- 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
LA. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of St. George Incorporators
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:12 pm
Opinion
quote:
Cole has the statutory right to challenge the incorporation of St. George. However, his real and actual interest is limited to the adverse impact incorporation will have on Baton Rouge, a municipality in the vicinity, and whether St. George can timely provide services. Despite the challenge, we conclude St. George can provide public services within a reasonable period of time. Applying objective factors to determine reasonableness, we hold incorporation is reasonable. We reverse the lower courts’ denial of incorporation and render judgment in favor of Proponents
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:18 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:15 pm to bulletprooftiger
Wow, this has been a 10 year battle. Congrats to St. George and its residents.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:15 pm to bulletprooftiger
But they need St George residents to support them in BR, it wouldn’t be fair!
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:15 pm to bulletprooftiger
Suck it Broomhilda!
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:16 pm to bulletprooftiger
Well, St George it is. I look forward to low taxes, good schools, armed perimeters, and parades with bagpipes and delightful European cheeses and meats.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:17 pm to bulletprooftiger
Congrats baws.
I'm a Texan but have followed this for years! Congrats on being able to self govern.
Get wrecked Broome.
I'm a Texan but have followed this for years! Congrats on being able to self govern.
Get wrecked Broome.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:17 pm to bulletprooftiger
I didn't read this, and I know my answer may be in the link, but does this make it a done deal?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:19 pm to jmarto1
quote:
I didn't read this, and I know my answer may be in the link, but does this make it a done deal?
Yes... this issue can go no further than SCOLA
it is done
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:19 pm to bulletprooftiger
Viva villa San Jorge’
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:22 pm to bulletprooftiger
Nicholson will need it's own loop with how much development is about to explode down there.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:22 pm to rt3
Incorporation is now approved and no further litigation.
This now sets off a whole other shite show of other cases regarding funding going back to 2019 as well as a bunch of illegal incorporations made by BR.
This now sets off a whole other shite show of other cases regarding funding going back to 2019 as well as a bunch of illegal incorporations made by BR.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:26 pm to bulletprooftiger
I knew this was coming soon. I put in a work order with the city the week before the vote in October 2019. They just came this week and completed the work.
Figured the decision wouldn’t been that far behind.
Figured the decision wouldn’t been that far behind.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:26 pm to rt3
Wow, awesome. This is a big win. I hope the right people are elected to run things
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:26 pm to bulletprooftiger
I was surprised at the identity of the dissenting judges.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:27 pm to bulletprooftiger
Congrats St. George!
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:27 pm to choupiquesushi
reading it now. obviously a lot of Broome's lawsuit was stupid and arguing negatives.
this stood out.
they already do, dumbass.
this is where i as curious how they were going to rule.
this stood out.
quote:
Normally, only a resident or landowner in St. George would have a real and actual interest in St. George’s self-sufficiency. Challengers argue that if St. George cannot provide services, the consolidated government of East Baton Rouge Parish and Baton Rouge (“City-Parish”) will bear that responsibility.
they already do, dumbass.
quote:
The statute recognizes this factor as part of the reasonableness test: “In determining whether the incorporation is reasonable, the court shall consider the possible adverse effects the incorporation may have on other municipalities in the vicinity.” La. R.S. 33:4(D). The effect of incorporation on a neighboring city is usually one of restricted geography. In other words, does the incorporation adversely affect the ability of a neighboring municipality to grow, annex and expand? If the geographic boundaries for incorporation impinge on another area’s potential for growth, incorporation may be unreasonable.
In contrast, adjoining municipalities are not usually funded by a surrounding unincorporated area. Their tax base is within their municipal limits. This case is different. The City-Parish’s fund-allocating agreements that result in shared tax revenues between the incorporated and unincorporated areas is not typical.
So, Baton Rouge makes the argument that incorporating St. George will decrease its funding. Thus, an adverse impact or effect. While the argument may be correct, it is not complete. A decrease in funding to the City-Parish does not necessarily result in an unreasonable adverse impact. Cost-savings must also be considered to determine the full economic impact of incorporation. Challengers’ evidence shows only expected lost tax revenue. They failed to offer evidence of any corresponding advantage to Baton Rouge of not providing services to St. George.
If Baton Rouge currently provides no services to St. George, 16 that weighs in favor of incorporation: St. George citizens pay taxes but receive no services. If the only impact of incorporation is a reduction in tax revenue paid by St. George citizens to Baton Rouge, with no reciprocal services, a windfall results for Baton Rouge. Incorporation will reasonably rectify that inequity.
On the other hand, if St. George citizens receive services for the taxes they pay, incorporation brings cost-savings to Baton Rouge, which will no longer be required to provide those services. Challengers failed to address that. Without evidence of the full economic impact of incorporation, denying incorporation because of an unreasonable economic impact on Baton Rouge is error.
this is where i as curious how they were going to rule.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:28 pm to bulletprooftiger
I guess I live in St George now. It’s been way too long that they were alllowed to drag this out.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:28 pm to teke184
quote:
This now sets off a whole other shite show of other cases regarding funding going back to 2019 as well as a bunch of illegal incorporations made by BR.
Think we're in for what? 10-15 years of court proceedings before we see a City of St. George government operating?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News