JACKSON &045; Natchez Mayor Phillip West told the state Department of Archives and History Thursday they &8221;weren’t invited&8220; into the city’s decision regarding the Natchez Pecan Shelling Co. facility.

The mayor, city planner Andrew Smith, city attorney Walter Brown and aldermen David Massey and Ricky Gray joined a small group of Natchez residents to address members of the Archives and History permit committee.

&8221;This issue is not about history,&8220; West said. &8221;It is about those who want to stop economic development. They do not want to see progress in Natchez.&8220;

Developers Ed Worley and Larry Brown have proposed a six-story high condominium complex on the site of the existing pecan shelling plant. The city wants to demolish the building to make way for the project.

Under state law, Archives and History has the right to review the site to see if qualifies as a landmark before public property is sold into private ownership.

If it does qualify for landmark status, Archives and History, under the state’s Antiquities Law, can review plans for any development on the site.

Saying that representatives &8221;injected themselves&8220; into the process before the city officially contacted Archives and History, West said the city &8221;does not intend for a small minority to take control of Natchez under the guise of historic preservation.&8220;

During the Sept. 29 meeting of the Natchez Preservation Commission David Preziosi, director of the Mississippi Heritage Trust, and Ken P’Pool of Archives and History voiced concerns about the condominium project. P’Pool notified the commission that Archives and History would have to review the site before it was sold by the city.

&8221;It’s a bit disheartening that those who don’t live in Natchez, don’t work in Natchez, want to dictate what can happen in Natchez,&8220; West said.

&8221;They (Presiozi and P’Pool) came uninvited,&8220; West said after the meeting Thursday. &8221;We have the right to contact them, and we did not contact them.&8220;

P’Pool pointed out after the meeting that Archives and History should have been contacted earlier.

&8221;The law says that we should be notified early in the planning process, not after everything is worked out and the deal is signed,&8220; he said.

&8221;This is nothing out of the ordinary for this community or lots of other communities across the state,&8220; P’Pool said.

In fact, the city of Natchez last year went through the same process with the sale of the old Britton and Koontz bank building, P’Pool said.

During the meeting, city planner Andrew Smith made the city’s case that the Pecan Shelling Co. should not be considered a landmark.

Even though the building has been on the National Register since 1983, Smith argued that the building is &8221;seriously&8220; deteriorated and is no different than other buildings of the same time period that were torn down along Broadway in the last few years.

&8221;It would be a serious financial problem for the city to repair the building,&8220; Smith said.

Smith also said the mayor and Board of Aldermen unanimously support the project.

Submitted with the city’s proposal were letters from the Natchez Chamber of Commerce and the Natchez Downtown Development Association in favor of the proposed condominiums, Smith said.

West also said the pecan factory &8221;holds only bad memories for the black community,&8220; citing the low wages many of the workers were paid.

He said those who are standing in the way of the $19 million project want &8221;to make sure the have nots continue to have not.&8220;

&8221;The black community is totally behind this project,&8220; West said. &8221;Ninety-five percent of Natchez is in support of this project.&8220;

In opposition to the project were a small group of Natchez residents, who voiced their concerns about the use of the building and land.

Rena Jean Schmeig said

she was concerned about the impact the proposed condominiums would have on the public’s use of the bluff.

Schmeig said stating the public would only be able to use a 4-foot sidewalk along the bluff that would be gated at night was &8221;hardly access.&8220;

&8221;I really don’t understand how we are being short-sighted with this,&8220; Schmeig said.

In response to the opposition, West said that no one was ever interested in the building until the condominiums were proposed.

After the meeting, P’Pool pointed out that the department has been interested in the project since it was listed in the National Register.

&8221;We have been interested in it since at least 1983 and have tried, in a couple of instances, to work with others to renovate it,&8220; P’Pool said.

Per Archives and History guidelines, decisions on controversial projects considered for landmark status are held for a 30-day comment period from the first date of advertisement in the local newspaper. At that time, the committee will receive written comments from interested parties both for and against the project.

Afterward, the comments will be compiled and then referred to the department’s Board of Trustees for a decision. The board meets every quarter. Its next regularly scheduled meeting is in January.

City attorney Walter Brown said the city needs clarification from Archives and History as to whether it is the building or the land that may be given landmark status.

&8221;It is important that we understand what our options are,&8220; Brown said.

Department director H.T. Holmes agreed and said the department would in the next 30 days reach a decision.

&8221;We will try to be as supportive of Natchez as we can while following our responsibilities,&8220; Holmes said.