I have on good authority a moratorium prohibiting the building of new apartments was going to be on the agenda of the Board of Aldermen. This makes the third time in our fairly recent history that this matter has been dredged up for consideration.
Fortunately, it apparently didn’t gain any traction and so isn’t on the agenda, but that doesn’t mean it has gone away.
The last time it was considered was in 2004. According to the minutes, we actually passed an ordinance (2004-03) authorizing a moratorium but never instituted the moratorium itself. Prior to that, according to our former CAO, P.C. McLaurin, we actually did put in place a moratorium that lasted for about a year.
There is a good bit of chatter around town about various large student housing projects proposed for inside the city limits. There are also some large projects developing just outside of town along Blackjack Road that have created problems with the locals about traffic and infrastructure needs.
It is the same tired tune which should come as no surprise to anyone and it is sung by the few long time residents who don’t want to fight additional traffic or have to wait for a seat in a restaurant. Those are the same folks who like being in a college town if only there weren’t those bothersome students.
There are possibly others who might push an agenda designed to reduce their competition in the marketplace. That is a sinister reason and it should never gain traction in a decision involving government.
A moratorium by its very nature is temporary. Usually they are set in place until something happens or until some set time has passed. It is undeniably useful to help resolve certain problems in a business such as a moratorium on hiring or on spending for capital purchases.
For a city it can be useful while developing a policy or creating an avenue to address problems that have arisen. A moratorium for a government body is a pretty drastic step and not to be entered into lightly and certainly not for reasons having to do with constituents who are concerned about competition.
The overarching concern of a Starkville resident or a county resident for that matter should be the message that our community sends about being open for business. There is nothing that says “CLOSED” like a moratorium on development.
Setting reasonable requirements makes sense, but to completely restrict a kind of development is a bad message that doesn’t need to be sent.
We have a window of opportunity for development that doesn’t often come around. With the advent of the SEC network and our superior football performance last year, we are basking in the light of the “Dak effect.” Starkville and MSU have gotten the kind of attention we have rarely ever experienced. We have no guarantee that it will last. For us to stifle it by putting a moratorium on places for new students to live with a growing college enrollment is shortsighted and ill-advised.
It is difficult to stay competitive in an apartment market like ours. We have a bumper crop of new apartments that have come on line in the past year. A moratorium is a deceptively appealing prospect for some of us with aging properties, but bottom line: It isn’t good business for our community in the long run.
Those of us who have older apartments have to exercise our creativity and business skills to stay competitive. We know the students will always gravitate to something new with all the bells and whistles. We have to recognize the need to keep up with the desires of the customer we are targeting and create value in ways that attract them or change our target market.
I noticed that we have lots of apartments that have been undergoing facelifts over the past year or so. That is the business model that keeps us in the game. You can’t suck the profits out of the apartments without putting value back in and expect to remain competitive over the long haul.
The concerns about blight are very real and incentivizing landlords to keep their properties up may be something that should be considered long before a moratorium is part of any discussion.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.