Petition challenging the annexation of the mall

8/12/2019 Petition challenging the annexation of the mall

1/10

LOUIS "WOODY " JENKINS NUMBER DIVISION

19TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUSPARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

CITY OF BATON ROUGE ANDEAST BATON ROUGE PARISHMETROPOLITAN 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-


2/10

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, Dillards, J.C. Penneys, Macys, 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 Sheriffs

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


3/10

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 Dillards, J.C. Penney, Macys, 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


4/10

the area to be annexed is common to the boundary of the municipality and there are

no registered voters. The purported annexation adopted by the Metro Council does

not claim to have a common boundary with the city of at least ninety percent.

11.

The Plan of Government in Section 1.09 provides that there must be attached

to any petition for annexation of a compact body of land adjoining the City of

Baton Rouge, a certification by the Assessor that those signing the petition

constituted a majority in number and amount of property tax payers in that

compact body. However, the Petition for Annexation submitted by the petitioners

contains no such certification. Rather, the certification provided by the Assessor

contains only the valuation of the property owned by the Petitioners and does not

include a valuation of the property owned by those who did not sign the petition

included in the purported annexation or within the outer boundaries of the

annexation.

The only property taxpayers who signed the Petition for Annexation were

Mall of Louisiana LLC, Mall of Louisiana Land, LLC, and Level Ventures. The

other signers are exempt from paying property taxes. The property taxpayers

within the outer boundary of the purported annexation include the following:

Kansas City Southern Railroad, DSLD, LLC, TownePlace Suites by Marriott,

Sears Auto Center, Entergy, Dillards, J.C. Penney, Macys, and Sears. A clear

majority of the property taxpayers within the outer boundary of the purported

annexation did not sign the annexation petition. Therefore, it is not valid.

12.

The purported annexation includes a section of railroad tracks owned by

Kansas City Southern Railroad. This narrow strip of railroad property is essential

to connect the Level Ventures, LLC, property to the Baton Rouge General property

and thereby arguably make The Mall contiguous to the City of Baton Rouge.


5/10

However, the Kansas City Southern Railroad did not sign the petition. The

purported annexation includes only a small portion of property in a much larger

tract of land owned by the Kansas City Southern Railroad. State law provides that

an annexation must be of a tract, lot, or parcel of land. Yet, this purported

annexation does not contain the entire tract owned by the railroad but rather a

small portion of that tract which the railroad has not subdivided. This purported

subdivision and annexation is being done by the City of Baton Rouge without the

consent of the railroad. The Assessor did not certify a valuation either for the larger

more valuable tract or for the smaller portion of the tract, which was purportedly

annexed. Without such valuation, it is impossible to determine whether a majority

in valuation signed the petition.

13

One of the signers of the Petition of Annexation was Level Ventures, LLC.

The tract shown as belonging to Level Ventures, LLC, is also necessary to make

the annexation contiguous. At the time of the annexation on May 14, 2014,

twenty-four (24) lots in the purported annexation were owned by DSLD, LLC

However, the signature of DSLD, LLC was not obtained, nor were the values of

DSDLs lots listed in the Assessors certification. Therefore, it is impossible to

determine if a majority in value of the property taxpayers signed the petition.

Other property taxpayers were included within the outer boundary of the

purported annexation, namely Dillards J. C. Penneys, Macys, Sears, as well as

Sears Auto Center, Entergy, and TownePlace Suites by Marriott. Yet, no valuation

of these properties was included in the Assessors certification of values and it is

impossible to determine whether a majority in value signed the petition.

14.

Procedural Defects. The ordinance of annexation was adopted by the

Metropolitan Council in clear violation of the mandatory procedural requirements


6/10

of state law and the Plan of Government, rendering it null and void. These

violations include the following:

A. The ordinance was adopted at the same meeting where it was

introduced. Because it levies a tax on businesses brought into the city limits,

requires the payment of a license or permit by those businesses, and places a

burden on private property brought into the City, the ordinance had to lay over

until the next meeting of the Council as required by the Plan of Government.

B. The ordinance required the vote of seven members of the twelve-

member council, and the voting should have been by roll call and recorded.

However, the Metropolitan Council cast only one vote, supposedly to adopt two

separate ordinances the ordinance which is the subject of this suit and the

ordinance to annex Our Lady of the Lake property. Since only one vote was taken

on two ordinances, both could not have passed.

C. An ordinance must be limited to a single subject, and the adoption

of two ordinances with different subjects with one vote also violates the single

subject rule.

D. State law requires that within 10 days after the passage of an

ordinance annexing property into a city, a description of the entire boundary of the

municipality as changed shall be filed by the clerk of the municipality with the

clerk of the district court. Such description so filed shall become the official

boundary of the municipality on the effective date of the ordinance. The ordinance

was passed by the Metro Council on May 14, 2014, and should have been filed no

later than May 24. However, the official boundaries of the City of Baton Rouge

had not been filed with the clerk of court as of June 10, 2014, almost 30 days after

the purported annexation. This makes it impossible to determine with certainty

and precision the exact boundaries of the city, as required by state law.

15.


