Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I.
Qualifications ........................................................................................................... 1
II.
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
A.
Assignment ............................................................................................................ 1
B.
C.
Publications ............................................................................................................ 3
D.
E.
Independence ........................................................................................................ 3
B.
The Planning Process Underlying the 2014 Zoning Ordinance Was Driven by
Narrow Interests, Not by Needs of the Community............................................. 4
C.
Parties .................................................................................................................... 5
B.
V.
A.
2.
3.
4.
2014 Generalized Land Use and Transportation Plan Map and Official Zoning
Map 23
B.
C.
D.
1.
2.
Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 50
VI. The Process for Enacting the 2014 Zoning Ordinance: Analysis and Opinions51
A.
B.
2.
B.
C.
D.
1.
2.
3.
I.
QUALIFICATIONS
INTRODUCTION
A. Assignment
I was retained by counsel for Plaintiff BBC Baymeadows, LLC (BBC) to provide
an independent and objective review of a series of planning documents and
zoning ordinances prepared by the Defendant City of Ridgeland, Mississippi
For more information on the American Planning Association and the American Institute of
Certified Planners, see p. 29-30.
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
2 City of Ridgeland, MS Census 2010 Data for Zipcode 39157, http://www.zipcodes.com/city/MS-Ridgeland-2010-census.asp (last visited Aug. 27, 2015).
3
It is likely that this number of available units has declined even further. According to the
Second Quarter 2015 Reis Asset Advisor REIS Observer Report for the Jackson submarket of
the second quarter of 2015, the vacancy rate in this market was reported at 3.9%. This was a
significant decline in vacancy since 2010.
4
The 2010 Census data show that there were a total of 849 vacant units in Ridgeland in 2010
and that just 485 of these units were rental units. See 2010 Block Census Data for
Baymeadows,
exclusively white led the public process that informed the 2008 RAMP.
contrast, 93% of the residents of Baymeadows are non-White.5
By
IV.
BACKGROUND
A. Parties
mixed-use buildings, but some dimensional limits are specified.8 The impact of
these specifications on potential residential densities within the mixed-use
district will be evaluated in this report.
This zoning change has severe consequences for Ridgelands non-conforming
apartment complexes, as is shown in the table below. The new mixed-use
district includes Baymeadows and four surrounding apartment complexes.
These five apartment complexes have a total of 1308 units that are scheduled to
be amortized under a formula specified in the Ordinance.
The 2014 Ordinance seeks to eliminate the six apartment complexes that were
rezoned in East Southeast Ridgeland by application of an amortization formula
that, in lieu of compensation, is intended to provide time for the owner to recover
his investment in the property.9 It further seeks to reduce the densities of nine
other apartment complexes not rezoned.
Five apartment complexes in
Southeast Ridgeland with a total of 1308 units have been rezoned for mixed-use
development. 10 These 1308 units comprise 11% of the Citys total housing
stock, in which about 1 in 9 of Ridgelands households reside. They also
comprise nearly one-quarter of the Citys rental units (see table on next page).
The 2014 Zoning Ordinance also impacts other apartment complexes in the
City. Ridgeland Ranch Apartments on County Line Road has been rezoned for
commercial use. And an additional 821 units in 9 complexes are being required
to reduce densities to a maximum of 10 units per acre. All of these complexes
had existed for decades as lawful non-conforming uses. In total, 2274 units are
scheduled to be removed through the amortization process. This represents
37% of the Citys rental units and nearly 20% of its total housing units. In reality,
the loss of units could be greater if any of the complexes required to reduce
density have to cease operation due to financial infeasibility of operating at the
lowered density.
Units
Units
Units
Total
Units
to
be
Removed
2274
Units
37%
19%
V.
In this section, I first explain why the documents that the City of Ridgeland
claims to have relied on in drafting and implementing the 2014 Zoning
Ordinance are both internally and externally inconsistent, and are also
inconsistent with the Citys actions and rationale as outlined in the 2014 Zoning
8
Ordinance. Most of these documents are listed in the Citys 2014 Zoning
Ordinances Preamble as having provided the basis for the Ordinance. I next
examine the 2014 Zoning Ordinance itself in relation to professional planning
concepts commonly used to guide local governments in land use decisionmaking.
During the Class A proceedings that were initiated by apartment complexes
seeking to be eliminated as non-conforming uses and in testimony in this
litigation, the City references a number of documents that were drafted after the
passage of the 2014 Zoning Ordinance. I explain why these documents drafted
after the fact, are likewise inconsistent with the documents drafted before the
passage of the Ordinance, and still do not support the Citys actions.
In summary, the report demonstrates that the Citys zoning and planning actions
in the last decade have been both internally and externally inconsistent, and
thus are arbitrary.
A. Preamble to the 2014 Ordinance
The City of Ridgeland lists numerous documents in the Preamble to the 2014
Zoning Ordinance as documents that the City purportedly relied on in crafting
the Ordinance and its provisions. Specifically, the Preamble notes:11
WHEREAS, in 2006, the community undertook the
Ridgeland Area Master Plan (RAMP), adopted by the City in
2008 and readopted by the successor administration in 2009,
which examined the long terms needs, goals, and strategic
opportunities in the City and a large area west of the city limits.
This asset-based planning process identified opportunities to
strengthen Ridgelands quality of life, and recommended changes
to Ridgelands master land use plan; and
WHEREAS, in 2009, Ridgeland adopted an updated
Comprehensive
Plan, reflecting in part the RAMP
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of the 2009 plan nearly five
years ago, a number of significant changes have impacted
Ridgeland, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future,
11
Ridgeland-BM-00940, 2014 Official Zoning Ordinance, Preamble, at Ridgeland-BM-00943 946 (emphasis added).
12
Ridgeland-BM-01357, 2008 Ridgeland Area Master Plan (hereinafter RAMP) (back cover).
10
A municipal master plan should reflect the needs and interest of the entire
community, not those of the real estate development community, which has a
clear financial stake in the outcome of the planning process. For example, one
feasibility analysis of the redevelopment of Southeast Ridgeland prepared by the
Citys Director of Community Development in 2009 discussed relaxing building
code enforcement for existing apartments for a period of time as a financial
incentive for a private developer to eventually redevelop Baymeadows and the
other four surrounding apartment complexes that were rezoned in 2014.13 In my
35 years of experience, I have never reviewed official work product that
contemplated such a misuse of code enforcement.
Southeast Ridgeland Redevelopment Focus Area
The RAMP identifies seven sub-areas within the City as Focus Areas. Focus
Areas are priority areas for development and redevelopment that the City
considers areas of opportunity. Most of the focus districts contain large tracts of
undeveloped land and/or older commercial and residential neighborhoods that
the City would like to see redeveloped.
The Baymeadows Apartments and the four surrounding apartment complexes
are located in the East Southeast Focus Area, which is generally bounded by
Lake Harbour Drive on the North, the City Limits on the East, County Line Road
on the South, and Northpark Drive/Woodlands Parkway on the West. This area
anchors the City on the Southeast. There is a wide mix of residential land uses
here including:
13
11
The RAMP for the East Southeast Focus Area contains no detailed analysis of
existing housing, demographics, or infrastructure within East Southeast
Ridgeland.14 Such analysis is critical to providing a foundation for a municipal
master plan, which should reflect the needs of the community. A plan whose
purpose it is to serve the general public welfare should incorporate a needs
analysis of the general public it serves.
The RAMP sets general goals for the area in terms of conservation, quality,
connectivity, and image. However, such goals are inconsistent with each other
and with the Citys zoning ordinances. For example, on page 70 of the RAMP,
in the pink text box on the left side, Goal 4 calls for development and
implementation of a City-Center complex15 within the East Southeast Focus
Area., while Goal 4 in the main text of page 70 specifies that the new units
should be built at medium density.16 The City considers the R-4 zoning class,
which permits 6 units per acre, to be medium density.
On page 71 of the RAMP, however, redevelopment of apartment complexes with
clustered cottages at a density of 12-26 units an acre is recommended. Clearly,
a City Center complex is inconsistent with medium density housing. Both are
inconsistent with the proposed cottage cluster concept at a density of 12-26
units per acre. Not only is this inconsistent with the previously stated goal of
medium density residential development, it is also out of compliance with the
2014 Zoning Ordinance which restricts residential density to a maximum of 10
units an acreanother obvious contradiction.
14
12
The cottage cluster proposal calls for the development of small (500 sq. ft.
1800 sq. ft.) houses in dense clusters of up to 26 units per acre. Clustered
units would share common space and would range in value from $150,000 to
$300,000. The text notes that cottage clusters are not compatible with multifamily residential due to conflicts in scale. They presumably would not be
compatible with the City Center concept introduced on the previous page or with
the mix of residential and commercial uses that was endorsed by the 2014
Zoning Ordinance. As previously noted, the 12-26 unit per acre density exceeds
the maximum density of 10 units per acre that is prescribed by both the Citys
2001 and 2014 Zoning Ordinances.
As I will discuss in the sections that follow, this pattern of internal and external
contradiction is evident in all documents and maps leading to the 2014 Zoning
Ordinance. It indicates that the City is not genuinely concerned about density.
Rather, such inconsistency illustrates the arbitrary and insincere nature of a
planning process that appears to have been driven by a desire to displace
existing residents.
13
17
14
The solution to this problem, as proposed in Goal 3 of the Focus Area Plan, is to
create pedestrian and bike paths to improve connectivity within the area. These
improvements can easily be made to the existing fabric of the neighborhood.
Poor connectivity and fragmentation do not justify redevelopment of existing
housing.
The RAMP laments the lack of livability assets in the East Southeast Ridgeland
Focus Area. By livability assets we assume that the City means infrastructure
(e.g., sidewalks, bike paths) and community facilities (e.g., libraries, community
centers). But livability assets can be provided without eliminating the existing
affordable housing units that the area provides. Redevelopment is not
necessary to improve either connectivity or livability assets.
The Focus Area Plan acknowledges that there are several large undeveloped
tracts within the East Southeast Ridgeland district. The Assessors Land Roll
shows that, just northeast of Baymeadows, there are vacant sites with frontage
on the east side of Old Canton Road with a total of 28 acres just north of the
utility easement here.22 28 of these acres are in 2 contiguous parcels that are
owned by Doubletree Properties. The logical and most cost-efficient approach
would be to encourage development of these vacant sites rather than
advocating a difficult, lengthy, and expensive redevelopment process that
eliminates existing low-income housing units.
22
Madison County, Mississippi Land Roll Parcel Search, http://www.madison-co.com/electedoffices/tax-assessor/search-by-parcel.php (last visited Aug. 30, 2015).
