- 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 12:27 pm to WestSideTiger
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:27 pm to WestSideTiger
quote:
So even if you provide the list of services and a plan what’s to stop the judges from just saying the plan isn’t good enough, not precise enough or the figures don’t line up? And they’ll just be extremely vague about it offering no guidance as to what can be done to correct it in the future. It really is a frustrating process.
Would the application necessarily be straightforward in a case in which a plan was given, to determine whether it was specific enough? No. But in this case, they functionally ignored the second part of the statute, not giving any specific plan. That’s why I’m saying that it’s straightforward.
0
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:29 pm to BugAC
quote:
I have been thoroughly disappointed in Browning and company and their piss poor handling of this. This is the hold up. With all of the St. George meetings surely they should have had this ready. Why didn't they?
That really is disappointing to see. I mean anybody with a brain could see that this thing would be picked apart by the powers that be to shoot it down. Really, really needed it airtight from the start because of the scrutiny it would get.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:35 pm to RedHawk
quote:
What?? Just because your address would have said St. George, wouldn't mean you don't still live in EBR Parish. I'm guessing criminals wouldn't even know if you lived in St. George or BR.
StG residents voted to incorporate to gain an equal ability like those in BR have to decide on how to combat crime within the city and the laws to enforce within its boundaries. BR residents get to decide these for themselves and are a major part through the merged BR/parish govt & Mayor-President of deciding the same in unincorporated areas in parish like StG continues to be after this decision. BR also keeps a lot of the sales taxes collected within these unincorporated areas to use within BR city limits to implement policy only they have a say in.
Merged parish govt needs to go away, but the right of individuals living in StG to incorporate just like those living in Zachary, Baker, Central, and Baton Rouge should still be equally protected regardless.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:38 pm to doubleb
quote:
The city can exist, if just would have to change its lifestyle.
Yeah, that ain’t happening. Can’t buy votes in NBR if no businesses want to exist there because they get robbed blind.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:40 pm to dallastigers
quote:
Merged parish govt needs to go away, but the right of individuals living in StG to incorporate just like those living in Zachary, Baker, Central, and Baton Rouge needs to be equally protected.
Bingo.
BR made it only a list of best metro governments in the country with regard to funding per capita.
That happens because you have a metro area of twice the population of the city funding city services for the city due to the city parish merger and blocked incorporations.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Somehow you are spinning the fact that StG specifically sought to include only the areas that actually wanted to be included as a negative?
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 7/14/23 at 12:49 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
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.
Bingo!
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:54 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
or you can think that you live in fricking america and when you have a fricking election the results are honored, and you don't need whatever stupid arse excuse you're being given as to why a lawful election result isn't being upheld.
So you'd like to take the approach of "whatever the voters say, the law be damned"?
quote:
stupid arse excuse
quote:
fricking
Ah the tell tale signs of a well reasoned competent argument.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:55 pm to RedHawk
Has far more to do with percentage of apartments in those areas than the wealth.
Apartments add a hard number to the petition needs to meet, yet are extremely difficult to obtain valid signatures due to the transient nature of apartments compared to single family homes.
The goal was to cut the high apartment areas for the initial city and then once formed those areas could more easily be absorbed over time.
But that isn’t nearly as fun to say as “look they dun like poor people!”
Behind every emotional tearjerker accusation there is a sound and logical reason. Sad people let emotion dictate their understanding of reality.
Apartments add a hard number to the petition needs to meet, yet are extremely difficult to obtain valid signatures due to the transient nature of apartments compared to single family homes.
The goal was to cut the high apartment areas for the initial city and then once formed those areas could more easily be absorbed over time.
But that isn’t nearly as fun to say as “look they dun like poor people!”
Behind every emotional tearjerker accusation there is a sound and logical reason. Sad people let emotion dictate their understanding of reality.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:58 pm to Joshjrn
A pure orange green yes/no map isn’t necessarily illustrative IMHO. A heat map showing percentages should be better.
I say that because I have family living within one “no” area who voted yes and they were hardly alone, they just had a few big “Together BR” assholes in there with them. They also had at least 1-2 apartment complexes in there too which may have skewed “no”.
I say that because I have family living within one “no” area who voted yes and they were hardly alone, they just had a few big “Together BR” assholes in there with them. They also had at least 1-2 apartment complexes in there too which may have skewed “no”.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:02 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
If the city of Baton Rouge actually cared about the neighborhoods that didn’t want to be part of St. George, why haven’t they started the annexation process for those areas?
Because that would be illegal. Areas have to request to be annexed, the city cannot initiate the process.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:02 pm to Kramer26
It was always going to end up at the LA Supreme Court to see if the City of BR can keep their tax colony.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:05 pm to thejuiceisloose
quote:
So you'd like to take the approach of "whatever the voters say, the law be damned"?
I'd like the approach that time and money isn't wasted on an election.
Explain to me how we got to vote for something that wasn't lawful, since you're saying StG was trying to pass law be damned? Why did we even get to vote for it?
