Mississippi Center For Justice files brief supporting Flowerdale Commons construction
Jan. 10—TUPELO — Amid ongoing litigation, a statewide public interest law firm is arguing in Lee County Circuit Court in favor of a multi-family residential development planned for construction on Tupelo's west side.
The Mississippi Center for Justice filed an amicus brief on Dec. 10, 2022, urging a judge to uphold the city of Tupelo's decision to approve the construction of Flowerdale Commons, a 46-unit, mid-income apartment complex. Oxford-based developers Britton Jones and Stewart Rutledge are behind the project.
MCJ focuses its work on racial and economic justice throughout the state. The organization filed the friend of the court brief was filed as part its housing campaign, which specializes in issues of affordable housing.
Tupelo officials approved site plans for the project in August. Following the 4-3 vote, a handful of residents and business owners appealed the decision in Lee County Circuit Court.
"Too many in Lee County and across Mississippi are struggling to get by and afford rent, and there is a shortage of decent and safe housing," MCJ Deputy Director of Impact Litigation Paloma Wu said in a written statement. "All Mississippians deserve access to affordable housing."
The 14-page brief addresses many of the issues raised by the project's opponents, including statistics about property values and safety concerns. It also details the economic and future benefits of affordable housing and details Lee County's specific housing needs.
The center states that 87% of renters in Lee County pay more than 30% of their gross income each month for rent — more than twice the number of people doing so statewide. The firm also notes that an individual would have to work 1.8 full-time jobs at minimum wage to afford a one-bedroom home in Tupelo without being housing burdened.
Because of these factors, the center argued that the city's approval of the complex was not arbitrary and that the court should affirm the council's decision.
"Affordable housing is a sound investment that strengthens communities and makes Mississippi an attractive place to live," President and CEO of MCJ Vangela Wade said in the organization's release. "Affordable housing is crucial to helping families achieve financial stability and escape poverty. We should all be committed to helping our most vulnerable neighbors and building a brighter future for our state."
With briefings filed on all sides and the addition of the Justice's center's amicus briefing, Tupelo City Attorney Ben Logan said he expects oral arguments this month.
Use-by-right vs 'purpose and intent'
The appellants' briefing argues that because the apartments at Flowerdale Commons won't be "tied to employment facilities," the city is within its rights to reject the project.
Opponents of the project base their argument on a portion of the Tupelo Development code, which lists the purpose of a mixed-use employment district as intended to "provide concentrated areas of high-quality employment facilities that may be integrated with or adjacent to complementary retail and commercial uses and medium density residential uses." The code lists residential developments as a secondary use.
Meanwhile, the city's briefing argues that the purpose and intent proffered in the code do not supersede the content of the code, which places apartment complexes as use-by-right.
The project's supporters argue the employment notes in the city code are discretionary, citing the code's use of "may be" rather than "shall be" when defining employment within mixed-used employment districts.
The Appellee's brief also notes that multiple use-by-right developments inside mixed-use employment districts have further requirements, such as being located adjacent to other specific zones or 75% of the development being used for office, medical or educational purposes.
Apartment developments have no such additional requirements.
Appellants point to site plan deficiencies
In their appeal, opponents of the Flowerdale Commons project also argue that the complex's site plans don't meet several development code requirements, including a tree survey, drainage and grading, open spaces, lighting, topographical information, adjacent land uses and names of property owners, and zoning information.
The appellants argue that because of the alleged issues found in the complex's site plan, the city erred in approving it.
In response, the city argues that the appellants did not bring up any deficiencies in the site plan application during public hearings and that the court should not consider arguments brought up for the first time during the appeal.
The city also notes that the Tupelo Development Services Department found the site plans had sufficient information for approval.
Long review process
From the beginning, the Flowerdale Commons project has faced opposition. The Tupelo Planning Committee held two public hearings on the project, each of which was attended by more than 50 people with over a dozen speakers each time.
Opponents of the project cited a multitude of concerns, including the possibility of increased stress to infrastructure, decreased property values and hypothetical increased crime. Some speakers joined the appellants in the lawsuit as well.
The Tupelo Planning Committee initially tabled site plans for the project until the developers could get further information and ultimately voted to recommend its rejection.
Despite the committee's opposition, the council approved the proposal in a split vote, 4-3, with Ward 1 Councilman Chad Mims, Ward 5 Councilman Buddy Palmer and Ward 6 Councilwoman Janet Gaston voting against the measure.