15
Aerial photo showing large tracts of vacant land with frontage on Old Canton Road.
The tracts on the east side of Old Canton Road are in a single ownership, which would
make them easy to assemble for development.
The RAMP lays out conflicting goals and vague concept plans that do not
provide a valid basis for the 2014 Zoning Ordinance.
2. 2009 Comprehensive Plan
The City lists the 2009 Comprehensive Plan as a document that it relied upon in
crafting the 2014 Zoning Ordinance. The Citys 2009 Comprehensive Plan,
which also incorporates the 2008 RAMP, is an update of the 2001
Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Central Mississippi Planning &
Development District, the regional planning agency. Ridgelands documents
and witnesses explain that the 2009 Comprehensive Plan was intended to
incorporate the zoning recommendations of the RAMP, which would then be
used for future land-use planning.23 But there are pronounced inconsistencies
23
16
among the 2008 RAMP, the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, the 2009 Generalized
Future Land Use & Transportation Plan Map, the 2012 Transportation Plan, and
the 2014 Zoning Ordinance.
2014 Ordinance Inconsistencies with 2009 Comprehensive Plan
The housing needs assessment contained in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan
projects a demand for 11,065 additional housing units by 2020. This begs the
question of why the City would eliminate over 1300 units in the five apartment
complexes by rezoning them in 2014. These units comprise 11% of the Citys
housing stock1308 units out of the total of 11,953 existing housing units.24
Contrary to the claims of City officials regarding the large supply of available
rental units for working people, the 2010 zip code census data indicates that
there were just 485 rental housing units available in the City,25 clearly insufficient
to make up for the loss of units that are threatened by the 2014 rezoning (see
Table on p. 8). Moreover, the City has admitted that it neither commissioned nor
performed any study or analysis that assessed how the loss of affordable
housing units from its redevelopment plan would affect residents of
apartments.26 As an expert in urban planning, I find this omission disturbing.
Ridgelands 2009 Comprehensive Plan introduces a new class of land use
mixed-use development. Mixed-use is defined as areas which are suitable for
high quality, high density development.27 The Plan imposes no specific density
limits on mixed-use development. Flexibility in design is encouraged, as is a
high level of planning and design review.
The Comprehensive Plan
recommends mixed-use zoning for the Highland Colony Parkway Corridor, but
there is no mention of a mixed-use zoning designation for Southeast Ridgeland.
In fact, as explained above, the RAMP contemplated high-density single-family
residential development. And as explained below the 2009 Future Land Use
Plan adopted along with the Comprehensive Plan classified this area as TND
for traditional neighborhood development. Neither plan proposed mixed-use
zoning.
24
City of Ridgeland, MS Census 2010 Data for Zipcode 39157, http://www.zipcodes.com/city/MS-Ridgeland-2010-census.asp (last visited Aug. 27, 2015).
25
Id. These data show that there were a total of 863 vacant units in Ridgeland in 2010 and that
just 485 of these units were rental units.
26
Hart 30(b)(6) Dep. at 197-198, 295-296-, 523-525.
27
Ridgeland-BM-00095, 2009 Comprehensive Plan at Ridgeland-BM-00144.
17
28
Id. at Ridgeland-BM-00113
Hart 30(b)(6) Dep. at 158
30
Ridgeland-BM-00095, 2009 Comprehensive Plan at Ridgeland-BM-00111
31
Id. at Ridgeland-BM-00109
32
Hart 30(b)(6) Dep. at 108-109.
33
Dodd Dep. at 82.
29
18
34
19
40
41
Id. at 14.
Ridgeland-BM-01695, 2009 Southeast Ridgeland Redevelopment Project Analysis.
20
The Residential TND zoning shown on the 2009 Land Use Map is not consistent
with the cottage cluster concept advocated for East Southeast Ridgeland in the
2008 RAMP. Ridgelands 2009 Comprehensive Plan defines Residential TND
as areas that are suitable for development or redevelopment in the manner that
brings back the essence of Ridgeland Historic Neighborhoods that were
developed on a grid system. 43 Traditional neighborhood design rejects the
concept of disconnected cul-de-sac development and instead encourages
connection between streets to overcome segregation of uses and to make
walking the priority instead of automobile trips.
In contrast to the grid pattern of streets that characterizes traditional
neighborhood development, the proposed development strategy for the East
Southeast Ridgeland Focus Area that is illustrated by the map on page 70 of the
RAMP shows a conventional suburban pattern of cul-de-sac development.
42
43
21
Redevelopment concept for Cottage Clusters presented in the 2008 RAMP Plan.
Source: Ridgeland-BM-01357, RAMP
The RAMP calls for a cottage cluster concept consisting of small single-family
houses at a density of 12-26 units per acre per acre. 44 APAs Traditional
Neighborhood Development design principles recommend an overall density of
six to ten (6-10) units per acre.45 Through the combination of detached houses,
garage and loft apartments, townhomes, live/work units, condominiums, and
apartments, a Residential TND provides many different housing styles catering
to different lifestyles and budgets. The cottage cluster concept proposed by the
RAMP calls solely for the development of small single-family houses.
Traditional Neighborhood Design usually incorporates private yard space, rather
than common open space as is recommended for the cottage cluster concept.
The photo below shows a typical Traditional Neighborhood Development in
South Carolina. This contrasts with the cottage cluster concept from the RAMP
that is presented on p. 13 of this report. Residential Traditional Neighborhood
Development is defined in Ridgelands 2009 Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Traditional Neighborhood Development identifies areas which are
suitable for development or redevelopment in the manner that
brings back the essence of Ridgeland Historic Neighborhoods that
44
45
22
Thus, the rezoning of the Baymeadows Apartments and the surrounding site for
mixed-use development that occurred in 2014 is not supported by the 2009
Generalized Future Land Use and Transportation Plan Map, or by any
subsequent amendment to the plan.
4. 2014 Generalized Land Use and Transportation Plan Map and
Official Zoning Map
On February 4, 2014, nearly five years after adopting the 2009 Comprehensive
Plan and the 2009 Generalized Future Land Use and Transportation Plan Map
discussed above, the Board of Alderman adopted the 2014 Generalized Future
Land Use and Transportation Plan Map and the 2014 Official Zoning Map.47 At
that time, the City did not replace the existing 2009 Comprehensive Plan, which
remains the operative Comprehensive Plan today. Changing Maps does not
constitute a new comprehensive plan nor are they a valid amendment to the
existing comprehensive plan.
The specific legal contents of a comprehensive plan are set out in 17-1-1 of the
Mississippi Code under which four components are required of a document to
constitute a comprehensive plan, which is the basis of all zoning decisions.
While I am not providing a legal opinion, 17-1-1 expressly states that these
components include at a minimum:
46
47
23
A Transportation Plan
The 2014 Zoning Ordinance is underpinned by just two of the four documents
required by State Law: the 2014 Generalized Future Land Use and
Transportation Plan Map and the 2014 Official Zoning Map. No consistent
statement of goals and objectives is provided nor is there any plan for
community facilities, as is required by Mississippi law. The rezoning of the area
surrounding Baymeadows for mixed-use development is not supported by the
2009 Comprehensive Plan, the 2008 RAMP, or by any other document prepared
by the City to defend the 2014 Zoning Ordinance. This indicates an insincere,
hasty process.
A zoning ordinance is intended to be a tool to implement a land use plan that is
based on a comprehensive plan. In this case, the process was entirely
reversedthat is, it appears that the 2014 Zoning Ordinance itself is the sole
basis for Ridgelands 2014 Land Use Plan Map. This is improper. Many of the
goals and recommendations of the 2008 RAMP and 2009 Comprehensive Plan
are in direct conflict with the 2014 Generalized Future Land Use and
Transportation Plan Map, and the 2014 Official Zoning Map.
Among the contradictory policies is the 2008 RAMPs contemplated plan for the
East Southeast Focus Area District (which contains Baymeadows Apartments)
as compared to the 2014 Land Use Plans treatment of that district. The 2008
RAMP calls for 3 diametrically opposed concepts for Southeast Ridgeland,
including development of a City Center Complex, a residential district of
clustered cottage style houses, and development of medium density housing.
But none of these recommendations support the 2014 decision to rezone the
area for mixed-use development, which is never contemplated in the RAMP.
The amended 2014 Generalized Future Land Use and Transportation Plan Map
and the 2014 Official Zoning Map do not substitute for revising a comprehensive
planespecially a plan that is contradictory and obsolete in many respects.
24
48
25
mixed-use development. It also for the first time refused to grandfather existing
non-conformities and instead subjects them to removal after a calculated time
period. As has been noted, Baymeadows was built in 1975 and has existed as
a legal non-conforming structure since 1980 when the City annexed it,
Although its density, at 18.3 units an acre, exceeded the maximum density
permitted by the City after it was annexed, Baymeadows was allowed to operate
as built and was not challenged by the City until after the passage of the 2014
Zoning Ordinance. This is true even though the 2001 zoning ordinance had
imposed a maximum density of 10 units per acre on multi-family residential
buildings. In fact, Ridgelands City Planner, Matthew Dodd, testified that, apart
from use-abandonment provisions in the 2001 Ordinance, no actions were taken
to enforce the 10-unit-per-acre density requirements on properties that predated
that Ordinance. 55 The 2001 Ordinance contains the following provision in
Section 40:
To avoid undue hardship, nothing in this Ordinance shall be
deemed to require a change of plans, construction, or designated
use of any building on which ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION WAS
LAWFULLY INITIATED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE and upon
which actual building construction has been carried on diligently.56
The Ordinance states that Ridgeland would not encourage the survival of nonconforming uses but would allow them to exist until they are removed.57 In
other words, Baymeadows density was grandfathered in until February 2014, as
were other non-conforming uses that predated the 2001 Ordinance.
MU-1 zoning allows both traditional general commercial development and mixed
commercial and residential buildings, which it calls vertical mixed-use buildings
of up to four stories. Vertical mixed-use is defined as two or more different uses
occupying the same building usually on different floors.58 As previously noted,
the 2009 Comprehensive Plan defines mixed-use districts as areas which are
suitable for high quality, high density development.59
55
26
The above rendering shows the concept for development of the Township at
Colony Park, a mixed-use development in Northwest Ridgeland. This contrasts
with the images of the cottage cluster concept presented on p.13 and the
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) example on p. 21-23 of this
report.
Although Ridgelands Township development will incorporate some
Traditional Neighborhood Design principles, the TND zoning designation on the
2009 Generalized Future Land Use and Transportation Plan Map does not
authorize mixed-use development, as is discussed above.
