Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Petition challenging the annexation of the mall

Petition challenging the annexation of the mall

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,819|Likes:
Published by dzsamuels
Woody Jenkins filed this petition on Thursday challenging the annexation of the Mall of Louisiana and other properties into the city of Baton Rouge.
Woody Jenkins filed this petition on Thursday challenging the annexation of the Mall of Louisiana and other properties into the city of Baton Rouge.

More info:

Published by: dzsamuels on Jun 12, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/20/2014

pdf

text

original

 
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

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->