SettleTalk.com

If you had a magic genie in your pocket, a great wish would be to erase the board on the new proposed Cross Bayou project and start completely over.

But alas, this is probably not an option at this point.

Mayor Tyler’s proposed Cross Bayou sports complex development met a resounding 6-0 defeat by the City Council last fall. The push at that time was a deadline by Saints owner Tom Benson to make a commitment to build a new sport complex for the Pelican’s G-League basketball team.

Now, some 6 months later a new Cross Bayou project is being proposed. Known as Cross Bayou Point (CBP), the new proposal is for a $1 billion dollar public-private partnership that includes a Santa Claus list of features. Basically everything but a gold plated kitchen sink.

The announced plans include 5000 units of single-and multi-family housing units, a charter school with 350 employees, a 3500-seat sports arena for the New Orleans Pelicans G-league team, and a municipal government complex for 1000 to 2000 employees. And of course retail and other amenities. 

The plans include the acquisition of virtually all of the property on Cross Bayou from the Common Street Bridge to the Red River.

The City and the Parish both own small tracts along the bayou. The remainder is privately-held. Much like the acquisition of the property necessary for the downtown Hilton and Convention Center, expropriation will be necessary to assemble all the property included with the CBP’s proposed footprint.

The local development team of Paul Pratt, Theron Jackson and Curtis Joseph have formed Gateway Development Consortium (GDC). To further the project GDC says that it needs a “Non-Binding Memorandum of Understanding “ (MOU) from the City of Shreveport. 

In an effort to pressure the city, GDC has reached out to both the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce and the Shreveport Downtown Development Authority (DDA) for support.

The Chamber has issued a letter encouraging Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler to execute the MOU. Chamber President Tim Magner says that this would help move the development process along. He cautions, however, that the Chamber has not issued a blanket endorsement of the GDC plan. 

So far, the DDA Board has not jumped on the Cross Bayou Pointe bandwagon. Just as they did when pushed to endorse Tyler’s sports complex, the DDA wants more information. Specifically how will this project tie into existing and future development in the downtown DDA boundaries.

The requested Memorandum is stated to be non-binding and contingent upon further negotiation and ultimately council approval. The potential list of publicly-funded improvements is substantial. It includes assistance in “assembling” the necessary privately owned land, donating and/or leasing City-owned land, and building infrastructure for streets, drainage, parks, and parking lots.

The agreement contemplates that the City will issue bonds and obtain federal grants, in amounts yet to be determined, to finance the proposed housing units, infrastructure improvements, land acquisition and environmental remediation.

The Red River Waterway Commission will be asked to provide the necessary regulatory approval for development along the Cross Bayou banks as well as bank hardening.

Ostensibly, Tyler has the authority on her own to execute the MOU. It is doubtful that she will do so for several reasons. 

Initially, the April 28 tax vote is looming, and many citizens are skeptical of voting for what, in effect, will be new taxes since these rolled off the tax rolls at the end of last year. The idea of more big government debt would certainly further encourage what is believed to be a growing voter “No vote” citizenry.
Additionally, Tyler must weight the impact of a MOU decision on her re-election plans for this fall. Since the hiring of bond counsel will require approval by the Shreveport City Council, expect Tyler to try to dump the decision on the Council.

In the perfect world the City would have issued a comprehensive nationwide Request for Proposal (RFP) after the sports complex defeat and before the Gateway project was initiated. Such an RFP could have been developed in conjunction with the Chamber, the DDA, the Council and the Administration. If this had occurred the City would be dealing from a position of strength in the sense of having projects submitted within the confines of the City’s anticipated involvement.

Like a beached whale, it is getting harder and harder for Tyler and other elected officials to ignore the GDC’s Cross Bayou proposal. Although development of Cross Bayou has been discussed( and cussed) for decades, the latest proposal is deemed by most observers to be the wrong project, at the wrong time and probably by the wrong developers. 

One can expect much more public discussion of the requested MOU. Unfortunately, it may become tainted by racial allegations because the GDC partners and the development team are African American. To say the least, this is last thing Shreveport needs although this is a reality in a city that is in the middle of a transition to a majority Black population.

