharmacies, shopping centers, fuel stations, theaters or schools within acceptable distance. Other, larger cities have a workforce that must choose between reasonable access to downtown and a one hour or more commute. Choosing the former necessitates urban living and facilitates a gentrification movement. That is a model that does not fit the Jackson area where one can live on three acres in rural Rankin County and get to most anywhere in the city within 30 minutes, even during rush hour.

Whenever I hear about progress on Farish Street or Old Capitol Green or Standard Life etc., I hear about two things: residential and restaurants/nightclubs. No talk of the less flashy retail businesses required to support and maintain a residential population. Why aren't these developers signing leases with Hallmark Cleaners and McDade's? They may not be as trendy as DJ Funky Fresh's Hip-Hop Performance Space, but those who choose to live downtown will want, nay demand such establishments. After six months of driving to Fondren for bread and Oreos, the cool factor of that downtown apartment will be decidely lower.

Still, pointing out this or other obvious and verifiable problems in downtown Jackson brings a kneejerk response of derision from the amen chorus. They don't want to hear it, but rather than counter with reason, they resort to the juvenile tactic of shaming the person who suggests the New Downtown will be nothing but sunshine and lollipops, as if calling one a racist or suggesting they "want Jackson to fail" is going to magically eradicate the real issues. There a heavy dose of romanticism in the notion of a cool, happening downtown full of young artists and funky nightlife, but it's most appealing to those who aren't putting their own money into it, and it's not grounded in reality.

The best way to revitalize downtown is not as sexy as building BB King's Blues Disneyland on a freshly reworked section of Farish. If Harvey Johnson wasn't trying to kiss the collective hineys of the black population, he would have started on East Capitol where there is still some life and worked backward. Instead we have a troubled development that may never be more than a subsidized money loser and will appeal to a small segment of the area population. One high concept restaurant is not enough to turn Jackson into a tourist destination. Sadly, there is a good number of people who think that it will, and they will be completely befuddled when it all falls apart a year or two after opening.

Ed; I don't think we need to worry much about the Ben Allen mental types beginning to sieze (sic) on anything hidden in the Detroit City scenario. If it doesn't involve chants of 'imaginary lack of safety' and 'Hold On It's Comin'', Jacktown's virtual leadership won't pick up on it.

Also wondering what seedy industrial and commercial areas the earlier poster is referring to as lining 51 in Madison. I thought Maynard Krebs had died but see he is still posting here.

...And speaking of 'buying and razing 51 from State to Jackson St', is it being suggested that razing the property that immediately adjoins State/51 will suddenly provide a stretch of safety along that avenue? Or will the razing eradicate the fictitious and imaginary unsafe area the Ben Allens acuse unJacktonians of seeing? Remember when Target was fresh on the drawing board and had to erect razor wire and a ten foot fence behind their sto to keep the Tougaloonians at bay?

Reed nailed this on the head. End of conversation on this issue forever.

Jackson's biggest problem is that it is simply not big enough to really need a dense urban downtown. It's only a city in the sense that it is the largest gathering of population in the state (or was, until the Memphis suburban sprawl got going).

As he said before, since you can live anywhere in the metro area and still get across town in 30 minutes or less, there is no trade-off that must be made which might include living close to work.

Ed, some of your points are well taken. You are right not to compare Jackson with Detroit or Atlanta. Let me suggest Richmond and Raleigh.

I agree that it's a wrong to accuse those who offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of racism etc. But, it's just as wrong to accuse those who are trying to solve problems of being all " sunshine and lollipops". It's especially wrong given that a positive attitude is key to revitalization.

I think you are overlooking the fact that revitalization is a process. First you have renovation and attractions to entice residents and then the businesses come to serve their needs. There is already a small store for necessities but you may have overlooked it as it's inside a building.

The process will never be perfect but Jackson's strategy is not unlike that which has been successful in more accurately comparable cities.

There is a difference as well in trying to create a " tourist attraction" and trying to be a convention/event venue.

As someone who travels and who " came from someplace else" 40 years ago and who loves this city, I'm always so surprised and saddened that those lucky enough to have been born here are blind to its beauty and assets.

My first impression was and is again that Jackson is one of the most charming cities in our Nation. The architecture, the cultural assets and the history is so rich. The music and the art and the food is nothing short of fabulous.

Fiery,negative rhetoric which is often racist in tone with NO constructive purpose is more damaging to efforts to save Jackson than Sherman's army.

I still cannot fathom how anyone who claims to love Mississippi would dog cuss our capitol city. What is the purpose? Are these people who air their family dirty laundry as well

Who is Ed?

(I'll try this again since the first reply never showed up on the comments page)

I think "ed" is me. The Blogger logo overwrites the first two characters of my username, at least when the full article is opened.

I am not familiar with the situations in Richmond and Raleigh. Perhaps they are better objects of comparison, but I haven't heard anyone make a cogent argument outlining their issues and analogizing them to Jackson. What I do hear most often is Memphis and Beale Street. Even David Watkins claims on his website that Farish will not be another Beale, but it keeps being trotted out by those banging the revitalization drum. If you've heard any of the discussion about Farish Street, you've heard Beale Street in the same breath. If you can enlighten me on the activities in Richmond and Raleigh and how they buttress the efforts in Jackson, I'd be happy to listen. Still, I stand by my observation of Jackson's dynamic and that the current revitalization strategy is not well suited for us.

The racism charge is far too common a retort in this discussion, so much so that it has poisoned the whole dialogue. It is a cheap, intellectually lazy tactic too readily employed by people who see it as an effective bugaboo to silence their opponents and it needs to be dropped, unless it can be absolutely quantified. I, for one, am sick of it and refuse to be cowed by such a hollow accusation. I haven't seen much fiery, negative, often-racist-in-tone rhetoric. Quite the contrary, many discussions I have had with those who aren't blindly gung-ho have been thoughtful and filled with insight and concern. I find the "let's just spend the money and get it built" attitude far more irrational and, by extension, damaging.

I realize that revitalization is a process, but I'm not sure those pushing so hard for these large projects do. Many of them want it all and want it now, which is why we're watching a specious effort to create an entire arts district (originally including ready built loft apartments, since abandoned) in one fell swoop.

The fact that there's a small store somewhere downtown is not the point (although I'm glad there is some establishment to serve the few who reside there). My question - and it is a legitimate one - is what is the enticement to pay $2000/month for a 1300 sqft flat in an area where there is no real retail (save a Tote-Sum), when I can pay $1200/month to own a 2600 sqft house on an acre lot in a safer area with better access to necessary services and establishments - especially since such a home is less than half an hour from downtown? Is the sole motivation some intangible "coolness factor"? Unless I'm one of the few area residents whose job is downtown, there's no other strong pull. Being walking distance from BB King's doesn't cut for me, nor for most people I would imagine.

I suggest that my criticism is rooted in true concern and is constructive. It need not offer a bulletproof alternative to be so. I want those behind these projects, particularly when they are asking for Legislative loans and are terraforming large tracts of the city, to offer more than rosy, unrealistic, "just trust us" scenarios. Otherwise we will be saddled with embarrassing reminders of unfulfilled promises.

Shadowfax, eh, (sic) 5:12PM, you are a moron.