quote:
They would just have to remove the signatures of the few residents who might live in the included area who signed. I'm thinking it's likely Rainey is already looking for an excuse to suspend the petition drive by blaming this annexation rather than admitting they couldn't get the required number of signatures. It's merely a face-saving excuse.

No residents are being annexed. It's all commercial properties.

Rainey is either wrong, or it's a major change which makes everything null and void.

For instance, I signed the petition thinking the entire SG area was the entire SG area.

Now if I knew the mall was out then perhaps I wouldn't have signed. I'm just guessing here, I don't know.

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by LSURussian

Member since Feb 2005

128384 posts

Posted on 5/5/14 at 2:13 pm to doubleb

quote:
Rainey is either wrong, or it's a major change which makes everything null and void.

For instance, I signed the petition thinking the entire SG area was the entire SG area.

Now if I knew the mall was out then perhaps I wouldn't have signed. I'm just guessing here, I don't know.

Apparently, you're correct.

Here is a quote from an updated article from the OP's link:

quote:
Supporters of an effort to create a new city in East Baton Rouge Parish say the potential annexation would “invalidate” efforts to incorporate St. George because it would alter the area defined in their petition.

“It would change the boundaries of the city of St. George and immediately stop the process,” St. George spokesman Lionel Rainey said.

ETA: But I do have to wonder why the previous annexation of the Celtic Studios and Costco a couple of weeks ago did not stop the process but this annexation would. The previous annexation changed "the boundaries of the city of St. George" didn't it?