LCG Planning / Zoning Commission

[percy]

Does anybody find it strange that the LCG is being sued because the LCG attorney for the Planning Commission said that a subdivision was not approved when the commission took no action on it?

State law says that when a commission takes no action, that the development is deemed approved after 60 days.

The LCG attorney wrote the commission and said the subdivision was denied. The LCG attorney said internal commission rules are in conflict with state law.

Now the LCG is being sued on the “denial” of the subdivision. I imagine that the same LCG attorney who said the subdivision was not approved in the first place will defend the LCG.

Sounds almost is if the attorney was creating work for himself, doesn’t it? Perhaps the LCG needs a new attorney for the Planning Commission?

[percy]

Well, it looks like a judge can read and understand the planning laws in this state, too bad the planning commission attorneys can't.

As for the residents being upset that they were denied the chance to argue their case a before the council at an appeal hearing, there was nothing to appeal. The developers were well within their rights to take it directly to court after the CPC attorney rendered such a foolish letter. When the commission took no action on the case it was a done deal, approved after 60 days.

Though, I do wonder how much the CPC/LCG attorneys made in this mess that they created, don’t you?

[citizen]

Percy, I concur with your whole argument here. Looks like a LCG attorney once again doesn't know the law. What are these guys (LCG Attorneys) like 0 for 8 or something. Nice way to create work for yourself, by giving wrong opinions over and over. Wonder what the bill is for these guys?? Guess who pays that bill for bad opinions? Yes it's us the taxpayers!

[percy]

Now I read in the Baton Rouge paper that the CPC/LCG attorney has not decided if he will appeal the judge's decision. The BR paper also mentioned the conflict about the commission not taking action and the internal rule that states that if they do not take action, the issue is deemed defeated.

Even the judge did not fall for that. Internal "rules" do not triumph over state law.

Just what is there to appeal?

The law is clear, the ruling is clear, case law is on the side of the developer.

Is the attorney answerable to no one?

[ronnief]

So how much did the law firm "donate" to the campaign fund ?

[Taureau]

Their name (Planning Commission) is a misnomer; It
should be called "Approvers". All they do is rubber
stamp approved. They are a disgrace. I would not
support any of them in their endeavors now or in the
future and I have a long memory.

[percy]

It is being reported by KATC that LCG lawyers are appealing a District Judges decision regarding a local subdivision and the Planning Commission failure to take action. State law says “a planning commission shall approve or disapprove a plat within sixty days after the submission thereof to it; otherwise such plat shall be deemed to have been approved, and a certificate to that effect shall be issued by such commission on demand.” (RS 33:113) and the Planning Commission rules state that when no action is taken an item is defeated. Even the Judge knows that “law” triumphs over “rules.” While not getting into the merits of the subdivision, one has to wonder if politics are driving this appeal or does the LCG attorney handling the case write his own ticket?

So, again, where is the City-Parish Attorney? Do his subordinates receive direction from him? Do they report to him? Are they answerable to him?

[abbd]

Percy, now don't go confusing the LCG with anything like a law(you'd think the local media would have found that state law that you found Percy, nah never) . Sheesh I think these guys(lcg) are into "feel good", "it looks like we care" and "I feel your pain" things and never bother to read the laws or in some cases follow the law. By appealing, it makes the duncilman in that district look good to his constituants no matter what the cost to us the taxpayers who pay these lawyers bills.Heck as an attorney you make a whole lotta more money just ignoring the law and appealing!

[percy]

I have heard it said" do not confuse the facts with the law or is it do not confuse the law with the facts."

In any case, abbd, you appear to be on target, the appeal is a feel good thing, and the lawyers are using our deep pockets to do it.

[zoe10850]

What do you call 100 attorneys on the bottom of the ocean ? A good start.

Wasn't it Shakespeare who set "First we hang the lawyers" ?

[abbd]

After watching last night's duncil meeting, I thought of something I that I wanted to share with you. Everytime you hear or read anything concerning "smart growth", remember this "plan" is a feature of U.N. Agenda 21. This plan was hatched by the U.N., environmental groups and good ole (at the time) Vice President Al Gore. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government or even a quasi government entity(see Agenda 21 for all the terms, phrases and committees) can tell you where to live and how big of an area you can own? Property rights are a thing of the past when Agenda 21 or "smart growth" becomes the norm. If you listened to Fred Prejean's (planning commission) pleas last night, you heard everyone of the Agenda 21 buzz words. Does it surprise me that lafayette hehehehehe Republicans endorse this concept? Nah, they endorse every tax increase proposed by this administration.

