- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Louisiana Supreme Court just accepted the St. George incorporation case
Posted on 11/16/23 at 10:33 am to tommy2tone1999
Posted on 11/16/23 at 10:33 am to tommy2tone1999
quote:
And he does not own land in SG nor does he live there. Therefore, he lacks standing. The case should be dismissed.
The case should have been settled years ago, and SG already has our mayor.
0
Posted on 11/16/23 at 10:34 am to TheSadvocate
quote:
quote:
People in BR pay taxes that goes to the Sheriff's department so.. ok?
LOL tell me you have no idea how anything works
People in BR pay taxes to the EBRSO, and some of that is used for patrols. True, or false?
If a question upsets you then you're probably not on the right side of it.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 11:03 am to BeepNode
They also pay MUCH MUCH MORE to BRPD, who says they have no ability to police the area in question.
Getting EBRSO coverage isn’t the issue. Having them as primary coverage while a city PD is supposed to be covering them if a problem.
What I’m finding is that the same people going “OK, EBRSO can service these areas BRPD can’t be assed to care about” also lose their shite at the idea of St George contracting with EBRSO to cover policing of the area as exists now once incorporation goes through.
St George gets sheriff coverage now by shouldering most parish costs. St George would set a rate with the sheriff office for continued coverage once the city forms until such time that St George decides it needs its own full PD instead of just a chief and other administrative officials as required by law.
Getting EBRSO coverage isn’t the issue. Having them as primary coverage while a city PD is supposed to be covering them if a problem.
What I’m finding is that the same people going “OK, EBRSO can service these areas BRPD can’t be assed to care about” also lose their shite at the idea of St George contracting with EBRSO to cover policing of the area as exists now once incorporation goes through.
St George gets sheriff coverage now by shouldering most parish costs. St George would set a rate with the sheriff office for continued coverage once the city forms until such time that St George decides it needs its own full PD instead of just a chief and other administrative officials as required by law.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 11:10 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
The first time the incorporation was voted on
Wrong, there was only one vote.
Two petitions - first petition failed after the opposition planted people to pull their vote and declared they never signed the petition. They also lost people who were renters who had moved out of the area after signing the petition.
After looking at the first petition the STG group removed areas that clearly did not want to be part of St. G.
Second petition was accepted, it went to the ballot, vote in favor was the result. Mayor and City Councilor sued the organizers and have done everything to destroy the will of the people and the ballot box.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 11:10 am to teke184
So you admit that people in BR pay for EBRSO patrol yet complain when a few of them get it when it makes sense logistically. Neat. You seem rational.
So you're saying St. George is going to stop paying some of the dedicated property taxes to the EBRSO? Which taxes will they not renew?
quote:
St George gets sheriff coverage now by shouldering most parish costs. St George would set a rate with the sheriff office for continued coverage once the city forms until such time that St George decides it needs its own full PD instead of just a chief and other administrative officials as required by law.
So you're saying St. George is going to stop paying some of the dedicated property taxes to the EBRSO? Which taxes will they not renew?
Posted on 11/16/23 at 11:15 am to BeepNode
No, I’m saying the way the mechanism works as of now is “all unincorporated areas pay x% for parish offices. Incorporated areas pay y%.”
X is typically 100% and Y is typically 0%, though it changes on some line items.
The incorporation petition was going to leave St George paying freight for most parish services like they do now but pulling back all the unincorporated money that would be within St George which currently goes to the general fund.
The reason all this is such a big fight is that the money swept to the general fund from St George is an insane amount, in the $25-50m range, and by statute half of that gets earmarked to pay BRPD and BRFD.
If BRPD is getting such a huge chunk of general fund money coming from unincorporated areas, how come they are unable to police all areas within BR city limits?
X is typically 100% and Y is typically 0%, though it changes on some line items.
The incorporation petition was going to leave St George paying freight for most parish services like they do now but pulling back all the unincorporated money that would be within St George which currently goes to the general fund.
The reason all this is such a big fight is that the money swept to the general fund from St George is an insane amount, in the $25-50m range, and by statute half of that gets earmarked to pay BRPD and BRFD.
If BRPD is getting such a huge chunk of general fund money coming from unincorporated areas, how come they are unable to police all areas within BR city limits?
This post was edited on 11/16/23 at 11:17 am
Posted on 11/16/23 at 11:20 am to teke184
quote:
If BRPD is getting such a huge chunk of general fund money coming from unincorporated areas, how come they are unable to police all areas within BR city limits?
If what you're saying is true, it sounds like they could get their wish to defund the police and you get utopia for boss hoggs. Win-win?
Posted on 11/16/23 at 11:28 am to BeepNode
“Defund the police” in general is horseshite.
This, though? This is BR robbing the unincorporated areas to have a PD which is horribly incompetent and getting sued thanks to SWB and MP.
If I am not getting BRPD coverage nor do I have policy input on what BRPD does, why the frick should I be paying for it?
