Well, Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom wins the first round. The Senate Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee shot down state Sen. James David Cain’s SB 43 which would have forced the Louisiana Agriculture Finance Administration to follow the same law that every other government agency in Louisiana must, in terms of bids to perform public services.
This has allowed Odom to use public professional employees, some with advanced degrees and holding upper-level managerial slots, to perform unskilled construction work. In addition, this lets Odom award contracts to whomever the panel likes (read: him) without any oversight.
This arrangement has been criticized because of the injuries on the job that state employees not hired for construction work have sustained, costing the state millions in claims, as well as the fact that if such employees have time to perform such work in addition to their state-specified jobs, it raises the question whether the Department of Agriculture is overstaffed.
5.5.05
Odom wins; Louisiana loses
4.5.05
PAR errs on the side of government, not the people on taxes
The Public Affairs Research Council is of the opinion that almost all of the property tax-related bills in front of the Legislature should be rejected. The bills, almost all of which either create or raise exemptions or make it more difficult to raise such taxes, it argues would hamper local governments’ flexibilities in funding their own activities.
In 2000, local governments in Louisiana raised a little over $2.5 billion from their own resources and forgoes approximately 30 percent of that because of property tax exemptions on individuals. Of that total, roughly 80 percent is from property taxes, which are even more valuable to local governments in that real property is one thing the state itself does not use as a revenue source. Thus, PAR’s concern is real.
But also it is misplaced. A good case can be made that most of the requests to increase categories of exempt persons are not really necessary, but two definite changes that must be made are those proposed by SB 25 and HB 68.
The former removes the income cap, now $56,744, on homesteaders of 65 or above, at which they could claim to have their property continued to be valued at the assessment when they turned that age. This is a good example of the class warfare often visited upon the state’s citizens. Expenses can be high for the elderly, particularly health care, regardless of their income and this break will help those against whom high costs do not discriminate but who are now are discriminated against on the basis of income. The latter would exempt disabled individuals under the same standard.
Yet even more necessary are measures to curtail local governing bodies’ abilities to allow increases in property values as a result of quadrennial reassessments. This protection against automatic roll-forwards is essential because, unlike something like a sales tax which is precisely measured and based on active economic transactions, property taxes are measured infrequently, not terribly precisely, and are valued on the basis of passive, even no (if the property doesn’t change hands or gets improved), activity.
PAR’s reasoning here is that:
Taxpayers are already protected from unreasonable property tax increases in two ways. First, most tax increases or renewals require voter approval. Second, after each reassessment, millages are automatically rolled back to prevent increased collections due to the higher property assessments. The taxing body may roll the millages back up to their former level only after a public hearing and by a two-thirds vote. Thus, higher assessments will not always translate into higher taxes.
Thus, since protections already are in place, PAR argues that things such as limiting increases or making it harder for authorities to roll forward are too restrictive. But whoever wrote this report missed their own internal contradiction: the citizenry itself can choose to override anything the authorities do by permitting tax increases itself!
In other words, it does not matter how stringent such requirements may be on the authorities, public votes always can raise property taxes. For some reason, PAR would rather err on the side of government, even though it has a coercive, unlimited power to tax, by not making it harder for it to raise taxes, than on the side of the people, helpless to resist this onslaught other than by periodic elections and recall power. The goal then should be to make the exercise of this power by authorities as difficult as possible, while still allowing the people to retain it.
By this logic, the best of these bills, being the most restrictive on government, is HB 335 which removes roll-forward power completely from local authorities. If additional property taxes are needed, then government can make a case to the people by asking them to pass a new tax with more mills. If it’s a reasonable one, the people will pass it.
In its analyses on this issue, PAR needs to realize it is the power of the people, not government that should be enhanced.
In 2000, local governments in Louisiana raised a little over $2.5 billion from their own resources and forgoes approximately 30 percent of that because of property tax exemptions on individuals. Of that total, roughly 80 percent is from property taxes, which are even more valuable to local governments in that real property is one thing the state itself does not use as a revenue source. Thus, PAR’s concern is real.
But also it is misplaced. A good case can be made that most of the requests to increase categories of exempt persons are not really necessary, but two definite changes that must be made are those proposed by SB 25 and HB 68.
The former removes the income cap, now $56,744, on homesteaders of 65 or above, at which they could claim to have their property continued to be valued at the assessment when they turned that age. This is a good example of the class warfare often visited upon the state’s citizens. Expenses can be high for the elderly, particularly health care, regardless of their income and this break will help those against whom high costs do not discriminate but who are now are discriminated against on the basis of income. The latter would exempt disabled individuals under the same standard.
