News -> News TUE, JUN 28 9:51AM by Walter Pierce

Death of a Good Intention

Wednesday, June 29, 2011
By Walter Pierce

A bill that would have created the Lafayette Parish Redevelopment Authority was opposed by both ends of the political spectrum.

The withdrawal of House Bill 531 on June 13 was an afterthought, really. The bill creating the Lafayette Parish Redevelopment Authority had cleared the state House on May 12 unanimously, enjoying the kind of overwhelming bipartisan support that most locally focused bills get. But before 531 was scheduled to move into a Senate committee on May 17, its sponsor, Rep. Joel Robideaux, an independent Lafayette lawmaker, pulled it from consideration. Not coincidentally, by that time howls of protest from the most far-flung political corners of Lafayette — the parish’s Democratic Executive Committee and the Tea Party of Lafayette — were reaching a crescendo. So, less than a month later when the bill limped out of the shadows to die, few were surprised and many were relieved.

Robideaux cited “important questions” and “unanswered concerns” about the proposed redevelopment authority in withdrawing the legislation, and in diagnosing the death of 531 those questions and concerns appear legitimate.

20110629-news-0101
House Bill 531 was written, supporters say, with abandoned, dilapidated properties like this in mind. Opponents of the bill warned it could lead to abuse of power by an unelected board.

On its face 531 was well-intended — “to eliminate or prevent the development or spread of slums and blight, to encourage needed rehabilitation, to provide for the redevelopment of slums or blighted areas, and to undertake other feasible parochial activities as may be suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such workable program,” as the bill’s preamble reads. HB 531 was essentially a verbatim version of a 2007 bill that cleared the Legislature and was signed by Gov. Kathleen Blanco creating the East Baton Rouge Redevelopment Authority, substituting Lafayette for Baton Rouge.

The EBR Redevelopment Authority, or RDA as it’s known in the capital, began operations in 2008. High on its aggressive agenda are plans to redevelop five neighborhoods, most of them in north Baton Rouge’s decaying “inner city,” by acquiring blighted, tax-delinquent properties, clearing the titles and marketing those properties to individuals, developers and non-profits. While Baton Rouge’s RDA is just getting a head of steam, it was created and began operations in a different era — pre-tea party.

Like the RDA in Baton Rouge, Lafayette’s version would have been run by a five-person appointed board. Appointment power in the bill went to City-Parish President Joey Durel, the City-Parish Council, the Community Foundation of Acadiana, District 44 state Rep. Rickey Hardy and District 29 state Sen. Elbert Guillory. The latter two were granted appointment power, the bill reasoned, because their districts comprise the areas in Lafayette Parish most in need of redevelopment.

After 531 cleared the House, the ire of the Tea Party of Lafayette was fully stoked. “For shame Mr. Robideaux and all our House members for passing this deceitful legislation,” wrote Carol Ross to members of the Senate Local & Municipal Affairs Committee urging them to kill the bill. While not a listed member of TPL, Ross, wife of conservative newspaper publisher Ron Gomez and a frequent guest on Moon Griffon’s radio program, is certainly sympathetic with tea party issues.

Within days of Ross’ epistle to the Senate committee, the Lafayette Parish Democratic Executive Committee penned its own letter in opposition to 531 citing many of the same concerns.

Both parties’ objection to an appointed, un-elected commission are arguably tiresome to anyone familiar with Lafayette Parish governance: There are about three dozen such appointed boards and commissioners operating in Lafayette Parish. There’s the Airport Commission, the Library Board of Control, the Teche-Vermilion Fresh Water District and so on, all with devoted tax-revenue streams and many with the power to allocate taxpayer money. And they’ve been operating in Lafayette Parish for decades — above board, generally, but under the radar.

But elsewhere in 531 there are things that make you go hmmm. For example: “A bid by the authority at a tax sale for the minimum amount shall take priority over all other bids for the same quantity of property, except for a higher bid submitted by a conventional mortgage holder holding a mortgage on the subject property.”

 
 
 

Does that mean a higher bid for a tax-delinquent property by someone other than the mortgage holder would be trumped by a lower bid by the redevelopment authority? Apparently so.

HB 531 also grants the redevelopment authority the right to delineate “subdistricts” within the redevelopment district, which as the law is written would comprise all of Lafayette Parish unless one, some or all of the smaller municipalities wanted to opt out. And — here’s the rub for the tea party folks — “... a subdistrict may, within its geographical boundaries, utilize tax increment financing ...”

