jujubee1206

LINK

The constitution limits what it can be used for. 25% has to go into the Budget Stabilization Fund and another 25% has to be used to pay down the state's unfunded accrued liability. Even the remaining 50% can only be used for a limited set of purposes, including those two items, bond defeasance, capital outlay projects, coastal protection, and highway construction.

Yikes. As a fellow working class person,
I definitely never said any of that but go off if it makes you feel better. Clearly some underlying inadequacies happening there. Hope you get the help you need!

Nope. I just have an intolerance for both lactose and stupidity.

On top of that, St. George should be eager to get a revenue generating development online because, fiscally speaking, what exactly is the non-property tax engine there right now?

There aren’t major commercial corridors carrying the load. The tax base is mostly houses, churches, schools, and a scattering of strip centers trying to pass for a retail economy while most residents still drive into Baton Rouge to spend real money. Because Baton Rouge retained the region’s dominant retail and healthcare corridors (Siegen, Bluebonnet, Acadian, Essen, and College) most of which are anchored by major arterial and interstate access routes.

Opposing development at one of the few logical high-value commercial sites inside St. George seems counterintuitive to setting up the city for success.

This is still MX-3 vs MX-4 at a major interchange the state already built and partially expropriated land for. Treating a step-down in intensity there like it’s routine, no-big-deal zoning is a stretch.

Nobody is asking for special treatment. The issue is whether a key interchange site gets treated like a regional node or capped below that.

Zoning shouldn’t depend on who owns the property or whether or not you think they're "assholes". It’s supposed to be about land use, location, and planning context. Once you start grounding the argument in ownership and likability instead of policy, you've already lost it. Based on your statement, if someone owned two acres and wanted to put a 10 story apartment building on it in the same location, you'd be fine with it?

Exactly. The Kleinpeter family has owned the land for generations and held it long-term. Now that they are planning to develop the remaining property, the rules are being rewritten at the 11th hour.

There was a reasonable expectation, based on typical zoning around regional interchanges, that MX-4 level development would remain on the table. These kinds of developments do not get planned overnight. They take years of holding costs, engineering, traffic work, and coordination around major infrastructure like the interchange.

When the state expropriated portions of the property and constructed the interchange, that is what those long-term plans were effectively built around. Now the city is changing the development baseline after the biggest public investment in the corridor has already been made.

Also to clarify, my response was directly related to the "why am I voting for this in [insert parish here]" question. That reason is MFP funding and how it works. But I definitely did not mean to imply it is the only funding districts spend on public education!

Federal funding is not part of the MFP formula.

The formula is specifically used to determine the allocation of state and local responsibility for funding of public school systems.

For FY 27, the EBR Parish School System is projected to receive approximately $123.1 M in state Level 1 MFP funding, while the local share is projected at just under $122 M. But to be clear these amounts reflect Level 1 funding only, not total school system funding. The remaining MFP levels build upon the Level 1 base and provide additional adjustments and funding components. Level 1 is the starting point and where the 65%/35% statewide split must be maintained.

Level 2 of the MFP is the “incentive” portion of the formula. While Level 1 establishes the base funding amount and equalizes state/local responsibility, Level 2 is intended to encourage local school systems to generate and spend additional local revenue above the minimum required amount.

Level 3 is additional funding for specific student populations and educational priorities through targeted allocations added on top of the Level 1 base funding.

It's a pretty complex formula. Even the above is oversimplifying it and not comprehensive. And given the FY 27 formula includes BESE proposals that the legislature is likely not going to act on (the state has been using the same MFP formula since FY 23) the above amounts are probably a bit inflated, but the general explanation of how it works still applies.

The MFP is a statewide balancing formula. The formula is designed so that public education funding statewide is funded 65% by the state and 35% by local school districts

But that does NOT mean every district gets a 65/35 split individually.
Some districts are wealthier and can raise more money locally through property taxes, so they receive less state support. Other districts have weaker tax bases and cannot raise as much locally, so the state pays a much larger share.

For example:
Washington Parish receives nearly 90% of its Level 1 funding from the state because it has a weaker local tax base.

Cameron Parish receives roughly 25% from the state because it has a stronger tax base.

East Baton Rouge is closer to an even split.

Everything is connected. If one district loses property tax revenue, that district may suddenly look “poorer” in the formula and qualify for more state funding. But because the formula is still trying to maintain that overall 65% state / 35% local balance, changes in one district can affect calculations for every other district too.

So even small changes to one district’s tax base can become a statewide issue under the MFP.