Jackson Free Press

The Clarion-Ledger is reporting:

Rankin County has seen similar alcohol referendums fail. In 1983, the county rejected liquor 12,338 votes to 10,854. In 1991, voters narrowly approved the sale of light wine and beer by 13,714 to 13,511. In 1992, residents rejected liquor 19,510 to 17,190. In 1995, 59 percent of voters defeated another liquor effort. If this referendum passes, wine with 5 percent or more alcohol and liquor could be sold. Members of a Rankin County antialcohol group are staunchly defending their controversial campaign brochure implying Jackson is a city of scruffy-haired boozers, liquor stores and bars. But the brochure is searingly offensive to others. "I think it's cheap and tawdry ... it enraged me," said Chris Mims, Jackson resident and city spokesman.

No-Al, a nonprofit group opposed to passage of a countywide liquor referendum in Rankin on Tuesday's ballot, mailed the brochure to the county's residents this week. In bold letters, the outside of the brochure asks, "Does Rankin County Really Want To Be Just Like Jackson?" Inside is the message, "Liquor could change your neighborhood forever" and "all you have to do is drive across the Rankin County line" to see what can happen if the sale of liquor becomes law.

"Our goal is not to offend the people in Jackson, but to tell the people in Rankin County this is what you are voting on," said No-Al chairman Rick Henson, pastor of Oakdale Baptist Church in Brandon.

Bo Brown, Jackson city councilman, said he has not seen the brochure, but finds it ironic.

"Prior to the early '60s, Rankin County was the capital of illegal bootlegging in the state. I'm a native of Jackson, and I used to go across there myself to get it when I was a young man," Brown recalled with a laugh.

Previous Commentsshow

I don't know about y'all, but I think it's time to place a commuter tax on these people who come into our city during the day with their huge monster trucks, break out roads into potholes and then take their paychecks back to the 'burbs at night -- and then bash the city as their favorite sport. It's these loudmouth goobers who make the state look like it's filled with a bunch of racist hicks. And, yes, that's ad hominem, but it's matching their ignorant ad hominem. Let's be louder than the losers, all.

DonnaLadd

Oct 29 2004

For the record, I can't count how many times a commuter in a big honkin' ugly white SUV has nearly run us over when we're walking through Belhaven because he/she doesn't have time to stop at our Jackson stop signs. And, yes, he/she is usually talking on a cell phone as they run the stop sign in my neighborhood and in my city. Cheap and tawdry, indeed.

DonnaLadd

Oct 29 2004

I've always thought commuter taxes should be required. Nearly everyone I know that lives in the 'burbs complains about Jackson this and Jackson that. Then, most of those same people, come to Jackson to work, for entertainment, for food and drink, to buy cars, to shop, etc. I think if they work in the city full-time and have a zip-code other than a Jackson code, they should be taxed automatically on their paycheck to compensate the city for the increased amount of cops (to protect their bums and ours), the increased delays and accidents on our interestates as they commute to and fro, and the damage they do to the streets, among other reasons. Heck, let's mirror the New York, New York vs New Jersey model and setup some tax laws to get these people to help with the burdon they cause our city as they speed into our limits in the morning and flee before dark! And, by the way, Rankin already has plenty of alcohol being consumed all over the place... There's a reason plenty of liquor stores are located near major roads into Rankin (especially at HWY 80 and State) -- there's a demand! Having one a mile over within a county line won't cause any more harm... But, we'll certainly take the profit and taxes from your citizens any day, Rankin!

kaust

Oct 29 2004

Does anyone know if commuter taxes have been discussed in this area? Ultimately, I'd prefer to have some form of Metro Regional Governance where all the tri-county areas were to become involved as a unit rather than push taxes specifically on non-residents.

kaust

Oct 29 2004

[quote]For the record, I can't count how many times a commuter in a big honkin' ugly white SUV has nearly run us over when we're walking through Belhaven because he/she doesn't have time to stop at our Jackson stop signs. And, yes, he/she is usually talking on a cell phone as they run the stop sign in my neighborhood and in my city. Cheap and tawdry, indeed[/quote] There you go again- why are you so critical about what we drive and where we live? Househunters from Belhaven driving around out here in their Prius' are every bit as dangerous...