IF you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy all rolled into one big package, then you can easily buy into the Wednesday’s presentation by the new Cross Bayou developers to the City Council Committee—hook, line and sinker.

The Gateway Development Consortium (GDC) composed of Paul Pratt, Theron Jackson and Curtis Joseph, have proposed a $1 billion development of Cross Bayou. On the drawing board is a municipal complex for 1000 to 2000 people, a 350 employee technology-based school, a 5000 unit, mixed-used housing project, and hard banking of Cross Bayou from Common Street to the Red River. Although the initial announcements of the development included a sports complex, the presentation and materials submitted to the Council committee did not include this feature.

The developers stated that almost $200,000 had been spent by them to date on the project. They explained that this was a 10 year project that would “only” require investment of $100 million of public and private money each year. A public-private partnership with the City is the vehicle to get them, and the City, to the promised pot of gold at the end of their rainbow.

They explained that the next necessary step in the process is having the Mayor, the Council, the business community and Shreveport citizens to “buy into” their proposal. And that Tyler, with Council approval, must sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which outlines the scope of the development and the responsibilities of GDC and the City.

It was emphasized repeatedly that the MOU is a non-binging agreement reflecting the City’s interest in exploring the proposed project further. The MOU does not bind the City legally or financially. Further down the development path, a formalized contract with the City will be needed. A spokesperson said the MOU was “an engagement, not a marriage” that could be broken off any time by either GDC or the City.

The MOU will then be taken to Governor John Bel Edwards in hopes of getting a commitment that he will move state employees to the municipal complex. Presumably the complex is to be paid for by the state or in the alterative leased. The developers said that the municipal complex is the critical component to make the deal work. Seemingly that will be big big mountain to climb, since John Bel has predicted a $700 million budget shortfall as the Louisiana legislature struggles (again) with the so-called financial cliff.

Many questions have been asked, and rightly so, on just about everything in the development proposal. These include the qualifications of the GDC members who have very limited business experience, no (repeat NO) development track record, and evidently no skin (as in money) in the game.

And after this just minor issues like the feasibility of the municipal complex, or the reality of a massive technology school bubble up. The notion of filling up 5000 housing units, which would be 10,000 or more residents in a city with a population of about 200,000, is also questioned.

As with all developers, the Cross Bayou group wants quick action—this time to go to Baton Rouge. On the Cross Bayou “go round” last fall, the driving immediacy was to compete with St. Petersburg, Florida for the New Orleans Pelican G-League basketball team with a new sports arena. (By the way, that city has not completed the deal with Pelicans because
of the lack of agreement on expenditure of major funds to improve 1 of 2 potential sites.)

Its highly unlikely that Governor Edwards can do anything in the way of a commitment from the state until the current legislative session is concluded in June. Thus there is no real need to rush the MOU decision.

The bigger question for the Council and the Mayor is why approve this project over the last one that failed on a 6-0 Council vote. It’s a bigger deal with different players and it will require public funding in a yet to be specified amount. There is no doubt that it will be a sum exponentially exceeding the $30 million Tyler wanted to build the sports complex.

From the perspective of the local politics, GDC has big hurdle to clear to get any of the 4 council members who are up for re-election this fall to agree to this project. The same can be said for Tyler who intends to seek a second term this year.

Three of the seven Council members to be elected this year will be new; Council members Jeff Everson, Oliver Jenkins and Michael Corbin are termed out. The mayor’s office could be filled by someone other than Tyler. Going down the MOU trail at this time will not only be a millstone around the necks of Tyler and Council member seeking re-election, but also a potential albatross that the next mayor and council must contend with.

When it really gets down to brass tacks, the City should go in one of two directions. The first is to put the long held dream of a financial oasis on Cross Bayou on the back burner, or better yet, just take it off the stove and put on the top shelf or in a closet. The other is to develop a comprehensive Request for Proposal for the best project for Shreveport and distribute it nation wide after the elections this year.

