- 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: LA. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of St. George Incorporators
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:30 pm to bulletprooftiger
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:30 pm to bulletprooftiger
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:31 pm
0
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:31 pm to bulletprooftiger
We all should thank Chris Rials and Norman Browning for taking on city hall and carrying a heavy load for all of us out here in SG. Thanks guys and thank you to all the others who helped win this grass roots struggle.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:32 pm to doubleb
What is the next step?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:32 pm to lnomm34
City will be incorporated immediately and the city parish budget will changed to reflect areas within St George, meaning unincorporated areas and the general fund shrinks immediately.
What I think will be interesting is the clawback of 5 years of revenue between the incorporation and the resolution of the lawsuit, meaning about $250m that ended up in the general fund that shouldn’t have. BR about to have to cough up a ton of money they funneled to BRPD and BRFD.
What I think will be interesting is the clawback of 5 years of revenue between the incorporation and the resolution of the lawsuit, meaning about $250m that ended up in the general fund that shouldn’t have. BR about to have to cough up a ton of money they funneled to BRPD and BRFD.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:32 pm to lnomm34
quote:
Think we're in for what? 10-15 years of court proceedings before we see a City of St. George government operating?
I think we will see St George operating within a year. The associated litigation. Shouldn’t prevent the city from starting governmental operations. It will just add a layer of complexity to the startup and years down the line the boundaries may change or the amount of money allocated to historic liabilities may be changed.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:33 pm to Box Geauxrilla
quote:
Wow, this has been a 10 year battle. Congrats to St. George and its residents.
And frick every company that bowed to racial pressure and petitioned to stay in Baton Rouge and opposed St. George’s incorporation.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:33 pm to doubleb
Is this boundary still accurate?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:34 pm to Marciano1
I’ll look it up but I think that was the map from the first attempt, not the second successful attempt.
Edit - Your map is correct
Edit - Your map is correct
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:34 pm to Marciano1
That looks about right.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:35 pm to teke184
I think this is the second map. It looks like Gardere is not included here.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:35 pm to chinhoyang
quote:
I was surprised at the identity of the dissenting judges.
I always felt Weimer to be conservative jurist, but with some of his rulings lately I have me doubting some conservative street cred.
I know he flipped to independent in the last election cycle. He will be there another 9-10 years provided no major changes or efforts to redo all the Supreme Court districts and election process in a new constitution.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:36 pm to bulletprooftiger
About time. frick Broome with a broom handle sideways. Crook.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:36 pm to jmarto1
quote:
poratorsby jmarto1What is the next step?
To their credit the organizers have been meeting regularly to fulfill their obligations and draw up plans to move forward.
This is a great opportunity to get involved. Folks interested in serving should get ready. There is a lot to do.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:37 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
I look forward to low taxes
I wouldn't say you'll have lower taxes, just taxes better spent. I'd rather that than cheaper taxes to go to nothing.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:39 pm to BilbeauTBaggins
quote:
I wouldn't say you'll have lower taxes, just taxes better spent. I'd rather that than cheaper taxes to go to nothing.
This.
I have family still living in StG and they are happy that they are finally getting some agency over their area rather than being a tax colony for NBR.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:39 pm to bulletprooftiger
Mayor Broome screwed herself here. The governor appoints the first leadership of the new city. When the election occurred that would have been JBE. He would have very likely had someone in there that was somewhat hostile to the new city, and it definitely would have been one of his Democrat buddies.
By Broome prolonging this, a Republican governor will now make that appointment.
By Broome prolonging this, a Republican governor will now make that appointment.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:39 pm to teke184
quote:
City will be incorporated immediately and the city parish budget will changed to reflect areas within St George, meaning unincorporated areas and the general fund shrinks immediately.
Do they need to also reverse all the areas that switched from being within St George to join BR?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:40 pm to Marciano1
quote:
ratorsby Marciano1Is this boundary still accurate?
The boundary for the city was set when we voted. I’m sure there will be opportunities to join once things get rolling.
The school district is entirely different.
ETA: your map came through, that is correct.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:40 pm to Icansee4miles
quote:
Suck it Broomhilda
I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if a million voices cried out in lost tax revenue terror and were suddenly silenced
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:40 pm to bulletprooftiger
This part was nice...
State Supreme Court basically told the Appellate "do you even law, baw?"
quote:
No voter or elector residing or owning land in the proposed area of incorporation objected to the petition. Thus, one can reasonably conclude they found the plan adequate. Only those persons have a real and actual interest in that claim. Only they can claim insufficient information in the petition to make an informed vote.
Cole neither resides in nor owns property in St. George. He did not, and could not, vote in the election. Consequently, he has no real or actual interest in challenging the sufficiency of the petition. Because no one from within the incorporated area objected to it, the court of appeal erred in considering the sufficiency of the petition. Thus, we reverse.8
quote:
8 Even if Cole had standing to challenge the sufficiency of the petition, we find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the plan for the provision of services was statutorily compliant. The trial court’s finding that the plan was “minimally” compliant is true inasmuch as the statute itself requires minimal compliance in its silence as to the requirements of the plan. Thus, regardless of the standing holding, we would reverse the court of appeal on the merit.
State Supreme Court basically told the Appellate "do you even law, baw?"
Page 2 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News