- 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 Organizers Sue City-Parish over Unlawful Annexations
Posted on 2/11/20 at 10:47 am to southdowns84
Posted on 2/11/20 at 10:47 am to southdowns84
quote:
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.
I agree, many people will bend, skate, and even ignore the law when its in their best interests. I'm not naïve.
But take a deep breath and think, if you were one of the two private individuals that the Mayor sued to block SG, would you just slough something like this off or decide to say enough is enough and defend your "turf"?
It's a dirty deal, the mayor and her people made it so. You can't try to stay clean in a situation like this. JMHO
1
Posted on 2/11/20 at 10:52 am to PoBoy1
quote:
Did you read the Petition?
No and I guess you didn’t either
Article say the property “must be contiguous with the boundary between the two cities.” Don’t see how this isn’t met. Thought they were right on the border
Posted on 2/11/20 at 10:56 am to crewdepoo
quote:
Thought they were right on the border
Close, but no.
Posted on 2/11/20 at 11:02 am to tommy2tone1999
You don’t need much to be connected. Isn’t Essan part of br
Posted on 2/11/20 at 11:11 am to doubleb
quote:
I agree, many people will bend, skate, and even ignore the law when its in their best interests. I'm not naïve.
But take a deep breath and think, if you were one of the two private individuals that the Mayor sued to block SG, would you just slough something like this off or decide to say enough is enough and defend your "turf"?
It's a dirty deal, the mayor and her people made it so. You can't try to stay clean in a situation like this. JMHO
Oh no, we agree fully here. The mayor and Baton Rouge are a joke.
I was exaggerating the argument to illustrate a specific point. The overall significance of that point admittedly falls apart under greater scrutiny, which is what I believe you are essentially saying.
Posted on 2/11/20 at 11:17 am to crewdepoo
quote:
No and I guess you didn’t either
Article say the property “must be contiguous with the boundary between the two cities.” Don’t see how this isn’t met. Thought they were right on the border
there is a lot subject to interpretation. The petetion concedes that One United Plaza and "the public road are contiguous." The other properties become contiguous as the neighboring parcel is annexed.
The petition really hinges on whether notice to annex the road was given to necessary municipal subdivisions in the proper timeframe. I think St. George is claiming they were not notified, therefore the annexation of the road is not valid, so then the annexations of the properties are also invalid.
BR will contend that St. George isn't a municipal subdivision yet, and they had no duty to notify them. It will depend on the Judge, and that is really the end of it. No one can really know which position is correct.
This post was edited on 2/11/20 at 11:18 am
Posted on 2/11/20 at 11:21 am to tommy2tone1999
quote:
Baton Rouge had a legal basis in requiring St. George to form a city before forming an independent school district.
Wrong.
Posted on 2/11/20 at 11:23 am to crewdepoo
quote:
No and I guess you didn’t either
I did. You should, too.
Posted on 2/11/20 at 11:31 am to BlackAdam
quote:
there is a lot subject to interpretation. The petetion concedes that One United Plaza and "the public road are contiguous." The other properties become contiguous as the neighboring parcel is annexed.
Yes
quote:
The petition really hinges on whether notice to annex the road was given to necessary municipal subdivisions in the proper timeframe. I think St. George is claiming they were not notified, therefore the annexation of the road is not valid, so then the annexations of the properties are also invalid.
I believe Essen is a start road/highway. Was the state properly notified and did the state respond that they were. If not then BR annexed Essen without the state's legal approval. That's what the petition indicates.
quote:
BR will contend that St. George isn't a municipal subdivision yet, and they had no duty to notify them. It will depend on the Judge, and that is really the end of it. No one can really know which position is correct.
Will EBR parish and BR say that? Officially they have not. Broome, Cole and the others blocked SG as private citizens. The question now is what will the legal governing authority(the Metro Council) say now.
And I agree, the judges will have to decide all of this.
It will be interesting to see the Metro Council finally have to respond officially.
Posted on 2/11/20 at 11:38 am to doubleb
Judge Chip Moore will hear the case.
Posted on 2/11/20 at 11:43 am to tommy2tone1999
It’s good it’s not one of the Democrats.
This post was edited on 2/11/20 at 11:45 am
Posted on 2/11/20 at 1:01 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
Judge Chip Moore will hear the case.
Posted on 2/11/20 at 1:08 pm to rowbear1922
quote:
quote:
Lol @ st. George
Lol @ anyone WANTING to live in the murderous, disease infested, shite hole known as the city of Baton Rouge
Both are pretty lol IMO
Posted on 2/11/20 at 1:36 pm to PoBoy1
I'll take him over Fields or Trudy White
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News