Rico

Oct 30 2004

There you go again- why are you so critical about what we drive and where we live? Actually, as for geography, I'm being defensive in this thread about people who bash where *I* live, even as they come in and use it for everything it's worth and then leave and then whine about it. And it is simply true that every time we go for a walk in Belhaven that huge SUVs from Rankin and Madison roar through the neighborhood (many on their way to First Pres) with mothers talking on the cell phone and not stopping at stop signs. That endangers the lives of adults, children and pets in our neighborhood. For the record. (And the mammoth vehicles are usually white, for reasons that are beyond me. That is simply a descriptive detail that means nothing more.) As for choice of vehicle: I think that bear serious public discussion. The fact is, these huge vehicles that guzzle so much gas and create danger for other people affect me, you and the rest of us. I cannot tell someone else they do not have the *right* to drive one but I sure have as much right to express why I think they're bad for American and our communities as someone, say, has the right to express why they think that gay marriage is bad for other people's families. Some of my concerns about huge SUVs (or subdivisions, as Dave Barry calls them): * Our addiction to gas-guzzlers is a major reason why many young Americans, including a member of my family, was killed in Iraq. * These huge vehicles are more likely to cause serious harm and death to people that they hit. * These huge vehicles are harder to maneuver, especially by someone talking on a cell phone with one hand and watching kids in the back seat in the rear view mirror. And they are not smart vehicles for young people to be driving who are not as likely to pay attention to what they're doing. * It seems to be harder to stop these vehicles at stop signs than it is to stop, say, my Miata. At least if the stop sign in front of my house is any indication. Recently, a Rankin SUV almost ran over two adults and a stroller because they rolled through our intersection without paying attention. * These vehicles are contributing to major environmental problems, in addition to creating public-safety concerns. Househunters from Belhaven driving around out here in their Prius' are every bit as dangerous... Then you ought to speak out about that every chance you get before one of your family members or animals gets killed by one of them Priuses. Seriously. Public safety, not to mention international stability, is a concern of each and every one of else, and we should speak up about it. Even if it makes people defensive.

DonnaLadd

Oct 30 2004

Knol has a great point about taxation and suburbs. The only complete solution that I can see is highly unrealistic, unfortunately (at least in our lifetimes). Have the Mississippi legislature merge Hinds, Madison, Rankin into one super-county AND yank the charters of all municipalities within this area. BUT..... even if that miracle did take place, people would flee to Yazoo City, Vicksburg, Forrest, Magee, etc. Suburbanization pushed further outward! Minneapolis-St Paul seems to offer the most practical next best solution.revenue sharing between all municipalities in an area. Half the revenue of the suburb goes into a "metropolitan pot", then this money in the pot is redistributed based on population, road mileage, etc.. BUT unlike most parts of the country, M-SP is overwhelmingly white anglo. Even after M-SP developed 2 and 3 tiers of suburbs outward from the central city, the city of Minneapolis is still well under 20% minority. Therefore, there is much less chance of inter-ethnic misunderstanding based on different connotative meanings of words between ethnic groups - and therefore much more trust between the people living in the central city and the burbs. BTW, perhaps because of the TRUST (as opposed to mere ethnicity), M-SP is one of our nation's healthiest metro areas in virtually every sense of the word you can imagine (well, there is danger of frostbite, but that's another story :P ). BTW, it's too bad Matthew Dalby doesn't post on here any more. He can undoubtedly add much more perspective about this one.

Philip

Oct 31 2004

Knoll: A payroll tax functions like a kind of commuter tax because it is administered by place of work rather than place of residence. I have heard some discussion of a payroll tax in Jackson, but I think that it's unlikely that one will be passed. First, it likely would involve state enabling legislation. Second, there would be a lot of resistance, as a payroll tax is basically a local income tax. Metropolitian government is the best solution, and it might be possible here one day. In addition to urban planning Meccas like Portland, some southern cities have consolidated city and county governments, e.g. Nashville and Louisville. The mayor of Memphis has also been an outspoken advocate of metropolitian government. Until the day where metro government is possible, there are some other things we can do to improve equity in taxation. By equity, I mean that there is some proportionality between what persons pay in taxes and the strain they put on the government infrastructure system or demand they generate for new infrastructure. I think that what Minneapolis-St. Paul has is called tax base sharing. It leaves independent municipalities free to levy there own property tax rates, but they apply these rates to a shared tax base. Basically, each municipality gets a certain percent of the total tax base, which is the value of all real property in the metro counties. Tax base sharing helps overcome the inequity that results from suburban sprawl: as rich folk move out of the city, older central-city neighborhoods decline, meaning that property values go down; the city government thus is left with less money to provide the same level of service; suburban governments, on the other hand, experience an increase in tax revenues as property values go up; and, suburban residents are still using city infrastructure for which they are not paying for. Sorry for the lecture, but I think that these issues are very important and are becoming increasingly important in the Jackson area.

