TooncesAndOmar

If she said it, I knew it would be from when she was in the legislature. I am asking for the direct quote from her.

Army - great find on that article. I look forward to reading that as it looks like it has a pretty detailed history of the school system/city incorporation. Funny how a lot of that predicted in 2013-2016 did come true.

It is easy to connect the dots: Bakery, Zachary, and Central were well established communities first THEN they got their school district, thus I can see St. George leaders saying, "Ok, then, we will too."

But many people blame/attribute this to Weston Broome kind of as a "alright then, we will!" to get back at her. I just don't see that it came from her.

I have been reading a lot of the explanations from StG folks about why Amendment 2 failed so significantly state wide and parish wide. And I see people still bring up Weston Broome stating, "start your own city and then you can get your school district." This story has become part of the mythos of the City of St. George.

I do think this is an interesting part of the history, but I can't find any quote where she said this. I have found a lot of quotes of people saying she said this (one reference comes from the Sadvocate) and many references from replies on TD and Facebook, etc... I know the Sadvocate is Real. Fake News. but the article is based on some kind of truth, right?

I wasn't paying any attention to the SE School District in 2013, so can someone here who was around then direct me to where she specifically said this?

:cheers:

That is how it worked out in the case with St. George. But my point was not the legal details in how to create a new city. My point was that those who pay more into any tax system - no matter the size or wealth - will always be able to say, "I am not getting my fair share in return." So just saying "they pay 25% of the funds so they should get [x] in return" is not enough of a reason on its own to justify a whole new school district (or city).

I think the bar needs to be higher especially when you are trying to convince voters. St. George was successful doing this for the city.

Also, not having a school board doesn't prevent leadership from giving some actual details that could help voters make a decision. Right now the message is, "EBR has done a terrible jobs for years; local control of tax dollars is better; we will have better schools; trust us." I don't mean for this to sound as snarky as it sounds, but these are actual quotes from the Mayor.

Two things can be true. EBR has not done a good job with the money and kids they have been entrusted with (with last year's realignment plan this is changing for the better). The other perspective is also why would EBR invest in an area where only a small percentage of those kids use the public school?

EBR public schools saw a significant drop in enrollment in the early 1980s when Judge Parker ordered mandated busing in 1981 to comply with federal desegregation orders. Who were the kids that left EBR public schools? Where did they go? Look at the creation dates of many of the private schools in the area. Look at who attends those schools. Magnet schools were created to "attract" those families who left back into the public schools.

The history shows there is a lot more nuance here, but the history is still important.

doubleb - thank you for sharing that and you have personal experience. All I can do is speak to the historical facts. Listening to everyone's story is really important.

quote:

---

Could someone shed light on the amendment for/against? I don’t see why the entire state has to vote on something in St. George/EBR PH.
The way it sounds is that St. George wants special treatment, but not sure.

---

It does make sense because all school districts get funds from the state MFP which comes from all of our taxes across the state. St. George School District would add another slice to the pie.

Big misconception that this is only a local issue. The school district is local but the funding is not. Every Louisiana tax payer deserves a say.

I wish this were so, and this would make the most intuitive sense... But the law states you must be enrolled in that school when the law becomes effective. Enrollment doesn't happen until the school year starts. So 2026 kindergartners are not grandfathered in.

Here is where it states that in the law:

"(B) A student in kindergarten through fifth grade may remain enrolled in the school attended on the effective date of this Act until the completion of fifth grade, and a student in sixth through eighth grade may remain enrolled in the school attended on the effective date of this Act until the completion of eighth grade."

The effective date is established in the next section:

"Section 5. This Act shall take effect and become operative if and when a proposed amendment [Amendment 2 we are voting on on May 16th] to Article VIII, Section 13(D)(1) of the Constitution of Louisiana is adopted at a statewide election and which amendment authorizes the St. George Community School System, as created in this Act or authorizes the creation of school districts by legislative act, as a system to be regarded and treated as a parish and have the authority granted to a parish school system as provided in Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution of Louisiana."

Thank you for an actual thoughtful response.

1. St. George likes to say this - “it is not our school district, it is YOUR school district.” Problem is the school board and superintendent who will be the first to actually make the new district are all appointed by the Governor.

