- 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: St. George having its day in court in minutes
Posted on 3/3/20 at 4:24 pm to doubleb
Posted on 3/3/20 at 4:24 pm to doubleb
If incorporating hurts the parish then all incorporated areas within EBR should be disbanded and parish should be governed by parish govt with laws affecting all in parish equally.
Just like the together and one BR argument the hurting parish is pure politics. I can only think things like a city wanting to form across parish lines or where new city was including & trying to control a water supply for entire parish or similar resource where a parish could claim incorporating may hurt parish. These kind of things also seem like they could be worked out while still letting area incorporate not stopping it entirely.
Around when consolidation happened BR made up like 80% of EBR's population. Minus already incorporated Zachary and Baker the population in unincorporated areas of EBR wasn't much above 30,000 back then. BR is now barely over 50% of EBR population and falling.
The current form of city-parish govt no longer fits. Either all of current BR and original SE BR school district should have been made into one incorporated city - which neither side wants, no incorporations should be allowed - which no one wants, or other self supporting communities should be given equal opportunity to incorporate like BR and other cities in EBR without interference from BR or other parts of parish outside of previously existing and officially in process annexing of areas that a new city also wants (not this piecemeal crap going on using their own created delays). These would also seem to be something negotiable and/or allowing disputed areas a separate later vote while allowing area to incorporate not trying to stop it outright.
Just like the together and one BR argument the hurting parish is pure politics. I can only think things like a city wanting to form across parish lines or where new city was including & trying to control a water supply for entire parish or similar resource where a parish could claim incorporating may hurt parish. These kind of things also seem like they could be worked out while still letting area incorporate not stopping it entirely.
Around when consolidation happened BR made up like 80% of EBR's population. Minus already incorporated Zachary and Baker the population in unincorporated areas of EBR wasn't much above 30,000 back then. BR is now barely over 50% of EBR population and falling.
The current form of city-parish govt no longer fits. Either all of current BR and original SE BR school district should have been made into one incorporated city - which neither side wants, no incorporations should be allowed - which no one wants, or other self supporting communities should be given equal opportunity to incorporate like BR and other cities in EBR without interference from BR or other parts of parish outside of previously existing and officially in process annexing of areas that a new city also wants (not this piecemeal crap going on using their own created delays). These would also seem to be something negotiable and/or allowing disputed areas a separate later vote while allowing area to incorporate not trying to stop it outright.
This post was edited on 3/3/20 at 6:29 pm
0
Posted on 3/3/20 at 5:21 pm to Ed Osteen
quote:
we will, thanks for derailing this one
Wait, I thought you just said,
quote:
everyone should stop replying to posts from that guy. He's clearly an idiot and isn't even posting anymore.
Just messing with you. It's hard not to respond to such obvious stupidity.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 7:37 pm to ProjectP2294
quote:
There is $8MM going to the Council On Aging each year that is an example of bloat, both monetarily and in human form.
Sure, but that is not a part of city-parish government. It is a non-profit that is funded by Federal and state dollars plus its own property taxes that are voted on by the people living in the taxing district.
EBR only appoints 4 out of the 15 board members and the current leadership has been in place since the Jindal administration.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 7:38 pm to FreddieMac
quote:
I guess I am not sure why anyone would object to self governance.
I wonder if SG would object to nicer neighborhoods in SG forming their own city?
Posted on 3/3/20 at 7:46 pm to tommy2tone1999
Sorry if me leaving left you limp and unfulfilled. I hate blue balls too
Posted on 3/3/20 at 7:54 pm to doubleb
quote:
mayor or a council person from suing without full council approval.
This state's Democratic mayors often to seem to think they are above the rules that govern them. Shreveport's Adrian Perkins is a joke that can't seem to find enough ways to thumb his nose at the laws and city council.
This post was edited on 3/3/20 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 3/3/20 at 8:20 pm to BeepNode
quote:
EBR only appoints 4 out of the 15 board members and the current leadership has been in place since the Jindal administration.
That is wrong. Per the COA website, the Council Board members are voted in by the membership. LINK
There are 15 directors.
The by-laws also say 4 directors have to be from BR, one each from Baker, Central, Zachary. 3 directors have to be from a public or private agency that serves the aged such as the Soc. Sec. Admin., a university or a hospital. 3 directors have to be from a private charity, a church, etc. that served the aged. 2 are at large. All have to reside in EBR Parish.
