Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 20 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Arlington is well worth saving
Published Thursday, June 18, 2009
Down a windy, barely marked road in Claiborne County, near Alcorn State University, stands one of Mississippi’s most famous ruins.
The tall columns climbing into the sky at Windsor Ruins are well known to many people in our area either through personal experience or photographs.
The house (ca. 1861) burned in 1890. Since then the ruins are the only remains of the once stately mansion.
At least 40 years before Windsor was completed, however, miles to the south in Natchez, Arlington was constructed. The stately federal-style mansion stood as an amazing example of early Natchez architecture until a devastating fire in 2002.
Fortunately, the non-profit Historic Natchez Foundation managed to convince the owner to allow a new roof to be placed on the building in an attempt to stabilize and save what remained. The owner footed the bill, but HNF organized the work.
Since then the house has been a location for lots of suspicious activity and little if anything has been done to protect or preserve the house’s history.
The City of Natchez has wisely taken the owner to court in an attempt to either get the house restored or encourage the owner to sell the property to someone who will restore it.
Critics will argue that the city has no place in making such decisions. We disagree.
The city not only has a right to move to protect the history of the city, but the obligation to get the property cleaned up so that it doesn’t become more of a public nuisance.
We applaud the city’s diligence in what is bad set of circumstances for the city, the property owner and ultimately the public history that remains in the house.
Comments
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on June 18, 2009 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The City of Natchez has wisely taken the owner to court in an attempt to either get the house restored or encourage the owner to sell the property to someone who will restore it."
Everyone should pay attention to this. This is a way to go around eminent domain to seize private property and put it into the hands of politically favored groups. Natchez isn't the first place this has been attempted.
All county residents should pay extra close attention to this in regard to the idea of city/county consolidation. If that happens you can surely expect people in dilapidated buildings in downtown Natchez to be making decisions about what you can do on your property on the edge of the county and coming after you the same way they are going after the owner of Arlington.
If people are trespassing on the property of Arlington's owner they are the criminals, not the owner of Arlington, and the city should be seeking to prosecute them, not Arlington's owner.
Stay silent and let this travesty continue if you want the city government to have a green light on property seizure. The right to private property is one of the three basic rights of a free society.
By "encourage" to sell the Democrat really means force, but they don't want to come out and say that because it points to an unpleasant truth: the Democrat supports supports use of force by government against private citizens in violation of their rights.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 4:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the old argumentive grouch has is correct (this time).
:)
If we (the people of Natchez) are going to take legal action against rotting buildings, then we need to do it against all of them and not just the ones deemed desirable to certain folks. And not just the ones owned by out-of-towners.
T
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as no tax dollars are used on this, I couldn't care less. Let the owners and the HNF fight it out. Stay out of it city government.
Posted by rivergem (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EnKiKur: Would you like to have the right to let your grass grow to four feet tall and keep a rusted junk car in your front yard? Or, perhaps, the right to paint your house pink with yellow polka dots and pave over the front lawn? If so, you have no business making an argument against the city taking an active interest in the well-being of your environment.
Granted, there are many, many buildings in Natchez that need to be fixed up. However, not every building is as historically and architecturally important as Arlington. Apples and Oranges, my friend.
And, writing off every regulatory action by the city and HNF as being politically motivated is just a cop-out.
Posted by tiredoflosers (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TEAR IT DOWN! It is a big old brick eye sore.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it is a pretty well established pattern that if you have an old house in the city limits of most towns that the government can condemn the property or "force" you to sell it.
If there is an ideological question here it would have to be -- should a city have the rights to uphold the standards of the community in private property matters?
Since I do not seek to utilize the value of the city infrastructure in property value matters I choose not to live in the city.
Letting a large historic structure decay so grievously would have to be one of those legitimate reasons for some type of action.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rivergem used the phrase apples and oranges, I have never understood this. They have more in common than is different about them. Both are fruit, both can be made into juice, both are about the same size, both can be eaten without cooking, both are sweet,both are healthy for you, both can be grown in the same climate, on and on so what are you saying? Arlington is the same as any other falling down piece of property.