[abbd]

I see where the planning and zoning commision wants to have "secret" meetings behind closed doors without the public being allowed in(in the Morning Advocate this morning). You gotta admit, making a proposal like that takes lotsa guts,now matter how ILLEGAL it is. Now folks this government is totally out of control. Give joey a half a BILLION dollars in new taxes??? ya gotta be kidding me.

[Johnny]

No kidding, although I'm not sure how this commission has anything to do with Joey. Fred Prejean is the guy on the commission who has requested the private meetings, and I dont' think he answers to Joey. He has publicly stated that he asked to make the meetings private to keep out just a couple of people - I think it was Chris Williams and Bruce Conque. How arrogant is that? He wants to keep out people who don't agree with him. That, and he and the commission went around town speaking to groups spreading lies about the company who wanted to invest a lot of money in Freetown - all because the Commission had been screwed up and never approved the neighborhood plans they were supposed to in the first place. All of these things are only designed to save face.

Johnny

[abbd]

Nope, he doesn't answer to joey, but I think his requests are a symptom of "what ails us". Remember, those meetings before the duncil meetings when we the taxpayers pay for the pigs to eat at the trough (probably feed a lot more folks than just the dunce,jabba and the duncilmen) I believe they are actually in violation of the sunshine laws. I'm gonna look it up, but I beleive when more than 2 of those bozos gather to discuss anything, the sunshine laws apply. So I guess we could all go to get a bite to eat on our? dime? Too much secrecy in LCG for my liking.

[quest]

Relevant PUBLIC Meetings statutes (42:1, 42:2, 42:5)
And yes, the commission coffees are public meetings as defined by statute.

A better question is, Why aren’t the LCG Council dinners public meetings with public notice given as required by state law? Same laws apply.


42§4.1. Public policy for open meetings; liberal construction

A. It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. Toward this end, the provisions of R.S. 42:4.1 through 10 shall be construed liberally.

B. Further, to advance this policy, all public bodies shall post a copy of R.S. 42:4.1 through 13.

42§4.2. Definitions

A. For the purposes of R.S. 42:1 through R.S. 42:12:

(1) "Meeting" means the convening of a quorum of a public body to deliberate or act on a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. It shall also mean the convening of a quorum of a public body by the public body or by another public official to receive information regarding a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.

(2) "Public body" means village, town, and city governing authorities; parish governing authorities; school boards and boards of levee and port commissioners; boards of publicly operated utilities; planning, zoning, and airport commissions; and any other state, parish, municipal, or special district boards, commissions, or authorities, and those of any political subdivision thereof, where such body possesses policy making, advisory, or administrative functions, including any committee or subcommittee of any of these bodies enumerated in this paragraph.

(3) "Quorum" means a simple majority of the total membership of a public body.

B. The provisions of R.S. 42:4.1 through R.S. 42:12 shall not apply to chance meetings or social gatherings of members of a public body at which there is no vote or other action taken, including formal or informal polling of the members.

42§5. Meetings of public bodies to be open to the public

A. Every meeting of any public body shall be open to the public unless closed pursuant to R.S. 42:6, R.S. 42:6.1, or R.S. 42:6.2.

B. Each public body shall be prohibited from utilizing any manner of proxy voting procedure, secret balloting, or any other means to circumvent the intent of R.S. 42:4.1 through R.S. 42:8.

C. All votes made by members of a public body shall be viva voce and shall be recorded in the minutes, journal, or other official, written proceedings of the body, which shall be a public document.

D. Except school boards, which shall be subject to R.S. 42:5.1, each public body conducting a meeting which is subject to the notice requirements of R.S. 42:7(A) shall provide an opportunity for public comment at such meeting, subject to reasonable rules, regulations, and restrictions as adopted by the public body.

[abbd]

Q. what is the proper way to address this issue? Would it be correct to file an ethics complaint? Or do you need to contact the DA? Just wondering out loud here? I wonder why the birdcage liner never questioned the "closed eating meetings" or why those meetings were never "advertised"? Wonder if the media has been eating free also? Gosh I wonder how many folks we been feeding all these years?

[guest]

All public meeting complaints or rather , complaints of public bodies meeting illegally are addressed by the DA, Mike Harson.

His office is on the sixth floor of the Parish Court House at 800 South Buchanan Street.

Phone [phone], his secretary is Barna Haynes.

[ronnief]

That would be Barna Haynes, wife of Gary Haynes, "city prosecutor". Leave me a message, maybe I'll call. Right.