7/10

Reasonableness. The ordinance to annex fails to meet the requirements of

reasonableness, as required by R.S. 33:172 and 33:174. The annexed area skips

over contiguous property where there are residents who vote, leaves out of the

annexation numerous large commercial properties that are within the outer

boundary of the purported annexation for no reason other than that they refused to

sign the Petition of Annexation, uses an artificially contrived strip of property

belonging to a property owner who did not sign the petition as a means of making

the body of land contiguous to city limits, is not in fact contiguous to the city, is

not compact, and creates an unwieldy and irrational scenario for law enforcement

and fire protection for which the Metropolitan Council neither considered nor

approved a budget, timetable or plan.

16.

At present, law enforcement in The Mall is provided by the Sheriffs Office

and fire protection is provided by the St. George Fire District. However, the

purported annexation would require two different police departments and two

different fire departments to serve The Mall. Baton Rouge City Police would

provide fire protection for the hallways, small stores, rest rooms and some parking

lots, while the Sheriff would serve the anchor stores, Sears Auto Center, Entergy,

and TownePlace Suites by Marriott and other parking lots. Likewise, the Baton

Rouge Fire Department would serve the hallways, small stores, rest rooms and

some parking lots, while the St. George Fire Department would serve the anchor

stores, Sears Auto Center, Entergy, and TownePlace Suites by Marriott and other

parking lots. Instead of the Sheriffs substations at Kleinpeter and Burbank

providing law enforcement and St. George Fire Station nearby providing fire

protection, there would also have to be a new Baton Rouge City Police Substation

and Baton Rouge Fire Department station nearby. All of this will duplicate

services and could result in a diversion of resources away from high crime areas in


8/10

the City of Baton Rouge to The Mall, an increase in taxes and a reduction in

services.

17.

The Metropolitan Council did not hear any testimony or consider any plan

that would show how the city government could provide the basic services to the

areas annexed. No testimony was received from the City-Parish Budget Office or

the Baton Rouge Police Department or the Baton Rouge Fire Department that

would enlighten the Council or the public on the cost and feasibility of the partial

annexation of these areas.

18.

Contiguousness. Because the Petition of Annexation failed to secure

signatures from the Kansas City Southern Railroad and because the purported

annexation includes only a small portion of their tract of land and was not valued

by the Assessor, the Kansas City Southern property was not lawfully included in

the annexation, and the body of land in the purported annexation is not contiguous

to the City of Baton Rouge.

19.

Compactness. Section 1.09 of the Plan of Government provides that an

annexation can only be of a compact body of land adjoining the City of Baton

Rouge. The annexed property uses a long, narrow strip of property to reach out

and grab portions of The Mall of Louisiana. The long narrow strips were land

owned by Kansas City Southern Railroad and DSLD but neither property taxpayers

signed the petition. Big holes representing the anchor stores, as well as other

properties, were not included in the annexation.

20.

The true meaning of compactness is made clear by R.S. 33:172(A)(5), which

provides in part,Multiple petitions may be used to annex different properties so


9/10

long as the petitions, when considered together, are capable of covering an area

which has a contiguous outer boundary in which the above majority and

percentage requirements for annexation are met. In this case, the petition filed

with the Metro Council does include multiple signature pages which are equivalent

to multiple petitions. But the real point is that an area being annexed must cover

an area which has a contiguous outer boundary. This language is contrary to the

idea of annexing properties with holes in it. The multiple petitions or signature

pages used in this case did not cover the entire area within the contiguous outer

boundary of the annexed area and are not lawful.

21.

Plaintiff, who is a citizen of Baton Rouge, owns three tracts of land and

three houses in Baton Rouge. He pays more than $7,000 a year in property taxes.

He resides in a "high crime" area and has recently been a victim of crime and

would be particularly affected by any reduction in police or fire protection

services. On May 22, 2014, plaintiff, who resides in the inner city, was taking out

the garbage to the street, when he was confronted out of nowhere by three males

who were throwing pieces of concrete and rocks at him. The hail of missiles, some

as large as a human fist, sailed by his head. He was trapped between his fence and

his pick up truck. The barrage continued for two minutes, even as cars passed.

The plaintiff called 911 and told the operator what was happening and that his life

was in danger. When the assailants saw him on the phone, they departed. About

30 minutes later, a lone Baton Rouge Police officer arrived on the scene to

investigate. The plaintiff could easily have been killed or seriously injured or

disabled in that period. Police have made three arrests in the case. A homicide

occurred this week before this petition was filed, just three blocks from his home.

The plaintiff has a very real interest in police and fire protection provided in high

crime areas in the inner city. He objects to any action that would divert vital public


10/10

safety services that are already stretched very thin to a remote area that is already

well served by the Sheriff but that could consume important resources of the City

of Baton Rouge that would be better spent protecting citizens where crime is the

highest.

WHEREFORE, Louis "Woody" Jenkins prays that this challenge be upheld

and that the attempt to annex the above described property into the city of Baton

Rouge be rejected.

Respectfully submitted

ST. AMANT & TESSIER

______________________Alexis A. St. Amant II3127 North Blvd.Baton Rouge, LA 70806Telephone (225)-387-1321Fax (225) 387-1338

Please serve ;

Mayor Melvin "Kip" Holdenon behalf of East Baton Rouge ParishMetropolitan Council as the governing

body of the City of Baton Rouge. at City Hall222 St. Louis Street Baton Rouge, LA.

Documents

Petition challenging the annexation of the mall