Ridgelands 2014 Zoning Ordinance permits most commercial uses, including
retail, restaurant, office, medical, personal and business services, and sports
and recreational uses. Industrial uses are not permitted. Single-family houses,
townhouses, and zero lot residential uses are permitted in Ridgelands mixeduse districts as conditional uses.
60
27
Jackson
Canton
Brandon
Gulfport
Hattiesburg
Greenville
Ridgeland
Permit
Mixed-Use
Zones?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Jackson permits 100% residential multi-family buildings in its Neighborhood
Mixed Use Districts, Community Mixed Use Districts, and Urban Village Mixed
Use Districts. Canton and Brandon are the only other cities (of which I am
aware) in the Jackson MSA that authorize mixed-use districts in their zoning
ordinances. Canton permits all types of residential development, including multifamily buildings, in its Mixed Residential Commercial zones, and Brandon
permits multi-family buildings in mixed-use zones as well. Among Mississippis
ten largest cities (outside of the Jackson MSA), mixed-use districts are
28
61
29
In fact, I believe that if the City genuinely wants to fill out the 144-acre site in
Southeast Ridgeland that it rezoned as a functioning mixed-use district, it will
eventually need to permit multi-family apartments and condominiums at
densities of up to 20 to 25 units an acre. It is very unlikely that the vast areas
that Ridgeland rezoned for mixed-use in 2014 could be filled out by commercial
and vertical mixed-use development. 100% residential multi-family buildings
both apartments and condominiumswill be necessary to build densities
needed to provide both origins (homes) and destinations (workplaces, shops,
restaurants) within the district, thereby encouraging pedestrian trips and
reducing auto trips and congestion in mixed-use districts. As is discussed on
pp. 28-29, all of the other major cities in Mississippi and in the Jackson metro
area permit 100% multi-family residential structures in their mixed-use zones.
Also out of line with the APAs model zoning ordinance and my experience with
other mixed-use zoning ordinances around the country is the absence of a floor
area ratio (FAR) for Ridgelands mixed-use districts. The FAR is the ratio of a
building's gross floor area to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built.
FARs are used as a measure of the quantity of development that is permitted at
a given site and to limit the amount of construction on a site. A higher FAR
implies a more dense use, and a lower FAR implies a less dense use. The FAR
is a fundamental component in form-based design. It permits flexibility in uses
and in unit sizes so developers can be responsive to changing market
conditions. The use of FARs can facilitate mixed-use development that
combines origins and destinations into what planners call complete streets.
Complete Streets is a design approach and transportation policy that requires
streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe,
convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities
regardless of their mode of transportation. The concept combines origins
(homes) and destinations (work, shopping, entertainment) in walkable
pedestrian and bicycle-friendly environments that reduce vehicle trips.
Complete streets allow for safe travel by those walking, bicycling, driving
automobiles, riding public transportation, and delivering goods.62
A FAR of 1.0 means that the developer is allowed to build the equivalent of a
one-story building over the entire lot, or a 2-story story building on half the lot,
leaving the balance for parking, access, and yard space. A FAR of 2.0 means
the developer is allowed to build the equivalent of a two-story building over the
62
Ritter, John (2007-07-29). "'Complete streets' program gives more room for pedestrians,
cyclists". USA Today.
30
entire lot, or a 4-story over half the lot. Proscribing a floor area ratio is essential
to controlling densities of mixed-use areas.
Walkable neighborhoods that support transit and internal economies require
FARs of 1.5 to 3.0. In order to encourage mixed-use buildings, the APAs Model
Mixed Use Zoning Ordinance recommends FARs of 2.0 for mixed-use buildings
and 1.25 for buildings with 100% residential or 100% commercial floor space.63
Higher density allowances for mixed-use buildings are intended to encourage
developers to build mixed-use buildings in designated districts.
By contrast, Baymeadows has a FAR of 0.3. Since the development is twostories, this means that just 15% of the total site area is covered by buildings,
leaving 85% for parking, pedestrian and vehicle access, and open space. In
other words, by rezoning Baymeadows to mixed-use, applying the APAs FAR
recommendations of a 2.0 FAR for mixed-use buildings, a replacement property
could have a FAR that almost 7 times more dense than Baymeadows, assuming
the FAR that is recommended by the APA. This implies that the rezoning to
mixed-use could, in fact, significantly increase the density of the property.
Ridgelands City Planner likewise acknowledged that the 2014 Ordinance
contains no maximum FAR ratio for mixed-use zones.64
In fact, Ridgelands mixed-use regulations impose no limits on residential
densities. Instead, they provide for case-by-case review of development
proposals. The regulations prescribe that buildings in its mixed zones be no
more than 4 stories high and that there be maximum of 1 residential unit per 750
net sq. ft. of permitted commercial use in any given mixed-use building. Lot
coverage and setbacks are subject to site plan review. I performed calculations
of potentially allowable density in Ridgelands mixed-use districts based on
Ridgelands standards and a FAR of 1.5, a conservative assumption that is well
below the 2.0 FAR recommended by the APA for mixed-use buildings. The
results are presented in the table below:
63
64
31
Number of Acres
43,560
1.50
D
Building
Size
Maximum
No
of
E
Stories
65,340
16,335
G
Efficiency
Ratio
Net
Commercial
H
Area
Maximum
Res.
Density
for
Vertical
I
MU
0.85
Efficiency
Ratio
-
Nets
out
unleasable
common
space
13,884
750
18.5
SF per Story
Acre
Sq. Ft.
Assuming a FAR of 1.5,65 I estimate that up to 18.5 residential units per acre
could be developed in Ridgelands mixed-use districts. This far exceeds the
maximum of 10 units per acre permitted in Ridgelands highest density R-5
districts. It also exceeds Baymeadows density of 18.3 units per acre, which is
used by the City as the reason that it is attempting to terminate the
Baymeadows complex.66 In light of the forgoing, it appears that density is not
the actual target of the Citys redevelopment efforts but is, rather, an excuse for
removing apartments.
C. Class A Hearing And Litigation Justifications
In this section, I analyze the documents and testimony that the City has offered
subsequent to the passage of the 2014 Zoning Ordinance as explanation and
justification for the Ordinance. Typically, the City has introduced these
documents in Class A hearings, initiated by apartment complexes who have
65
The 197,069 sq. ft. Butler Snow building, which was built on a 4.5 acre lot, has an FAR of 1.5,
so this density is not unprecedented in Ridgeland.
66
Section 11 and Class A Hearing Tr.,, Ex 64, 2/5/15 Detailed Presentation by Alan Hart, at 1 as
well as numerous other documents.
32
been affected by the 2014 Zoning Ordinance and who now are applying for
status as a Class A Non-Conforming Use so as to avoid being subject to the
amortization formula outlined in Section 40 of the Ordinance. It has also
referenced such documents and concepts during depositions in this suit.
Here, I particularly focus on Alan Harts February 15, 2015 presentation in
opposition to BBCs petition for the City to reconsider the rezoning of the
Baymeadows Apartments and its application for Class A status. In that hearing,
to support the Citys case against its existing apartment complexes, Alan Hart,
Ridgelands Director of Community Development, presented evidence based on
analysis of 42 documents. These documents include reports, maps, and
photographs spanning over half a century.
Most of the documents presented by Mr. Hart pre-date the February 2014
Zoning Ordinance by many years, many are obsolete, and many are irrelevant
because they were not considered in the rezoning decision. Others were drafted
in 2015, nearly a year after the decision was made to rezone the Baymeadows
site. The documents contain biased data, faulty analysis, and unsupported
conclusions. In fact, all of the documents referenced by Mr. Hart either come
from the 1994-2009 time frame (five to twenty years prior to the Ordinance), or
post-date the passage of the Ordinance by 11 months or more. Critically, the
City presented no documents from the five-year period leading up to the
Ordinance as contemporaneous support for its rezoning and amortization
efforts.
I divide my analysis into two PartsPart 1 focuses on documents that were
drafted and created prior to the adoption of the 2014 Zoning Ordinance in
February 2014, while Part 2 focuses on documents that post-date the
Ordinance. I divide my analysis in this fashion because documents drafted after
the passage of the 2014 Ordinance obviously cannot serve as the initial
justification or support for that Ordinance, and thus must be distinguished from
documents that predate the Ordinance. Nonetheless, because Mr. Hart relied
on numerous documents that were created subsequent to the passage of the
2014 Ordinance, I include an analysis of these documents as well in order to
evaluate the Citys post-passage rationalizations of the zoning changes.
In reviewing these key documents for data quality and consistency, soundness
of analytical methods, and for accuracy and veracity of conclusions, I conclude
that these documents are based on biased data and faulty analysis. From them,
Mr. Hart draws conclusions that are unsupported by the data in these
33
documents. In sum, the sources upon which the City relies do not justify or
support its actions in adopting and implementing the 2014 Ordinance.
1. Documents Drafted Prior to February 2014
As discussed above, my analysis in the section is divided into two parts. This
part analyzes documents that predate that adoption of the 2014 Zoning
Ordinance.
1994 Preliminary Land Use Study, Ridgeland, MS (Exhibit 29)
Exhibit 29, the 1994 Preliminary Land Use Study, also referred to by Ridgeland
as the Michael Bridge Report, was presented by Mr. Hart as evidence of the
negative impact of high-density housing. This document is not mentioned in the
Preamble to the 2014 Ordinance, and Ridgelands City Planner testified that he
had not read it until during the Class A hearing process conducted months after
the Ordinance was passed.67 This document typifies the outmoded thinking of
the past century regarding high-density residential development. It states:
High density multiple family housing requires greater levels of
municipal services than lower density residential properties. The
streets serving apartment complexes carry significantly more traffic
and require greater city expenditures for street maintenance. The
larger number of dwelling units in apartment complexes demand
greater fire and police protection. The sizing of utilities including
sewer, water and storm drainage are normally greater when
serving apartment developments thereby requiring not only greater
investment but greater maintenance costs over time. Existing high
density multiple family housing has contributed to significant traffic
problems within the City of Ridgeland particularly on County Line
Road and Old Canton Road north to the Natchez Trace.68
Over the past two decades, however, such reasoning has been debunked as the
efficiency benefits of high-density development have become increasingly
appreciated. Fewer auto trips occur in higher-density areas. In a neighborhood
of 15 homes per acre, one third fewer auto trips occur, compared to a standard
67
34
69
The average lot size of a suburban tract is 8,750 sq.ft (about 5 units per acre). This is down
from 1976, when the average lot size was 10,125, or about 4 units per acre.
http://www.dimensionsinfo.com
70
Association of Bay Area Governments, Myths and Facts about Affordable and High Density
Housing.
