OT: City of Starkville at it again

travis.sixpack

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2008
834
706
93
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

travis.sixpack

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2008
834
706
93
From what I read in the article and in the Development Code, it's not that you have to get approval to paint a facade beforehand, it's just that it has to fall within the Unified Development Code for Starkville, which says "The primary facade colors shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral, or earth tones. The use of high intensity, metallic flake, or fluorescent colors is prohibited.", but doesn't provide a palette of what's included in that. The owner even said, it's not clear what's included and the board couldn't provide a palette. If you Google 'earth tones', you'll see greens and yellows and they don't look far off from the street view in the Google Maps link dorndawg posted. I feel like 'subtle' and 'neutral' are pretty subjective.


I think the funniest thing is that they're letting him keep the bright purple awning, which is objectively the most garish color in the whole facade.
I wonder if they had to get a permit for other work to be done on the building and the city used that as an excuse to bring the paint job up to code.

The code refers to the facade paint color only, not awnings. So they can't really tell them what to do there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg and dorndawg

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
6,598
4,716
113
I wonder if they had to get a permit for other work to be done on the building and the city used that as an excuse to bring the paint job up to code.

The code refers to the facade paint color only, not awnings. So they can't really tell them what to do there.
I read through the Unified Development Code and the things it talks about needing pre-approval from the Architecture Review Board are things like facade material, roofing material, and roofing slope.

I honestly don't know enough about it to speak educatedly. I'm just going off what's in the article and my layman understanding of what I'm reading in the code. You could be right though.
 

MSUDC11-2.0

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
4,855
7,234
113
No doubt grandfathered due to it's age.
Well the daycare building has been there forever too. Although I think there was an ownership change a few years ago, it used to be called Mighty Oaks and it changed to Empowerment Station Academy. I think the decision to paint the building was made fairly recently.
 

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
11,695
1,825
113
No doubt grandfathered due to it's age.
Another reason to tax land and not improvements. Don't give people a tax break for having older ****** buildings and don't penalize them with extra taxes for improving the building. Why we penalize behavior that improves the city for others is beyond me.
 

ETK99

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2019
3,949
5,086
112
Just paint a bad stick people mural on it and call it a day
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MSUDC11-2.0

Podgy

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2022
1,841
1,977
113
Starkville don't need no bright colors. And it don't need no cold beer. Just get yourself a co-cola.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
12,870
2,846
113
Another reason to tax land and not improvements. Don't give people a tax break for having older ****** buildings and don't penalize them with extra taxes for improving the building. Why we penalize behavior that improves the city for others is beyond me.
Ive read that this approach would help reduce the housing shortage because people would be incentivized to more completely/efficiently utilize land they own. Thats an interesting idea for sure.

Ive also read that it would lead to a lot of frustrated land owners because how the land and currently building(s) are set up doesnt allow them to maximize usage so they would need to sell(which would be difficult since the property wouldnt be appealing to the new owner for the same reason) or they would need to get permission to tear down existing structures and also change property use(single family to multi, for example) and then spend money on tearing everything down and building new to better utilize the land.

It could certainly help move cities away from ground level parking lots and increase the number of parking garages. Or I guess the parking lot companies would have to start charging like $150 per car per day. 1 acre of undeveloped parking lot is probably bringing in 5% of the taxes of a multi-story office building(or apartment/mixed use building) on that same size lot right across the street.
 

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
11,695
1,825
113
Ive read that this approach would help reduce the housing shortage because people would be incentivized to more completely/efficiently utilize land they own. Thats an interesting idea for sure.

It would, both by decreasing the return from sitting on undeveloped or underimproved land and waiting to benefit from nearby owners investing and increasing your property value and also by lowering the return you'd need to justify development because adding improvements wouldn't increase your tax burden (or more realistically, wouldn't increase it as much).

Ive also read that it would lead to a lot of frustrated land owners because how the land and currently building(s) are set up doesnt allow them to maximize usage so they would need to sell(which would be difficult since the property wouldnt be appealing to the new owner for the same reason)

Yes and no. It's not really about maximizing usage. They could use it however they want, they would just be taxed on the value of the land, regardles of the value of the improvements. But yes, to the extent there are properties with improvements that aren't as nice as the stuff around them, but still nice enough that it's hard to rehab them economically or tear them down and rebuild economically, it's going to feel just like a regular property tax increase to them and they're going to hate it just as much. WHich is why the shift from taxing improvements to taxing property would probably have to be phased in gradually. Maybe exempt 10% of the value of improvements each year, and raise millage to account for that. Over ten years you get to only taxing propery. Or maybe you go 5% a year and do it over 20, although that's also going to limit the good impacts it has for a while.


or they would need to get permission to tear down existing structures and also change property use(single family to multi, for example) and then spend money on tearing everything down and building new to better utilize the land.
You could do it lots of ways, but you would be taxed on the value of the land as it currently is zoned, not on the value it could have if you had permission to change uses. But yes, if you had a single family dwelling in a zoning classification that allows multifamily or mixed use and that area shoots up in value, they would pay more in taxes unless they had some sort of exemption or unless they set the value assuming the current use was the highest and best use allowed.


It could certainly help move cities away from ground level parking lots and increase the number of parking garages. Or I guess the parking lot companies would have to start charging like $150 per car per day. 1 acre of undeveloped parking lot is probably bringing in 5% of the taxes of a multi-story office building(or apartment/mixed use building) on that same size lot right across the street.
 