Yet even more necessary are measures to curtail local governing bodies’ abilities to allow increases in property values as a result of quadrennial reassessments. This protection against automatic roll-forwards is essential because, unlike something like a sales tax which is precisely measured and based on active economic transactions, property taxes are measured infrequently, not terribly precisely, and are valued on the basis of passive, even no (if the property doesn’t change hands or gets improved), activity.
PAR’s reasoning here is that:
Taxpayers are already protected from unreasonable property tax increases in two ways. First, most tax increases or renewals require voter approval. Second, after each reassessment, millages are automatically rolled back to prevent increased collections due to the higher property assessments. The taxing body may roll the millages back up to their former level only after a public hearing and by a two-thirds vote. Thus, higher assessments will not always translate into higher taxes.
Thus, since protections already are in place, PAR argues that things such as limiting increases or making it harder for authorities to roll forward are too restrictive. But whoever wrote this report missed their own internal contradiction: the citizenry itself can choose to override anything the authorities do by permitting tax increases itself!
In other words, it does not matter how stringent such requirements may be on the authorities, public votes always can raise property taxes. For some reason, PAR would rather err on the side of government, even though it has a coercive, unlimited power to tax, by not making it harder for it to raise taxes, than on the side of the people, helpless to resist this onslaught other than by periodic elections and recall power. The goal then should be to make the exercise of this power by authorities as difficult as possible, while still allowing the people to retain it.
By this logic, the best of these bills, being the most restrictive on government, is HB 335 which removes roll-forward power completely from local authorities. If additional property taxes are needed, then government can make a case to the people by asking them to pass a new tax with more mills. If it’s a reasonable one, the people will pass it.
In its analyses on this issue, PAR needs to realize it is the power of the people, not government that should be enhanced.
3.5.05
Where's there's smoke, there's Hightower
The questioning became quite noticeable when Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower began a maniacal pursuit of funding to build a public hotel. Despite legislative, popular, and researched rebuffs, Hightower’s persistence continues to drive the project forward, even as it is shown the legislative delegation is mostly against it, the public doesn’t support it, and the numbers show it can’t support itself. Why?
The noise level grew further when it came out that associates of Hightower were receiving some fairly favorable treatment when it came to paying back loans guaranteed by the city for community development purposes. Hightower said he’d shut the program down, but it had been going like that for years. Why?
The buzz got louder when, most recently, Councilman Thomas Carmody questioned the curious timing and series of transactions regarding operation of the city landfill, its operator BFI, renewal of its contract, a middleman company called River Cities Disposal who counts as officers and directors Hightower’s associates, and the company’s connection with a real estate deal involving a partnership of Hightower’s and some associates, all in the context of pointing out that the deal was costing the city money.
The noise level grew further when it came out that associates of Hightower were receiving some fairly favorable treatment when it came to paying back loans guaranteed by the city for community development purposes. Hightower said he’d shut the program down, but it had been going like that for years. Why?
The buzz got louder when, most recently, Councilman Thomas Carmody questioned the curious timing and series of transactions regarding operation of the city landfill, its operator BFI, renewal of its contract, a middleman company called River Cities Disposal who counts as officers and directors Hightower’s associates, and the company’s connection with a real estate deal involving a partnership of Hightower’s and some associates, all in the context of pointing out that the deal was costing the city money.
2.5.05
Benedict's accession to bring good things to Louisiana
So we’ve got a new Holy Father; what does that mean for Louisiana? Perhaps no place in America will be affected more than here, given its higher proportion of Catholics and the fact it has by far the most black Catholics of any state.
Because of his role heading up the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the German cardinal earned a reputation as a strict traditionalist, sometimes aggressively defending the church. It was a reputation that has those who call themselves Catholics, as well as those outside of the Church, who disagree with those views, nervous that their modernist agendas will suffer setbacks. As a result, comments from these people include things along the lines of “being a pope is different from being a cardinal” or “he’s a transitional pope because of his age” or “he may well surprise people.”
All true. Then again, many thought John XXIII would be transitional yet he lived long enough to launch the reforms of Vatican II. And Benedict XVI leaves a long track record of scholarly publications and actions demonstrating the unlikelihood of his wavering from defending the Church against the excesses of the modernist spirit.
