- 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 Opposition Committing to Lawsuits
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:14 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:14 pm to LSURussian
I'm looking at RS 33:172, which I believe is what governs this, and it says this:
If I'm reading that correctly (I may not be), they have to have both 50% voters and 50% of properties.
quote:
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.
If I'm reading that correctly (I may not be), they have to have both 50% voters and 50% of properties.
1
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:17 pm to Brummy
quote:
If I'm reading that correctly (I may not be), they have to have both 50% voters and 50% of properties.
Good catch
Municipal Assoc. guy on local news confirmed your post.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:21 pm to LSURussian
quote:
It’s not difficult to understand nor is it particularly “interesting.’
It’s property that’s being annexed not people.
A hundred voters might rent in an apartment complex but they come and go. The property stays there.
So, it’s the property owner who requests his property to be annexed, or not annexed, not the renters who might also be voters. Or, not voters.
But in case of incorporation it’s all about voters and not property owners.
And someone found a law that indicates it’s both property owners and voters.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Stop, SFP. You’re swerving out of your Lake Charles lane.
i don't think EBR can annex white areas into the city b/c it will dilute black representation. it will be hilarious if EBR has to defend legitimately racist policies in order to combat the alleged racist St George
The city-parish joint form of government like EBR operates under doesn’t distinguish between city voters and parish voters. The mayor-president is over the entire parish and is voted on by everybody, including voters in Zachary, Baker and Central. And will continue to be voted on by SG voters.
City-Parish council district are not divided by “city” districts and “parish” districts. More than half of council districts represent both incorporated areas of Baton Rouge and unincorporated areas of the parish.
Moving white voters from an unincorporated part of the parish into the city of Baton Rouge has no effect on black voting strength for mayor-president nor the city-parish council.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:35 pm to LSURussian
I think the only impact is Constable and City Judges, anything else?
I think the voting rights thing was an excuse not to annex so they could save money.
I think the voting rights thing was an excuse not to annex so they could save money.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:40 pm to doubleb
quote:So?
But in case of incorporation it’s all about voters and not property owners.
Incorporation of a new municipality is not the same process as an existing municipality annexing unincorporated areas.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:41 pm to LSUengr
It’s play number 1 from anti freedom cowards. Try and get the courts to overrule the vote if I don’t like the result of the vote.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:55 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So?
Incorporation of a new municipality is not the same process as an existing municipality annexing unincorporated areas.
Understood
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:10 pm to doubleb
I just found an article in the Advocate online dated yesterday evening that I had not read before.
The lawyer/spokesman for SG, Drew Murrell, had this to say.
That seems reasonable.
Eta: But this is from another article tonight:
That’s confusing.
The lawyer/spokesman for SG, Drew Murrell, had this to say.
quote:LINK
When he was told Monday about the chatter regarding some residents and property owners now wanting to get out of St. George, Drew Murrell, attorney and spokesman for St. George, shrugged off any concerns.
“If they want to be a part of Baton Rouge, we encourage them to apply for annexation,” he said. “They’ve always had the ability to get annexed into Baton Rouge. The process has been around for 40 to 50 years.”
That seems reasonable.
Eta: But this is from another article tonight:
quote:LINK
Until the St. George incorporation is finalized, property owners and businesses seeking to join Baton Rouge have to submit annexation requests only to the East Baton Rouge Parish Metro Council for approval. But once the incorporation had happened, property owners would have to go through a two-step process to first be deannexed from St. George and then petition for annexation into Baton Rouge.
That’s confusing.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 10:18 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:15 pm to LSURussian
quote:
That seems reasonable.
I saw that this morning and I agree with Murrell and with you.
The law is clear as what these folks can do.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:24 pm to doubleb
See my edit after your post.
The new paragraph I added after editing is not clear to me at all.
Does it mean those areas who voted to not be incorporated into SG only have to petition the EBR council to be annexed by BR and not have to go through the “de-annexation” process from SG because the SG incorporation is not “finalized”?
Maybe Murrell would be fine with that and I’m the only one thinking it makes a big difference.
The new paragraph I added after editing is not clear to me at all.
Does it mean those areas who voted to not be incorporated into SG only have to petition the EBR council to be annexed by BR and not have to go through the “de-annexation” process from SG because the SG incorporation is not “finalized”?
Maybe Murrell would be fine with that and I’m the only one thinking it makes a big difference.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:12 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Does it mean those areas who voted to not be incorporated into SG only have to petition the EBR council to be annexed by BR and not have to go through the “de-annexation” process from SG because the SG incorporation is not “finalized”?
I think it's safe to say there's not been many other incorporation efforts recently that have generated as much drama as this one, so there's probably not a lot of precedent.
From a practical standpoint, this annexing after the fact potentially opens a huge can of worms. I went into the booth and cast a vote based on what I believed the map was going to look like after months of that info being available for criticism and debate. Now that map may change after the election has taken place. What if enough property is annexed into BR that I now don't believe the incorporation is viable (or vice versa), but my vote has already been cast?
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:18 pm to Godfather1
I guess Watson could technically try and become a city, although not sure what purpose that would serve. There probably needs to be cities in the state that need to close.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:26 pm to Brummy
You make a good point. I think my brain just exploded trying to think all the variables through.
The only thing I can think of is every municipality faces the possibility of having property owners wanting to be de-annexed.
I don’t recall that possibilty ever being mentioned by anyone from either “side” during this whole 5 year process.
I’m sure some attorneys would be happy to take your case.
The only thing I can think of is every municipality faces the possibility of having property owners wanting to be de-annexed.
I don’t recall that possibilty ever being mentioned by anyone from either “side” during this whole 5 year process.
I’m sure some attorneys would be happy to take your case.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 1:10 am to LSUengr
Libruls say the name 'St George' is racist because skinheads in England use the St George flag.
Other people might simply get tired of being jindalized with thinly veiled racist propaganda.
So why not change the name.
South Central
Other people might simply get tired of being jindalized with thinly veiled racist propaganda.
So why not change the name.
South Central
Posted on 10/16/19 at 1:50 am to LSUengr
St George still only side that has a hopeful plan for future. No one can explain to me why anyone would want to be part of City of Baton Rouge. Not John Enquist. Not ME Cormier. Not SWB.
“We are better together. Just trust us.”
“We are better together. Just trust us.”
Posted on 10/16/19 at 3:11 am to lsu13lsu
pretty soon we're ALL gonna have british accents. frick all those people from French
Posted on 10/16/19 at 6:01 am to LSUengr
If I was a contractor doing business with H&E I would tell them to pick all of their shite up off my job site by the end of the day
Posted on 10/16/19 at 6:33 am to PiscesTiger
Surprised, as they get so much practice
Posted on 10/16/19 at 7:01 am to LSUengr
Where I see de-annexation hurting is not in EBRP. I see it hurting small towns that annexed Wal-Mart, fab shop, or even a strip mall that brings revenue into the small town.
Let’s use for example and only an example Wal-mart or add busines here could decide the towns taxes are too high if I de-annex it saves x amount in property tax. Sales tax the consumer pays for that and it will hurt the town also losing that revenue. That is where this could start hurting small towns around Louisiana.
Let’s use for example and only an example Wal-mart or add busines here could decide the towns taxes are too high if I de-annex it saves x amount in property tax. Sales tax the consumer pays for that and it will hurt the town also losing that revenue. That is where this could start hurting small towns around Louisiana.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News