Will the proposed development result in a Yellow Brick road lined with tax money for the city or a dusty dead end trail that has cost time and money to travel? Many believe that this is the wrong project, the wrong players, and the wrong time to consider this project. Period, end of verse.
 

Urgent Message from Caddo Juvenile Judges to Caddo Commission: “Houston, we have a BIG problem on 1 July!”

Response by Commission to Judges: “ We know, but its YOUR problem.”

No, this was not the dialogue at the last Caddo Commission meeting on March 22, but it pretty well sums it up.

Caddo Juvenile Judge Paul Young, joined by Judges Ree Casey and David Matlock, made a detailed presentation to the Commission of the reality, come July 1, of the challenges they will face at the Caddo Juvenile Detention Facility.

On that date, 17 year old juveniles awaiting case disposition will be housed at the Caddo Juvenile Detention Facility rather than Caddo Correctional Center (CCC). And the very limited capacity of the facility will become a virtual crisis situation.

When constructed the facility had a max population count of 48. A Louisiana Supreme Court  decision requiring single bunking of detainees reduced the capacity to 24. The center has 3 pods, each with 8 separate cells and a common area

Young indicated that the parish facility has the smallest capacity of any juvenile detention facility in the South. Not per capita, but smallest period.
Judge Young advised that CCC averages eighteen to twenty-five 17 year old detainees per day. With the non-jail options available to the juvenile court, Young believes that fifteen will be the average number of 17 years olds at the juvenile detention center. 

This means that there will only be room in the inn for nine juveniles under the age of 17. The average number of the juveniles has been twenty-two. Thus, it can be anticipated that on July 1, thirteen to fifteen juveniles whose conduct merits detention will get to stay on the streets.

Judge Young reminded the Commission that public safety is a primary responsibility of the Commission and of the judges themselves.

The juvenile justice center operational costs are funded by a 1957 millage. The Commission has recently provided additional funding to allow for the hiring of additional personnel to work in the pods in anticipation of the 17 year old detainees.
In a perfect world the Commission would build 3 new pods, thereby doubling the number of beds for juvenile detainees. The total cost, estimated to be $12 to $14 million, could be paid out of Commission reserves. The rub is the anticipated additional operating cost of $4 million annually.

This year the Commission has budgeted expenses over and above anticipated revenues, i.e. it is operating in the red. 

Nonetheless, the Commission’s 2018 budget includes grants of over $1 million dollars to non government organizations. And at the meeting when the juvenile judges made their plea, $50,000 was appropriated to help sponsor the Miss USA pageant.

The Commission is also considering the establishment of a $1 million housing trust for low income housing.

And Sci-port is asking the Commission for a $2 million loan?

So much for public safety priorities.

The Commission has a tax millage on the November ballot to fund parish parks and recreation. 

Its track record before Caddo voters is dismal. The last 4 millages propositions have failed, along with a sales tax rededication.

For some unknown reasons, the Commission is gun shy over the idea of placing a juvenile detention operating millage, or actually increase in millage, on the ballot any time in the near future. Rightly or wrongly a millage for a new juvenile facility could be on the December general election ballot, if not the November primary.

The Commission has shed crocodile tears each time the 17 year old issue is discussed. To date only dry hankies have been provided for the juvenile court system. 

Come July 1, the eagle will land,–that is 17 year olds will be at the juvenile center and many under that age that should be there will be on the streets.

The impact on public safety is yet to be determined. And miracles do happen, so hopefully public safety will not be adversely affected. 

The experts are concerned, the Commission is wringing its hands, and the public is without a voice in the sense of a vote on a tax millage. Somehow, someway, there should be a better solution.
 

It’s a deafening silence…and one that very few at City Hall want to acknowledge, much less talk about. Of course, its early yet.

But it IS the big elephant in the room and its getting harder for the Mayor and the Council to ignore the looming vote on April 28 on 6 tax millages. Collectively they total 7.350 mills that should generate a little over $11 million per year.

Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler stumbled out of the gate earlier this year when launching her campaign for the millages. The glossy brochure touting the election was produced by the Administration in-house, using tax dollars for materials and personnel. 

