News -> INDReporter FRI, JUN 4 5:44PM by Walter Pierce

Tit for tat: LCG challenges legality of Broussard annexation

The city of Lafayette Friday filed a judicial challenge against Broussard’s Monday annexation of a 50’ x 50’ square of land in south Lafayette Parish, accusing Broussard of failing to adhere to state public notice laws, of annexing outside of its incorporated limits and of being “unreasonable” in its justification for the annexation.

Following is the press release issued late Friday by Lafayette announcing the challenge:
The City of Lafayette today filed a judicial demand against the City of Broussard to invalidate a recent annexation ordinance of the Broussard City Council. Broussard’s ordinance attempted to annex into the municipal limits of the City of Broussard a parcel of land measuring in dimension fifty feet by fifty feet which is not contiguous to the existing territorial limits of the City of Broussard. The challenged ordinance was adopted by the Broussard City Council at a special meeting held on Memorial Day, May 31, 2010.

On May 25, 2010, Broussard filed a suit against the City of Lafayette challenging an ordinance adopted by the Lafayette City-Parish Council which annexed the city-owned golf course (Vieux Chenes) and other city-owned property (Fabacher Park) into the City of Lafayette. In that challenge, Broussard contended that certain legal publications had not been accomplished as required by law. Lafayette’s position was that its original publication was fully in accord with applicable law. However, rather than fight a lengthy, expensive legal battle, it was deemed both prudent and cost-effective to merely repeal the original ordinance and re-adopt a separate ordinance annexing these properties. That new ordinance annexing the city owned Vieux Chenes Golf Course and Fabacher Park was adopted by the Lafayette City-Parish Council on Tuesday, June 1, 2010.

In Lafayette’s judicial demand challenging the recent annexation by Broussard, it is asserted that the annexation ordinance was adopted on a date which is earlier than allowed by Louisiana law. Louisiana law clearly states that, “No ordinance enlarging the boundaries of the municipality shall be adopted until ten days after the publication of the notice.” In this case, the publication was had on May 21st such that June 1st is the first legal day when the annexation could have been lawfully adopted. Adopting an ordinance on May 31 (a legal holiday), after a publication on May 21, does not satisfy applicable law which explicitly requires ten full days to pass after publication.

Additionally, the challenge contends that the purported annexation is unreasonable. Among other reasons, the challenge points out that the property purported to be annexed by Broussard is separated from the existing municipal boundaries of Broussard by over a half mile. The stated reason to annex the non-contiguous parcel of land is to install a sewer lift station, but Broussard has no existing sewer facilities in the vicinity of such parcel of land, and moreover, has no legal right to extend services of that type outside of its municipal boundaries.

Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (5)add
...
written by Chad R. Bushnell , June 07, 2010 - 07:13 pm
Within the city of Houston there are several cities that function semi-independently. Each has it's own police department and mayor/city council government. However utilities cross boundries as does the school district. I would think cities in Louisiana might want to consider some options rather than start a civil war between the friends of Lafayette and Broussard. There are much bigger issues that need to be addressed. Now everyone say "I'm sorry" and shake hands and get back to the important issues.
...
written by The Original Northsidian , June 07, 2010 - 07:35 pm
"Let's get ready to RUMBLE!"
...
written by Unempirical Observer , June 07, 2010 - 09:11 pm
Hey Chad,
it's really just about being a taker...extracting the wealth to be exploited or in this case taxed. Therein, money, lies the root of this problem. This continues to be a problem in a society that produces winners and losers.
The US vs. Them dichotomy continues without end.
Maybe as you're suggesting, we can solve this resource problem and continue to offer local autonomy to all.
...
written by HARDHAT , June 08, 2010 - 01:06 am
C. R. Bushnel, you must be far removed from the fracas at hand, around here its a dog eat dog attitude, every administration is hell-bound to pave the way for their cronys, have'nt you heard the wise age-old cliche, " we have the best politicians money can buy,
and it all began right here in ACADIANA
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , June 08, 2010 - 01:23 am
I HASTEN TO DISAGREE WITH MR. UNEMPIRICAL OBSERVER, Its actually the takers with the sticky fingers and the honest tax-payers.
Our government, from the elected Dogcather to the President of this parish, have the most unique invisible manner of operating, so as to shift tax payer monies and shuffle the publics funds until no-one, not a Master CPA with a PHD in high finance, can decipher how an Acadiana Politician can double-deal to allow the money falling in the most unknown locales, or i should say in the least known pockets where it may be of less use to benefit the local citizenry.
Bushnell, I know you mean well, but you have your, BUSHES, STANFORDS AND CHENEYS, you have your plate full........
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