Started By
Message

re: Hey WAFB your alert about annexation is inaccurate

Posted on 6/18/14 at 7:56 pm to
Posted by LSURussian
Member since Feb 2005
127260 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 7:56 pm to
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.
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
23229 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 8:00 pm to
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 by Kramer26
St. George, LA
Member since Jan 2005
6408 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 8:00 pm to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram