- 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: Woody Jenkins files lawsuit challenging annexation of Mall and Hospital
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:40 pm to Bard
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:40 pm to Bard
quote:
That's a mighty big stretch for having personal standing. If this is allowed, it could set a dangerous precedent for allowing any number degrees of separation to be considered as personal standing (kinda like Wickard v. Filburn
I agree, but if the Council and the Mayor did not follow the rules and if the propers were annex "illegally"; who would have standing to sue??
Only Dillards, Sears, KCSRR ?
Could any citizen of the parish?
Citizen of BR?
I'm asking because I have no clue.
1
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:47 pm to doubleb
quote:Yes. So what? Lawsuits don't have to be truthful in their allegations. I can even remember when Rainey said the annexations would invalidate the incorporation petition:
did you read the lawsuit at the link provided???
quote:LINK
If that happens, the campaign would have to start over, and Rainey said "I don't know that we could re-do this."
I asked for an independent link that corroborates the suit's claims.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:48 pm to doubleb
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:51 pm to LSURussian
As for the annexation petition not being filed with the SOS within 10 days, why isn't the specific law mentioned in the suit actually cited within the suit? That's civil procedure 101. He claims "state law" repeatedly but doesn't even cite what law he's referring to.
The suit looks very amateur.
The suit looks very amateur.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:57 pm to Mickey Goldmill
1) That's a pretty damning petition. It clearly states a cause of action.
2) As for standing, while arguably tenuous, I think he has it.
3) Remember that Alex St. Amant was the attorney that got Rouzan shitcanned the first go-around, so I would not be so quick to dismiss his knowledge of how the Metro Council and the Plan of Government are supposed to operate.
2) As for standing, while arguably tenuous, I think he has it.
3) Remember that Alex St. Amant was the attorney that got Rouzan shitcanned the first go-around, so I would not be so quick to dismiss his knowledge of how the Metro Council and the Plan of Government are supposed to operate.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:03 pm to udtiger
Even if the suit is upheld, couldn't the CP council just pass another annexation ordinance that "fixes" the problems?
The vote was 9-3 in favor of the annexation. It's not like only one vote has to be changed to get a different outcome.
The vote was 9-3 in favor of the annexation. It's not like only one vote has to be changed to get a different outcome.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:03 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Yes. So what? Lawsuits don't have to be truthful in their allegations
Agree. That's why I'm interested in your opinion on the specific legal challenges in the suit.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:04 pm to udtiger
What is his cause of action in which he is entitled relief or damages from?
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:04 pm to moneyg
quote:I gave it. But I admit I have no way of knowing if the claims in the suit are truthful/accurate.
That's why I'm interested in your opinion on the specific legal challenges in the suit.
I guess that's why we have a court system....to determine such things.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:05 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Even if the suit is upheld, couldn't the CP council just pass another annexation ordinance that "fixes" the problems? The vote was 9-3 in favor of the annexation. It's not like only one vote has to be changed to get a different outcome.
It would depend on whether the entire suit has merit or just parts of it like whether or not procedures were followed.
If the judge finds the annexation was illegal because all the property owners were not on board then the Council and the Mayor have a big problem unless of course they get everyone on board.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:14 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I gave it.
I missed it.
quote:
Under Louisiana law and the Plan of Government of East Baton Rouge Parish,
every annexation of land by the City of Baton Rouge must
• Include a petition with the required number of signatures of property owners or property taxpayers, which petition must be properly certified by the Assessor
• Be adopted in accordance with procedures consistent with state law and the
Plan of Government.
• Be reasonable, which includes factors which vary from case to case but which
always include the necessity that the proposed annexation be contiguous and
compact. The purported annexation in fact fails to meet any of these requirements
The suit goes on to describe those issues in detail.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:15 pm to doubleb
quote:I have posted the ordinance which describes the process of annexing mostly commercial property several times and there was nothing in it that said 100% of the property owners within the annexed area had to approve of the annexation.
If the judge finds the annexation was illegal because all the property owners were not on board
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:19 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I have posted the ordinance which describes the process of annexing mostly commercial property several times and there was nothing in it that said 100% of the property owners within the annexed area had to approve of the annexation.
Then the judge will throw it out if that ordinance complies with state law, right?
But isn't there also an argument about assessments, and what percentage of the property values must sign the petition to be annexed.
Jenkins had a whole series of issues, and I remember that to be another of them.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:21 pm to doubleb
quote:That's what I said earlier.
Then the judge will throw it out if that ordinance complies with state law, right?
quote:Yes, 50+%. The Mall plus the BRGH property alone would probably exceed 50+% of the assessed values in the annexed area. But again, that is what the court system is for.
But isn't there also an argument about assessments, and what percentage of the property values must sign the petition to be annexed.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:32 pm to LSURussian
I didn't see the post that you are referencing but I assume you are talking about LSA-R.S. 33:172. If this is the case, there would have to be a majority of the "resident" property owners, not just the property owners. Are there any resident property owners in that area? <-- (there could be, I don't know). The only way to annex an area where there are no "resident" property owners and no registered voters, i.e., a commercial area such as the mall, is if the land is 90% contiguous with the existing city's boundaries.
eta: Or if the entire area to be annexed is vacant land. Again not the case here.
eta: Or if the entire area to be annexed is vacant land. Again not the case here.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:37 pm to jammintiger
What I posted was from the EBR Code of Ordinances. It was the section pertaining to the requirements for annexation of unincorporated areas.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:38 pm to LSURussian
Ah...1:09 - but that has to be read in conjunction with state law.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 1:43 pm to jammintiger
quote:I'll gladly leave that up to someone who's being paid to do it.
Ah...1:09 - but that has to be read in conjunction with state law.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 2:44 pm to LSURussian
It was really just a matter of time. Better to get the suit out of the way and know one way or another.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 2:47 pm to BigJim
Agreed.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News