Petition challenging the annexation of the mall

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 68 | Comments: 0 | Views: 340
of 10
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Woody Jenkins filed this petition on Thursday challenging the annexation of the Mall of Louisiana and other properties into the city of Baton Rouge.

Comments

Content


LOUIS "WOODY " JENKINS NUMBER DIVISION


19
TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUS
PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL STATE OF LOUISIANA


PETITION CHALLENGING ANNEXATION
NOW INTO COURT comes Louis "Woody" Jenkins, a resident and a
citizen of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana,
who alleges as follows:
1.
The defendants herein are the City of Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge
Parish Metropolitan Council as the governing body of the City of Baton Rouge, a
municipality located in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.
2.
On or about the 2nd day of May, 2014, the owners of certain tracts of land
presented a petition to the East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council to annex
a body of land into the City of Baton Rouge by using the procedure provided by
Section 1.09 of the Plan of Government for East Baton Rouge Parish.
3.
As presented to the Metropolitan Council, the petition proposed that an
ordinance be adopted to annex the Baton Rouge General Hospital, the Mall of
Louisiana, and Level Ventures, LLC, “as a compact body of land adjoining the
City of Baton Rouge.” In fact, what the petition proposed was an annexation that
jumped over a major subdivision and used a long, narrow portion of land without
the permission of the property owner to annex only parts of the Baton Rouge
General, Mall of Louisiana, and Level Ventures, LLC, properties, creating a donut-
hole effect that left out almost every property owner who refused to sign the
petition. Excluded from the annexation were the most important areas of The Mall
— the four anchor stores, Dillard’s, J.C. Penney’s, Macy’s, and Sears — as well as
Sears Auto Center, Entergy, and TownePlace Suites by Marriott.
4.
The purported annexation creates an unwieldy and unworkable situation
which would require the Baton Rouge Police Department to patrol the hallways,
small stores, rest rooms, and some parking lots of The Mall and the Sheriff’s
Office to patrol the anchor stores, the Sears Auto Center, Entergy, the TownePlace
Suites by Marriott, and other parking lots of The Mall. Likewise, the Baton Rouge
Fire Department would be responsible for fire protection in the hallways, small
stores, rest rooms, and some parking lots of The Mall, while the St. George Fire
Department would be responsible for fire protection for the four anchor stores, the
Sears Auto Center, Entergy and the TownePlace Suites by Marriott, and other
parking lots of The Mall.
5.
A public hearing on the Petition was held on May 14, 2014, along with a
public hearing on another separate ordinance to annex property belonging to Our
Lady of the Lake
6.
The Metropolitan Council voted in favor of both annexations. The
ordinance of annexation will become effective 30 days from the final passage
unless overturned by this court.
7.
Under Louisiana law and the Plan of Government of East Baton Rouge Parish,
every annexation of land by the City of Baton Rouge must
• Include a petition with the required number of signatures of property owners
or property taxpayers, which petition must be properly certified by the Assessor
• Be adopted in accordance with procedures consistent with state law and the
Plan of Government.
• Be reasonable, which includes factors which vary from case to case but which
always include the necessity that the proposed annexation be contiguous and
compact. The purported annexation in fact fails to meet any of these requirements.
8.
Plaintiff is entitled to a hearing on this petition in preference to other
matters.
9.
Required Signatures and Certification. The Petition for Annexation provides
that there are no resident property owners or registered voters residing in the area
proposed for annexation. La. R.S. 33:172(A)(1)(c) provides that when there are
no resident property owners nor registered voters and the area is vacant land, the
petition must contain the written assent of each non resident property owner of
each tract, lot, or parcel in the area proposed for annexation. However, the Petition
for Annexation does not contain the written assent of each non resident property
owner in the area proposed for annexation. Specifically, the petition fails to
include two property owners, Kansas City Southern Railroad and DSLD, LLC, that
would be in the area proposed for annexation, and many other property owners
within the outer boundary of the area proposed for annexation, including four
anchor stores in The Mall of Louisiana — Dillard’s, J.C. Penney, Macy’s, Sears —
and Sears Auto Center, Entergy, and TownePlace Suites by Marriott.
10.
When there are no resident property owners nor registered voters in the area
to be annexed and the land is not vacant, R.S. 33:172(C) provides only one way to
annex property by petition, namely when at least ninety percent of the boundary of
the area to be annexed is common to the boundary of the municipality and there are
no registered voters. The purported annexation adopted by the Metro Council does
not claim to have a common boundary with the city of at least ninety percent.
11.
The Plan of Government in Section 1.09 provides that there must be attached
to any petition for annexation of “a compact body of land adjoining the City of
Baton Rouge,” a certification by the Assessor that those signing the petition
constituted “a majority in number and amount of property tax payers” in that
compact body. However, the Petition for Annexation submitted by the petitioners