71
Cited in David Thompson, Suburban Sprawl Exposing Hidden Cost, Identifying Innovations,
Sustainable Communities, Oct. 2013 at 6.
72
Id. at 5.
73
Id, p. 5.
35
The City of Calgary undertook a study of the costs of sprawl with similar
findings. It compared the capital costs of new infrastructure for existing patterns
of development against those of a denser growth pattern. The recommended
pattern, which would use 25% less land, would be 33% less expensive to
buildresulting in a savings to the City of more than $11 billion in capital costs
alone. Operating costs were also much lower for the denser growth model.
After 60 years, the savings would be $130 million per year.74
So, in contrast to Ridgelands assertions about the high costs of high-density
development, research has shown that density creates economies of scale that
save maintenance, time, and materials and result in operating and capital
savings for cities that can amount to billions in the long term. The 1994 Bridge
Report on which the City now builds its case after the fact is outdated and does
not reflect the current thinking of planning practitioners about cost-efficient
development.
2009 Southeast Ridgeland Project Financial Analysis (Exhibit 39)
Mr. Hart presented Exhibit 39, the 2009 Southeast Ridgeland Redevelopment
Project Analysis, as evidence of detailed study and planning for Southeast
Ridgeland. This document presents a new concept for a Traditional
Neighborhood Development zone for Southeast Ridgeland. It does not support
the 2014 designation of the area for mixed-use development.75
The document also includes comments made by the Jackson Association of
Realtors who were consulted in formulating the Project Financial Analysis,
including remarks like:
74
Id., at 6.
Ridgeland-BM-01695, 2009 Southeast Ridgeland Redevelopment Project Analysis, at
Ridgeland-BM-01696
76
Id. at Ridgeland-BM-01697
75
36
The Project Financial Analysis estimates the costs of redevelopment against the
value that could be captured by sales of lots to new residents. The gap between
costs and potential revenues was estimated at $95 million to $115 million. It
was suggested that private developers acquiring the apartments for
redevelopment could raise the revenues to finance this deficit if the City were to
relax code inspections and maintenance requirements for a time. It was
estimated that non-enforcement could save property owners up to 50% of gross
rents.77
This irresponsible proposal would not only create hardship for tenants, but it also
fails to recognize that maintenance costs are a small proportion of overall
operations and maintenance budgets, which also include insurance, taxes,
management, security, and utilities, among other things. Even Ridgelands
Building Official acknowledged that leniency on code enforcement would not be
a good idea.78 These statements demonstrate the insincerity of the case for
terminating Baymeadows and the surrounding complexes based on their nonconformance with density limits and permitted uses, and highlight what appear
to be the Citys true motives in advocating redevelopment of Southeast
Ridgeland, which appear to be to displace existing residents.
Ridgeland-BM-01714, Comparative Apartment Analysis
Mr. Hart presented Exhibit 41, the 2009 Comparative Apartment Analysis
conducted by the City of Ridgeland, as evidence that the Baymeadows
Apartments is a nuisance to the community.79 This analysis is dated the same
day as the Southeast Ridgeland Financial Analysis discussed above and is
referenced in that document. In April 2009, prior to the release of this document,
Mr. Hart met with the Mayor and stated: I'm nearly complete with the apartment
evaluation that will help us make a definitive case for redevelopment and
declaring as officially blighted."80 This document was compiled entirely in-house
by the City and appears to have been engineered to support the redevelopment
plan contained in the Financial Analysis.
The Comparative Apartment Analysis conducted by Ridgelands municipal
departments assigned each of the Citys 18 apartment complexes a ranking
77
Id. at Ridgeland-BM-01707
78
37
based on crime rates, fire risk, and community development criteria. Based on
this process, Baymeadows was classified as the worst apartment complex in
Ridgeland.
In order to assign a Police Department ranking, the Ridgeland Police
Department presented the Comparative Apartment Analysis Uniform Crime Rate
(UCR) statistics for Baymeadows and for the other 18 apartment complexes in
the City. This document lumps five years of crime statistics together into one
year. No attempt was made to annualize these data. This is misleading, as it
exaggerates the number of crimes and illustrates the arbitrariness of this
analysis. Based on this ranking process, the Baymeadows Apartments are
labeled as the Number 1 Worst apartment complex in Ridgeland.
On its website, the FBI warns against ranking of places based on UCR rates:
Many entitiesnews media, tourism agencies, and other groups
with an interest in crime in our Nationuse figures from the
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program to compile rankings of
cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick
choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the
many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city,
county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these
rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often
create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and
counties, along with their residents.81
Studies have found that crime is related not to density, but to poverty and lack of
education.82 The City has conducted no analysis of the needs of the population
of East Southeast Ridgeland, which it is trying to force out of the City.83 It has
not studied rates of poverty and education levels at Baymeadows or surrounding
apartment complexes.
Also factored into the Comparative Apartment Complex Analysis process was
the ranking of each complex by fire risk that was conducted by the Ridgeland
81
Lochner , Lance and Enrico Moretti,, The effect of Education on crime: Evidence from Prison
Inmates, Arrests, and Self Reports, October 2003 at http://eml.berkeley.edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf
83
38
Fire Department.
number of:
Electrical Problems
False Alarms
Outside Fires
Explosions
Smoke /Odor Reports
Structure Fires
The table below contrasts the City-assigned ranking given to each complex with
the rankings that should have been given based on the scores for each of the
criteria reflected in the five-year history. 84 It shows that the rank assigned by the
City to each complex has little or no relationship to its rank based on cumulative
scores of the criteria.
Cumulative
Scores
for
Fire
Risk
Criteria
22
22
18
18
16
16
16
16
15
15
14
12
9
6
84
Actual
Rank
based
on
City-
Assigned
Scores
(1)
Rank
(1)
1
8
1
2
3
1
3
4
5
3
5
6
7
10
7
14
9
7
9
16
11
5
12
15
13
12
14
13
The methodology provided with the Fire Departments risk analysis mentioned that
consideration was given to the presence of automatic sprinklers, the number of units in the
building, the presence of wood burning fireplaces, and the availability of fire hydrants. However
no metrics were assigned to these criteria and they were not quantified in the scoring process. It
is unclear from the ratings to what extent they were considered in the ranking process.
39
Gables
Park
Place
Pointe
5
4
3
15
16
17
18
9
11
17
17
(1)
The
lower
the
rank,
the
higher
the
fire
risk
score.
(2)
Parc
@
Ridgeland
has
since
been
renamed
"Ridgeland
Ranch".
Source:
Exhibit
41,
Comparative
Apartment
Analysis,
Sept.
16,
2009
The City ranked Baymeadows as the number one worst complex for fire risk.
Based on the sum of the actual criteria, however, Baymeadows was third from
the bottom of the list. For four of the five complexes that the City is seeking to
eliminate by amortization (highlighted in the table), the City-assigned rankings
that exaggerated the fire risk based on the sum of the criteria that were
purportedly used to evaluate the fire risk.
By contrast, the City ranked the upscale Pear Orchard Complexwhich had the
highest number of actual fire risk indicators,-- as 8 from the bottom, indicating it
was in the middle of the list of complexes for fire risk.
In only one instance
(Arbours@Reservoir) did the City-assigned ranking reflect the Complexs
ranking based on the actual sum of the criteria used to evaluate fire risk.
Given these many inconsistencies and unexplained disparities between the
criteria used and the final ranking, the ranking process clearly had little to do
with analysis of the stated objective criteria. It was instead used to target the
complexes that the City intended to eliminate by amortization.
The final metric the Comparative Apartment Analysis considered was a
Community Development rank, assigned by Ridgelands Building Official based
on population density, percentage of inspections passed, perceived number of
complaint incidents, number of years that the complex has been on probation,
and general condition.
As Ridgelands Building Official Chris Ramsey
confirmed during his deposition. compiling this analysis took approximately 6 to
8 hours.85 The criteria he used are vague and arbitrary and are influenced by
population density, which is over-weighted in the scoring process. Ramsey did
not remember why density was listed as the first criteria in his analysis and
could not say it would be considered if he re-performed the analysis today.86 He
85
86
40
confirmed that his Inspection criteria only examined a two-year period from
2007-2008 because that was all he had records for, and weighted all inspection
failures equally, irrespective of the severity of the failure.87
Baymeadows, which received the third worst inspection rank still passed 78%
of City inspections on the first attempt and, according to Ramsey, subsequently
rectified the failures detected and passed subsequent inspections for the 22%
that were failed on the first attempt.88 Ramsey used a different period from 20052009 in coming up with a Probation Incident criteria, which was based on
records he had at the time but no longer currently has. 89 His Complaint
Incident criteria was based on the undocumented perception that he and a
Ridgeland rental property inspector came up with after a discussion of their best
recollection.90 And a final General Condition criteria was solely based on his
perception after walking around and performing a visual inspection.91
The analysis explicitly recognized that Ramsey used opinion-based logic to
make delineation when two or more complexes were closely ranked.92 In sum,
Ramseys testimony confirms that this analysis was subjective and was
designed to support a pre-determined result, as reflected by Harts April 2009
meeting comments.
In sum, all three rankings utilized in the 2009 Comparative Apartment Analysis
were flawed and subjective and demonstrates that this survey was far from an
objective analysis,93 but instead was engineered by the City to help make its
definitive case for redevelopment of properties it wanted to remove.
2. Documents Drafted After February 2014
In this section, I review documents that were created after the passage of the
2014 Zoning Ordinance, but which the City has nonetheless presented in Class
A hearings as justifications for adopting the Ordinance in the first instance.
While I believe that these documents, which post-date the adoption of the
Ordinance and thus cannot form the foundation for its adoption, cannot properly
be considered in analyzing whether the Ordinance is justified, I nonetheless
87
Id. at 72-73.
Id. at 80-81.
89
Id. at 78-79.
90
Id. at 74-76.
91
Id. at 79.
92
Id. 79-80.
93
Ridgeland-BM-01714, 2009 Southeast Ridgeland Comparative Analysis Summary at
Ridgeland-BM-01715
88
41
briefly analyze them in light of the fact that the City has cited them repeatedly as
justification for its actions. I have found that the data used in these documents
is not only faulty, but also that they do not support the conclusions that
Ridgeland has drawn from them.