Those damn TIFs again!

So, while language in 531 specifically requires tax propositions supported by the redevelopment authority go to a vote of residents, the authority could potentially make an end run around that by designating subdistricts and creating those dreaded TIFs, which earned a black eye via the Glenn Stewart Parc Lafayette fiasco a few months ago.

20110629-news-0103 
 Council Chairman Kenneth Boudreaux was leery of the bill from the start.

And what, exactly, constitutes a “blighted” property?

When doing the autopsy on House Bill 531, maybe the biggest power broker in what transpired was City-Parish Council Chairman Kenneth Boudreaux, who represents District 4, the most economically distressed district in Lafayette Parish.

“We have always viewed the possession of land as the most valuable possession of any human being — the most valuable commodity there is,” Boudreaux says. “That’s all some people have is their family property. That’s why I didn’t want to move too fast on this — it’s huge. And all the negative things that have been said about this, I want to try to prevent those from happening as opposed to trying to fix them after they happen.”

Boudreaux felt slighted by the process that created the bill — especially so because as the councilman for a district that would be a focus of the authority’s mission he didn’t get a say in who served on the authority’s board of commissioners.

“I felt the appointments should be on a local level just as the city-parish president was a local appointment,” Boudreaux concedes. “And when you’re talking about self-governance, I felt it needs to be among the closest proximity of elected officials who work with these communities. Accountability’s going to be huge here in my opinion.”

After Robideaux initially pulled the bill, negotiations, if you can call them that, among the interested parties — particularly Boudreaux and the Durel administration — began. Durel agreed to a rewrite giving Boudreaux and District 3 Councilman Brandon Shelvin appointment power instead of state lawmakers Hardy and Guillory.

But ultimately they weren’t able to iron out other differences, mainly the possibility of this redevelopment authority being able to expropriate property, that is, declaring the acquisition of a title part of a “public necessity” or for “the greater good” and taking it against the title holder’s will. The bill is so meticulously crafted and so larded with lawyer dialect that it isn’t even clear if expropriation — “eminent domain” if you want to make it truly sinister — was even an option. But a source in the legal profession familiar with the bill says, yes, it is, “it’s a legitimate concern.” That same source also acknowledges the 500-pound gorilla in the room: A Lafayette Parish Redevelopment Authority, with an emphasis on “authority,” was seen in Lafayette’s black community as little more than an attempt by “the white man” to snatch black property — a view underscored by the bill’s provenance: white Republican Joey Durel.

20110629-news-0102
City-Parish President Joey Durel was frustrated by the derailing of HB 531.

As 531 derailed, Durel found himself in an awkward position, pushed from the right by the tea party, from the left by the Dems and from the center by the council chairman. The city-parish president declined comment for this story, but another source tells The Ind he was and remains angry and frustrated by what happened, and feels that a bill with good intentions was sabotaged by representatives — Boudreaux especially and local Democrats generally — of the people 531 was intended to help.

Durel, we’re also told, is ready to wash his hands of the issue and isn’t likely to back such legislation in the future.


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (27)add
...
written by realitycheck , June 29, 2011 - 11:37 am
What spin!! What a fraud!! WP: DID YOU READ PAST THE PREAMBLE???? You couldn't have!R.S. 33:4720.101 was only a 26 page doc; HB 531 was 50 pages! The two laws have VERY LITTLE in common!! After a quick reference to "blight" HB 531 gave vast powers to the emporer over his kingdom through his unelected thugs! Expropriation was the purpose; a power grab over ALL of the parish. Arnold acreage on Johston could have been taken under the premise of "noncompatable"; the historic community could have been bulldozed as "obsolete"; homes could have been taken for more "air" or "light" or "space". The J St "beautification" could have been rammed through and family businesses shut down. The mayor can simply put the adjudicated properties up for auction according to state law and most of the problem goes away. However, with the improvements downtown, Durel wants to control the process and reward cronies with what is now valuable property. Downtown and the inner core can now stake a claim to the old adage "location, location, location". Developers in this community need to realize that the days of buying "dirt cheap" acreage is over! THANK YOU, K. BOUDREAUX and the Tea Party and the dems and reps!!
...
written by bubba , June 29, 2011 - 12:02 pm
Durel is not washing his hands of anything. He will not stop till he takes away all the property owned by the non River Ranch living DEMOCRATS. I love Joey.
...
written by ML , June 29, 2011 - 01:17 pm
There are many issues of which Durel should was his hands.
...
written by Ophelia 46 , June 29, 2011 - 01:23 pm
Good piece --but a couple of things distinguish this legislation from the BR Redevelopment Authority bill. 1) It was 16 pages longer than the B.R. legislation (and BR has about 3 times the number of blighted properties as Lafayette); 2) It included this language: "To plan, develop, regulate, operate, and maintain activities and planned land uses to foster creation of new jobs, economic development, industry, health care, general public and social welfare, commerce, manufacturing, tourism, relocation of people and business to the area, shipbuilding, aviation, military, warehousing, transportation, offices, recreation, housing development, and conservation." HUH???? I thought this was about blighted and adjucated properties. And all of that could be done by 5 unelected, unaccountable, specially seleccted board members who could then award contracts to do all of the above to their specially selected friends. And so it goes..
...
written by politics as usual , June 29, 2011 - 01:26 pm
Boudreaux felt slighted and "didn't get a say" Last time I looked, he was a member of the council and got an appointment. Sounds like a power struggle to me.
At the Chamber Retreat, Blighted Properties were "the topic" of discussion and the big push was to accomplish what Baton Rouge has and get these properties back into commerce so the city doesn't have to continue to throw tax dollars into these money pits. Too bad.
...
written by American , June 29, 2011 - 01:41 pm
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
What right does anyone have to take the property of another for whatever reason. God forbid! This is big government taking advantage of the little guy. My shack might be only roof I have over my head, but it is mine. Better to have a committee to have volunteers to help rebuild or repair properties for those in need. That is what America is all about.
...
written by realitycheck , June 29, 2011 - 03:03 pm
One very important aspect of HB531 was that the process was too fast to muster a defense and required very little effort to find true owners (only tax and conveyance records)to know that they needed a defense. Property could be seized quickly and bulldozed despite the lodging of an appeal. If the seizing of the property was done in error, too bad!! You were only able to get "monetary damages"; you don't get your property back!! "Oops!! Too late!! Come and admire the dog park we put in where your family home used to be"
...
written by tif , June 29, 2011 - 04:12 pm
Thank, all of you who looked out for us when the elected wouldn't. We can't keep up with all of this and our elected won't. Again, thank you all for your personal time to help save our city from the greedy.
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 29, 2011 - 04:21 pm
There already IS a process to move blighted properties "back into commerce", and it was presented to the Council months ago, before HB531, by Pat Ottinger and Gary McGoffin. We should all go and watch the video of that presentation to understand this issue. HB
...
written by barb , June 29, 2011 - 05:45 pm
"Wash his hands"? Wait till after the election. If re-elected he will shove this and more like it down our throats. Bubba if you love him your a FOOL. Joey is the most for TAX and against poor people mayor to ever hold office in Lafayette. Don't forget if you disagree with him your stupid are just don't understand and must hate Lafayette.
...
written by jfredblair , June 29, 2011 - 06:28 pm
Lafayette is missing out. The RDA in Baton Rouge scored $60 million in federal tax credits that are being used to build in some census tracts, including the areas between downtown and LSU. Already, the RDA has provided a direct infusion to build a YMCA in North Baton Rouge and tax credits for a hotel in downtown, and on it will go.

Congrtulations, Lafayette. Even BR is doing more than you.

...
written by James Melancon , June 29, 2011 - 07:48 pm
"objection to an appointed, un-elected commission are arguably tiresome"..."three dozen such appointed boards and commissioners operating in Lafayette Parish."
----------------

Yes, and it is a festering problem. It is part of the reason government is a financial mess.
...
written by realitycheck , June 29, 2011 - 07:53 pm
jfred: We have not missed anything; rather, we have been spared of the worst oppression. Oppertunity still remains but progress will only be had when Durel learns that he can not inject his greed and corruption so that he can control outcomes for buddies. And a healthy dose of due process needs to be had along with a respect for the State Constitution.
...
written by James Melancon , June 29, 2011 - 07:55 pm
by jfredblair "Lafayette is missing out. The RDA in Baton Rouge scored $60 million in federal tax credits"
------------------------

Do we reduce economic activity to a political game? Doesn't anyone realize such states as California and Illinois are bankrupt because of governmental action?
...
written by wondering , June 29, 2011 - 08:15 pm
Is the guy building all that wonderful stuff in Baton Rouge on other people's property with other people's money also the guy who sits on the committee in BR to determine who gets the tax credits? Left Hand...Right Hand....no body notices........ Anyway, that's how it will/does work in Lafayette usually (Housing Authority seemed too anyway)
...
written by Remember , June 29, 2011 - 08:24 pm
Airport Commission is the first example? Hmmmm. Didn't they have some issues with expenses? Didn't the legislative auditor have some "suggestions" for them?
...
written by Not even close , June 29, 2011 - 09:37 pm
I sat in on Gary Mcgoffin's presentation about blighted properties twice. His vision was very similar to this bill. It created an authority that would be able to deal with these blighted properties because the ordinances on the books presently have NOT been able to clear the titles on properties that have been abandoned. Ottinger has concurred with this. Clearing the titles have been a nightmare that no one has been able to resolve for the last 30 years.
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 30, 2011 - 03:32 am
Not Even Cloar --

McGoffin and Ottinger's presentation says clearly that if the proposed ordinance presented tomthe council were enacted, the council could clear these "adjudicated properties" without a redevelopment authority. They also said that changes in State Law about two years ago make this possible.

So that tells me that if the council would get their head in the game, all these blighted properties wouldn't be a problem. Is that how you see it?

The presentation we're talking about is on the Council's website.
...
written by realitycheck , June 30, 2011 - 12:06 pm
Durel just wants to write his own law to control the outcome rather than simply letting properties go to the highest bidder at public sale. Durel is the hold up; nothing else. He wants a "Redo-it-my-way Authority". Durel has no respect AT ALL for our history nor for the Upper Lafayette area. Remember, he says "I'm just not in my element in North Lafayette". Dahh.... that's because you've ignored it and only show an interest now bc you think you can use federal funds to enrich your buddies and maybe cover up the neglect. Mr. Durel, your attempted rape of the northside and attempted theft of private property will be remembered at the polls.
...
written by realitycheck , June 30, 2011 - 12:49 pm
ragin: I want to review that; got a link or the date of that meeting? thanks


...
written by ragin_cajun , June 30, 2011 - 02:06 pm
Yeah, it's right here...

http://www.lafayettela.gov/obcouncil/default.aspx

Parts one and two. They also posted the power point presentation, too. There's a part at the end where Brandon Shelvin asks McGoffin how this all would affect proposed state legislation creating a redevelopment authority (HB-531), and McGoffin said that it was irrelavent. That bill would only state who takes control of the adjudicated property. Without a redevelopment authority, then the council could take control of it and do whatever it wanted with it--sell it, give it away, whatever.

I personally think that the Council should handle this. That way, people can go to the council meetings and speak, they can vote out their councilmen if they don't like what he/she does with adjudicated properties, everybody'd know if a councilman was favoring his buddies, and there'd be no arguments over appointments to a commission to run an authority.

Let's keep in mind, that the Council has a TERRIBLE record of appointing people to head authorities recently.
...
written by realitycheck , June 30, 2011 - 09:32 pm
Thanks Ragin! The presentation was very helpful. Much abuse was contained in HB531 that was never mentioned in that presentation. And why was that being done at the state level rather than just doing the enabling ordinance at the local level which is all that is needed? There was sooooo much mess added in there that is not found in the BRRA. Expropriations would be necessary for larger developments and that was Durel's goal. And, also to bully hold out landowners who are not interested in selling their property, both the small homeowner and holders of large, undeveloped tracts.
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 30, 2011 - 10:58 pm
I have no inside scoop, you'd have to ask someone who does. But I strongly suspect Rabideaux didn't have a clue what was in the bill--he just dropped it in the hopper because Joey told him to and made it sound like no big deal. I think Joey and LEDA kept introducing it year after year, adding things and rewriting, not really knowing/watching/caring what the state guys were doing, so they had no idea that state law had changed and solved their problem for them. They had plans and a bill in a desk drawer, and they never really kept current on the issue.