Justin

Oct 31 2004

I remember Mayor Johnson briefly mentioning a commuter tax in public during the last mayoral race. The issue wasn't fully addressed, probably for good cause: with the rapid (and rabid) expansion of Madison and other outlying sectors, complete with (some would say) enticing areas such as Highland Colony, I think more of the existing city-based industries and firms would more closely consider relocating. Which circles back around to the original sentiment: We're sick and tired of being everyone's favorite whipping boy while we offer some of the area's finest restaurants, shopping, entertainment, etc... And to add to the sentiment, Donna: if I see another ENOUGH is ENOUGH bumper sticker in the city on a white Navigator with Madison plates, I'm running us both off the road. They know that the longer Jackson is held down, the more the outskirts will swell. If we stop our hemhorraging, get the city jump-started (we're well on our way), give folks more than a few reasons to stick around (including college grads and young professionals) and the mass exodus to madison slows... I've said it before (and this is off-topic slightly) - if EVERYONE gets behind the Convention Center and supports it and tends to it, Jackson could be in the running in 5-10 years for two things that would appeal most to our metro population: an NBA franchise and a NASCAR racetrack. Or maybe I'm crazier than anyone originally thought. I won't be eating at Elixir or Nick's or staying at either Cabot ever again.

Jay

Nov 1 2004

"I won't be eating at Elixir or Nick's or staying at either Cabot ever again." AHEM.... AMEN!

kaust

Nov 1 2004

Re Elixir, I must say, guys, that Grady there has been very nice about this whole thing to us. He said we did a very fair story and, even after we endorsed the Convention Center, he was really cool about it. Based on his actions, I wouldn't hold this against Elixir. The truth is, convention centers aren't perfect projects, and there's nothing wrong with people questioning them and even deciding to be against them. However, I get your point about all those folks who are against it because they want to see Jackson fail, and we know who a lot of them are. They want to protect their little power fiefdoms, from their gated suburban communities, and they can't have it both ways. They're becoming less relevant as the years go by, and they don't like that. They don't like diverse coalitions, and they don't want Jackson to be a progressive, creative-class city. They, in a phrase, can kiss my butt. I'm just saying that I haven't seen this sentiment in Grady at Elixir.

DonnaLadd

Nov 1 2004

Jay, you should also mention that ultra-conservatives know that Jackson can become the *progressive* heart of the state, and change the pulse here, especially with young people. They really don't want to see that happen. Po thangs.

DonnaLadd

Nov 1 2004

Well, frankly, I can't afford Elixir for cocktails but once every blue moon or so... So, they're not hurting by my lack of business... ;-) To be frank, hardly any of those complaining about the tax are on my list of "hot businesses" of 2005 with or without the convention center... Which is sad since I once loved Elixir to the point of NSF charges. ;-)

kaust

Nov 1 2004

The Jackson area's non-conservatives (not necessarily caricature "radical liberals") have taken the most important step in the last few years -- carve out a geographic space where such people can find their voice (Fondren/Belhaven). I'm sure there were some precedents before that, but this is always required. It also gives a concrete example for the whole state.

Philip

Nov 1 2004

"Passionate progressives," I've started calling us. ;-) Yes, it is important to have a strong area to use as a base, so to speak, for progressivism and creativity. We also have folks who live downtown in lofts, with more on the way. And there are members of the community who live in West Jackson, South Jackson, JSU, Broadmoor, etc., but your point about a geographic center is well-taken. We just have to grow it out from there. It'll happen.

DonnaLadd

Nov 1 2004

I also like the term neo-progressives, or neo-progs, as Todd and I joke around about. Free-enterprise-entrepreneurial-fiscally-responsible social progressives who love (true) American ideals, the U.S. Constitution and individual freedom. We believe in religious freedom, strong spiritual faith of one's choice, and societal morality toward othersówhich starts, not ends, with good deeds toward one's fellow man. Strength in diversity and creativity. We love local and despise the corporatization of our lives and our livelihoods. Discussion, not either-or personal attacks. OK, I'm loopy tonight, I admit. But that is a pretty good definition of my personal philosophy, I guess -- and a whole lot of people I know.

DonnaLadd

Nov 1 2004