- 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: Mall of La / BR General petition for Annexation into City
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:46 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:46 pm to LSURussian
what's the over/under of just going the opposite direction and redrawing the parish lines so we can squeeze SBR into ascension parish?
#dreambig
#dreambig
0
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:52 pm to LSURussian
quote:
, the law doesn't say that. They are just included in the total number of property owners which the 50%+ threshold must meet in order for it to be a valid annexation petition. I know because I own some residential property that was annexed a few years ago and I didn't "assent" to it. In fact, I didn't even know it was being considered for annexation. I read about it after it happened
So if its a rental complex, just the owner gets a say?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:53 pm to LSURussian
quote:
No, the law doesn't say that.
They are just included in the total number of property owners which the 50%+ threshold must meet in order for it to be a valid annexation petition.
I know because I own some residential property that was annexed a few years ago and I didn't "assent" to it.
In fact, I didn't even know it was being considered for annexation. I read about it after it happened.
Am I not understanding this then? LINK
quote:
§172. Petition to annex territory; valuation of property; notice of filing petition; hearing concerning proposed ordinance; alternative methods
No ordinance enlarging the boundaries of a municipality shall be valid unless, prior to the adoption thereof, a petition has been presented to the governing body of a municipality containing the 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, all according to the certificates of the parish assessor and parish registrar of voters.
(b) If there are no registered voters residing in the area proposed for annexation, then the requirement for a majority of the registered voters on the petition shall not apply.
Were you registered to vote at your rental property location or your actual home? If you were registered to vote outside of that area, you probably weren't included in the petition.
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:53 pm to magildachunks
Yes, that's how the law reads. "Property owners" not residents.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:54 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Yes, that's how the law reads. "Property owners" not residents.
See above. Registered voters.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:58 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Mickey, I'm going by the EBR annexation ordinance which I linked to and quoted a couple of weeks ago.
ETA: Here it is: LINK
ETA: Here it is: LINK
quote:
SECTION 1.09 Additions to the Boundaries of the City of Baton Rouge Whenever a majority in number and amount of property tax payers, as certified by the Assessor, in any compact body of land adjoining the City of Baton Rouge but not part of an industrial area, shall petition the governing body of the city to be included in the boundaries of the City of Baton Rouge the said body shall fix a time, not less than ten nor more than thirty days after the filing of such petition, at which it shall hold a public hearing on the proposal to so extend the boundaries of the City of Baton Rouge. Notice of such hearing and of its time, place, objects and purposes, shall be given by publication twice in the official journal of the parish, which publication shall be completed not less than five days prior to the hearing. The valuation of the property owned by each of the signers of the petition shall be certified by the Parish Assessor as the valuation of such property appears in the last completed assessment of property, provided that he shall take account of subsequent change of ownership and if in any case the property of the present owner has not been specifically assessed the Assessor is authorized and directed to estimate the value of such property. After the conclusion of the hearing the governing body of the city may in its discretion add by ordinance, without additional public hearing, such body of land to the boundaries of the City of Baton Rouge and as such it shall become part of the City of Baton Rouge. Such ordinance shall be published in accordance with law and shall not go into effect until the thirtieth day following its final passage. During such period any citizen of the city or the area proposed to be added thereto may file and appeal therefrom in the District Court in the manner and with the effect provided by law. After the conclusion of such period the ordinance shall not be contested or attacked for any reason or cause whatever. (As amended October 20, 2007)
quote:Yes and it was property that my home was on. No rental property involved.
Were you registered to vote at your rental property location or your actual home?
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:10 pm to LSURussian
Unless there is law to the contrary specifically allowing BR to be excluded, state law would trump the city ordinance.
Assuming the city ordinance is applicable here though, then half of those property owners would still have to be included in the petition.
Assuming the city ordinance is applicable here though, then half of those property owners would still have to be included in the petition.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:13 pm to Golfer
quote:
It's actually a perfect fit for him...
I was thinking the same thing.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:54 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:There is a host of exceptions to the law you posted excluding parishes and in some cases specific towns. I didn't see EBR or BR on the list but the RS pages before and after the page you linked also include annexation exceptions and I didn't feel like reading all of those pages.
Unless there is law to the contrary specifically allowing BR to be excluded, state law would trump the city ordinance.
I noticed the law you linked kept referring to the "parish council" as the governing body and EBR does not have a parish council. It has a consolidated city-parish council and that may be the exception that allows BR to have a different process for annexations.
I'll let the lawyers haggle over that issue.
In any case, I'm pretty sure the BR ordinance which I linked is the process that any annexation follows for Baton Rouge.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:11 pm to Mickey Goldmill
While we all knew the City was trying to do this, I'm honestly surprised the property owners went along so easily, seemingly anyway.
A few things do need clearing up though....
1.This annexation is for the mall proper. All of the outlying restaurants,stores,strip malls etc that are included in the tax revenue considerations have seperate owners, and each would have to petition for annexation. I have no idea what the tax revenue breakdown would be.
2. The metro-council still has to approve this. They probably will, but it will not be a unanimous vote like the Cosco/Celtic issue was. As of right now the issue is scheduled to be heard May 28. If St.George turns in the signatures before then, then what does that do? Does the legal burden shift? Is it a first come first serve issue? Sounds like lawyers may get involved.
A few things do need clearing up though....
1.This annexation is for the mall proper. All of the outlying restaurants,stores,strip malls etc that are included in the tax revenue considerations have seperate owners, and each would have to petition for annexation. I have no idea what the tax revenue breakdown would be.