contains no such certification. Rather, the certification provided by the Assessor
contains only the valuation of the property owned by the Petitioners and does not
include a valuation of the property owned by those who did not sign the petition
included in the purported annexation or within the outer boundaries of the
annexation.
The only “property taxpayers” who signed the Petition for Annexation were
Mall of Louisiana LLC, Mall of Louisiana Land, LLC, and Level Ventures. The
other signers are exempt from paying property taxes. The “property taxpayers”
within the outer boundary of the purported annexation include the following:
Kansas City Southern Railroad, DSLD, LLC, TownePlace Suites by Marriott,
Sears Auto Center, Entergy, Dillard’s, J.C. Penney, Macy’s, and Sears. A clear
majority of the “property taxpayers” within the outer boundary of the purported
annexation did not sign the annexation petition. Therefore, it is not valid.
12.
The purported annexation includes a section of railroad tracks owned by
Kansas City Southern Railroad. This narrow strip of railroad property is essential
to connect the Level Ventures, LLC, property to the Baton Rouge General property
and thereby arguably make The Mall contiguous to the City of Baton Rouge.
However, the Kansas City Southern Railroad did not sign the petition. The
purported annexation includes only a small portion of property in a much larger
tract of land owned by the Kansas City Southern Railroad. State law provides that
an annexation must be of a “tract, lot, or parcel” of land. Yet, this purported
annexation does not contain the entire tract owned by the railroad but rather a
small portion of that tract which the railroad has not subdivided. This purported
subdivision and annexation is being done by the City of Baton Rouge without the
consent of the railroad. The Assessor did not certify a valuation either for the larger
more valuable tract or for the smaller portion of the tract, which was purportedly
annexed. Without such valuation, it is impossible to determine whether a majority
in valuation signed the petition.
13
One of the signers of the Petition of Annexation was Level Ventures, LLC.
The tract shown as belonging to Level Ventures, LLC, is also necessary to make
the annexation contiguous. At the time of the annexation on May 14, 2014,
twenty-four (24) lots in the purported annexation were owned by DSLD, LLC
However, the signature of DSLD, LLC was not obtained, nor were the values of
DSDL’s lots listed in the Assessor’s certification. Therefore, it is impossible to
determine if a majority in value of the property taxpayers signed the petition.
Other property taxpayers were included within the outer boundary of the
purported annexation, namely Dillard’s J. C. Penney’s, Macy’s, Sears, as well as
Sears Auto Center, Entergy, and TownePlace Suites by Marriott. Yet, no valuation
of these properties was included in the Assessor’s certification of values and it is
impossible to determine whether a majority in value signed the petition.
14.
Procedural Defects. The ordinance of annexation was adopted by the
Metropolitan Council in clear violation of the mandatory procedural requirements
of state law and the Plan of Government, rendering it null and void. These
violations include the following:
A. The ordinance was adopted at the same meeting where it was
introduced. Because it levies a tax on businesses brought into the city limits,
requires the payment of a license or permit by those businesses, and places a
burden on private property brought into the City, the ordinance had to lay over
until the next meeting of the Council as required by the Plan of Government.
B. The ordinance required the vote of seven members of the twelve-
member council, and the voting should have been by roll call and recorded.
However, the Metropolitan Council cast only one vote, supposedly to adopt two
separate ordinances — the ordinance which is the subject of this suit and the
ordinance to annex Our Lady of the Lake property. Since only one vote was taken
on two ordinances, both could not have passed.
C. An ordinance must be limited to a single subject, and the adoption
of two ordinances with different subjects with one vote also violates the single
subject rule.
D. State law requires that within 10 days after the passage of an
ordinance annexing property into a city, a description of the entire boundary of the
municipality as changed shall be filed by the clerk of the municipality with the
clerk of the district court. Such description so filed shall become the official
boundary of the municipality on the effective date of the ordinance. The ordinance
was passed by the Metro Council on May 14, 2014, and should have been filed no
later than May 24. However, the official boundaries of the City of Baton Rouge
had not been filed with the clerk of court as of June 10, 2014, almost 30 days after
the purported annexation. This makes it impossible to determine with “certainty
and precision” the exact boundaries of the city, as required by state law.
15.
Reasonableness. The ordinance to annex fails to meet the requirements of
reasonableness, as required by R.S. 33:172 and 33:174. The annexed area skips
over contiguous property where there are residents who vote, leaves out of the
annexation numerous large commercial properties that are within the outer
boundary of the purported annexation for no reason other than that they refused to
sign the Petition of Annexation, uses an artificially contrived strip of property
belonging to a property owner who did not sign the petition as a means of making
the body of land contiguous to city limits, is not in fact contiguous to the city, is
not compact, and creates an unwieldy and irrational scenario for law enforcement
and fire protection for which the Metropolitan Council neither considered nor
approved a budget, timetable or plan.
16.
At present, law enforcement in The Mall is provided by the Sheriff’s Office
and fire protection is provided by the St. George Fire District. However, the
purported annexation would require two different police departments and two
different fire departments to serve The Mall. Baton Rouge City Police would
provide fire protection for the hallways, small stores, rest rooms and some parking
lots, while the Sheriff would serve the anchor stores, Sears Auto Center, Entergy,
and TownePlace Suites by Marriott and other parking lots. Likewise, the Baton
Rouge Fire Department would serve the hallways, small stores, rest rooms and
some parking lots, while the St. George Fire Department would serve the anchor
stores, Sears Auto Center, Entergy, and TownePlace Suites by Marriott and other
parking lots. Instead of the Sheriff’s substations at Kleinpeter and Burbank
providing law enforcement and St. George Fire Station nearby providing fire
protection, there would also have to be a new Baton Rouge City Police Substation
and Baton Rouge Fire Department station nearby. All of this will duplicate
services and could result in a diversion of resources away from high crime areas in
the City of Baton Rouge to The Mall, an increase in taxes and a reduction in
services.
17.
The Metropolitan Council did not hear any testimony or consider any plan
that would show how the city government could provide the basic services to the
areas annexed. No testimony was received from the City-Parish Budget Office or
the Baton Rouge Police Department or the Baton Rouge Fire Department that
would enlighten the Council or the public on the cost and feasibility of the partial
annexation of these areas.
18.
Contiguousness. Because the Petition of Annexation failed to secure
signatures from the Kansas City Southern Railroad and because the purported
annexation includes only a small portion of their tract of land and was not valued
by the Assessor, the Kansas City Southern property was not lawfully included in
the annexation, and the body of land in the purported annexation is not contiguous
to the City of Baton Rouge.
19.
Compactness. Section 1.09 of the Plan of Government provides that an
annexation can only be of “a compact body of land adjoining the City of Baton
Rouge.” The annexed property uses a long, narrow strip of property to reach out
and grab portions of The Mall of Louisiana. The long narrow strips were land
owned by Kansas City Southern Railroad and DSLD but neither property taxpayers
signed the petition. Big holes representing the anchor stores, as well as other
properties, were not included in the annexation.
20.
The true meaning of compactness is made clear by R.S. 33:172(A)(5), which
provides in part, “Multiple petitions may be used to annex different properties so
long as the petitions, when considered together, are capable of covering an area
which has a contiguous outer boundary in which the above majority and
percentage requirements for annexation are met.” In this case, the petition filed
with the Metro Council does include multiple signature pages which are equivalent
to multiple petitions. But the real point is that an area being annexed must “cover”
an area which has “a contiguous outer boundary.” This language is contrary to the
idea of annexing properties with holes in it. The multiple petitions or signature
pages used in this case did not “cover” the entire area within the contiguous outer
boundary of the annexed area and are not lawful.
21.
Plaintiff, who is a citizen of Baton Rouge, owns three tracts of land and
three houses in Baton Rouge. He pays more than $7,000 a year in property taxes.
He resides in a "high crime" area and has recently been a victim of crime and
would be particularly affected by any reduction in police or fire protection
services. On May 22, 2014, plaintiff, who resides in the inner city, was taking out
the garbage to the street, when he was confronted out of nowhere by three males
who were throwing pieces of concrete and rocks at him. The hail of missiles, some
as large as a human fist, sailed by his head. He was trapped between his fence and
his pick up truck. The barrage continued for two minutes, even as cars passed.
The plaintiff called 911 and told the operator what was happening and that his life
was in danger. When the assailants saw him on the phone, they departed. About
30 minutes later, a lone Baton Rouge Police officer arrived on the scene to
investigate. The plaintiff could easily have been killed or seriously injured or
disabled in that period. Police have made three arrests in the case. A homicide
occurred this week before this petition was filed, just three blocks from his home.
The plaintiff has a very real interest in police and fire protection provided in high
crime areas in the inner city. He objects to any action that would divert vital public
safety services that are already stretched very thin to a remote area that is already
well served by the Sheriff but that could consume important resources of the City
of Baton Rouge that would be better spent protecting citizens where crime is the
highest.
WHEREFORE, Louis "Woody" Jenkins prays that this challenge be upheld
and that the attempt to annex the above described property into the city of Baton
Rouge be rejected.

Respectfully submitted
ST. AMANT & TESSIER
______________________
Alexis A. St. Amant II
3127 North Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Telephone (225)-387-1321
Fax (225) 387-1338

Please serve ;
Mayor Melvin "Kip" Holden
on behalf of East Baton Rouge Parish
Metropolitan Council as the governing
body of the City of Baton Rouge. at City Hall
222 St. Louis Street Baton Rouge, LA.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close