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

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.