Demolition hurry: City of Tupelo ramps up removal of blighted properties
Jul. 16—TUPELO — When Juan Carlos and Stephanie Barcia closed on a property on North Madison Street in Tupelo about four years ago, they thought they found a perfect DIY project.
"We wanted to fix it," Stephanie Barcia said. "It was a hidden gem. But it didn't seem to be in the cards."
During her two decades of living in Tupelo, Barcia said she'd never seen the house occupied, but she saw the potential for a beautiful property. Once they closed the sale, the two went to the city to request permits, but the city turned them away until they could get an engineer's report. The report, Barcia said, was later rejected.
After a series of failed attempts to secure contracts for renovating the property, the couple decided to cut their losses. In 2022, the city of Tupelo purchased the property, then tore it down.
A year into the new administration's term, Tupelo elected officials have ramped up the demolition of derelict properties like the Barcias' with a goal to "clean up" the city, although some criticize the efforts as too aggressive.
Since taking office last July, the Tupelo City Council has approved the demolition of 26 structures — representing a mix of residential and commercial properties — throughout the city. Of those, the city has completed 16.
Both numbers represent a drastic uptick in the number of city-approved, and typically executed, property demolitions versus the previous administration.
City officials say the removal of blighted properties represents an effort to improve the aesthetics of local neighborhoods. In turn, they believe life in Tupelo will improve as a whole.
"When left unchecked, neighborhood blight and the presence of abandoned buildings have a profound negative impact on the surrounding community," said Development Services Director Tanner Newman, whose department carries out the demolition process. "Blighted properties decrease surrounding property values, damage the health of local housing markets, pose safety hazards, and result in reduced local property tax revenue."
Most properties city officials have approved for demolition either owned by companies located outside of Mississippi or whose owners died with no heirs, Newman said.
------
Tupelo's proposed demolitions are plotted on this map:
------
Administration sees demolitions as important piece of revitalization
The current administration's approved list of demolitions is more than double that of the previous administration's first year.
During his inaugural year in office, former Tupelo Mayor Jason Shelton's council approved the demolition of nine blighted properties. According to Shelton, the administration focused on blight elimination, noting it budgeted $1 million annually for "demolition, renovation and beautification" in the city.
Though Shelton said he believed blight elimination was key to growth in a city, he believed the current administration has been too aggressive in the process.
But Newman asserts the city has been evenhanded in his approach to either cleaning up or tearing down aging, dilapidated structures, often working with property owners to ensure they are given "ample time to fulfill the city's request" to clean up their properties before moving forward with any demolitions.
"Of all the demolitions and property cleanups that the city has conducted over the past year, not one has been objected to by the property owner," Newman said.
Jordan noted the city has demolished many of its own properties since the beginning of his administration's term.
"(We can't) ask people to demolish their properties if we are sitting on ours," Jordan said.
Tupelo historian: Increased demolition a 'shame'
Among city owned properties that have been torn down are the Gardner-Watson Ice Plant, a historic building that lay vacant for several years before the city purchased it intending to renovate. Later, city officials determined the property was too far gone to save.
But some, like Tupelo Historic Preservation Commission member Doyce Deas, disagree.
"It made me sick when the city tore the ice plant down," Deas said, adding that she believed the history behind the building, which had stood empty for years, made it worth preserving. "I understand it was in serious disrepair, but it could've been saved."
A building can be considered historic by the State Department of Archives and History and land on the national register once it is 50 years old and is historically significant. If a property meets the criteria, Deas said there are a handful of programs that provide state and federal tax incentives to aid in the renovation process.
The city also has six historic districts, including Highland Circle, Downtown Historic District and Downtown Neighborhood Historic District, Mill Village, North Broadway and South Church Street. Any renovations in these districts are eligible for a five-year tax abatement.
"We need to spend more time as a city working with people and letting them know these are available," Deas said. "All of (the incentives) can be put together to make a larger project economically feasible.
"I'm not trying to be critical," she added of the city's efforts. "There is just more that we could do."
Jordan called historic preservation just as important as blight elimination, but said gauging historical significance is challengingly subjective. He also noted that, in many cases, saving a property in severe disrepair simply isn't feasible.
"In my opinion, you can tear down a building and replicate it cheaper than restoring it," Jordan said.
Deas praised the administration's effort to grow but noted that it was not always a good thing to tear down buildings "in the name of progress" when there are other options.
"It is not real progress when you destroy a property like that," she said. "You lose the historic heart of the city."
Newman said demolitions were often the final option after a long, drawn-out process to save the property or have it privately demolished.
"If the city demolishes a house, we have gone on a months-long process," he said. "Owners are given ample time and options to get it up to code. If we bring it to the council, we either got no response or an agreement from the owners."
Demolished home a 'prime example' of blight removal program's purpose
Stephanie Barcia said hers and her husband's experience trying to renovate the North Madison Street property has soured them on home buying ever since. She said she was happy the city agreed to purchase the house and tear it down, making way for future growth.
"I am grateful, and I feel like they worked with us because we had such an unpleasant experience," she said.
The bottom line, she said, was that she understood it was a complex situation and progress was important but the city needed to take extra care to make sure new developments fit the city's small-town aura.
Newman said the condition of the property made it cost-prohibitive for the property owners to fix. Its demolition, he said, was a necessity, and will clear the way for something new.
"This property is a prime example of why the city's blight removal program exists," he said. "Once the city's work on the property is complete, the remaining lot will serve as additional green space for Robins Field."
