Started By
Message

re: GP covers St George

Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:20 am to
Posted by Kjnstkmn
Vermilion Parish
Member since Aug 2020
10937 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:20 am to
Legally I’m sure you’re correct.

I think that was intentional on their part however to try and build the narrative that we the people have choice and can resist tyrannical governments.

Re Texas succession efforts etc…

There was no succession however Baton Rouge was being tyrannical in trying to block the St George self incorporation.

I’m guessing because they wanted to eventually expand their own city limits and incorporate them into BR instead. Or otherwise somehow keep their grimy hands onto the resources of the parish residents.
This post was edited on 4/30/24 at 11:24 am
Posted by Alt26
Member since Mar 2010
28718 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:33 am to
quote:

m guessing because they wanted to eventually expand their own city limits and incorporate them into BR instead. Or otherwise somehow keep their grimy hands onto the resources of the parish residents.


You do know the city of Baton Rouge literally had DECADES to expand the city limits in to what is now the "St. George" area, but chose not to do so.

Why? Two reasons:

1. For most of it's history the area now in "St. George" was the rural outskirts outside the city of Baton Rouge. Even as late as the 1980's it was relatively sparsely populated. Because of that, the city of BR didn't really care enough to try to annex that additional land into the city limits.

2. However, over the last 30+ years the area has continued to become more and more populated. BR could have annexed more of the area at any time, but didn't for ONE big reason....the people in the area were paying takes partially being used to fund public services strictly performed within the city of BR. Why would BR turn down that mailbox money? It was a great deal.

And the irony is the people within area of St. George were ok with that crappy deal as long as they could get their own school system instead of having to rely on a broken EBR school system that was continuing to decline. The powers that be in BR told those folks to "F-off! Get your own city if you want your own schools"...so they did!
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36446 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 3:00 pm to
quote:

There was no succession however Baton Rouge was being tyrannical in trying to block the St George self incorporation.


This is also false.

The C-P government never voted to block SG.
The C-P Council never voted to block SG.

The mayor and one council person with the help from influential backers sued to stop the incorporation.

The official government wasn’t involved it was individuals, and the media hardly touched on this. They made it sound like parish was unified against SG when it was not.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram