News -> Walter Pierce RE:

Tea Time

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The GOP in Lafayette is being challenged from the far right. By Walter Pierce

A tempest is brewing in Republican politics in this very Republican parish, and this fall’s city-parish elections may well wind up being a referendum on the tea party movement and how much influence it wields.

Perhaps emboldened by the nationwide success of the movement, the Tea Party of Lafayette has become an on-again, off-again presence at council meetings and, we’re told by sources, in the grills of GOP council members in need of a little corrective persuasion. They appeared before the council in late December to speak against a 2 percent pay raise for Lafayette Consolidated Government employees. The pay raise passed.

But recently, at a private meeting involving about a dozen TPL members and District 8 Councilman Keith Patin, a moderate Republican, things got ugly. Patin has confirmed that a handful of the founding father fetishists got aggressive and intimidating — think August 2009 and the town hall meetings over health care reform — accusing Patin of being “too pragmatic” and vowing to field a TP candidate against him this fall if he votes in favor of the creation of two economic development districts at an upcoming council meeting. (Several tea party members, we’re told, later called Patin to apologize for the behavior of their colleagues.)

If approved, the EDDs will allow for the levying of additional sales/use and hotel occupancy taxes — 1 to 2 percent extra in taxes — at a private retail development called Parc Lafayette on Kaliste Saloom Road across from River Ranch.
City-Parish President Joey Durel and other GOP leaders in the city support the concept, arguing that these additional taxes are voluntary — if you don’t want to pay the taxes don’t patronize the businesses, including a planned four- or five-star hotel, that are built there — and that they help accelerate commercial development in the city and, in so doing, expand the tax base.

The additional taxes levied at Parc Lafayette would go into a trust fund designed to pay off bonds issued to do the development.

Some are torn on the EDD idea. Yes, the taxes are voluntary. But what if Parc Lafayette goes belly up? Who pays the bonds when they mature? The developer — and those willing the take the risk of buying the bonds. There is no liability for the taxpayer. But you’ll have to attend the council’s March 15 meeting to get the lowdown on precisely how this will work.

And, as we understand it, there’s wide latitude written into the ordinances creating these economic development districts, allowing the developer to use the bond money to not only cover the cost of infrastructure, but to pay for the brass fixtures and bidets in the fancy hotel.
Yes, the additional taxes expire when the bonds are paid off. But widening the scope of the bonds to cover anything related to the development rather than limiting their use to infrastructure makes us uneasy.

If there’s anything the tea party can hang a bag of Earl Grey on, it’s the Home Rule Charter. Part D of Section 2-17, “Power to Levy Taxes,” reads: “All proposals to renew, levy a new or increase an existing sales and use tax shall be submitted to the voters for approval in accordance with the election laws of the state.”

That sounds cut and dry, but it runs counter to a state law — “Chapter 27 of Title 33 of Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950” — allowing for the creation of economic development districts. If the ordinances creating these EDDs pass, could that lead to a lawsuit challenging them?

Durel, also a moderate Republican, is not insensitive to the sentiments steeping within his party. It can even be said he delivered a shot across the bow last week when, during his state of the parish address, he defended the concept of EDDs along the “voluntary tax” lines, saying of such taxes, “you do get to vote — with your steering wheel.”

A challenge to the tea partiers could even be read into Durel’s comments about “shrinking government” — a popular refrain in the TP song book — when he pointed out that government services must keep pace with a growing community. The idea is right, just not right wing.
And Durel has not been immune to what observers perceive to be TP pressure: Last November he pulled an ordinance creating tax increment finance districts thanks, sources tell us, to tea party pressure weakening the knees of a few councilmen who were on the fence about the TIFs. Durel said at the time that we “need more open, public discussion” on the issue.

I’ve always thought of Lafayette as a politically moderate, progressive city. This year is likely to test that view.


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (11)add
...
written by Dr.Northsidian Shotgun , February 23, 2011 - 06:51 am
I've got a hundred bucks to a Meche's Donut the Bidets and gold fixture will cause problems, for when the inner city crowd sits on the gold gilded bidets they'll break out in a rash all over their hiney, its like them sitting on a poison oak vine, they have no immunity to poison oak, and they have never sat their posterior on gold bidet's, they have to break out with a rash on their hiney's, thats Murphy's Law.
...
written by Positive attitude , February 23, 2011 - 12:56 pm
If TIF's are illegal, do we undo Louisiana Ave? Does state law trump local law? Do TIF's tax all of the citizens of Lafayette?
All of theses questions should be answered,

And once we know they are legal, each should be studied on an individual basis.
LEDA said Louisiana Ave would be successful and it has been a huge asset for the north side.
If LEDA, has studies that say a 4-5 star hotel with a convention center will be an asset to Lafayette, And the city has no risk to tax payers, why not? Good jobs and an attraction to bring people to our great city.
I don't have to shop there since there are so many other choices across the street and right down
the road.

...
written by Hidden in the pumpkin , February 23, 2011 - 04:33 pm
Lafayette wants to remain Hicksville which is why it will always be a town and never a city.
...
written by Farrow , February 23, 2011 - 05:31 pm
As a moderate Independent I will oppose the Tea Party whenever I can, and I will band with others to defeat it time and time again.

So far this has been successful, for while conservative candidates have won recent elections in Louisiana -- a conservative state to begin with -- few of them were first-choice Tea Party candidates.
...
written by ragin_cajun , February 24, 2011 - 07:01 pm
Boy, Boy, Boy. Where to start....:) I'm gonna stick to 3 points on this.

1. No one, not even the developer, has as yet given an honest-and SPECIFIC-answer to the question of what this borrowed money will be spent on. But, I AM encouraged to hear that spending it on bidets and brass fixtures makes you at least somewhat uneasy, Walter. There's hope for you, yet...:)

2. What I find REALLY interesting about this whole TEA Party phenomenon is not the TEA Party, but the rabid opposition to it. It basically amounts to "You're gonna pay whatever taxes we say, and you're gonna like it". Americans actually object to free people casting off the yoke. It's astounding.

3. Durel and Stewart have incompetently bungled this from the very start, and their hubris is stunning! They could have just said what they'd spend the money on at the very beginning! That would have completely squelched the entire debate if it were spent on anything remotely useful. Durel could have said "we're buying the proposed hotel a gigantic water main". Game over. Done. "A hotel has much higher electrical/water/sewage requirements, so the city needs to help pay for that". No more argument or debate, the whole thing makes sense to most people, and the TEA Party moves on to one of a thousand other intrusions on individual and economic freedom. The fact that they didn't do exactly that, that they allowed this very tiny issue to mushroom into 3-5 separate articles in the Independent, that they delivered sales pitches instead of facts at the city council meeting, and cheapened the public discourse with direct personal attacks speaks volumes about the developer and the Durel administration.
...
written by Joey's principles for business , February 25, 2011 - 04:04 am
I'm all for the TIF. Joey's right a 5 star hotel would be great. The fact the other hotels in town will not get the same break, who cares. that's their problem, right. The should have gotten on board Joey's progressive train. In fact I think Lafayette needs a 5 star paper. I mean if anyone is going to take us seriously, then we need a paper that actually does real journalism, state news, world news. You know informative. I'm sure this paper would feel it "progressive" to carve out a TIF for that. Jobs, sales tax revenue, people flocking here. And while we're at it, how about a TIF for the new Whole Foods, sorry Fresh Market; the new PF Chang's, sorry Charlie G's; the new premier Mercedes Dealership, sorry Moss Moters, the new Theater, the new national Law firm, sorry Allen and Gooch; the new survey company, sorry Fenstimaker, They all will move Lafayette forward. After all its the same argument, right?
...
written by Joey's principles for business , February 25, 2011 - 04:11 am
Walter: would you support a TIF for a rival newspaper? It's really that simple.
...
written by Resident , February 25, 2011 - 01:26 pm
Although I think the TEA party is largely a partisan charade (more so on the national stage, with notable exceptions like Rand Paul), I'm going with them on this issue. Seems like another case of cronyism between rich developers and local politicians. Yes, we're going to change the law and create a special tax that will help out my developer buddy...I mean, help out Lafayette by putting yet another hotel and yet another convention center in a highly inflated part of town. Oh, but you don't HAVE to pay the taxes.

Hey, I'm starting a business that should provide benefits to the community. Can I get some kind of special deal from government?
...
written by Doctor Ciano , February 27, 2011 - 11:56 am
Joey's PFB...GEt in line, get in line, First Daigle buys Durel's house then Durel gets a MASTER KEY to the RITZY 5 Star 5000 Suites with con-necking doors and everyone be elated but Joety's missus. And Joey, be scratching his rashy assy with the Bidet's crud. Believe anything Joey supports has not only Duncaqn's Hines recommendation, it also has Zooschlag, Allen's, and the Surveyman's stamp of free distributal of the round table circle jerkers.
...
written by Buddyup , March 01, 2011 - 10:49 am
Oh there are some pollys I'd love to see get some real, down and dirty competition in the up coming races. I really hope some tea potty candidates come up. The TIF in upper Laf was to encourage development. This RR development was planned many years ago, & I don't trust the city officials telling me the taxpayer won't be responsible. I think its a lie & and back office deal. I see two new hotels less than half a mile from the "gold bidet" proposal & I don't give a rats apple for anyone who thinks Laf needs better. What an insult to the hotels who USED INVESTOR MONEY, NOT TAXPAYER MONEY. Once Lafayette has your business, we'll take pains to insult you that your're not good enuf for some of out visitors. And the last time I checked, Lafayette was a significant CITY, not a town, but I'd love to go back to a smaller Lafayette.... I'm not real fond of some of the high falutin "settlers" who think they need gold bidets.....
...
written by Independent Thinker , May 28, 2011 - 07:06 pm
I've just read about this issue of special taxes for an upscale hotel for the first time. While I do understand Mayor Durel's support for a higher tax rate for a ritzy hotel,which will surely be visited by those who can pay the extra charge, I do have some questions. For example, what is to keep our local government for expanding that concept throughout the city, until the average citizen with average income can no longer affor to patronize businesses in his own city? Is this the beginning of a wealthy ruling class in contrast to a peasant working class? I think that is a real danger if no safeguards are put in place. Also, does this somehow tie in to the proposed "blighted property" bill, which would clear the way for local government officials to join with developers to perpetuate this practice? Would a precedent be set so that local citizens and voters have no voice in these matters? Perhaps the only way to guarantee that corruption does not rear its ugly head would be to put these "special exclusions" to a vote on a case by case basis. It is a very interesting conundrum in which we find ourselves concerning these matters. In the end, the important issue is the protection of our citizens and our culture, and we must beware of the temptation to exclude our citizens for the reward of more revenue.
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 
Advertisement

Read the Flipping Paper!

Click Here for the Entire Print Version of
IND Monthly
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it