Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 23
Started By
Message

LA. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of St. George Incorporators

Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:12 pm
Posted by bulletprooftiger
Member since Aug 2006
2040 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:12 pm
Opinion

quote:

Cole has the statutory right to challenge the incorporation of St. George. However, his real and actual interest is limited to the adverse impact incorporation will have on Baton Rouge, a municipality in the vicinity, and whether St. George can timely provide services. Despite the challenge, we conclude St. George can provide public services within a reasonable period of time. Applying objective factors to determine reasonableness, we hold incorporation is reasonable. We reverse the lower courts’ denial of incorporation and render judgment in favor of Proponents
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:18 pm
Posted by Box Geauxrilla
Member since Jun 2013
19118 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:15 pm to
Wow, this has been a 10 year battle. Congrats to St. George and its residents.
Posted by SelaTiger
Member since Aug 2016
17987 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:15 pm to
But they need St George residents to support them in BR, it wouldn’t be fair!
Posted by Icansee4miles
Trolling the Tickfaw
Member since Jan 2007
29193 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:15 pm to
Suck it Broomhilda!
Posted by Lsupimp
Ersatz Amerika-97.6% phony & fake
Member since Nov 2003
78609 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:16 pm to
Well, St George it is. I look forward to low taxes, good schools, armed perimeters, and parades with bagpipes and delightful European cheeses and meats.
Posted by 3nOut
Central Texas, TX
Member since Jan 2013
28897 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:17 pm to
Congrats baws.

I'm a Texan but have followed this for years! Congrats on being able to self govern.

Get wrecked Broome.
Posted by jmarto1
Houma, LA/ Las Vegas, NV
Member since Mar 2008
33937 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:17 pm to
I didn't read this, and I know my answer may be in the link, but does this make it a done deal?
Posted by rt3
now in the piney woods of Pineville
Member since Apr 2011
141137 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:19 pm to
quote:

I didn't read this, and I know my answer may be in the link, but does this make it a done deal?

Yes... this issue can go no further than SCOLA

it is done
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
30547 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:19 pm to
Viva villa San Jorge’
Posted by RougeDawg
Member since Jul 2016
5851 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:22 pm to
Nicholson will need it's own loop with how much development is about to explode down there.
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
95440 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:22 pm to
Incorporation is now approved and no further litigation.

This now sets off a whole other shite show of other cases regarding funding going back to 2019 as well as a bunch of illegal incorporations made by BR.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36034 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:24 pm to
Thank God

Posted by BigBinBR
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2023
4142 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:26 pm to
I knew this was coming soon. I put in a work order with the city the week before the vote in October 2019. They just came this week and completed the work.

Figured the decision wouldn’t been that far behind.
Posted by jmarto1
Houma, LA/ Las Vegas, NV
Member since Mar 2008
33937 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:26 pm to
Wow, awesome. This is a big win. I hope the right people are elected to run things
Posted by chinhoyang
Member since Jun 2011
23397 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:26 pm to
I was surprised at the identity of the dissenting judges.
Posted by Kramer26
St. George, LA
Member since Jan 2005
6404 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:27 pm to
Congrats St. George!
Posted by 3nOut
Central Texas, TX
Member since Jan 2013
28897 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:27 pm to
reading it now. obviously a lot of Broome's lawsuit was stupid and arguing negatives.

this stood out.

quote:

Normally, only a resident or landowner in St. George would have a real and actual interest in St. George’s self-sufficiency. Challengers argue that if St. George cannot provide services, the consolidated government of East Baton Rouge Parish and Baton Rouge (“City-Parish”) will bear that responsibility.



they already do, dumbass.


quote:

The statute recognizes this factor as part of the reasonableness test: “In determining whether the incorporation is reasonable, the court shall consider the possible adverse effects the incorporation may have on other municipalities in the vicinity.” La. R.S. 33:4(D). The effect of incorporation on a neighboring city is usually one of restricted geography. In other words, does the incorporation adversely affect the ability of a neighboring municipality to grow, annex and expand? If the geographic boundaries for incorporation impinge on another area’s potential for growth, incorporation may be unreasonable.

In contrast, adjoining municipalities are not usually funded by a surrounding unincorporated area. Their tax base is within their municipal limits. This case is different. The City-Parish’s fund-allocating agreements that result in shared tax revenues between the incorporated and unincorporated areas is not typical.

So, Baton Rouge makes the argument that incorporating St. George will decrease its funding. Thus, an adverse impact or effect. While the argument may be correct, it is not complete. A decrease in funding to the City-Parish does not necessarily result in an unreasonable adverse impact. Cost-savings must also be considered to determine the full economic impact of incorporation. Challengers’ evidence shows only expected lost tax revenue. They failed to offer evidence of any corresponding advantage to Baton Rouge of not providing services to St. George.

If Baton Rouge currently provides no services to St. George, 16 that weighs in favor of incorporation: St. George citizens pay taxes but receive no services. If the only impact of incorporation is a reduction in tax revenue paid by St. George citizens to Baton Rouge, with no reciprocal services, a windfall results for Baton Rouge. Incorporation will reasonably rectify that inequity.

On the other hand, if St. George citizens receive services for the taxes they pay, incorporation brings cost-savings to Baton Rouge, which will no longer be required to provide those services. Challengers failed to address that. Without evidence of the full economic impact of incorporation, denying incorporation because of an unreasonable economic impact on Baton Rouge is error.



this is where i as curious how they were going to rule.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:30 pm
Posted by Wiseguy
Member since Mar 2020
3389 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:28 pm to
I guess I live in St George now. It’s been way too long that they were alllowed to drag this out.
Posted by lnomm34
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2009
12610 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:28 pm to
quote:

This now sets off a whole other shite show of other cases regarding funding going back to 2019 as well as a bunch of illegal incorporations made by BR.


Think we're in for what? 10-15 years of court proceedings before we see a City of St. George government operating?
Posted by Beef Supreme
Member since Apr 2008
1920 posts
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:29 pm to
LFG!
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 23
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 23Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram