In 2011, advocates of district creation first tried but failed to get
the Legislature to do so. To do this, two things must happen: a law must define
the district and its governance structure, and the Constitution must be amended
to include it in the Minimum Foundation Program for funding. This year, they
got halfway by getting
the law passed, but the amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority in
each legislative chamber and then an affirmative vote of the state’s people, didn’t get to a
vote in the House after the Senate moved it on.
Some legislators publicly stated they had qualms about doing the unprecedented
act of dividing a district built around a single local governing unit.
While most local school districts in the state have the same boundaries as
parishes, the few that don’t either have boundaries coterminous with municipalities
or with parishes minus those districts built around municipalities in that
parish. The same issue had arisen in the early 2000s with the desire to create
the Central Community School System. After some failed attempts to get the district
established, the city of Central was created, and the district passed
legislative muster two years later.
If opposing legislators genuinely hold this attitude, then the extra
step should be enough to get the district in stasis funded. Municipal creation
cuts out opponents of creating either or both a new municipality or district
who are outside the proposed district but in the present district, as it requires
only a petition of a quarter of registered voters in the area to be incorporated
and then a majority of those voting on the question in an election. (The
Legislature then passes a law dealing with the transition.) Opponents outside
of the district publicly question whether that means a negative financial
impact on the remaining, smaller district, but that merely masks two deeper
insecurities on their parts.
One is that they know they will lose power and their elites know they will
lose privilege. They will have fewer resources and have authority over fewer
people. The other is that a new local governmental unit creates competition
that can produce a more compelling model that leaves citizens voting with their
feet and, additionally concerning schools, their scholarship vouchers. These
special interests fear these situations because as citizens and their tax
dollars leave their jurisdictions, it exposes the bankruptcy of their governing
ideologies and makes them more vulnerable to losing power within those
jurisdictions – for some elected officials perhaps because their electoral district
essentially will disappear as a result.
And there’s some irony to it all for those some involved in city-parish
politics because had they acted differently over the past couple of years, it
may never have come to this. Some, like Mayor-President Kip Holden, showed distaste
for the breakaway school district by likening
it to a kind of racist segregation, when in fact it
would create a majority black school district. But if he had used his
influence to get the district funded – it has been created despite him –
perhaps breakaway opponents now would not be looking to birth their own
municipality, which may threaten his own political power in that the disproportionate
removal of blacks from city-parish voting rolls if the new city follows the
school boundaries might take away support for black Democrats such as himself.
Whether this effort if pursued would succeed in creating a city and/or
funding the new district depends upon two things. First, chances are local
taxes in aggregate will rise for the new dual jurisdiction, as in Louisiana typically
citizens in incorporated areas pay higher millages and often sales taxes, which
could discourage petitioners or voters. However, they may be willing to beat
these if they feel much more confident that it will spent on their priorities
and to provide a much higher level or service.
Also, some legislators who said they would support the amendment if
there were a municipality the district was drawn around might have been
disingenuous, trying to hide the fact they really oppose it for the same ideological
reasons as do local elites. But given that the 2006 vote to amend to fund
Central received a four-fifths majority in the House and almost unanimity in
the Senate, this may show either this attitude is not widespread or enough
holders of it might be cowed sufficiently to garner the two-thirds majorities
needed.
If pursued and accomplished, this continues a healthy trend in
devolutionary government in East Baton Rouge that perhaps should spread
statewide. Perhaps it’s a negative that it must come to this in the first
place, that a jurisdiction is so underperforming and elites in charge seem so
unwilling to alter their policies to prevent that as to cause secession, but it’s
a positive in that citizens are willing to take that step to improve the lives
of their families. And the competition presented to Baton Rouge might be what’s
needed to improve governance there as well. Going for a new municipality in
southeastern East Baton Rouge Parish cannot be a bad thing.
1 comment:
I strongly disagree.
It is a bad thing, and you have not offered anything of substance to buttress your argument to the contrary.
Do you recommend 6, 8 0r 10 municipalities in East Baton Rouge Parish?
That won't create tons of duplication of efforts and cost, will it?
Post a Comment