Because of his role heading up the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the German cardinal earned a reputation as a strict traditionalist, sometimes aggressively defending the church. It was a reputation that has those who call themselves Catholics, as well as those outside of the Church, who disagree with those views, nervous that their modernist agendas will suffer setbacks. As a result, comments from these people include things along the lines of “being a pope is different from being a cardinal” or “he’s a transitional pope because of his age” or “he may well surprise people.”
All true. Then again, many thought John XXIII would be transitional yet he lived long enough to launch the reforms of Vatican II. And Benedict XVI leaves a long track record of scholarly publications and actions demonstrating the unlikelihood of his wavering from defending the Church against the excesses of the modernist spirit.
1.5.05
Bernhard moves to makes Democrat dinosaurs DINOs
Is the Louisiana Democratic Party edging closer to reality? Party Chairman Jim Bernhard looks to be getting his footing after a rocky start not only by endorsing state Rep. Yvonne Dorsey’s HB 694, but putting his money where his mouth is by calling Democrat households to stump for the measure, favored by Gov. Kathleen Blanco. The bill creates requirements similar to those concerning the governor, some legislators already covered by other laws, and those required to be followed by Congress.
Yet just because many others do something positive doesn’t mean Louisiana legislators have to, according to Democrat state Rep. Charlie DeWitt, who took offense to the campaign. He said such meddling would drive people out of the party and into the GOP column or into dealigned independence.
I see, so to the likes of the dinosaur DeWitt, the Democrats are the party of as little disclosure as possible and thus weak ethics? He’s probably right, but that’s a version of the party Blanco and Bernhard seem to want to see go to the way of the dinosaur. And at this point, this action seems to show that Blanco has gained considerable control over the party apparatus (in all likelihood much to the chagrin of its erstwhile puppeteer and dinosaur Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom).
28.4.05
Nursing homes start campaign to continue their special treatment
The counterattack has begun – nursing home interests looking to siphon money out of taxpayers against the public interest. Such was the gist of ads run in the press; the Louisiana Nursing Home Association ran a full-page advertisement in Tuesday's edition of The Advocate asking residents to tell Gov. Kathleen Blanco to put the brakes on the cuts to its member homes.
Never mind that Louisiana currently reimburses nursing homes at a rate far more generous than the typical state. Never mind that instituting standards promoting efficiency would save the state $97 million, according to the Legislative Auditor. Never mind that the current system prevents truly free choice for deciding the best care for those who need long term care and that it come perilously close, if it does not already to violating court orders regarding those in need of long term care.
The ad declares that “slashing $60 million from Louisiana's nursing homes will cut health-care jobs and jeopardize quality care for Louisiana's most frail, vulnerable citizens.” That’s a lie: Louisiana’s nursing homes are making a good profit, and the governor is asking to cut less than 10% from their current revenues, such as refusing to pay them for unoccupied beds as is the current practice, which would still leave these properties on average with a profitable situation.
The head of the interest group said the cut in reimbursement rates is equal to the loss of an average two nurses and eight nurses' aides per home. No -- state law dictates the number of employees per home which, according to the Legislative auditor, already is ridiculously low; they can’t cut jobs. In fact, refusing to pay these institutions for empty beds merely will eat into the profits of them which, yes, may drive some of them out of the nursing home business and into other uses, as the marketplace always dictates when poor business decisions create overcapacity.
The callousness of the industry, if not indicated by the poor quality of the care many of them give, certainly comes through when these operators continue to try to extract money out of the state taxpayers regardless of the best use of that money for taxpayers and for those who need long term care. The governor and legislature need to stand fast against these jackals and approve her budget regarding this issue.
Never mind that Louisiana currently reimburses nursing homes at a rate far more generous than the typical state. Never mind that instituting standards promoting efficiency would save the state $97 million, according to the Legislative Auditor. Never mind that the current system prevents truly free choice for deciding the best care for those who need long term care and that it come perilously close, if it does not already to violating court orders regarding those in need of long term care.
The ad declares that “slashing $60 million from Louisiana's nursing homes will cut health-care jobs and jeopardize quality care for Louisiana's most frail, vulnerable citizens.” That’s a lie: Louisiana’s nursing homes are making a good profit, and the governor is asking to cut less than 10% from their current revenues, such as refusing to pay them for unoccupied beds as is the current practice, which would still leave these properties on average with a profitable situation.