2. The metro-council still has to approve this. They probably will, but it will not be a unanimous vote like the Cosco/Celtic issue was. As of right now the issue is scheduled to be heard May 28. If St.George turns in the signatures before then, then what does that do? Does the legal burden shift? Is it a first come first serve issue? Sounds like lawyers may get involved.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:15 pm to Sprocket46
This clears up the contiguous issue. Level Ventures, LLC which owns a 90-lot subdivision between Anselmo and the Mall is what is connection everything.
https://businessreport.com/article/20140505/BUSINESSREPORT0112/140509915
https://businessreport.com/article/20140505/BUSINESSREPORT0112/140509915
quote:
Also petitioning for annexation with the mall and hospitals is Level Ventures, which owns a 90-lot subdivision of single-family homes off of Anselmo Lane across Bluebonnet Boulevard from the mall.
The subdivision is a key piece of the annexation puzzle because it abuts the city limits and only properties that are contiguous with city limits are eligible to petition for annexation. Level's petition, therefore, makes possible that of the mall.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:16 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
2. The metro-council still has to approve this. They probably will, but it will not be a unanimous vote like the Cosco/Celtic issue was. As of right now the issue is scheduled to be heard May 28. If St.George turns in the signatures before then, then what does that do? Does the legal burden shift? Is it a first come first serve issue? Sounds like lawyers may get involved.
https://www.nola.com/news/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/05/mall_of_louisiana_baton_rouge_1.html
quote:
The matter could come down to timing, however. Metro Council Member Joel Boe, who would be a key vote on the council, said one of his colleagues has requested an opinion from the state attorney general on whether the annexations would invalidate the petition.
He said he doesn't want to vote on the issue until they get that opinion, which he expects would take at least a month. Meanwhile, the St. George campaign has said they are nearing the end of their signature-gathering, and would have to turn their signatures in by July 23 if the issue is going to be on the November ballot. And Baton Rouge's plan of government says that annexations don't become official until 30 days after a vote.
The timing raises questions about what would happen if the signatures are turned in before the annexations occur, and whether the petition would still be valid at that point.
Boe said he doesn't want to make a decision that negates the signature process.
"It's quite a quandary here, because you have some businesses that are following their method and their democratic process, but the negative side effect of it is that it may negate the democratic due process that the St. George supporters have done," he said.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:24 pm to Mickey Goldmill
My question was somewhat rhetorical, but it sounds like the council, and powers that be, on both sides are unclear. 
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:30 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
1.This annexation is for the mall proper. All of the outlying restaurants,stores,strip malls etc that are included in the tax revenue considerations have seperate owners, and each would have to petition for annexation. I have no idea what the tax revenue breakdown would be.
I know that there has been talk on here regarding what is and isn't the mall. It looks like everything on that side of bluebonnet is owned by General Growth Properties.
LINK
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:37 pm to Mickey Goldmill
The land may all be owned by GGP, but do the individual stores/restaurants outside of the main building not retain ownership of their buildings/stores? It was a question I previously heard answered in a manner that said those places would have to seperately petition for annexation.
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:42 pm to Sprocket46
After reading up on their website, it's not 100% clear but my take is that the land is leased so if that's the case, General Growth Properties is the only property owner and the only one who has to petition.
Even if the individual business do own the physical buildings, if they are leasing the land, it's likely that they wouldn't have the property rights to be included.
Even if the individual business do own the physical buildings, if they are leasing the land, it's likely that they wouldn't have the property rights to be included.
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:50 pm to Rickety Cricket
quote:
That was a great takedown of the typical Kip hater.
Oh snap, you sure got me.
I voted for Kip Holden, and I live in the SG area. I was unsure, and still am, on how I would vote.
But one thing that has made me consider voting for SG was the absolute racist treatment of SG people by members of the metro council, as well as statements by hizzonor himself. Kip will be more than happy to see those who've pushed hard for SG leave if they do so before his term is up.
Kip's not running for re-election. His actions AND words in this whole debacle, as well as some of those gems on the Metro Council, have convinced me that race as much as money had much to do with it. And while he has no control over the school system, instead of acting as a leader, and seeking to bring the School System and the people of SG together, he has been nothing by divisive.
My kids attended Catholic schools. I'm a product of Catholic School education, and thus it's been important to my family.
But I care about my community, and I feel for the kids who are stuck in the Public School System. You will continue to see flight from this Parish, by people who can't afford to pay for private school, as well as those who can, but choose not to pay twice for their kids education.
And nothing will ever convince me that the majority of the "Better Together" folks, in the mostly white middle and upper middle class neighborhoods, have no problem with the status quo in the Public School System. Their kids are in the Magnet Schools. But the Black and White kids of Village St. George and the Gardere area are the losers here.
As I've said, I come in contact with these kids. And they deserve better than what they're getting or going to get.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 6:55 pm to redandright
quote:
But the Black and White kids of Village St. George and the Gardere area are the losers here.
I agree that these areas should have their own school system if they want it. The intense battle got heated once this small area became double its original size.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:00 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I agree that these areas should have their own school system if they want it. The intense battle got heated once this small area became double its original size.
Which was the whole point of the SG idea.
If some of you people could see what how those kids are spoken to by their teachers, you would be disgusted.
But as I said, they have no power, they're expendable. And anyone who calls out the powers of EBRP has it implied that they are racists.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:16 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If you know Browning personally encourage him to run for office, hopefully for Mayor-President of EBR.
This was his #1 objective in the first place, being an elected official
Page 5 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News