- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can Landry make St. George a reality now?
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:07 am to winkchance
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:07 am to winkchance
quote:u gotta link on this?
Did not stop JBE from getting involved and making it difficult for the democratic process to go forth. he has definitely strong armed judges for the Dem party.
0
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:09 am to LolStarFishlol
It's in the hands of the Judicial Branch at the moment, nothing the Governor can do, except maybe petition on our behalf to the court (which he could do as AG if this falls before the inauguration). If we lose that, a new petition effort will be started. If we win, Landry won't sabotage us from the start like JBE would with the appointed temporary mayor and city council.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:15 am to tommy2tone1999
LA having top down control of funding means there are many ways for Landry to frick with Broome et all if they get cute.
She needs to read the writing on the wall and settle if the case looks like St George will win on appeal. Otherwise, all those legacy costs likely fall back on BR plus BR would owe St George back taxes from between the election and the establishment of the city AFAIK.
Given the weird situation that St George is in as being part of the parish but not part of BR, can’t make them pay legacy costs for BRPD, BRFD, EBRPSS (yet), DPW, etc.
St George is getting no services provided by BR that would require a switchover upon establishment. There are some parish services that might but I’m sure they will still be paying on a scale with what BR, Baker, Zachary, and Central will.
If/when St George schools become a thing, EBRPSS legacy costs WILL be a thing. But they are desperately trying to avoid that happening because EBRPSS is fricked before that money walks out.
She needs to read the writing on the wall and settle if the case looks like St George will win on appeal. Otherwise, all those legacy costs likely fall back on BR plus BR would owe St George back taxes from between the election and the establishment of the city AFAIK.
Given the weird situation that St George is in as being part of the parish but not part of BR, can’t make them pay legacy costs for BRPD, BRFD, EBRPSS (yet), DPW, etc.
St George is getting no services provided by BR that would require a switchover upon establishment. There are some parish services that might but I’m sure they will still be paying on a scale with what BR, Baker, Zachary, and Central will.
If/when St George schools become a thing, EBRPSS legacy costs WILL be a thing. But they are desperately trying to avoid that happening because EBRPSS is fricked before that money walks out.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:22 am to teke184
Broome has no legal standing now according to the Appeals Court. She was dismissed from the case.
And we should be responsible for legacy costs for retirees whose departments provided a service to SG. That does not include BRFD or BRPD.
And we should be responsible for legacy costs for retirees whose departments provided a service to SG. That does not include BRFD or BRPD.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:28 am to doubleb
quote:
And we should be responsible for legacy costs for retirees whose departments provided a service to SG. That does not include BRFD or BRPD.
And that’s my point… no BR departments offer a service to St George and all other services she has saber rattled over are either parish level services or private business (BR Water Co).
She’s going to try and claim there are and get it shoved back up her arse, meaning no legacy costs to offset taxes to be handed over and a GIGANTIC fricking hole in the BRPD and BRFD budgets.
Edit - and just because she has been dismissed doesn’t mean her butt puppet LaMont Cole can’t deal on her behalf.
This post was edited on 10/18/23 at 9:30 am
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:37 am to thejuiceisloose
quote:
No, it came down to St. George losing at trial court level then that ruling being affirmed by 3 GOP elected judges on the La 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
After the election the executive branch could’ve proceeded with the incorporation. There was never a court injunction. Edwards and the SOS could’ve certified and so on. Just like Pence did in 2020 despite ongoing court cases Trump was perusing.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:42 am to teke184
quote:
Edit - and just because she has been dismissed doesn’t mean her butt puppet LaMont Cole can’t deal on her behalf.
There’s one more rung on the ladder. No more appeals after that.
quote:
And that’s my point… no BR departments offer a service to St George and all other services she has saber rattled over are either parish level services or private business (BR Water Co).
We do receive service from DPW, Sewer Services, EMS, MARC and others. Good service? No
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:44 am to doubleb
Parish level services, which are already paid for by residents here.
Incorporation doesn’t change whether EMS tax is collected or not on the property mills.
Incorporation doesn’t change whether EMS tax is collected or not on the property mills.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:54 am to teke184
quote:
Incorporation doesn’t change whether EMS tax is collected or not on the property mills.
Ftom my readings EMS is not entirely paid via property taxes. Money from the Gen Fund supports it too. It’s not like the Library Board or BREC.
I think you and I are on the same page. We want to pay fir what we get, but we don’t want to pay for what we don’t get lije we do now.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:55 am to doubleb
quote:
And we should be responsible for legacy costs for retirees whose departments provided a service to SG. That does not include BRFD or BRPD.
Yes, as long as it is apportioned by the money spent in St. George, not by population. BR (and again, I live here and actually like BR) was using their city taxes to pay for the police force and using non-city taxes to pay for parish-wide service. Meaning the non-incorporated areas had to disproportionately foot the bill for parish-wide services which included services in the city limits.
That probably won't be in the final agreement, but it's a good starting point.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 9:56 am to doubleb
quote:
I think you and I are on the same page. We want to pay fir what we get, but we don’t want to pay for what we don’t get lije we do now.
Bingo.
I don’t like AT ALL that St George money goes straight into the general fund to subsidize BR’s spending.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:00 am to LolStarFishlol
I haven’t lived in B. R. In a long time. Can someone provide a brief clear
explanation of what St George is all about. Carving out a portion of the city for a new town? What’s the purpose? Who’s behind it?
explanation of what St George is all about. Carving out a portion of the city for a new town? What’s the purpose? Who’s behind it?