You have to understand--Joey has bigger fish to fry than keeping up with legislation that affects city government. There's just not a lot of "sizzle" on that particular "steak". :). But, then again, you don't sound like a Chamber/leadership Lafayette type insider, so you couldn't POSSIBLY understand things like this.....:)

Best thing we could do is leave issues like this to ultra educated mental giants like Joey Durel and Don Bertrand and their Star Chamber patrons.
...
written by realitycheck , July 01, 2011 - 12:09 pm
I think Joey and LEDA kept introducing it year after year, adding things and rewriting, not really knowing/watching/caring what the state guys were doing, so they had no idea that state law had changed and solved their problem for them.

Can't agree with you on that. Joey Durel wanted way more power to grab land and put together large packages for developers; downtown and throughout the parish. I believe that Durel looked to other states with eminent domain abuse for "economic development" (prohibited by our state constitution) and used that as the model and tried to slide it by the public by emphasizing "blight"; thinking no one would actually read it, much less compare it to the supposed model in Baton Rouge. He is "frustrated" and "angry" because he got caught! I would suggest to you that if you look at the time line, when the Joke de Ville development (a/k/a future AOC slum) runs into hold out property owners, Durel tries something like this again to bully them into selling for dirt cheap prices, worried they are doomed to expropriations. Durel and cronies have grossly underestimated the downtown and upper Lafayette community, who are already planning to insure that Durel does not get another term. It is a large voting population in upper Lafayette and his attempted theft of home and business has activated many.
...
written by ragin_cajun , July 01, 2011 - 05:42 pm
VERY interesting! I don't know much about that whole issue with AOC and the housing development they're trying to build with AOC...lemme guess, that's Greg Gachassin developing that?

If Joey thought he'd slip one by...well, that fits,too. I have this theory that people of all different ideologies have become very skeptical and involved with government, and state/local politicians don't realize it, yet. That's why they keep running into resistance from unexpected quartets everytime they try to do something.

If the northside crowd is getting geared up to ensure Durel doesn't get another term.,,,who's running against him? Do they have a candidate? Who?
...
written by realitycheck , July 02, 2011 - 08:50 pm
Ragin: Yes, Gachassin is the developer and AOC has a 1% ownership now. (wonder if that keeps them from paying property taxes on the $18 Million development in the first 10 years?) Later, AOC gets 100%. Gachassin denies that it will be a prisoner reentry housing but he won't guaranty it with a performance bond or even a neighborhood agreement. (prisons are overcrowded and there is a move for massive releases to help state budgets everywhere)

Who is to say what AOC will do with it? After all, their 1/2 way and 3/4 houses today are people who would otherwise be in jail. Their 3 Graces in Abbeville services people with both addictions and mental illnesses. They have about 90 beds; JDV will have about 70 units. The CEO of AOC when asked directly says that people they work with "will need sustainanble housing". So, their patients/inmates will be treated for addiction but they will exit with mental conditions, don't you think? The development might start off as mixed use for the developer to max his money the first 10 years of tax benefits, during which time, I think, it has to maintain the ratios, but once it switches over to AOC, anything could happen. That's one social experiment we don't want to see in Downtown Lafayette!! Sustainable??? If it fills up at that point with mental patients, it will be sustained with tax money. If it is 100% owned by a nonprofit, it won't have to pay property taxes, right? AOC doesn't pay property taxes now, so one would think they won't even on this large scale development. If that's the case, built 100% with tax money, sustained by taxes in HUD vouches but pays no property taxes, thus a triple tax cost to the rest of the community. ("Sustainable" = your taxes) The DDA should have done some due diligence and should get an opinion from Conrad Comeaux on the tax issue; first 10 years and also when AOC takes it over.They should also seek performance bonds so it does not end up a slum and drain on the community.

A candidate does not need to come from the northside; they just need to understand the different issues of the inner core and upper Lafayette. That would get a lot of votes with just that, because this HB531 was wayyyyy too close for people to continue sleeping. As Boudreaux said, when you're talking about taking people's homes, that's pretty much everything!
...
written by realitycheck , July 03, 2011 - 11:56 am
I have this theory that people of all different ideologies have become very skeptical and involved with government, and state/local politicians don't realize it, yet. That's why they keep running into resistance from unexpected quartets everytime they try to do something.

To that I would add that the internet is the "democratization of the media" and we no longer have to relie on the printed newspaper. Also, the ability to research public information and social network are empowering the individual enormously to mount public resistance; even before abuses take place. The "good-old-boy" network hasn't caught on and will soon be the "good-ol-farts" club; unable to weild the powere they once did.


You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it