re: St. George LA denied incorporation by Court of Appeals

What part of the legal analysis did you find to be lacking?

quote:

---

Moving forward, my administration remains dedicated to addressing the needs of our community, promoting inclusivity, and pursuing opportunities that will benefit all residents. Let us embrace this moment of triumph and continue working together to build a stronger, more united Baton Rouge.

---

Except all you “St. George” people. We’re gonna keep screwing you. - SWB

Wow! And I wanted to move back to BR in 5-7 years.

The Hayride

quote:

---

Ultimately it’s not that big a deal, because the case was always going to be appealed up to the state Supreme Court regardless of who won which round at the circuit level, but the First Circuit Court of Appeals told the St. George organizers that their proposed-and-voted-on civic incorporation in East Baton Rouge Parish is a no-go.

You might not be very impressed with the justification for the decision

---

quote:

---

What’s especially unimpressive about this is that the St. George people actually had the plan the court is talking about, and they also published that plan – on their web site – and throughout the petition effort the organizers were quite active in telling folks where they could go to see the plan.

They just didn’t put the plan on the incorporation petition, which would have made it a lot bigger document than the one-page thing they were circulating.

We talked to a couple of attorneys this morning while reading through this, and what we got in reaction was something less than admiration for the legal reasoning here. Both took the position that this was a gaggle of Baton Rouge judges who were afraid to rock the boat against the Powers That Be in the city’s legal community, so they found this little overhang to hide under.

---

quote:

---

Apparently, the First Circuit waited for four months to issue this ruling because they had to get the state librarian to send over transcripts of the legislative debate about the statute in question when it was passed in 1984.

There was no internet in 1984. Had there been, it’s hard to imagine that the statute would be written to require that every last element of a civic incorporation petition be printed on the same paper the organizers were trying to get residents to sign. That seemed absurd to us, and it seemed absurd to the attorneys we talked to as well. There’s the letter of the law, and then there’s the letter set completely opposite to the spirit of the law.

---

quote:

---

This ruling by the First Circuit never even gets to the substance of the case. They just reversed the trial judge’s ruling that the petition had met the statutory requirement for publishing a plan of government and threw St. George out that way.

---

quote:

---

Our impression is that this is going to ultimately lead to a de novo review of the entire thing by the state Supreme Court. And that expectation would perhaps explain why this First Circuit ruling, despite taking up 27 pages, seems to have dodged the substantial question of “reasonability” altogether.

No wonder the attorneys we talked to weren’t impressed with this cop-out.

---

Rumor is that there is a plan to annex all of this area into BR, as a last FU to the metro council, mayor, etc.

This will bankrupt BR as it is way too much land mass to support.

First let it go to where it goes the state Supreme Court.

If that fails.

Force BR to annex all this area which will bankrupt the city in no time.

quote:

---

Rumor is that there is a plan to annex all of this area into BR, as a last FU to the metro council, mayor, etc. This will bankrupt BR as it is way too much land mass to support. First let it go to where it goes the state Supreme Court. If that fails. Force BR to annex all this area which will bankrupt the city in no time.

---

By what mechanism would they be able to force that?

quote:

---

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.

---

It’s not high road or low road. That’s pretty much incorporation in Louisiana if not many other places.

It can also be how annexations are done if a city wanted. A lot of challenges built in, but for most getting written approval from half of voters and half of resident owners including 25% of the land value involved can force it on everyone else or force those opposed to fight it. Annexation can also go through an election process with just 25% of resident owners (and of the value of the land) approving an election to take place on annexation and then just need the majority of votes in the election to force it on others. Just need a majority in an election to annex contiguous areas.

quote:

---

written assent of a majority of the registered voters and a majority in number of the resident property owners as well as twenty-five percent in value of the property of the resident property owners within the area proposed to be included in the corporate limits. RS 33:172

The issue is that a lot of those homes are rental properties, with many of them being out of state owners. They would never be able to get the majority of property owners to sign.

---

I don’t see it happening on either side regardless of BR’s Better Together crap, but why does out of state matter when it’s the majority of resident owners. Does resident property owners mean something else in Louisiana?

Also one alternate method (D, 2) using an election to approve annexation would require lower approval %s of resident owners to allow BR to call for an election to annex area and then need just the majority who actually vote in that election. Could probably end up surrounding some areas and then attempt use D,1. These still require support from existing city govt which is never going to happen if it causes blacks to lose majority.

quote:

---

D.(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraphs (A)(1) through (5) of this Section, any municipality may annex contiguous areas without the petitions required by Subsection A of this Section, by ordinance, provided prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, the question of the annexation shall be submitted to the qualified voters residing within the area proposed to be annexed in a special election called for that purpose by the municipality, and a majority of those voting at such election shall have voted in favor of the annexation.
(2) Any municipality may also call such an election after being requested to do so through a petition signed by at least twenty-five percent of the resident property owners residing in the area requesting annexation and by the owners of at least twenty-five percent in value of the resident property within such area. The valuation of the property shall be determined as set forth in Subsection A of this Section. The petition presented to the municipality shall contain an accurate description of the area proposed to be annexed. All elections called under the provisions of this Subsection shall be conducted in the same manner as are other special elections called for bond and tax purposes by municipalities.

---

Yeah.
Is it possible that we can do better than to rely on The Hayride for best legal analysis of recent judicial decisions?
Seems to me there is too much political influence in our judicial system as it is, but here three white Republican judges affirmed the trial judge in finding St G screwed it up. They did. The law is not on their side. I know many are disappointed.
YET many folks here suggest the result is b/c of black folks. Or Biden. Or Hilary’s emails….
Sometimes our political expectations are not fulfilled; but it is not always because Karl Marx or malcolm X intervened.