Darryl Steight

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2022
1,199
1,753
113
The right-wingedness curves completely back around to communism.
I really do hesitate to ask... but what does this mean? From what I've heard, those crazy right wingers are usually more nazi than communist, so I have missed something. I just want to keep my dictionary up to date.
 

vhdawg

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2004
3,772
671
113
I really do hesitate to ask... but what does this mean? From what I've heard, those crazy right wingers are usually more nazi than communist, so I have missed something. I just want to keep my dictionary up to date.
I recognize that there's a difference between nazi and communist, but damn if I can ever remember what it is, because they sure look an awful lot alike.
 

travis.sixpack

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2008
834
706
93
I read through the Unified Development Code and the things it talks about needing pre-approval from the Architecture Review Board are things like facade material, roofing material, and roofing slope.

I honestly don't know enough about it to speak educatedly. I'm just going off what's in the article and my layman understanding of what I'm reading in the code. You could be right though.
That's new construction. Typically anything that has been permitted by the city previously is exempt from new ordinances. BUT if you apply for permit to do renovations, etc they can make you bring other things into compliance. The only other thing that would allow them to tell the business owners to repaint is if they painted after the paint color ordinance went into effect and the city never did anything about it at the time.

At least that's my working knowledge of how municipal ordinance codes work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
11,695
1,825
113
I recognize that there's a difference between nazi and communist, but damn if I can ever remember what it is, because they sure look an awful lot alike.
They basically are. They weren't on right and left wing because they were at opposite ends of the spectrum, they were on opposite sides because they were competing in the same lane. Socialists will claim Nazi's weren't really socialists just like communists will claim the USSR and China and Cuba and where ever weren't really communist. But their basically the same. That's why Antifa (which is basically communist) can unironically dress up like jackbooted thugs and beat up on people that disagree with them politically and claim they're somehow not fascist.
 

Villagedawg

Member
Nov 16, 2005
675
242
43
I recognize that there's a difference between nazi and communist, but damn if I can ever remember what it is, because they sure look an awful lot alike.
True. Both like to tell everyone what to do. There never really has been a true communist country, just totalitarian ones labeling themselves socialist or communist. This the confusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

MSUDC11-2.0

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
4,855
7,234
113
Kinda outside the scope of the daycare thing but I’ve lived in Starkville for over a decade and the wife and I decided we recently we don’t want to raise our daughter here, so we’re moving this summer. Breaks my heart to say this but I just don’t trust the long term prospects of the town. Leadership is some of that. But the schools are not in a great spot, we have first hand experience with that. Local housing market is a nightmare if you’re looking to buy. Just generally haven’t seen the growth of the town that I would’ve hoped for since I graduated. I was optimistic at one point but we feel like things have grown stale for us here. Will be joining you Rankin County folks in the near future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

vhdawg

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2004
3,772
671
113
They basically are. They weren't on right and left wing because they were at opposite ends of the spectrum, they were on opposite sides because they were competing in the same lane. Socialists will claim Nazi's weren't really socialists just like communists will claim the USSR and China and Cuba and where ever weren't really communist. But their basically the same. That's why Antifa (which is basically communist) can unironically dress up like jackbooted thugs and beat up on people that disagree with them politically and claim they're somehow not fascist.
To put it in Monty Python terms, they're the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea.
 

RocketDawg

Active member
Oct 21, 2011
16,233
277
83

Going after daycares because their building is too yellow.
Sounds reasonable for the town to do to me. And all he had to do was google (or use your favorite search engine) "earth tones" and see what he comes up with. Bright yellow would not be one of the returns. Granted, daycares need to be bright and happy for the kids, but there are limits.
 

Itsaboutus

Member
Dec 23, 2015
407
125
43
I get it though, they don’t want it to look trashy, and they can’t object if a permit isn’t pulled and the city doesn’t know about it first.
But they can keep the purple awnings and blue doors. Government gonna government. The time for them to object to the colors is before they painted it.
 

Itsaboutus

Member
Dec 23, 2015
407
125
43
View attachment 560317

- Doesnt look good, but also looks the part- its a daycare so bright cheery colors are pretty typical.
- Hilarious that the purple awning and green door can stay.
- The owner asked for a definition of 'earth tone' and the city didnt provide an acceptable color palette at the time. While the building clearly isnt 'earth tone', its a bit 17ed up to not provide examples if you are going to limit color options.
- The blue church next to this daycare looks 10x worse. Its a faded baby blue steel building.

View attachment 560325
View attachment 560326
But the main thing to remember is the blue building doesn’t look trashy, the daycare does.
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,434
835
113
I recognize that there's a difference between nazi and communist, but damn if I can ever remember what it is, because they sure look an awful lot alike.
Basically any group can devolve to where they in effect only exist to enrich themselves by using state power to take from others. Fascists use state power to take from disfavored (minority) groups and reward traditionally favored groups that they consider superior, with the goal of further enriching that group above all others. Communists use state power to take from (former) elites and (nominally) reward formerly oppressed groups, with the goal of eliminating the gap between them. Neither respect individual rights or due process, but prefer outcomes that favor their group despite the merit of the action against the individual.

The Nazis stated goals had nothing to do with socialism. They wanted to blame and punish minority groups and empower traditional "pure" citizens while enriching corporate interests. Only our morally depraved modern conservative movement would take a group that favored corporate power and profit and call it socialist. They also had an American counterpart, and that Party was not pulling from the left.
 

Studentdawg06

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2023
2,315
6,764
113
I'd rather live by a purple and yellow daycare than I would a Cane's that looks like a bank.

Madison is hilarious. The right-wingedness curves completely back around to communism.
I’m laughing, because I tell everyone Mayor Mary has the style and tastes of a Soviet planner. It’s absolutely awful.