re: St. George Organizers Sue City-Parish over Unlawful Annexations

quote:

---

The SG organizers do not believe that the anti-SG people have followed the law in this case, or in the case to prevent SG from forming.

---

I’m not arguing that there’s no legal basis for challenging the annexation. I’m saying that it’s beside the point. The principle motivations of the property owners and the entity fighting them are identical. The only purpose to lean on the technical differences between the two is to create a distraction from that fact.

You've made some very reasonable and well thought out arguments in support of St. George on this board. I've agreed with many of them. You're cutting out the legs of some of those arguments in this case.

Baton Rouge and St. George have both employed legalities to try to coerce property owners into paying them taxes instead of who they want to pay. You either have a problem with that or you don't.

quote:

---

They can do what they want once this thing is settled.

---

No they can't. Once it is settled they can ask to de-annex, but St. George doesn't have to allow it. The more prudent strategy if you know you don't want to be part of St. George is to get into Baton Rouge now before there is a St. George.

Had Governor Bel Edwards chosen the St. George leadership yet?

quote:

---

I’m not arguing that there’s no legal basis for challenging the annexation. I’m saying that it’s beside the point. The principle motivations of the property owners and the entity fighting them are identical. The only purpose to lean on the technical differences between the two is to create a distraction from that fact. You've made some very reasonable and well thought out arguments in support of St. George on this board. I've agreed with many of them. You're cutting out the legs of some of those arguments in this case. Baton Rouge and St. George have both employed legalities to try to coerce property owners into paying them taxes instead of who they want to pay. You either have a problem with that or you don't.

---

If the law was not followed and the Essen property owners were annexed into BR, do you support them? Yes or no?

If the law was not followed in this instance, would it become precedence and enable the law to be circumvented in the next case? Yes or No?

Those are the big issues here, everything else is a sideshow.

As for property owners being "coerced" to pay taxes, we the people really have little option. You can't pick and choose where your tax dollars go. You have to pay them.

But I do agree with this general principle, if the law is followed then property owners should be allowed to determine their destiny. If Mr. Landry wants in BR then he should be able to get in BR by following the law. You and I agree here. I'm just not for looking the other way, and letting this happen.

quote:

---

If the law was not followed and the Essen property owners were annexed into BR, do you support them? Yes or no?

If the law was not followed in this instance, would it become precedence and enable the law to be circumvented in the next case? Yes or No?

Those are the big issues here, everything else is a sideshow.

As for property owners being "coerced" to pay taxes, we the people really have little option. You can't pick and choose where your tax dollars go. You have to pay them.

But I do agree with this general principle, if the law is followed then property owners should be allowed to determine their destiny. If Mr. Landry wants in BR then he should be able to get in BR by following the law. You and I agree here. I'm just not for looking the other way, and letting this happen.

---

Those are very good questions. Let me try to clarify my position.

Baton Rouge had a legal basis in requiring St. George to form a city before forming an independent school district. Even though I recognized the legality of the situation, I was fundamentally against the outcome as a matter of principle. I supported St. George creating its own school district from the beginning because I believe providing taxpayers with control over how their tax dollars are spent takes primacy over legal technicalities (ignoring unreasonable cases).

Ultimately, St. George was able to find a way around those technicalities, but not until after being forced to waste their time, energy, and resources. Like me, many people supported St. George before successfully jumping through those hoops. Many of those same people are fighting property owners on Essen Lane today. That’s a hypocritical position to be in regardless of the justification.

quote:

---

If the law was not followed and the Essen property owners were annexed into BR, do you support them? Yes or no?

If the law was not followed in this instance, would it become precedence and enable the law to be circumvented in the next case? Yes or No?

---

Just to further clarify. Of course the law needs to be followed.

My position is that Baton Rouge supporters cared much more about their self interests' than they did about the letter of the law when they were fighting St. George. In many cases they cared about their self interests exclusively.

If it matters enough to people with resources, they will find away around the law or have the law changed.

You must be willing to acknowledge the similarities in this instance, no?

quote:

---

I really don't see the similarities.

I see one side not following the law, blocking a grassroots movement, and using their political influence to stop SG.

I see the other side finally responding and saying enough is enough. It's time to follow the law.

---

You honestly believe most people care more about the letter of the law than their self interest?

I agree with just about everything else you've said but that's a mighty cavalier opinion to hold.

quote:

---

So, let me get this straight.

St. George organizers are suing to keep property owners from leaving St. George?

That's rich.

---

I know it's hard but try to keep up. The SG organizers are suing the City-Parish for not following the law in these annexations, not the businesses.