Everything that is happening right now, should have happened before the vote took place. Once the vote takes place, it's done.
quote:
Ah the tell tale signs of a well reasoned competent argument.
or simply someone who's pissed off at our stupid arse gov't.
I dont' care if the vote was yes or no. I"m more irritated that the results of a vote aren't being upheld. If the results of the election were in favor of STG not being formed, and then the STG organizers were able to get that changed around, i'd still be irritated that would be allowed to happen.
I keep being told my vote matters, but apparently it fricking doesn't.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:06 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
I don’t have a lot of hope for the SC either
Why not move 1 Parish over?
frick Baton Rouge, let it burn.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:09 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Even in a truly local issue, big money ships in opposition to continue the track downward to a socialist hellhole so the elite get richer and tax payers stay being the batteries that charge the system implementing their own demise.
Very true. The backers of the Broome suit have ties to national organizations, some have Soros (yes, the boogieman) connections.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:11 pm to Kramer26
What a joke. The citizens want this and jumped through all the legal hoops to validate their desire to incorporate.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:14 pm to Kramer26
Under SUBPART A. MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION
Seems like this court threw out past judgements and reasoning against StG knowing they were incorrect and redid from beginning with a new attempt requiring higher standard than known for the above. Is Louisiana still a code law state?
This is part of the law since 1984. If other incorporations performed since used similar “plan” to StG they should be looked into if decision upheld. If decision was the case from the beginning wouldn’t BR or others including the state govt have stopped the vote in the first place? Or shouldn’t they have including by the governor and prior district court that ruled plan was sufficient while ruling against StG for other reasons (reasons that just got tossed aside)?
Also under SUBPART A. MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION
Also, Seems like “services” and “plan” part added to stop a vote in first place not be used afterwards as a back up plan. There is a reason why contesting after the fact is limited.
quote:
(4) A listing of the public services the municipal corporation proposes to render to the area and a plan for the provision of these services.
Seems like this court threw out past judgements and reasoning against StG knowing they were incorrect and redid from beginning with a new attempt requiring higher standard than known for the above. Is Louisiana still a code law state?
This is part of the law since 1984. If other incorporations performed since used similar “plan” to StG they should be looked into if decision upheld. If decision was the case from the beginning wouldn’t BR or others including the state govt have stopped the vote in the first place? Or shouldn’t they have including by the governor and prior district court that ruled plan was sufficient while ruling against StG for other reasons (reasons that just got tossed aside)?
Also under SUBPART A. MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION
quote:Governor has a law degree from LSU, and An election was held.
§3. Governor's determination; special election A. Upon receipt of the certificate from the registrar of voters, the governor shall determine if the petition complies with the provisions of this Subpart, including the requirement that in excess of two hundred inhabitants reside in the area proposed for incorporation. If the governor finds that there has been compliance with the provisions of this Subpart, he shall call a special election to be held on the next possible date for special elections specified in R.S. 18:402
Also, Seems like “services” and “plan” part added to stop a vote in first place not be used afterwards as a back up plan. There is a reason why contesting after the fact is limited.
quote:
Legal action contesting an incorporation
A. Any of the following persons or governmental entities may file a petition contesting the incorporation:
(1) Any elector residing in the area proposed for incorporation.
(2) Any person owning land in such area.
(3) Any municipality which might be adversely affected or an elected official of the governing authority of such a municipality.
quote:
The district court shall determine whether there has been full compliance with the provisions of this Subpart, including the accuracy of the statements in the petition and of the certification of the registrar of voters. The court shall also reach a determination as to whether the municipality can in all probability provide the proposed public services within a reasonable period of time and whether the incorporation is reasonable. In determining whether the incorporation is reasonable, the court shall consider the possible adverse effects the incorporation may have on other municipalities in the vicinity.
E.(1) If the district court determines that the provisions of this Subpart have been complied with, that the municipality has the capacity to provide the proposed public services within a reasonable period of time, and that the incorporation is reasonable, the district court shall enter an order declaring the date the municipality shall become incorporated. The order shall set forth the name and the boundaries of the municipality. Unless this order is vacated by a timely suspensive appeal, a copy of the order shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state.
(2)(a) If the district court determines that the provisions of this Subpart have not been complied with, that the proposed municipality will not be able to provide the public services proposed in the petition within a reasonable period of time, or that the incorporation is unreasonable, the district court shall enter an order denying the incorporation.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:23 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
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.
People were either going to complain because "they only included this are because they need some diversity so no one calls them racist" or they were going to complain because "see, they racist, they removed the primarily bad areas."
If SG gets passed, the people who are tired of the terrible CP form of Government will likely stay. If the matter loses and the election overturned, unfortunately a good chunk of people are going to vote with their feet and not stick around to watch the show.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:23 pm to Kramer26
If they were Amish they could have.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 1:25 pm to kingbob
quote:
Now, it’s being used by a black majority city to control a white majority parish.
Whites are no longer the majority in EBR.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News