Posted by eawprops (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I WISH SOMEONE IN THE CITY GOVERNMENT WOULD BE SMARTER ABOUT ARLINGTON. NOTHING AGAINST NHS BUT THE CITY SHOULD TAKE THIS PROPERTY AND ADVERTISE AN AUCTION FOR THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY THAT PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO RESTORE AND IT HAS A LOT OF LAND WITH IT. THIS PROPERTY IS WORTH A PRETTY PENNY. THE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD GO DIRECTLY INTO THE COFFERS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT. BUT, IT ONLY GOES TO THE CITY IF THE MONEY IS USED TO HANDLE PROBLEMS WITH OTHER DELAPIDATED PROPERTIES IN THE CITY!!!
Eric Williams
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on June 18, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The city isn't talking about tearing it down, they're talking about taking the property, that's been the whole thrust of the controversy. Somebody wants the property, that's pretty clear to me.
It's just an old house. There is nothing extraordinarily important about it. This here's the problem with lettting women and emasculated men influence government and the news.
Don't give me that fluff about history and architecture rivergem. Most people don't know enough about either to give a flip one way or the other and most just don't. Even some of the supposed experts around town make some pretty amusing mistakes and go about with too tall hats, mixing myth and magic with history.
What makes the history of Arlington more important than the history of any shotgun house in the city? Nothing! Were the original owners of Arlington somehow more human, more virtuous, more deserving of having their endeavors preserved than anyones else? I don't think so!
Just because a bunch of houseophiles want to stand around and ooh and aah about some rich people who lived here once, and talk about how Natchez used to have more millionaires than any other town is not a good reason to harrass property owners or to create laws allowing them to do so.
Eric Williams, property in land is an extension of property in body. If the city takes this property it will be taking a portion of the bodies of its rightful owners and heirs. Should a city be able to kill its residents piecemeal and feed those pieces to more favored residents? What do you think?
Posted by fraidoclowns (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, editorial staff for backing the historic foundation on this issue. This town has lost too many historic structures already. If that man won't fix it and won't sell it, something needs to be done. It's a nationally-recognized historic structure.
And just for the record, the historic foundation has been pretty darned diligent about saving the less-significant houses, too -- many of which are shacks. Once it's gone, it's gone.
History is not forgotten so easily when we take care of what we have. And what we have is an opportunity to show people what went on in the South -- how different life was from slave to owner and from sharecropper to landholders.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on June 18, 2009 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fraidoclowns, the HNF has no business whatsoever attempting to influence city government in this matter if they are in fact doing so. The city's only legitimate concern is in preventing harm to residents of the city, not promoting the interest of private organizations.
The city can condemn the house and order it destroyed if there is sufficient cause, but any action beyond that is despicable and should not be tolerated by the citizens. Not restoring a house is far from a criminal act, as is not selling it.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am starting to understand why Vidalia is so much better off financially than Natchez.
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scotty, I just want to thank you for the correct usage of the following:
As long as no tax dollars are used on this, I couldn't care less.
Too many people say "I could care less" meaning that they care more than less. Think about it people.
Anyway, I'm going to side with EnKiKur on this one. We have many many homes in Natchez to show the differences in slave and owner, etc., Melrose being a prime example. Tom Vaughn does not want this house to survive, and the city has no need to interfer with it. If someone wants to buy it, let them talk to him. If the city wants to do something, do it to those buildings out in the public eye. Tear them down, and put in neighborhood parks or something.
Although I do take some exception on his comment about women running things! LOL Some of the time we have to run things.
Posted by priya (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wanted to paint our house white with black dots!!!! but pink with yellow dots, I am thinking about now.
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the city wants to take ownership of Arlington, then they should simply pay the owner for it. Locking the owner in jail and stealing the property is wrong. I don't care how you look at it, it is wrong.
Posted by stateofnatchez (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say save it............... for the next debris drop.
Posted by redhotfiredog2 (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most cities have an ordinance against letting the grass grow uncontrolled. The city cuts the grass and adds the cost to their taxes. WHY has this not been done? If the city cleans up around the house and yard area this might suppress illegal activity.
Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fill it with goats and a couple of token crazy people and sell tickets to people that want to walk around and tsk tsk about it. It may draw a bigger crowd than some of the fancy ones.
Posted by unclered (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Leave it as is and bring tourists to see it anyway. When they ask about the architecture of the era, tell them it is early Bela Lugosi.
Posted by marinefrmntz (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Suprisingly I have to agree with Enki.. the city shouldn't get involved unless there is overgrown grass or the property is trashy.. forcing someone to sell their home otherwise is very very scary.. i could say clean it up.. but to sell it or restore it.. thats scary...
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)