Crime Rates: 2015 Uniform Crime Rate Analysis (Exhibit 49)
In an attempt to illustrate that Baymeadows currently presents a nuisance to
surrounding areas, Mr. Hart cited a letter from Police Chief Randy Tyler dated
January 16, 2015. Like the 2009 analysis, this report aggregated data on police
calls to apartment complexes for a 5-year period without any attempt to
annualize the data, and thus suffers from the same flaws as the 2009 analysis.
No attempt was made to annualize these data.
The data show that 228 crimes were reported in the Baymeadows complex for
the five-year periodan average of 45 crime reports a year. This is less than
one police report a week, or 1 report for every 6 households on an annual basis.
Only 5% of these were violent crimes, with another 16% being crimes against
property. Nearly 80% of crimes were petty or minor infractions. There is no
evidence that these relatively low rates of crime created additional costs for the
City or that additional law enforcement staff is needed to cover these calls.
The table below compares Baymeadows crime rates with state and national
averages for 2012, the most recent year for which state and national data were
available. The rate of property crimes (which include burglary, larceny, and auto
theft) for Baymeadows, at 27.92 crimes per 1000 people, is below both state
and the national averages, which were 28.11 and 28.59 respectively. In terms of
violent crimes, Baymeadows had no reports of rapes or murders in 2012. It is
also worth noting that there were no drug-related police calls made to
Baymeadows in 2012.
Comparative
Crime
Rates
-
2012
Crimes
per
1000
population
Baymeadows
Mississippi
US
Avg
(1)
Includes
burglary,
larceny,
&
auto
theft
42
(2)
Excludes
aggravated
assault,
since
the
national
and
local
data
on
this
are
not
comparable.94
Assumes
Census
average
of
1.96
persons
per
household
and
10%
vacancy
rate.
Sources:
Exhibit
39,
Ridgeland
Police
Department
Statistical
Report
and
U.
S.
Department
of
Justice,
Uniform
Crime
reporting
Statistics
at
ucrdatatool.gov
94
Aggravated and simple assaults for domestic violence reports are combined for Baymeadows.
State and national UCR data on violent crimes exclude simple assaults.
95
Section 11 and Class A Hearing Tr.,, Ex. 48, Letter from John McCollum, Public Works
Director, City of Ridgeland.
96
9/16/14; 10/7/14 Public Hearing of the Gables Class A Petition, Transcript of
Proceedings,(hereinafter Gables Hearing Tr.). at 7.
97
Id. at 36 and 46-47.
43
44
102
45
107
Section 11 and Class A Hearing Tr., Ex. 60, Letter from Gerald R. Barber, Tax Assessor,
Madison County (undated). Additionally, it should be noted here that while assessed tax value
does not constitute the market value of a property, assessed values do tend to correlate with
market value insofar as they trend upward when market values increase and trend lower when
market values decrease.
108
Hart 30(b)(6) Dep. at 108-109.
109
Hart 30(b)(6) Dep.at 200 & 245-246.
46
Aerial photo showing the proximity of Bay Meadows Apartments to Montrose Woods and
LaRoche Court, where homes ranging from $425,000 to $1.5 million have been developed within
the last decade. The two are about 0.5 mile apart, as the crow flies.
Not only have the apartments had no discernible impact on abutting singlefamily neighborhoods, but also, over the past decade, two of the Citys most
expensive neighborhoods have been developed within 0.5 mile of Baymeadows.
These include the 8,000 to 11,000 sq. ft. houses in the gated Montrose Woods
development valued at up to $1.5 million. Abutting Montrose Woods is La
Roche Court, where townhouses of 4,000 to 5,500 sq. ft. range from $425,000 to
$650,000. The fact that high property value neighborhoods have been built in
close proximity to the rezoned apartments seriously undermines the Citys
assertion of negative impact on property values.
110
111
47
Aerial photo with housing values showing the proximity of Montrose Woods (where housing
values range from $825,000 up to $1.5 million) to Hawthorne Green to the north and Country
Club Woods to the west, where housing values are in the low $100s. The City alleges that
Baymeadows is negatively impacting values in these neighborhoods and discouraging
investment.. Clearly, this is not the case.
Source: www.homes.com
48
Aerial photo illustrating how the backyard of the $1.3 million house at 923 Montrose Woods
abuts those of working class homes on Hawthorne Green and William Blvd.
Source: www.homes.com
Report Responding
Reconsideration
to
Baymeadows
Application
for
Zoning
112
Section 11 and Class A Hearing Tr., Ex. 59, Bridge and Watson, Report Responding to
Baymeadows Application for Zoning Reconsideration, Feb. 2015.
49
Mr. Watson also claims that amortization is a modern way to terminate nonconforming uses. He quotes a 1986 source to support his contention that local
governments have recently turned to amortization to eliminate nonconforming
uses. 113 But in fact, amortization was used most extensively from about 1940
to 1980. Due to the limited success of the tool and its general unpopularity,
amortization is rarely used today. And notably, even in instances where
amortization has been pursued it has been historically used to eliminate garish
signs with relatively low value and adult entertainment uses, which pose genuine
nuisances to surrounding areas, not to remove peoples homes.
While Section VII below contains a more detailed discussion of amortization, for
purposes of this section it is sufficient to note that Mr. Watsons assertion that
Ridgelands Comprehensive Plan supports amortization is incorrect.
Amortization is not mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan, which is required by
state law to be the basis for all zoning decisions.
Mr. Watsons report claims that Ridgelands approach to amortization is
consistent with the APAs model legislation. Watson specifically states:
Ridgeland's more modem and effective approach to the treatment
of non-conformities is very much consistent with the American
Planning Association's published model zoning ordinance as well
as other authoritative publications of APA.114
This is not true. The APAs Model Legislative Guidebook advocates the use of
amortization for termination of only signs and billboards. The Guidebook
recommends that a local comprehensive plan with specific policies regarding
amortization must be in place before a city is authorized to amortize nonconforming uses. The model legislation contains the following requirement:
Comprehensive Plan Requirement. A local government may not
adopt a provision for amortization unless it first adopts a local
comprehensive plan pursuant to this Act, and the amortization of
nonconforming land uses, structures, and/or signs implements an
express policy contained in the plan. An amortization provision
113
Section 11 and Class A Hearing Tr., Ex. 59, A Report Responsive to the Application by BBC
Baymeadows, LLC Seeking Reconsideration and Class A Nonconformity Status, Feb. 17, 2015,
p.10 and 11.
114
Id.at 10.
50
115
Stuart Meck, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, 2002, at 8-126 (emphasis added)
APAs model amortization legislation is based on the American Law Institutes (ALI) Model
Land Development Code. The ALI Code authorizes local governments to require the
discontinuation of non-conformities only if the use is inconsistent with the local comprehensive
plans and is out of character with the surrounding uses. The ALIs Model Code further stipulates
that, if a development similar to the use being discontinued could be undertaken in the same
area, the local government cannot propose discontinuance. Ridgelands ordinance does not
comply with the basic standards outlined in American Law Institutes Model Code. As has been
discussed (see p. 28-29), 100% residential multi-family buildings are prohibited in Ridgelands
MU-1 district. However, my experience has shown that dedicated multi-family residential
buildings are critical to building the densities needed to support successful mixed-use districts.
The City allows multi-family units only in vertical mixed-use buildings with commercial units on
the ground floor. It is difficult to understand how single-use multi-family buildings would conflict
with either the vertical mixed-use or commercial buildings allowed by the mixed-use zoning. If
the City genuinely wants to fill out the 144-acre site as a functional mixed-use district, it will
eventually be necessary to permit multifamily apartments and condominiums at densities of up to
20 to 25 units an acre.
116
51
contains no amortization policy and that he had never read the APA Model
Ordinance on amortization.117
D. Conclusions
This review of the seminal documents upon which the City of Ridgeland has built
its case against Baymeadows shows that there is little or no internal consistency
either within or among these documents. The documents are contradictory in
their recommendations for land use in the proposed redevelopment area
surrounding the Baymeadows Apartments. The data used by the City to support
termination of the Baymeadows Apartments are faulty and do not support the
conclusions that the termination of Baymeadows as a non-conforming use is in
the general public interest. There has been no bona fide redevelopment plan for
the Baymeadows site as is required by the Citys 2009 Comprehensive Plan.
No redevelopment authority was created for the Southeast Ridgeland focus area
as was stipulated by the 2009 Comprehensive Plan. There has not been a valid
amendment to the Citys Comprehensive Plan since 2009.
The planning process for the redevelopment of Southeast Ridgeland did not
include low-income apartment residents who would be most profoundly affected
by the plan. The approach to planning for the Southeast Ridgeland Focus Area
has been ad hoc and piecemeal. There is no clear, overarching vision for a
development grounded in real market feasibility. The planning documents
reviewed that led to the 2014 Ordinance did not support the rezoning of
Baymeadows to mixed-use or the amortization of non-conforming uses.
The Citys primary excuse for terminating Baymeadows has been its density of
18.3 units an acre, which exceeds the City maximum limit of 10 units per acre
which was imposed following Baymeadows construction and annexation by the
City. I have found, however, that the new MU-1 Zoning District could permit
residential development at up to 18.5 units an acre. For these reasons, as well
as those fully discussed above, I regard the Citys actions in rezoning the
Baymeadows site as arbitrary and unreasonable and its alleged reasons
pretextual.
VI.
In this section, I opine on the quality of the process by which Ridgeland adopted
the 2014 Ordinance. I first review certain of the documents referenced in the
117
52
2014 Ordinances Preamble as the basis for that Ordinance, as the City has
repeatedly emphasized that the recommendations in these documents were the
result of a valid public process.118 I conclude that the planning process used to
develop these documents was unrepresentative and deviates from good
practice. Next, I examine the Citys process for passing the 2014 Ordinance and
explain how that process was likewise characterized by lack of public discourse
and participation.
A. Analysis of Documents Effectuated By 2014 Zoning Ordinance
1. The 2008 RAMP
Recall that Ridgeland has claimed, both in the Preamble to the 2014 Zoning
Ordinance and in subsequent Class A hearings, that it relied on the 2008 RAMP
in drafting the 2014 Zoning Ordinance. Because of this fact, I analyzed whether
the 2008 RAMP was created and drafted using a fair and unbiased process that
reflects adequately the needs and concerns of the community. From my review
of the process used to create the RAMP, I conclude that no such fair process
occurred.
The RAMP was released in January 2008. The stated goal of the plan, as
summarized in a letter from the Mayors Office, was to keep Ridgeland
competitive with surrounding cities and to ensure that the City continues to grow
in a way that enhances the quality and character of the community.119
Preconceived Outcome
The Director of Community Development, Alan Hart, recommended retaining the
Moore Planning Group, a firm of planning consultants based in Louisiana for
which Mr. Hart worked for several years, to lead the RAMP planning process.120
Shortly after their retention, Ridgeland also retained as its City Planner, Matthew
Dodd, another Moore alumnus and landscape architect with no licensing,
certification, or specific training in city planning.121
In a letter to the Mayor recommending the retention of Moore Planning Group,
Alan Hart stated, "The Master Plan we get from Moore Planning Group will be
full of opportunities for which I would like to use to help Ridgeland move toward
118
53
our collective vision and goals.122 He further stated that, with Moore Group,
"You can be guaranteed that I will know what we are getting.123 This suggests
that there was a preconceived outcome of the planning process and that the
process was neither open nor unbiased. The preconceived outcome of this
process was also evident in a set of notes documenting an April 2009 meeting
between Mr. Hart and Mayor McGee. In these notes, Mr. Hart says that I'm
nearly complete with the apartment evaluation that will help us make a definitive
case for redevelopment and declaring as officially blighted."124
Mr. Hart considered the RAMP as a weapon to advance the Citys political
agenda rather than as a tool to gather information about public needs and
priorities to develop policies and projects to meet these needs and address
these priorities. Hart wrote, We will be able to use the Master Plan as our
sword and shield, while moving the community forward. In other words, we can
use the Master Plan to go on the attack to make something happen or go on the
defensive to block something unwanted."125
Led By Non-Representative Groups
The Master Plan Steering Committee (MPSC) was charged with guiding the
planning process, 126 with significant input from Ridgelands Community
Awareness Committee (CAC), a group appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen,
which had been created by ordinance in October 2004.127 Several members of
the CAC also served on the MPSC, and there was significant coordination
between the two groups during the process of developing the RAMP.128 The
ordinance creating the CAC declared that the purpose of the group was to help
establish long-range goals and projects for Ridgeland and that the Committee
was a conduit of information to and from the mayor and the Board of
Aldermen.129 Both the MPSC and the CAC were entirely white,130 despite the
fact that roughly 40% of Ridgelands citizens are non-white.
122
54
During MPSC and CAC meetings, concern was repeatedly expressed about the
changing demographics131 at Ridgeland area schools, including the Ann Smith
Elementary School, which serves the Baymeadows Apartments. Enrollment at
the Ann Smith Elementary School is currently 56% African-American, 30%
White, 8% Latino, and 5% Asian.132 Graphics were presented on the increasing
number of minority students and the decline in the number of white students.133
It was acknowledged during these meetings that the test scores from
Ridgelands schools indicated good scholastic performance. Regardless,
concerns were repeatedly voiced about the image of the demographics of the
schools 134 and perceptions that the schools were going down. 135 Meeting
minutes emphasized the continuous dropping off of the white demographic for
the last 10 years, and discussed opportunities to change this fact.136 Charts
were presented detailing the increase in the proportion of minority students, and
data were presented to the effect that the minority enrollment was increasing at
an average annual rate of 4%.137
The influx of apartments was blamed for the declining number of white
students in the schools.138 The development of more affordable housing
defined in the minutes as $200,000-range housingwas proposed as a
possible solution to stem this trend. 139 It was noted that in Clinton, just
southwest of Ridgeland, where a large number of new houses in the $175,000$185,000 price range have been developed, the growth of the minority student
population had decelerated to 1% a year. In Gluckstadt, to the north, the
development of new single-family houses in this same price range is said to
have supported a mix of 70% white 30% black students.140
Exhibiting the same callousness toward other racial groups, members of the
CAC referred to Asian and Latino students as the other demographic.141 The
131
Ridgeland-BM-10147-10148, notes from the CAC Meeting, Feb 23, 2009; Ridgeland-BM10157, noes from the CAC meeting July 27, 2009.
132
Great Schools http://www.greatschools.org/mississippi/ridgeland/602-Ann-Smith-ElementarySchool/details/
133
Ridgeland-BM-10151, Notes from the CAC Meeting July 20, 2009.
134
Ridgeland-BM-10147-10148, Notes from the CAC Meeting Feb. 23, 2009.
135
Id.
136
Id.
137
Hart 30(b)(6) Dep. at 354
138
Ridgeland-BM-10147-10148, Notes from the CAC Meeting Feb. 23, 2009.
139
Id.
140
Ridgeland-BM-10157,, Notes from the CAC Meeting, July 27, 2009.
141
Id., at Ridgeland-BM-10160
55
MPSC and CAC also repeatedly discussed the plight of Northpark Mall, a
shopping center located in Southeast Ridgeland that has seen an increase in
minority patronage, voicing a perceived community concern over loitering and
fears that the Northpark Mall would go the way of MetroCenter Mall, a mall in
Jackson surrounded by predominately African-American neighborhoods. 142
These documents show bias against minority students, an estimated 650 of
whom live in the five apartment complexes that are scheduled for termination
under the 2014 Ordinance based on the RAMP.143
A Misunderstanding of What Constitutes Affordable Housing
Attorneys questioned Mr. Hart, Ridgelands Director of Community
Development, about his concept of affordable housing during his deposition.
Alarmingly for a Director of Community Development, Mr. Hart stated that he did
not know the legal or statutory definition of affordable housing in Ridgeland.144
This shows an utter disregard for the needs of the Citys lower income citizens
as well as an ignorance of federal housing policy. According to HUD, housing
costing no more than 30% of a familys income is affordable. The table below
shows HUD affordability criteria for the Jackson Metropolitan Area:
$56,300
Household
Max.
Affordable
Income
Limit
Monthly
Rent
$15,930
$348
$22,550
$514
$36,060
$851
Source: http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il15/FY2015_IL_ms.pdf
142
56
57
process. Clearly, Ridgeland did not follow good practice in deployment of the
RAMP public participation process.
The RAMP was initially presented to the Aldermen and to the City Department
Heads at a series of retreats held at different locations. No minutes were taken
at these retreats on a consistent basis.150 In May of 2009, the City conducted
two workshops to discuss proposals to develop cottage housing in East
Southeast Ridgeland. In his deposition, Alan Hart admitted that two workshops
were conducted instead of a single session to prevent there being a quorum of
Aldermen at the meeting, which would necessitate the taking of minutes and
require that the meeting be open to the public.151
At the onset of this meeting, Alan Hart announced that the proceedings were to
be held in confidentiality. During his deposition, Mr. Hart said that he was not
particularly familiar with the Mississippi Open Meetings Act, which requires that
all public business be discussed in public meetings. 152 That many of the
meetings where key policy discussions regarding the RAMP apparently took
place among community leadership in secret, private, and unrecorded meetings
is troubling, and is yet another indication that the publics awareness of and
participation in this process was inadequate.
Public Opinion Disregarded When City Officials Have Differing View
Although Ridgeland now claims that its enactment of the 2014 Ordinance was a
means of effectuating the 2008 RAMP and the community opinions it
purportedly embodies, the Citys actions reveal that Ridgeland officials are
happy to disregard the recommendations of the RAMP when it suits their
interests, even when the community is strongly opposed to such action. For
instance, the same disregard for public opinion was evident in the Citys 2007
decision to approve the construction of the 13-story Butler Snow building in the
Renaissance at Colony Park, despite RAMP prohibitions and zoning ordinance
restrictions forbidding this kind of development. The 2001 Zoning Ordinance,
which was then in effect, had specified a maximum height limit of 48 feet, or four
stories, for commercial buildings in the City. Residents of surrounding
neighborhoods, concerned with not only the out-of-scale appearance of the
150
59
building, but also its impact on traffic and property values in the area, organized
to oppose the plan. 153
Despite numerous emails, meetings, and a petition signed by nearly 1000
nearby residents, the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen approved the issuance
of conditional use permits and variances enabling construction of the structure.
Residents tried to negotiate with the developer and indicated that they would
support an 8-story structure, which is double the limit imposed by the 2001
Zoning Ordinance then in effect. In an email sent around that time, Community
Development Director Hart acknowledged that no vertical analysis study had
been performed, but noted Ridgelands relationship with the developer as a
reason to vote for the building.154
Nonetheless, the City welcomed the high-rise office tower as part of its strategy
to eclipse Jackson as the economic power center of the state. 155 Local
legislators feared that to refuse developers the necessary zoning concessions
would send a negative message to potential investors that would impede
Ridgelands economic development ambitions. 156 Ridgeland's own RAMP,
which was under development at the time of the controversy, recognizes
Jackson's importance as the metro core, stating the health of the Jackson
community is of vital concern to Ridgeland since deterioration in that community
will have ripple effects in Ridgeland.157
In a letter to the projects opponents, 5th Ward Alderman Scott Jones stated that,
in fact, the City has never turned down any development of high and certain
quality that has come to us, 158 indicating a complete disregard for the planning
documents that Ridgeland is now using to justify amortization of low income
housing. In another letter from Alan Hart, Community Development Director, to
Gene McGee, Ridgelands Mayor, Mr. Hart stated that Mr. McGee is perfectly
capable of making quality decisions without input from citizens who typically
153
60
have limited knowledge about the whole dynamics of the issue. 159 This
indicates a disregard for the public input process that would not be expected
from a Director of Community Development.
Other letters from neighborhood residents complained that the building was not
in harmony with the RAMP and stated that, during the RAMP planning process
there was no indication of a 17-story development being planned, although
obviously some city officials must have known about it. Such development is
incompatible with the new goals developed with significant public inputall the
more reason to oppose this out-of-place building. 160
In a letter to the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen regarding the decision to
approve the development, Susan Haltom, Chairman of the MPSC, stated that:
If Ridgeland aspires to be a progressive city that values the input
of its citizens, then we must be informed well in advance of
substantive or unusual changes. Some of you stated that last
night's decision was the most important one you have faced, and
yet your decisions were already well underway before the
community even knew about this proposal. In a progressive city,
the traffic impact study would have been available for public
comment weeks before decision-making time, as would the
position paper from the Director of Community Development. The
whole process appeared sloppy and biased.161
In short, in 2007 Ridgeland officials proved willing to disregard the RAMP and
the community vision that went into developing this document when it suited
the interests and ambitions of City leaders, despite the fact that the Citys
Comprehensive Plan prohibited the scale of development that was permitted.
This demonstrates that Ridgeland officials are happy to point to the importance
of the planning process when it suits their objectives but are willing to ignore
public opinion when it conflicts with the Citys political agenda.
