- 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: How the St. George vote broke down by voting precinct
Posted on 10/14/19 at 12:10 pm to tommy2tone1999
Posted on 10/14/19 at 12:10 pm to tommy2tone1999
I bet that vote percentage changes after the fact. Seriously, if you voted against SG, would you allow your home to be annexed to Baton Rouge? Something tells me no.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 11:02 pm to partyboy1930
quote:According to the map in the OP a majority in that area voted against being incorporated into St. George. That’s also the case for a rather large area south of Highland Road almost all the way to I-10.
I live in Oak Hills and there are a lot of people against it for some reason.
Eta:

This post was edited on 10/14/19 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 10/14/19 at 11:16 pm to NPComb
Truth. I have relatives in Oak Hills who are disgusted that they are "forced" to live in St George. They bought all the fear tactics the opponents were selling. They old.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 11:32 pm to Upperdecker
Fort Worth (and probably many decent sized cities in every state) does the same thing. Fort Worth owns a strip of land on either side of 35 up to texas motor speedway. Even though it’s 20 miles north of Fort Worth, it has a Fort Worth address. American Airlines HQ is also in the city of Fort Worth even though you have to drive through 3 other towns to get there from Fort Worth. It’s purely a tax thing. This isn’t unique to BR.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 11:37 pm to The Boat
Is it possible to be unannexed? If so how difficult is that process?
Posted on 10/15/19 at 8:49 am to The Rodfather
quote:Yes. It's the reverse of requesting to be annexed.
Is it possible to be unannexed? If so how difficult is that process?
A majority of property owners must sign a petition to be un-annexed and the petition is presented to the local governing body.
That body then must vote its approval of the petition. If the motion to un-annex is approved, that area then reverts to unincorporated property.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 8:53 am to LSURussian
quote:
Yes. It's the reverse of requesting to be annexed.
A majority of property owners must sign a petition to be un-annexed and the petition is presented to the local governing body.
That body then must vote its approval of the petition. If the motion to un-annex is approved, that area then reverts to unincorporated property.
You explained it better than the paper did this morning.
You thinking of getting out of BR now????
JK ........
Posted on 10/15/19 at 8:56 am to johnnyrocket
quote:
Then they talk about gerrymandering.
The street to the servitude’s and that lot are in the City of BR, while they passed up other homes and businesses.
I really don’t understand how that was legal, but since no one protested it passed I guess.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 8:58 am to tommy2tone1999
quote:
The house on Jones Creek annexed in to BR back in 1976 because he wanted fire protection for his insurance. SGFD was only a small volunteer department back then.
Who was the home owner back in the day? I thought he was some kind of wheel.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:04 am to The Boat
Noticed if you live in the BR area and pull up Google Maps, the boundaries of St.G are displayed on the map.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:04 am to doubleb
quote:Nope.
You thinking of getting out of BR now????
But some people living in those large contiguous areas on either side of Highland Road from about Bluebonnet almost to I-10 where a majority of voters didn't want to be incorporated are already discussing how they can remain unincorporated and not be included into St. George.
You've been saying all along that a majority of voters should be allowed to determine their own future, right?
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:05 am to LSURussian
Are they able to opt out? I know other areas are able to opt in if they want, so it only makes sense to work both ways.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:11 am to MrJimBeam
quote:I would think there could be an opt out provision where a majority of voters or property owners don't want to be incorporated.
Are they able to opt out?
But other than the "un-annexation" process I described above, I'm not aware of an "opt out" feature.
It might take a lawsuit to get a judge to rule on them opting out. I don't know.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:17 am to LSURussian
Maps like this are somewhat misleading because a large geographical area doesn’t necessarily equate to a large number of voters.
Precinct 3-56 went 223 yes and 308 no or 531 votes total.
Precinct 3-66 went 278 yes and 185 no or 464 total votes and it is much smaller area wise.
Precinct 3-49 (A+B) had a total of 661 votes and it’s relatively small in area
Then look at 3-70(A+B) it went for SG and it had 647 total votes, but yes won by just 21 votes. The colors really don’t indicate if the vote was close or not.
Precinct 3-56 went 223 yes and 308 no or 531 votes total.
Precinct 3-66 went 278 yes and 185 no or 464 total votes and it is much smaller area wise.
Precinct 3-49 (A+B) had a total of 661 votes and it’s relatively small in area
Then look at 3-70(A+B) it went for SG and it had 647 total votes, but yes won by just 21 votes. The colors really don’t indicate if the vote was close or not.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:19 am to LSURussian
quote:
But some people living in those large contiguous areas on either side of Highland Road from about Bluebonnet almost to I-10 where a majority of voters didn't want to be incorporated are already discussing how they can remain unincorporated and not be included into St. George.
You've been saying all along that a majority of voters should be allowed to determine their own future, right?
I certainly do. That’s their call, not mine. I have absolutely no issue with that.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:22 am to doubleb
quote:Misleading how? A majority is a majority, right?
Maps like this are somewhat misleading because a large geographical area doesn’t necessarily equate to a large number of voters.
"Close" only matters in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:24 am to LSURussian
quote:
I would think there could be an opt out provision where a majority of voters or property owners don't want to be incorporated.
But other than the "un-annexation" process I described above, I'm not aware of an "opt out" feature.
It might take a lawsuit to get a judge to rule on them opting out. I don't know.
They will be in SG (if things go as planned) and then they could petition to get out.
Then there would be an election. Sort of SG in reverse.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:29 am to LSURussian
quote:
Misleading how? A majority is a majority, right?
quote:
Misleading how? A majority is a majority, right?
"Close" only matters in horseshoes and hand grenades.
The map doesn’t indicate the number of voters. Just because one precinct is very large on the map it doesn’t mean it had more voters than another precinct 80% smaller.
And in comparison to other maps I saw after the election where they shaded an area to indicate level of support for one candidate over the other candidates, it’s not that informative.
But yes you are right, one vote can make the difference in winning and in losing. Ask Carter and Foil, they know.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:32 am to LSURussian
quote:
Misleading how?
Because a majority of the manchac area (3-56) is farm and wetlands.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 9:32 am
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:32 am to doubleb
My area was a lot closer than I had hoped, but it wasn't too bad percentage wise after looking closer. I talked a few neighbors into the whole st george idea after a few discussions. Not sure if they actually voted, though.
Popular
Back to top


0