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:07 am to VOR
St George started as an attempt to form an Independent School District in EBR Parish, similar to Central, Baker, and Zachary. It came after some ugly school board incidents where people attempting to reform the school system were told “go form your own.”
It evolved into a push for a city after the ISD was created by the legislature but funding was blocked (former was a majority vote, second required supermajority) and the people pushing for it were told by several opposing politicians such as state rep Sharon Westin Broome to form a city to raise the chances of it getting approved.
They tried to make it a city under Kip but it got killed under questionable circumstances before it ever got to a vote.
It laid dormant until SWB got elected mayor-president of EBR and fricked things up so badly that there was a groundswell of support for a new attempt at St George.
Petitions signed and turned in, vote was had, St George won, SWB et all refused to meet with the transition team and filed suit to contest the incorporation vote.
That suit is either at the state Supreme Court or a level below it with BR winning the first two rounds on screwy logic.
The first was “adverse effect” of incorporation on BR, which is a lot of chutzpah because BR is using St George as a tax colony to fund their own spending.
The second was claims that there was no plan of government on the petition because it was linked online to the petition. Problem is that the petition was still certified by AG and governor then put on the ballot before this was challenged.
It evolved into a push for a city after the ISD was created by the legislature but funding was blocked (former was a majority vote, second required supermajority) and the people pushing for it were told by several opposing politicians such as state rep Sharon Westin Broome to form a city to raise the chances of it getting approved.
They tried to make it a city under Kip but it got killed under questionable circumstances before it ever got to a vote.
It laid dormant until SWB got elected mayor-president of EBR and fricked things up so badly that there was a groundswell of support for a new attempt at St George.
Petitions signed and turned in, vote was had, St George won, SWB et all refused to meet with the transition team and filed suit to contest the incorporation vote.
That suit is either at the state Supreme Court or a level below it with BR winning the first two rounds on screwy logic.
The first was “adverse effect” of incorporation on BR, which is a lot of chutzpah because BR is using St George as a tax colony to fund their own spending.
The second was claims that there was no plan of government on the petition because it was linked online to the petition. Problem is that the petition was still certified by AG and governor then put on the ballot before this was challenged.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:19 am to VOR
quote:
I haven’t lived in B. R. In a long time. Can someone provide a brief clear explanation of what St George is all about. Carving out a portion of the city for a new town? What’s the purpose? Who’s behind it?
A short history.
Citizens in SE and South EBR were fed up with their public school system. Consequently, they made an effort to carve out an ISD in part of EBR as had already been done by Baker, Zachary and Central.
They came close. The district was set up by the legislature, but they fell just short of the votes to fund it. EBR pols led by Broome who was a legislator at the time told them to become an ISD they first needed to incorporate and become a city.
Well the organizers took the challenge. Their first petition attempt got the necessary signatures, but enough people who signed removed their signatures (legally) and they fell like 76 signatures short.
Undeterred the group reorganized and stopped areas that showed little or no support for the new city. That petition did get the required number of signatures. The registrar of voters signed off on it, the SOS signed off on it, and the Governor signed off on it and ordered a vote be held. The vote passed.
The mayor, one councilman, indd Ed resident and one non resident sued to stop the incorporation. One judge ruled in their favor, but removed the non resident. The resident dropped out the suit.
The Appeals Court through Broome out, but ruled that the petition itself was faulty in that it wasn’t drtsilled enough. SG proponents appealed that verdict too and it may or may not be reviewed by the State SC.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:37 am to teke184
quote:
It evolved into a push for a city after the ISD was created by the legislature but funding was blocked (former was a majority vote, second required supermajority) and the people pushing for it were told by several opposing politicians such as state rep Sharon Westin Broome to form a city to raise the chances of it getting approved.
So St. George can now go straight for a school district again since R's hold a 2/3rds majority, right?
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:38 am to BigJim
Theoretically.
You still have to get 2/3 to approve and there will be a LOT of agitation for other areas against it because funding St George means less funding elsewhere.
You still have to get 2/3 to approve and there will be a LOT of agitation for other areas against it because funding St George means less funding elsewhere.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:41 am to BigJim
quote:
So St. George can now go straight for a school district again since R's hold a 2/3rds majority, right?
Even if they passed it in the legislature, it would still have to go to a vote of the city/parish and then a statewide vote. Having a city makes it a little easier.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:42 am to BigBinBR
Zachary, Central, and unincorporated BR would vote for it for the most part.
BR proper wouldn’t. Baker likely wouldn’t. And anyone who is in unincorporated BR which has kids in a magnet school like BRMHS or Lee likely opposes it.
BR proper wouldn’t. Baker likely wouldn’t. And anyone who is in unincorporated BR which has kids in a magnet school like BRMHS or Lee likely opposes it.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:46 am to LolStarFishlol
It's really the idiot organizers fault for not filling out the basic paperwork correctly. That's why it was shut down. Sure the courts were dragging their feet and trying to delay the incorporation, but the SG organizers gave them an easy layup by screwing up basic paperwork.
Posted on 10/18/23 at 10:47 am to BigJim
quote:
So St. George can now go straight for a school district again since R's hold a 2/3rds majority, right?
That’s right!!!
Then it would go to the people (parish and state votes).
That’s a good idea.
Meanwhile, we could go for our city.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News