159
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23377, Email from Alan Hart to Gene McGee, July 21, 2007 at
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23378.
160
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23332 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23336, Email from Collette McIntyre to
Katherine Youngblood, Aug. 23, 2007
161
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23215, Email from Susan Haltom to the Mayor and the Board of
Aldermen, October 11, 2007.
61
162
http://www.ridgelandms.org/city-departments/community-development/planning-and-zoning/
62
statistics.163 As a result, only one person who worked for a developer spoke at
this meeting.164 Indeed, when providing notice of the 2014 Ordinance to the
public, no signs were posted on the affected properties, no nearby landowners
were notified by certified mail, and no direct notice was issued to the property
owners affected by the proposed changes.165
In his deposition, Alan Hart stated that the City is not required to directly notify
affected property owners of zoning changes initiated by the City, by posting
signs or otherwise.166 But there is no reason why the City of Ridgeland should
hold itself to lesser standards than those required for zoning changes requested
by property owners. Ridgeland requires property owners who request zoning
changes to post signs and notify all neighbors within 160 feet by certified mail, in
addition to running newspaper ads. In this case, the apartment complexes
rezoned by the 2014 Zoning Ordinance were not given notice comparable to
what neighboring properties are entitled to under the Citys own policies and
practices.
Similarly, the City recognizes that properties need to get individuated notice in
instances where intrusions on the owners property rights may occur that are far
more minor than a complete rezoning of the property would be. For instance,
when the City wants to clean private property, it must schedule a public hearing
regarding the clean up action. It is required to mail the notice 2 weeks before
the hearing to the address of the subject property and to the address where the
tax notice is sent.167 In addition, the City is required to post the notice on the
property and as well as somewhere in town (e.g., City Hall) where such notices
normally would be posted.
The City has further recognized that these standards set minimum requirements,
and that it must sometimes make additional steps to ensure that the affected
property owner has notice of the Citys intended actions, depending on the
extent of the property rights affected. For instance, in a presentation to the
Mississippi Municipal League Small Town Conference in November 2011,
Ridgelands Director of Community Development, Alan Hart, presented the
following slides explaining how cities have an obligation to take additional steps
163
63
to affect [sic] notice under certain situations as the due process requirements
of giving notice are flexible and depend on the particular project:
Slides from a November 17, 2011 presentation by Alan Hart & Troy Johnston
Source:http://www.mmlonline.com/_assets/files/cityhall/docs/Cleaning%20of%20Private
%20Property.pdf, Presented in Hart Dep (30)(b) at 263, Exhibit 32.
Thus, it seems that the City understands through its own policies that statutes
setting notice requirements set out a minimum standard that must be met to give
property owners notice, and have in practice required property owners to either
themselves take additional steps (or the City to take additional steps) to
adequately inform affected individuals of changes to their property status.
64
Nor is it the case that the City would have had difficulty contacting the apartment
complex owners directly to let them know about the zoning change and give
residents and apartment complex owners the opportunity to participate in the
public hearing and approval process. For example, the testimony I have
reviewed to date indicates that when the City was pursuing its aggressive code
enforcement program against apartment complexes it maintained a list of
apartment complex owners with their contact information that it updated every
four to six months.168 In fact, the City sent letters to the property managers at
the apartments to apprise them of their new 100% rental inspection program.169
So, the City was aware of who to contact at affected properties and understood
how to get in touch with them. In addition, it appears that the City has directly
reached out to apartment residents in the past when it wanted to do so. For
instance, when the 2010 census occurred, the City posted notices on the doors
of apartment buildings to encourage residents to participate and fill out census
forms in order to try to obtain federal funding based on their demographic
information.170 Thus, the City has demonstrated that it has the ability to contact
apartment complexes when it suits them.171
A public hearing was opened on January 21 but, at the request of the single
person that attended, it was continued to February 4, 2014. The Zoning Board
conducted only a single meeting, on January 30 to discuss the 2014 Zoning
Ordinance.
The public hearing was continued until February 4, 2014the
same day that the Alderman voted to approve the Zoning Ordinance, indicating
that there was never any intention of incorporating public opinion into the
decision-making process. This does not indicate a bona fide democratic
planning process that weighed the public benefits of rezoning vis--vis the
private costs. Instead, it suggests that the Board and the Aldermen merely
rubberstamped the ordinance, and did so after the fact.
In sum, it appears that Ridgeland did not follow its own recommended
processes when adopting the 2014 Ordinance. It did not give apartment
complex owners or apartment residents direct notice of the proposed zoning
changes even though they would be dramatically affected by the Ordinance. A
168
65
AMORTIZATION
PROVISION:
In this section, I first present an overview of the history of amortization and its
application to various land uses. I then discuss the amortization formula that is
used to establish and calculate amortization periods. I then examine the use of
amortization to eliminate non-conforming uses in Mississippi, which has been
very limited. Finally, court cases relevant to the Baymeadows case are
discussed.
A. History of Amortization
The beginnings of amortization can be traced from the birth of zoning in 1916
when New York passed the first zoning law. It was not until the early 1950s,
however, that amortization began to be more widely adopted. During this
period, amortization was applied to eliminate uses with relatively low values, like
non-conforming signs or sheds with outdoor storage.
The use of amortization began to be curtailed in 1965, when Congress adopted
the Highway Beautification Act. The Act provided for compensation of all nonconforming billboards on federal highways. In 1978, Congress amended this
Act to specifically prohibit amortization of non-conforming billboards on federal
highways.172 Although cities can still amortize non-conforming billboards not
located on federal highways, this has become more difficult politically.
The use of amortization to eliminate non-conforming uses has been fragmented,
and for the most part, limited to uses where there has been little or no
substantial investment in structures, like signs or sheds, and nuisances such as
adult entertainment uses. There is no general consensus on methods of setting
amortization periods, particularly for major structures; this is partly because the
technique has been so rarely applied to high value buildings.
172
https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/billboards.htm
66
Gas Works
Vehicle Repair
Building materials Sales Outlets
Metal Workshop
Adult Hotel
173
67
174
175
68
176
http://www.realtor.com/data-portal/realestatestatistics/Jackson_MI
69
most authoritative source on residential rental property, show that rents in the
Jackson metro area have increased by 6.7% since 2010, driven by positive
income and job growth. 177
Supporting rental inflation has been low
unemployment, which declined from 11.3% in 2010 to 5.6% in the second
quarter of 2015. By substituting assessed values for market values, the Citys
amortization formula understates the value of the property to be amortized.
Additionally, Section 40.12 does not clearly define the factors and other
variables that can increase and decrease Base Unrecoverable Cost
calculations, and thus is unclear and potentially subject to manipulation by the
parties applying it.
Generally speaking, when determining amortization
schedules pursuant to an amortization formula, the next step in determining the
Base Unrecoverable Cost is to adjust the initial estimate of the propertys value
for factors that increase and factors that decrease the propertys value.
Ridgelands Ordinance stipulates that factors decreasing unrecoverable costs
include, at a minimum, the value of the site along with any depreciation taken
by its present owner for tax purposes, while factors increasing the owners
unrecoverable costs, at a minimum, must include the costs of demolition of
non-conforming structures and any site restoration work needed.
Alan Hart, in his deposition of June 4, 2015, acknowledged the vagueness of the
Ordinance regarding the factors that can increase and reduce the Base
Unrecoverable Costs. When questioned about what factors could be used in the
formula, Mr. Hart said that there were all sorts of factors and that he could not
provide examples of what these factors might be, but he would expect them to
vary for different uses and types of non-conformities.178 When asked about how
property owners were to know which factors could increase or decrease their
Base Costs, Mr. Hart said that the City would defer to the industry standard
data. In such a rarely used technique as amortization, the existence of an
industry standard is questionable.
The final step of Ridgelands amortization formula calls for determining the net
income from the property being amortized. Ridgeland allows net income to be
determined by the average return on investment for similar properties or
businesses in the local area. Alternatively, the owner can present actual audited
financial statements for the property or business being amortized. In any event,
dividing the Base Unrecoverable Costs by the annual return on investment
yields the unadjusted Amortization Period. To calculate the final amortization
177
178
70
period, the formula requires that the base recoverable costs be increased by
1.5% a year for inflation for the life of the amortization. Over the past ten years,
inflation has averaged 2.4% a year,179 so for a long-term assumption, a 1.5%
annual inflation rate is very low.
If the income stream from a property is particularly low, this can result in long
amortization periods. Bernie Giessner, Chairman of the Zoning Board, has
pointed out in an email that, if the annual return from a property were just 1% a
year, this formula could yield amortization periods of 100 years or longer.180 It is
telling that this email was sent after the City had already set the 2014 Ordinance
for a vote and that no one appears to have addressed Chairman Giessners
concern. No revisions were made to the Ordinance as a result.
3. Amortization as Applied to Baymeadows
In this section, I consider how Ridgelands amortization formula might be applied
to the Baymeadows Apartments. I find that, essentially, the formula cannot be
applied in a coherent way to amortize Baymeadows because, for the three years
preceding the passage of the 2014 Ordinance, the complex has operated at a
loss, with expenses exceeding revenues from rents, a situation the Section
40.12 formula apparently did not anticipate.
Table A-1 shows the results of my calculations of how Ridgelands amortization
formula would apply to Baymeadows. Ridgelands amortization formula requires
that the assessed value be used as a proxy for market value. In February of
2014, when the Zoning Ordinance was passed, the value of the property was
assessed at $9.24 million. While I am not an expert in valuing apartments, since
assessed value and market value may vary widely, this starting point seems
arbitrary and unreasonable.
179
180
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1505.pdf
Hart 30(b)(6) Dep. at 288.
71
Basis
$9,240,000
Madison Co Assessor
$40,037
$
766,764
$629,006
$10,725,000
$12,160,807
-100
Years
-
Unrecoverable
Costs/Annual
Return
181
72
Baymeadows in August 2013. Since the property tax assessment shows a zero
value for the land, the value of the site cannot be deducted from the
unrecoverable costs. The adjusted cost basis after deducting depreciation is
$8.9 million. Factors increasing Baymeadows costs include demolition, which is
estimated at $4 sq. ft., and site restoration at $1 sq. ft. Ridgelands Zoning
Ordinance does not prohibit the consideration of other factors that have been
used to adjust unrecoverable costs, such as the value of a relocation site for the
property or business. Based on a recent appraisal of the property, the value of a
relocation site is estimated at $10.7 million.
Factors increasing costs amount to $12.2 million, with the Total Unrecoverable
Costs coming to over $21 million.