The head of the interest group said the cut in reimbursement rates is equal to the loss of an average two nurses and eight nurses' aides per home. No -- state law dictates the number of employees per home which, according to the Legislative auditor, already is ridiculously low; they can’t cut jobs. In fact, refusing to pay these institutions for empty beds merely will eat into the profits of them which, yes, may drive some of them out of the nursing home business and into other uses, as the marketplace always dictates when poor business decisions create overcapacity.
The callousness of the industry, if not indicated by the poor quality of the care many of them give, certainly comes through when these operators continue to try to extract money out of the state taxpayers regardless of the best use of that money for taxpayers and for those who need long term care. The governor and legislature need to stand fast against these jackals and approve her budget regarding this issue.
27.4.05
Blanco aides plead not to have taken away from them what they took from us
The refrain came through loud and clear: “Please don’t make it worse” begged Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s chief of staff Andy Kopplin, to the state Senate’s Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee. Imagine the mentality it takes to consider giving a small portion of the people’s money back to them as “worse.”
This comment came in references to the myriad of tax cut measures introduced into the Senate, and House. Some look popular enough to pass, thus the Blanco effort to prevent giving the people a bit of their money back rather than doing what’s really necessary to cover necessary government activities more efficiently.
For example, restructure affairs concerning Medicaid as recommended by the Legislative Auditor and the approximately $125 million shortfall for the program almost disappears. Or, instead of trying to tie together two disparate things that have nothing to do with each other, the revenue stream of sin taxes and teacher raises, forget about the raises and attach those health matters to funding Medicaid – after all, likely a good chunk of Medicaid spending comes as a result of people smoking.
Instead, Kopplin tried to fake out the inattentive, apparently getting wind of some numbers coming out of the Census Bureau today, by trying to run the argument that Louisiana is “undertaxed” by being only “38th” among the states in state tax burden, so there’s no reason to cut taxes. This lame excuse fails on three accounts.
First, it is always disingenuous to argue an absolute point on relative terms. It doesn’t matter where Louisiana ranks, what matters is whether the burden is commensurate with the proper aims of government and its efficiency in pursuing them. Certainly Louisiana fails on the second account, which should invalidate any argument that a tax cut is unneeded (indeed, it might spur state government on to a proper level of efficiency). In other words, Kopplin’s argument is akin to somebody who commits manslaughter who argues he ought not make it right by saying, “At least I didn’t commit murder like other guys.”
Second, let’s go ahead and use the relativism paradigm anyways. In that case, Kopplin was slightly wrong because Louisiana actually ranks 34th. But it’s a minor point.
Third, however, is the major point that this cited statistic is only state taxation. If you include state and local taxation (remember, all local governments are fully controllable by their state governments), Louisiana actually ranks 16th in highest tax burden (and fees aren’t even included). It doesn’t matter which level of government taxes, it’s all the same thing – absconding with the people’s money hopefully for a worthy purpose. Just because one level of government does not tax that heavily does not give it the right to raise or to not lower taxes when another level of government it controls is allowed to tax heavily.
It’s as simple as this – concerning all taxes that ultimately, one way or the other, are controlled by the state, Louisiana’s 10.4 percent rate is above the national average. Louisianans definitely are not “undertaxed” even on a relative basis.
Blanco needs to recognize that the only taxes that should remotely be considered being raised would be her sin taxes if they are tied into the ills of the sins being taxed – health care and gambling addiction – and that other taxes should be cut. If raising sin taxes for teacher salary raises and no tax cuts are Plan A, then the sooner she understands it’s bad, the quicker we can get to implementing the better and badly needed Plan B in part described above.
This comment came in references to the myriad of tax cut measures introduced into the Senate, and House. Some look popular enough to pass, thus the Blanco effort to prevent giving the people a bit of their money back rather than doing what’s really necessary to cover necessary government activities more efficiently.
For example, restructure affairs concerning Medicaid as recommended by the Legislative Auditor and the approximately $125 million shortfall for the program almost disappears. Or, instead of trying to tie together two disparate things that have nothing to do with each other, the revenue stream of sin taxes and teacher raises, forget about the raises and attach those health matters to funding Medicaid – after all, likely a good chunk of Medicaid spending comes as a result of people smoking.
Instead, Kopplin tried to fake out the inattentive, apparently getting wind of some numbers coming out of the Census Bureau today, by trying to run the argument that Louisiana is “undertaxed” by being only “38th” among the states in state tax burden, so there’s no reason to cut taxes. This lame excuse fails on three accounts.
