- 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
Hey WAFB your alert about annexation is inaccurate
Posted on 6/18/14 at 6:20 pm
Posted on 6/18/14 at 6:20 pm
Just because William Daniels says the mall and BR General are in the city limits doesn't mean they are and doesn't warrant you sending an alert saying so. There is a court challenge under way and it will be decided by a judge. Way to jump to a conclusion WAFB.
1
Posted on 6/18/14 at 6:37 pm to Kramer26
Mary Olive Pearson the lawyer hired by the city parish to defend against the lawsuit suit says you are wrong. She said live and in color thst city ordinances were followed.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 6:42 pm to doubleb
What the law says is that annexation takes place 10 days after the ruling of the court challenge. Whether you agree or disagree with annexation this is the law that must be followed. Mary Olive Pearson is wrong and should be disbarred for making statements she knows to be untrue.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 6/18/14 at 6:43 pm to Kramer26
It's obvious by reading the lawsuit thd city parish doesn't care about the law.
They are doing everything possible to get control
They are doing everything possible to get control
Posted on 6/18/14 at 6:43 pm to Kramer26
Posted on 6/18/14 at 6:50 pm to FalseProphet
I'm sure even LSURussian would agree with me on this issue.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 6:53 pm to Kramer26
It really doesn't matter, we need to get the petition signed , sealed and delivered .
I'm disappointed we haven't yet.
I thing the legal stuff will play out in time but we are sputtering in getting sigs it seems .
I'm disappointed we haven't yet.
I thing the legal stuff will play out in time but we are sputtering in getting sigs it seems .
Posted on 6/18/14 at 7:01 pm to Kramer26
quote:
I'm sure even LSURussian would agree with me on this issue.
I wasn't going to comment in this thread but you've dragged me into it.
I didn't see the news report.
What law are you referring to that says an annexation takes place 10 days after a court challenge? I have not read or seen anything about such a law.
Eta: could you link to the law, please?
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 7:03 pm
Posted on 6/18/14 at 7:33 pm to LSURussian
Just did a quick search: LINK
To summarize: After the annexation ordinance was passed, a suit must be filed within the next 30 days to contest it. Once a judgment is rendered, the annexation goes into effect 10 days later unless the ruling is appealed. You only have 5 days from the initial judgment to file an appeal.
To summarize: After the annexation ordinance was passed, a suit must be filed within the next 30 days to contest it. Once a judgment is rendered, the annexation goes into effect 10 days later unless the ruling is appealed. You only have 5 days from the initial judgment to file an appeal.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 7:54 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Thanks for the link Mickey. Seems to me the law is pretty clear in this case on the rules of a court challenge to annexation.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 7:56 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Thanks.
If that is the statute the lawsuit is filed under then it's a slam dunk for the annexation. There's a simple 3 question test the annexation must satisfy, 1) reasonableness, 2) sufficient signatures, and 3) compliance with the EBR Plan of Government's process for annexations.
I say "if" because the pages before and after that page have exceptions and other "clarifications" that may make EBR/BR not applicable to that statute. I don't feel like taking the time to research those exceptions and clarifications.
Thanks again.
If that is the statute the lawsuit is filed under then it's a slam dunk for the annexation. There's a simple 3 question test the annexation must satisfy, 1) reasonableness, 2) sufficient signatures, and 3) compliance with the EBR Plan of Government's process for annexations.
I say "if" because the pages before and after that page have exceptions and other "clarifications" that may make EBR/BR not applicable to that statute. I don't feel like taking the time to research those exceptions and clarifications.
Thanks again.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 8:00 pm to LSURussian
If I remember correctly, one of the arguments from Woody Jenkins petition was that it wasn't "reasonable" based on the contiguous land issue. Don't think that's really gonna fly in court though.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 8:00 pm to LSURussian
Did anyone catch that if annexation is overturned by a judge then that property has to wait 1 year before attempting another annexation? That's an interesting part of the law.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 8:04 pm to Kramer26
That applies to another attempt at an identical annexation. You could easily argue that a new annexation adding the mall anchor stores satisfies there.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 8:06 pm to doubleb
quote:
It's obvious by reading the lawsuit thd city parish doesn't care about the law.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 8:06 pm to Kramer26
quote:
Did anyone catch that if annexation is overturned by a judge then that property has to wait 1 year before attempting another annexation? That's an interesting part of the law.
What Mickey said......
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:44 pm to Kramer26
Janice Clark is going to rule in favor of the annexation, book it. Things won't get interesting until the appeals process. Oh, and William Daniel is an idiot.....
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News