2. That is the point. Teachers don’t know their salary. I prefer to not have the government and state legislators get involved and take my job away from me. I prefer to not have the government and state legislators get involved and force kids out of their schools. That is anti-conservative to me and not pro “school choice.”

3. I don’t think you thought this one through either. St. George school district literally does not exist yet. You mean if I move to a ‘different’ district…, then I can do my research and make accommodations. No parent or teacher can do that with St. George and St. George will be taking kids August 2027. Yet St. George wants our tax money. Just give some plan more than “trust us.”

4. Central and Zachary are still very different. Not sure anyone can argue that they are different sizes, located further away (not as much teacher/residence overlap, and have different demographics. Central and Zachary grew up and left the house as adults. St. George and EBR are going through a divorce.

EBR superintendent is Lamont Cole. Where is his quote?

Since you are at least attempting to provide some data and engage with the topic...

quote:

---

The ignorance of many of you is astounding. MN incident was carried out by a Tim Waltz staffer complete with "no kings" material in his car.

Gabby Giffords was shot the same day a Republican Judge, also in the crowd, was killed.

You typed out a lot of words just to prove how ignorant you are.

---

Missing my point completely. So having a homemade "no kings" flier in your car makes someone a DEM? Seems a pretty low standard. I am asking for OP and you now to tell me the facts that 100% make someone a DEM (or a REP)?

Political ideology is not so easily clear cut. My point is that violence and rhetoric come from both sides.

Boelter - MN assassin - was an evangelical Christian and "Trump supporter" LINK

Not a Walz staffer that I could find. Please provide evidence.

Routh - attempted Trump assassin - all over the place: donated to Gabbard, voted for Trump in 2016, voted Dem in 2024 LINK

Crooks - attempted Trump assassin - donated $15 dollars to Biden at 17 years old and registered REP at 18 LINK

People are highly complex. Motivations and ideology are much more confusing than media or politicians want it say that it is. I agree it is much simpler and easier to call me ignorant.

You still haven't provided any evidence to support your beliefs. Which is fine. You can have whatever belief that you want. It just makes it too difficult to have a conversation on it, if that is what you want to have. I don't want to do the heavy lifting here or provide counter examples that you won't engage with anyway.

I am not around internet news enough to know which websites are left leaning or right leaning, so just engage with the content, instead of immediately criticizing the source.

1 and 4. Are you saying no one on the right/Republican has ever celebrated the death or attack of a political opponent/someone on the left/DEM? Are you saying no one on the right has ever called for violence or spread violent rhetoric against DEMs or people on the left?

Don Jr. Halloween costume about Paul Pelosi attack LINK

Trump retweeting Biden hog tied (simplest link I could find LINK)

Plenty of pro Trump people calling to hang Mike Pence


2. Are you saying no one on the left/democrat has ever been assassinated by someone on the right/republican?

Gabby Giffords (attempted assassination)
Minnesota state legislators LINK

3. Are you saying that the Trump attempted assassin (x2) as well as the guy who put a hit out on Pam Bondi are DEMs?

Provide your evidence that these individuals are DEMs. I have read a lot this. They have no clear ideology that I can see. In fact, they show more right leaning support than left. I am not sure if donating 15 dollars to a dem organization makes you a dem anymore than the other guy voting for Trump in 2016 automatically makes him a REP.


5. I tried to find evidence of this, so please show me the evidence
quote:
People in the US Congress call for REPs to be killed.

I was not able to find a US Congressman named Jay Jones. I found a story about a former Virginia state congressman named Jay Jones say some pretty horrible things. Not ok at all and saying to shoot someone is no just easy mistake to make.

There is a lot more information I could easily find about violent rhetoric from the right, and there is just as much I could find about violent rhetoric from the left. Which supports my position that violent rhetoric is equivalent from either side. I am starting to think that you are just trolling me as you could find the same information that I do, yet you just choose not to provide it. Certainly there is more and more as you look at individual social media posts from just regular individuals. I don't want to put more effort into this than you are.

So if you want to engage more, provide specific links that show the Trump potential assassins were DEMs (which begs the question, how do you know if someone is a DEM?)

Also, what evidence would you need to see that could change your mind that REPs might be more violent than you believe currently?

My position is that I want people to just be honest about the facts and genuinely engage with them, regardless of your final conclusion. Social media echo chambers aren't great for that...