First, it is always disingenuous to argue an absolute point on relative terms. It doesn’t matter where Louisiana ranks, what matters is whether the burden is commensurate with the proper aims of government and its efficiency in pursuing them. Certainly Louisiana fails on the second account, which should invalidate any argument that a tax cut is unneeded (indeed, it might spur state government on to a proper level of efficiency). In other words, Kopplin’s argument is akin to somebody who commits manslaughter who argues he ought not make it right by saying, “At least I didn’t commit murder like other guys.”
Second, let’s go ahead and use the relativism paradigm anyways. In that case, Kopplin was slightly wrong because Louisiana actually ranks 34th. But it’s a minor point.
Third, however, is the major point that this cited statistic is only state taxation. If you include state and local taxation (remember, all local governments are fully controllable by their state governments), Louisiana actually ranks 16th in highest tax burden (and fees aren’t even included). It doesn’t matter which level of government taxes, it’s all the same thing – absconding with the people’s money hopefully for a worthy purpose. Just because one level of government does not tax that heavily does not give it the right to raise or to not lower taxes when another level of government it controls is allowed to tax heavily.
It’s as simple as this – concerning all taxes that ultimately, one way or the other, are controlled by the state, Louisiana’s 10.4 percent rate is above the national average. Louisianans definitely are not “undertaxed” even on a relative basis.
Blanco needs to recognize that the only taxes that should remotely be considered being raised would be her sin taxes if they are tied into the ills of the sins being taxed – health care and gambling addiction – and that other taxes should be cut. If raising sin taxes for teacher salary raises and no tax cuts are Plan A, then the sooner she understands it’s bad, the quicker we can get to implementing the better and badly needed Plan B in part described above.
26.4.05
EBR teachers play hooky in attempt to pick taxpayers' pockets
So many teachers from East Baton Rouge Parish attended a rally at the state capitol Monday that school had to be called off. At least it looks like the day missed will be made up, which I’m sure thrills the students.
Let’s hope it gets made up, because these schools need all of the help they can get – and part of it is the teachers’ fault. A look at district statistics tells us that (using the most recent 2003-04 data available).
Over a third of schools there are on academic warning or are unacceptable. Five-eights of them either are making no progress towards accountability goals or are in decline. Almost 30 percent of high schoolers either were suspended or expelled. Standardized test scores are bad. These statistics will become worse if the second-best performing high school, Central, gets removed as part of an effort to create a separate school district. And all happening in a parish with a much higher average income and much lower rate of unemployment than typical in the state.
25.4.05
Queen Bee gets a B-
Being a university professor I have the impulse to grade, and why not do so when it is a teacher-turned-politician you are grading. Gov. Kathleen Blanco delivered her State of the State Address Monday afternoon, with few surprises (perhaps the biggest being, when the images of state Rep. Francis Thompson and state Sen. Mike Smith flashed across the screen, I couldn’t see the strings attaching them to Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom’s hands).
Her overall tone seemed somewhat defensive. She took pains to point out economic development success stories (while neglecting to point out the numerous failures) and reeled off a litany of reports testifying that Louisiana was making progress in the areas of governance, economics, and education. She sounded at times almost like somebody trying to cognitively bolster her self-esteem representing the state.
On the positive side, everybody expected her support for strengthening ethics (singling out apparently HB 694 and HB 712), greater educational accountability (although she did not make negative remarks specifically about bills to weaken it, such as HB 575 and SB 283), promising $20 million to attract matching federal dollars to get I-49 construction going, and, most significantly, reiterating her pledge to improve the efficiency of Louisiana’s health care system especially in the areas of long term care and decentralization of primary care service provision.
But on the negative side, she remained fixated not only on the idea of teacher pay raises (to be more precise, anybody certified as a teacher which include many outside of the classroom), but by raising taxes to do so. Interestingly, the only bill she seemed to single out for criticism concerned this, Rep. Mike Powell’s HB 588 which seeks to draw any funds underpredicted by the Revenue Estimating Conference into teacher pay raises as long as their average salary remained below regional averages, saying any “excess" funds that came this way were going to be eaten up by tax credits to make movies! In other words, she’d rather continue corporate welfare to moviemakers that costs more than it brings in revenues and raise taxes than give teachers a raise without raising taxes.
(Of course, teachers in Louisiana right now are overpaid compared to their performances. And there are other workable ideas to give out these raises without raising taxes.)
Blanco also criticized those who would offer tax breaks (mainly a series of bills to allow more items deductible on federal income taxes to also be deductible of state income taxes, as they once had been), using a flawed family analogy. “Don’t take away our income,” or something like that, she begged lawmakers supporting these. Note her mentality here: she says the money you get taxed isn’t your money, it’s ours.
