- 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 12:17 pm to moneyg
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:17 pm to moneyg
quote:
Plaintiff, who is a citizen of Baton Rouge, owns three tracts of land and three houses in Baton Rouge. He pays more than $7,000 a year in property taxes. He resides in a "high crime" area and has recently been a victim of crime and would be particularly affected by any reduction in police or fire protection services...
Well that's mighty freaking tenuous.
0
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:17 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:A judge will rule on that issue at some point.
Law enforcement "problems" have nothing to do with harm caused to Woody Jenkins.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:18 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
That's my point. I read the link. Law enforcement "problems" have nothing to do with harm caused to Woody Jenkins.
I can't argue one way or another as to whether or not Jenkins has legal standing for the lawsuit.
Assuming he does have standing, what is your opinion on the complaint itself?
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:18 pm to moneyg
Under his reasoning, any annexation would reduce the amount of protection currently given. This lawsuit has no legs to stand on.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:19 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Under his reasoning, any annexation would reduce the amount of protection currently given. This lawsuit has no legs to stand on.
Again, what is your opinion on the legal challenges he listed to the annexation. I accept that you've already predetermined that he doesn't have standing.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:20 pm to moneyg
The complaint is a waste of the judiciary's time, IMO. No harm is coming to Woody Jenkins based on this annexation. He may have legal standing to file a petition based on the property he owns, but he doesn't appear to have a legal claim for damages.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:21 pm to moneyg
quote:
Assuming he does have standing, what is your opinion on the complaint itself?
Legally correct, given that the city council, assessor, etc., didn't follow their own rules with regards to what they filed, where, and the contiguousness of the areas to be annexed.
Annexing the body of the Mall Of LA without also annexing the anchor stores like Dillard's, along with annexing parts of DSLD and KC Southern RR property without permission, make this whole thing a bit of a shite show.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:21 pm to doubleb
quote:well, they could compare it to the 6th district - that is what you call swiss cheese cong dist.
I don't know if he is going to win or not; however, when you look at the annexation on a map you know it was done for one reason and one reason only and the people pushing to have it done didn't care as long as they secured their tax revenues.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:23 pm to teke184
quote:The CP council does not have to have the "permission" of all the property owners in an area being annexed.
annexing parts of DSLD and KC Southern RR property without permission
quote:What "rules" were not followed?
the city council, assessor, etc., didn't follow their own rules with regards to what they filed, where, and the contiguousness of the areas to be annexed.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:23 pm to moneyg
The laws explaining the "contiguous" land requirements are not very specific. You could view it either way as to whether or not they were followed to get to the mall.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:23 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
The complaint is a waste of the judiciary's time, IMO. No harm is coming to Woody Jenkins based on this annexation
Again (3rd time), what is your opinion on the suit itself, Does it hold water? The lawsuit is claiming the annexation is illegal for multiple reasons.
Do you think that holds water?
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:25 pm to LSURussian
quote:
What "rules" were not followed?
Amongst other things, they're not filing their fricking paperwork.
Certain filings were to be made with the state within 10 days of the annexation to certify the boundaries of the city. They still haven't been filed over a month later.
They hustled their asses off to do the annexation and have the vote but they didn't do the follow-up work to make sure it was legal.
That doesn't even go into the swiss-cheese nature of the annexation, which would require St. George and EBRPSO to work anything within the anchor stores while requiring BRFD and BRPD to work anything within the body of the mall itself.
It's the same kind of shite show that got that movie studio near Airline at I-12 to get fully incorporated into the city, as doing things on different parts of the property required the cooperation of entirely different entities.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:30 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
What's he suing for then? What damages is he requesting? Why can't you just tell me rather than avoid answering if you know the answer.
The lawsuit was linked in the article provided.
It's too long to paraphrase, but Mr. Jenkins lives in the City of BR.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:30 pm to LSURussian
quote:
What "rules" were not followed?
Since Mickey is dodging the question, I'd be interested if you'd offer an opinion on the specific legal challenges in Jenkins' lawsuit.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:30 pm to teke184
quote:Do you have a link for that? A "credible" link, not some blog.
they're not filing their fricking paperwork.
Certain filings were to be made with the state within 10 days of the annexation to certify the boundaries of the city. They still haven't been filed over a month later.
quote:I agree that's crazy but it's not illegal or against any "rules" that I know of. It's similar with Towne Center's public safety coverage now.
That doesn't even go into the swiss-cheese nature of the annexation, which would require St. George and EBRPSO to work anything within the anchor stores while requiring BRFD and BRPD to work anything within the body of the mall itself.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:35 pm to LSURussian
quote:
The CP council does not have to have the "permission" of all the property owners in an area being annexed
Correct
quote:
What "rules" were not followed?
The law suit asserts that quite a few rules were not followed. It says that many of the property owners were not in agreement, property was subdivided and not include in toto, the rules were not followed, the vote was not kosher, etc.
paraphrasing of course.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:36 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Do you have a link for that? A "credible" link, not some blog.
did you read the lawsuit at the link provided???
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:36 pm to moneyg
quote:I'd be happy to do so.
I'd be interested if you'd offer an opinion on the specific legal challenges in Jenkins' lawsuit.
What are his "specific legal challenges"?
I've read the newspaper article linked and all I see is his claim the annexation will result in a burden on the BRPD and that "“It’s really about running a government here that’s sensible," Jenkins said of his decision to challenge the annexation."
If that's all he's got, I think his suit will be tossed. It's pretty common for government to act non-sensibly. That ain't illegal. Unfortunately.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:37 pm to moneyg
quote:
Plaintiff, who is a citizen of Baton Rouge, owns three tracts of land and three houses in Baton Rouge. He pays more than $7,000 a year in property taxes. He resides in a "high crime" area and has recently been a victim of crime and would be particularly affected by any reduction in police or fire protection services...
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).
Posted on 6/12/14 at 12:38 pm to LSURussian
Inside the article in the Advocate there is a link to the entire suit.
That should answer most question.
That should answer most question.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News