SG has 20% of the population. I wonder how many board members live in the SG area?
This post was edited on 3/3/20 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 3/3/20 at 9:11 pm to Number 9 Fan
I like how you said I was wrong and then followed it by re-iterating everything I said.
The EBRCOA won't be impacted much by the formation of SG. They aren't going to stop taking federal and state tax dollars and they're not going to stop having a property tax.
The EBRCOA won't be impacted much by the formation of SG. They aren't going to stop taking federal and state tax dollars and they're not going to stop having a property tax.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 9:25 pm to BeepNode
quote:
I like how you said I was wrong and then followed it by re-iterating everything I said.
You said EBR appointed four members of the board of directors. They do not. Directors are not appointed. You also mentioned the Jindal administration but the state has nothing to do with appointing the board.
Page 5; Section 6 says that directors are elected by the membership. You were wrong.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 9:48 pm to Number 9 Fan
What’s the membership?
Posted on 3/3/20 at 9:56 pm to Lickitty Split
Qualified persons per the articles of incorporation that sign the membership role.
There’s no fee.
Page 2, article III
There’s no fee.
Page 2, article III
Posted on 3/3/20 at 9:59 pm to tommy2tone1999
What happened ?
Posted on 3/3/20 at 10:00 pm to Number 9 Fan
Well, shite. They just get their people nominated and then the members still vote on it. I could have sworn there was a bill to change it to political appointees. I was wrong about that part. 
Being voted on by the members is actually worse because then you can't get rid of them! I guess that explains how that woman that tried to take $125k from one of the dying members is still the CEO.
The only change will be that a couple of the 15 board members will have to reside in SG. It'll Mary Olive Pierson types and not good ol' baws. I'm pretty sure at least one of the white plantiff's attorneys on the board lives in St. George.
Being voted on by the members is actually worse because then you can't get rid of them!
I guess that explains how that woman that tried to take $125k from one of the dying members is still the CEO. The only change will be that a couple of the 15 board members will have to reside in SG. It'll Mary Olive Pierson types and not good ol' baws. I'm pretty sure at least one of the white plantiff's attorneys on the board lives in St. George.
This post was edited on 3/3/20 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 3/3/20 at 10:11 pm to Nottelling
You're legit 15, and should ask your parents these questions.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 10:18 pm to BeepNode
You brought up another good reason for SG.
They pay taxes and probably have little or no representation on the board,
The deal is probably rigged and a cabal controls the nominations and elections.i don’t know that, but it makes sense.
They pay taxes and probably have little or no representation on the board,
The deal is probably rigged and a cabal controls the nominations and elections.i don’t know that, but it makes sense.
This post was edited on 3/4/20 at 7:11 am
Posted on 3/3/20 at 10:40 pm to BeepNode
quote:
quote:
I guess I am not sure why anyone would object to self governance.
I wonder if SG would object to nicer neighborhoods in SG forming their own city?
Reaction couldn’t be any worse than BR’s fighting to not allow neighborhoods outside of city of BR to form their own city or really worse than anyone in an incorporated area opposing other areas from incorporating. Do what we say not what we actually do mentality. Residents living in unincorporated areas are about the only ones in parish that don’t look like complete hypocrites opposing StG. It is still not a good look as it’s not like the only $ money city-parish govt will no longer control from StG usually gets spent to help those other unincorporated areas and with StG still paying same parish taxes while paying more to sheriff they aren’t really losing anything.
I know you have concerns that StG agreeing to pay sheriff extra to patrol area may affect Central (or at least I thought that was you), but do really think Central would be better off unincorporated or by becoming part of BR? Regardless of being necessary by law it had become almost de facto standard to form or be an existing city to help give legislators justification to vote to just add a “municipal” type of school district breaking off from parish on the ballot (regardless of differing boundaries the cities are center of these districts) as well as helping with statewide voters who aren’t going to research vote hence the quote by current mayor president of EBR while a Senator. It was and is political cover for them, and the amendment vote doesn’t happen without their support (still can’t believe they don’t change constitution to avoid each municipal district being an amendment process). So without Central’s vote to incorporate spring before Katrina its at least less likely to have separated from EBR school district with passed amendment just over 1 year after Katrina and if part of BR obviously 100% would not have happened.
Posted on 3/5/20 at 4:14 pm to Scruffy
He hid his racism for a good portion of the thread, but his stupid was on full display from the start.
Page 16 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News