If they were competent, like they were under Dabadie before SWB forced him to retire, there would be less argument because it would at least be an efficient use of that money.
Being expensive and competent you can live with.
Being expensive and completely incompetent? shite’s gotta change. Especially if I am paying for coverage I don’t even get.
This, though? This is BR robbing the unincorporated areas to have a PD which is horribly incompetent and getting sued thanks to SWB and MP.
If I am not getting BRPD coverage nor do I have policy input on what BRPD does, why the frick should I be paying for it?
If they were competent, like they were under Dabadie before SWB forced him to retire, there would be less argument because it would at least be an efficient use of that money.
Being expensive and competent you can live with.
Being expensive and completely incompetent? shite’s gotta change. Especially if I am paying for coverage I don’t even get.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 12:24 pm to BeepNode
The sheriff does work inside the city limits too; however, you are correct, the areas outside the city do get more patrols.
As a fair minded person, I would certainly be willing to pay for sheriff’s coverage in SG, but I don’t want to pay BRPD and BRFD too like we are now.
As a fair minded person, I would certainly be willing to pay for sheriff’s coverage in SG, but I don’t want to pay BRPD and BRFD too like we are now.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 2:39 pm to teke184
quote:
If I am not getting BRPD coverage nor do I have policy input on what BRPD does, why the frick should I be paying for it?
This is what it all boils down to. And I have yet to hear a logical rebuttal from the anti-StG crowd.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 3:29 pm to winkchance
quote:
After looking at the first petition the STG group removed areas that clearly did not want to be part of St. G.
Stole this from Joshjrn when this subject last came up.
Only half true. They dropped the areas that didn’t want to be included and were poor. They kept the areas that didn’t want to be included and were wealthy.
The organizers knew that the orange areas wanted no part of St. George. But they also knew they needed those areas as a tax base. So they kept just enough of them in, knowing that the solid green areas would be just enough to drag them across the finish line. Illegal? No. But not exactly the high road they pretend it is, either.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 4:05 pm to RedHawk
quote:
Only half true. They dropped the areas that didn’t want to be included and were poor. They kept the areas that didn’t want to be included and were wealthy.
You don’t think people in SG precincts in U Club, Lexington, lower Highland Rd., Santa Maria, and the neighborhoods East of Airline don’t have money?
This post was edited on 11/16/23 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 11/16/23 at 4:13 pm to RedHawk
Can you explain what the map shows?
Honestly I can’t figure it out. Adding the two total votes shown does provide those two given percents but what is it trying to say??
Honestly I can’t figure it out. Adding the two total votes shown does provide those two given percents but what is it trying to say??
Posted on 11/16/23 at 4:16 pm to RedHawk
How would they have known these exact numbers before the vote took place? lol I'd bet that even though the voter turnout shows against (46%), these precincts had a large number of people who signed the petition making it beneficial to keep them in it.
This post was edited on 11/16/23 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 11/16/23 at 4:18 pm to miab777
quote:
How would they have known these exact numbers before the vote took place? lol I'd bet that even though the voter turnout shows against (46%), these districts had a large number of people who signed the petition making it beneficial to keep them in it.
You also had a good number of people that signed the petition that ultimately ended up voting “No” because the city and Together Baton Rouge came out an told everyone that their kids wouldn’t be allowed to go to a magnet school in the EBR school district if it passed. They new it was a lie, but they still pushed if.
This post was edited on 11/16/23 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 11/16/23 at 4:18 pm to doubleb
Not as much money as the old money in Oak Hills, at least I wouldn’t think.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 4:18 pm to miab777
The difference is likely, gardere was 95% against St. George and very hard to keep track of who was in the district.
These other areas were closer to 50/50 depending on who showed up at Election Day. That graphic really doesn’t provide much of any useful information though.
These other areas were closer to 50/50 depending on who showed up at Election Day. That graphic really doesn’t provide much of any useful information though.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 4:39 pm to whoa
quote:
Not as much money as the old money in Oak Hills, at least I wouldn’t think.
New money spends the same as old money.
And when you look at a map of precincts you don’t get a good look at the demographics.
Besides just yesterday a SG critic was chastising the organizers for not using natural borders and now they are getting criticized for setting the border on the Mississippi River and Bayou Manchac.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 4:49 pm to doubleb
quote:
Besides just yesterday a SG critic was chastising the organizers for not using natural borders and now they are getting criticized for setting the border on the Mississippi River and Bayou Manchac
Critics of StG ain't the brightest.
The fact many believe it is seceding from BR is proof of that.
shite...I wish it could secede into Ascension.
Posted on 11/16/23 at 5:29 pm to RedHawk
You clearly have no idea what the organizers want, but you do you boo boo. 
You're comparing petition response numbers to election results. It's not even close to accurate.
You're comparing petition response numbers to election results. It's not even close to accurate.
This post was edited on 11/16/23 at 5:33 pm
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News