It got worse with her remarks about escalating health care costs. She drew the analogy that medical costs for the “family” were going up. While it’s true that the total number of dollars spent by the state on health care likely will go up this year, the reason why the state will have to spend more is really because of a shell game played with the federal government’s reimbursement of Medicaid that it finally caught on to and stopped, after years of warning. In short, it’s largely state government’s fault.
Nonetheless, there was more good than bad in the address. Not only does she pass, but she’ll get to keep her TOPS scholarship: B -.
Her overall tone seemed somewhat defensive. She took pains to point out economic development success stories (while neglecting to point out the numerous failures) and reeled off a litany of reports testifying that Louisiana was making progress in the areas of governance, economics, and education. She sounded at times almost like somebody trying to cognitively bolster her self-esteem representing the state.
On the positive side, everybody expected her support for strengthening ethics (singling out apparently HB 694 and HB 712), greater educational accountability (although she did not make negative remarks specifically about bills to weaken it, such as HB 575 and SB 283), promising $20 million to attract matching federal dollars to get I-49 construction going, and, most significantly, reiterating her pledge to improve the efficiency of Louisiana’s health care system especially in the areas of long term care and decentralization of primary care service provision.
But on the negative side, she remained fixated not only on the idea of teacher pay raises (to be more precise, anybody certified as a teacher which include many outside of the classroom), but by raising taxes to do so. Interestingly, the only bill she seemed to single out for criticism concerned this, Rep. Mike Powell’s HB 588 which seeks to draw any funds underpredicted by the Revenue Estimating Conference into teacher pay raises as long as their average salary remained below regional averages, saying any “excess" funds that came this way were going to be eaten up by tax credits to make movies! In other words, she’d rather continue corporate welfare to moviemakers that costs more than it brings in revenues and raise taxes than give teachers a raise without raising taxes.
(Of course, teachers in Louisiana right now are overpaid compared to their performances. And there are other workable ideas to give out these raises without raising taxes.)
Blanco also criticized those who would offer tax breaks (mainly a series of bills to allow more items deductible on federal income taxes to also be deductible of state income taxes, as they once had been), using a flawed family analogy. “Don’t take away our income,” or something like that, she begged lawmakers supporting these. Note her mentality here: she says the money you get taxed isn’t your money, it’s ours.
It got worse with her remarks about escalating health care costs. She drew the analogy that medical costs for the “family” were going up. While it’s true that the total number of dollars spent by the state on health care likely will go up this year, the reason why the state will have to spend more is really because of a shell game played with the federal government’s reimbursement of Medicaid that it finally caught on to and stopped, after years of warning. In short, it’s largely state government’s fault.
Nonetheless, there was more good than bad in the address. Not only does she pass, but she’ll get to keep her TOPS scholarship: B -.
24.4.05
Will new Central touch off incorporation/secession fever?
It’s not an easy process, but if there’s a lot of will you can make a new local government in Louisiana. Just such has happened over the span of the last couple of months, culminating in Saturday’s election to create the new city of Central in East Baton Rouge Parish.
It may not yet be over because opponents, who already have tried to block the election, have 30 days to contest it. But give the five-to-three ratio for approval, any successful challenge seems unlikely. Even though opponents argued a good reason to vote against the incorporation was the new city government wouldn’t have enough resources to maintain the city in the manner in which its residents had come to expect, the real reason may be the parish government would take nearly a million dollar a year hit on its bottom line.
Proponents argued that the area, north of central city Baton Rouge and mainly residential and rural, had little in common with city itself. More specifically, some see it as a first step to creating a separate school district from East Baton Rouge, following the lead of the other two cities in the parish outside of Baton Rouge, Baker and Zachary.
It may not yet be over because opponents, who already have tried to block the election, have 30 days to contest it. But give the five-to-three ratio for approval, any successful challenge seems unlikely. Even though opponents argued a good reason to vote against the incorporation was the new city government wouldn’t have enough resources to maintain the city in the manner in which its residents had come to expect, the real reason may be the parish government would take nearly a million dollar a year hit on its bottom line.
Proponents argued that the area, north of central city Baton Rouge and mainly residential and rural, had little in common with city itself. More specifically, some see it as a first step to creating a separate school district from East Baton Rouge, following the lead of the other two cities in the parish outside of Baton Rouge, Baker and Zachary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)