Ridgelands amortization formula next
requires that the annual income of the property be divided by the Total
Unrecoverable Costs to get the Preliminary Amortization Period.
However,
according to audited financial statements, Baymeadows recorded losses
averaging $211,408 a year over the past three years. I conclude that, because
there has been no positive annual return on the property, Baymeadows cannot
be amortized under Ridgelands 2014 Zoning Ordinance.
D. Ridgelands Ordinance Is Like No Other Currently in Place in
Mississippi
My research has shown that few Mississippi cities authorize amortization of nonconforming uses. Ridgelands amortization provision is unique in that it extends
to all uses. Amortization is authorized by Jacksons 2014 zoning ordinance for
non-conforming adult uses only and has a clearly-defined three-year period for
all such uses:
Any adult arcade, adult bookstore, adult cabaret, adult
entertainment establishment, adult motel, or adult motion picture
theater, as defined in this Ordinance, in existence at the time of
adoption of this Ordinance which violates or does not conform to
the provisions hereof (hereafter, a "pre- existing, non-conforming
business") shall conform to the provisions of this Ordinance within
a period of three (3) years from said adoption of this Ordinance. 184
If an owner wants to appeal the three-year amortization period, the City of
Jackson will consider the following factors:
184
73
The amount of such investment that has been or will have been realized
at the conclusion of the three-year amortization period;
185
74
Respectfully submitted,
75
APPENDIX A
Years of Experience - 25
Education
M.A, Urban Planning, Washington
University in St. Louis
B.A., History & Political Science,
Webster University, St. Louis, MO
SPECIFIC EXPERTISE
Amortization of Non-conforming
Uses.
Expert Witness Testimonial
Zoning & Master Planning
Margaret Collins is a consultant with 25 years of international experience in real estate market analysis, land use
planning, and zoning for redevelopment of brownfield sites and buildings. She is Director of Cambridge Economic
Research, a consulting firm specializing in site, market, financial, and economic impact analysis for real estate
development projects. Ms. Collins is an international expert in the application of amortization techniques to phase
out non-conforming uses and has provided Expert Witness support in Zoning and Amortization litigation. She has
worked with local, regional, and state development authorities throughout the U.S., Europe, Latin America, and in
Asia. Ms. Collins has advised private developers and investment banks on project content and feasibility.
Prior to establishing Cambridge Economic Research, Ms. Collins was Director of the Scotland Office of Roger Tym &
Partners where she worked with European urban renewal agencies and private developers on a range of economic
and real estate development projects. She has an MA in Urban Planning from Washington University and a BA in
History and Political Science from Webster University and is a member and a former Chairman of the Missouri
Division of American Institute of Certified Planners. She has published a book and several articles on real estate and
economic development topics. Some examples of her work include:
Expert Witness Support Forman v. City of Mill Creek, WA
Provided expert witness support the Appellants challenge of the Citys use of amortization to shut down a mining
operation in a residential neighborhood. After reviewing relevant documents, we prepared a Declaration stating
that the three-year amortization period for such a use was not reasonable because (a) the City had not properly
considered the owners investment in the property, replacement costs, and market value of the site and (b) there
were no structures on the property that could be amortized; amortization applies only to buildings and
improvements, not to the land value. Based on our Affidavit, the City dropped the case against Pacific Soils.
Amortization of Non-Conforming Uses, Hong Kong Redevelopment Agency
Ms. Collins was retained by the Hong Kong Redevelopment Agency to advise on the American concept of using
Amortization to phase out non-conforming industrial uses in residential areas. We advised Hong Kong planners
on the American uses of amortization and helped them to establish a well-conceived, comprehensive, and legally
defensible approach to developing an Amortization System to mitigate the impacts of noxious non-conforming
industrial uses on residential neighborhoods. We recommended models to determine (a) the costs to be
amortized and (b) the appropriate amortization period, on a case-by-case basis.
Real Estate Market Impacts of the Jackson Airport Connector, Mississippi DOT
Under subcontract to Global Insight, Cambridge Economic Research examined the potential economic and real
estate development opportunities that are likely to emanate from the new Jackson Parkway Airport Connector
(MS-25), a proposed 10-mile toll way between the city center and Jackson International Airport. Cambridge
Economic Research conducted a review of the literature on impacts of urban airport connectors. This concluded that
the new highway could be expected to have a pronounced positive impact on the corridor if proactive zoning
policies are put in place because real estate conditions in the study corridor were strong and the volume of airport
traffic was growing rapidly.
Fall River Riverfront Revitalization Strategy, Mass DOT
Conducted a build-out analysis of a series of redevelopment parcels that will be released by replacing an existing
elevated highway on Fall Rivers waterfront with an urban boulevard. Based on interviews with businesses and
property owners, Cambridge Economic Research evaluated the potential supply of the riverfront parcels for
redevelopment with a mix of multi-family residential, retail, entertainment, and office uses allowable by the sites
form-based zoning ordinance.
Site Evaluation for a New Southeastern US Headquarters, Sverdrup Corp (now Jacobs Engineering)
Ms. Collins evaluated alternative locations for a new Southeastern Headquarters for a major engineering firm.
Locations in Jackson, Atlanta, Montgomery, and Greensboro were evaluated. Based on our recommendations, the
firm chose the Greensboro location.
Economic & Fiscal Impact of the Riverside Station Transit Oriented Development, City of Newton, MA
For the City of Newton, Cambridge Economic Research peer reviewed an economic and fiscal impact analysis of a
mixed-use transit-oriented development on the City and its residents. This $350 million project, which is scheduled
to start construction this summer, will bring 290 apartments, a 10-story office building, and retail space to an 11acre parcel of MBTA-owned land surrounding a Green Line station.
Affordable Housing in St. Louis: The Supply and Demand, Phoenix Fund
Analysis of Census data on the supply of and demand for low income housing in the St. Louis metropolitan area
conducted for a public research foundation. The study found that there is a shortage of new housing being created
for the working poor in St. Louis.
Evaluation of Entergy Economic Development Programs, Entergy Utility
Survey of local economic development agencies in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, & Texas. Assessment of the
economic impacts of funding from the US Economic Development Administration and Entergy (the electric utility
company) for infrastructure to develop industrial sites.
Economic Impact of Proposed Mississippi River Bridge in Northern Louisiana, St. Francisville, LA
Assessment of economic development potential of increased tourism emanating from a proposed new Mississippi
River Bridge on Louisiana Highway 10.
Arkansas Aeroplex Master Plan, Blytheville, AK
Target industry and branding strategy for the Arkansas Aeroplex Industrial Park, which was redeveloped on the
former site of Eaker Air Force Base in Blytheville, in Northeastern Arkansas. CER identified target industries and
companies in the aerospace industry. Since, then 1.5 million square feet of flex space has been developed in the
park, which now accommodates thousands of new jobs.
Feasibility Study for the Ritz Carlton Residences, Millennium Partners
Feasibility study for a 60-story luxury residential tower in the heart of Downtown Boston. Conducted case studies
and collected primary data on the demand for luxury housing in Downtown Boston. Based on a Logistic
Regression Model, demand for high-end units in downtown Boston was found to be sufficient to support the
proposed development, which was completed a decade ago. The development has consistently achieved some of
the highest rents and rates of occupancy in the City.
Cambridge Rent Control Economic and Social Impact Analysis, City of Cambridge, MA
Two years after rent control ended, Cambridge Economic Research was Project manager for a Survey of 1000
tenant households in Cambridge. The purpose of the survey was to gauge the impacts of the termination of rent
control on the rents and household turnover in Cambridge, MA. The study found that most rent control
households stayed in their units after deregulation and were paying rents 40% below market rate. Those who
moved were more affluent than those who stayed and most moved for reasons other than rent increases.
Professional Memberships
Full Member, American Institute of Certified Planners
American Planning Association, Missouri Section Director, 1989-1990;
Former Secretary, Massachusetts Association of Consulting Planners
Public Transit Professionals Network
Economic Development Professionals Network
Transportation@MIT Initiative
APPENDIX B
MATERIALS RELIED ON
Legal Documents
Murmur Corporation v. The Board of Adjustment of the City of Dallas, No. 05-8500528-CV,
United States Court of Appeals of Texas, October 27, 1986
Public Hearing Regarding the Gables Class A Petition and all Exhibits,
September 16, 2014; October 7, 2014
BBC Baymeadows Section 11 and Class A Hearing Transcript and all Exhibits,
January 6, 2015
2
BBC Baymeadows Section 11 and Class A Hearing Transcript and all Exhibits,
February 17, 2015
Bates Stamped
BBC00034442 - BBC00034448
BBC00034449 - BBC00034455
BBC00034456 - BBC00034462
BBC00034463 - BBC00034469
Ridgeland-BM-00095 - Ridgeland-BM-00180
Ridgeland-BM-00395 - Ridgeland-BM-00564
Ridgeland-BM-00926 - Ridgeland-BM-00929
Ridgeland-BM-00940 - Ridgeland-BM-01155
Ridgeland-BM-01156 - Ridgeland-BM-01176
Ridgeland-BM-01357 - Ridgeland-BM-01454
Ridgeland-BM-01695 - Ridgeland-BM-01713
Ridgeland-BM-01714 - Ridgeland-BM-01729
Ridgeland-BM-01810 - Ridgeland-BM-01837
Ridgeland-BM-09929 - Ridgeland-BM-10221
Ridgeland-BM-10222
Ridgeland-BM-10223
Ridgeland-BM-14973-22478
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23208
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23212 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23213
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23215
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23218 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23219
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23220 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23221
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23233 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23234
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23262 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23272
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23285 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23293
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23296 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23297
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23322 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23326
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23377 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23379
Ridgeland-BM-14973-23332 - Ridgeland-BM-14973-23336
Association of Bay Area Governments, Myths and Facts about Affordable and High
Density Housing, available at
http://www.abag.ca.gov/services/finance/fan/housingmyths2.htm
Great Schools
http://www.greatschools.org/mississippi/ridgeland/602-Ann-Smith-ElementarySchool/details/
Lochner , Lance and Enrico Moretti,, The effect of Education on crime: Evidence
from Prison Inmates, rrests, and Self Reports, October 2003, available at
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf
Ritter, John (2007-07-29). "'Complete streets' program gives more room for
pedestrians, cyclists". USA Today.
Seattle Housing Authority, Yesler Terrance Development Plan, May 17, 2011,
available at
http://www.seattlehousing.org/redevelopment/pdf/DevPlanFinal-web.pdf
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
APPENDIX D
DEPOSITION AND TRIAL TESTIMONY