- 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 LA denied incorporation by Court of Appeals
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:01 am to lsu2006
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:01 am to lsu2006
quote:
The whole thing was a masterclass in incompetence from the get go.
I agree. EBR has been a masterclass in incompetence. Hell, the parish just hastened the outflow of taxpayer money to the surrounding parishes rather than keeping that tax payer money in the parish.
Shame
1
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:06 am to beerJeep
quote:
I agree.
Glad we're on the same page.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:07 am to Jake88
Petition for incorporation wasn’t detailed enough about how all services of the new city would be funded.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:08 am to lsu2006
Here's the critical ruling:
quote:
We do not find that the information contained in the petition for incorporation was sufficient to comply with the statutory requirements laid out in La. R.S. 33:1(A)(4). Although the petition listed the services that would be provided, the petition did not provide the necessary information to place citizens of the area to be incorporated on notice of a plan for the provision of those services. Further, a statement in the petition providing that "services will be provided subject to the availability of funds derived from taxes, license fees, permits, and other revenue which becomes available to the municipality and are authorized by state law" does not constitute a plan for the provision of those services as required by La. R.S. 33:1. Accordingly, we pretermit discussion of any other issues herein, including the alleged unreasonableness of the incorporation and the alleged adverse impact on the City of Baton Rouge.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:08 am to Kramer26
It’s over. List the house. It’s time to go.
Looks like I may have to tread water in Ascension for a few more years until I can get away from this sinking ship. But Baton Rouge is completely doomed.
The will of the people means nothing. fricking nothing.
Looks like I may have to tread water in Ascension for a few more years until I can get away from this sinking ship. But Baton Rouge is completely doomed.
The will of the people means nothing. fricking nothing.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:09 am to TBoy
quote:
It appears that the Petition for Incorporation did not comply with the law in that it did not provide any concrete plan as to how St. George would be able to provide necessary infrastructure. Apparently, taking a position that we will figure that out later when we start to take in cash isn't a lawful plan for incorporation.
The court ruled that while the plan was outlined on the website for SG it was not on the petition.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:10 am to Riverside
quote:
Petition for incorporation wasn’t detailed enough about how all services of the new city would be funded.
Again, let’s be honest with the room.
It isn’t about funding the new cities services.
It’s the lack of funding the new city would cause for Baton Rouge’s services that is the ONLY issue here and the ONLY reason this bullshite has been dragging on.
You can try to dress it up however you want. At the end of the day THAT is the real issue at hand.
The CITY of Baton Rouge CANNOT EXIST without leeching off of unincorporated areas trying to incorporate as St. George.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 10:12 am
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:11 am to Kramer26
quote:
Central had the same lawyers and were able to incorporate under the same process. Explain that to everyone.
Central set a precedent, why can’t SG use their blueprint?
Politics
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:15 am to Kramer26
quote:
Central had the same lawyers and were able to incorporate under the same process. Explain that to everyone.
Without having the exact process used by Central for incorporation, any comparison would just be a supposition. I'm just reporting and discussing this decision today. I don't live there and have no position on whether or not St. George is allowed to incorporate.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:15 am to Deuces
Baton Rouge is lost. They will keep taxing people until they move away. Glad I left BR before it's evolution into a ghetto city in 2006.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:17 am to beerJeep
quote:
The CITY of Baton Rouge CANNOT EXIST without leeching off of unincorporated areas trying to incorporate as St. George.
The city can exist, if just would have to change its lifestyle.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:19 am to TBoy
Based on the decision and from what I am reading, it looks like the incorporation effort and resulting lawsuit may have just been done sloppily?
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:22 am to Kramer26
I don't understand how people who vote to incorporate into a city when they are not part of another city can be denied that right.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:24 am to Kramer26
Upholds the ruling (denying incorporation), but on a finding the judge erred in finding the petition met the statutory requirements of delineating the plan for providing services.
Completely dodged that part of the ruling that it would adversely impact the City of BR.
Completely dodged that part of the ruling that it would adversely impact the City of BR.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:27 am to Kramer26
Sell your house and, if you must stay in LA, it's time to move to st Tammany.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:27 am to TBoy
quote:
have no position on whether or not St. George is allowed to incorporate.
no point in lying
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:28 am to beerJeep
quote:
the rat that committed voter fraud to vote against St. George.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:29 am to Damone
Hard to call it "sloppily" done. Not sure how much more precise Incorporators can be. After all, St G's doesn't yet exist and some things will have to be worked out on the ground. I can't help but believe that the folks who voted for incorporation knew there would be a shakedown period but wanted to give it a go.
It's all in the eye of the beholder. The Ct could have just as easily ruled in favor of Incorporators. This was transparently about keeping a tax base in BR parish. That is the subtext to the dispute and the court, more likely than not, reached this result with that in mind. Social engineering dictated the legal reasoning.
It's all in the eye of the beholder. The Ct could have just as easily ruled in favor of Incorporators. This was transparently about keeping a tax base in BR parish. That is the subtext to the dispute and the court, more likely than not, reached this result with that in mind. Social engineering dictated the legal reasoning.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:30 am to chryso
quote:
I don't understand how people who vote to incorporate into a city when they are not part of another city can be denied that right.
You have an unincorporated area that is trying to incorporate into a city. How can the city of Baton Rouge work to deny them that right? Why doesn't the city of Baton Rouge incorporate them into Baton Rouge? I don't understand how the city can control what the unincorporated areas do.
So was there any mention of it being denied because it would negatively impact the current city of Baton Rouge? Was the only reason for denial that the budget was not properly spelled out during the petition period?
I have about 4 to 5 years and I am leaving Baton Rouge (hopefully EBR completely). This is a sinking ship. A big indicator on how fast will be Broome's new police chief selection.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 10:35 am
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:31 am to chryso
quote:
I don't understand how people who vote to incorporate into a city when they are not part of another city can be denied that right.
I don't understand how people can vote for something, and someone else in power doesn't like the outcome of the vote so they can sue the results of that vote and actually win, and thus making the entire election pointless.
Seems like whatever reason they are denying this appeal should have been something that was required to even have this vote get on the ballot. Can we just vote on any stupid fricking thing we think of now, and waste time and money on that? What was the point of it being on the ballot if the results were always going to be contested this way?
We voted for it, it passed, move the frick on with the ruling that the people chose.
Page 2 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News