Initially a bragging point—that dollars saved by not outsourcing the printing—quickly became an “egg on the face” snafu. 

The brochure encouraged a “YES” vote on the propositions. Public law allows expenditure of public funds to “educate” voters, but not to “persuade” voters on how to vote.

And after the blotched campaign kickoff, the Tyler PR machine has continued to sputter. 

In canned press release that has been published more than once, Tyler claims credit for the American Airlines direct flights to Charlotte, N.C. These flights are subsidized by the hotel motel tax. The Tyler Administration had NOTHING to do with the American Airline decision.

As is typical of her leadership modus operandi, Tyler has taken a solo approach to obtaining voter approval. She has not included the Council members in her PR campaign.

The three termed-out members (Jeff Everson, Oliver Jenkins and Michael Corbin) have spoken in favor of the millages. Since they are not up for re-election, seemingly they would not be reluctant to promote what many call a “new tax”.—two three letter words that strike fear in the heart of many politicians.

Council Willie Bradford , who can seek a second term along with Jerry Bowman, Stephanie Lynch, and James Flurry , has spoken publicly in favor of the millages. The other three have been very quiet on their positions.

And while the days click by, many in the mix for the upcoming mayor and council races are sitting by and waiting for the outcome of the tax votes.

The millages actually expired on December 31 of last year. These 2017 tax revenues are included in the city’s 2018 budget. If the taxes fail, then drastic cuts will be necessary in the 2019 budget and some cuts my be implemented this year.

Many observers have openly questioned Tyler’s decision to put these on the ballot this year versus last fall during the general election for State Treasurer. Calling a special election costs the city more money. There is, however, a school of thought that a smaller turn out favors passage.

The tax vote is considered by many political observers to be a referendum on Tyler’s first three years in office. Whether or not the majority of Shreveport voters agree with that assumption, the failure of any of the millages will certainly pour cold water in Tyler’s announced intentions to seek a second term.

Similarly, the outcome of the vote will definitely affect the aspirations of any mayoral wantabes. Adrian Perkins has carefully crafted this campaign statement to say that he is officially an “unannounced” candidate for mayor. Lee O. Savage, who has openly campaigned for several weeks, has decided to delay his official mayoral declaration until—you guessed it—April 28.

Reportedly, many that are thinking of seeking Council seats and especially the 3 seats that will be open, are also delaying final decision until the vote is conducted. The prospects of getting on the Council after major budget cuts and a reduced 2019 budget has dampened some enthusiasm in seeking these seats.

How much longer the April 28 vote remains under the radar is an open question. The euphoria over the upcoming beauty contests may put voters in a better mindset which would help passage. If the vote was this week, most believe many if not all of the propositions would likely fail.

It’s now official—Shreveport Bossier will host both the Miss USA and Miss Teen USA beauty pageants in May. 

In what was certainly a late announcement, pageant officials confirmed on Monday, March 19 that both events will be held in Shreveport. The Miss Teen USA pageant is scheduled for May 17 or 18 and Miss USA for May 21. 

Miss USA was held in Shreveport in 1998 and 1999. Miss Teen USA was filmed here in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Contestants will stay at the Margarita Casino Hotel. They will begin arriving on May 11. 

Miss Teen USA will be broadcast on the Reelz Network. Miss USA will be hosted by Nick and Vanessa Lachey and will be televised live on the FOX network.

Needless to say, much must be done in less than sixty days to host the pageants which will be held in Hirsch Coliseum. The virtually last-minute announcement leads to an obvious question, which has not been asked: Why so late a selection?

Last year the Miss USA was held in Las Vegas and Miss Teen USA in Phoenix. This is the first year both pageants will be held in the same venue, virtually simultaneously.

Its probably no surprise that the “prize” of being awarded both pageants was not a freebie. 

Both Bossier City and Bossier Parish have agreed to ante up $50,000 each for sponsorships.

At the Shreveport City Council meeting on March 13, Shreveport Mayor Tyler announced that the City would use economic development funds for a sponsorship. She was very low key in her announcement and she did not indicate the dollar amount. Expect it to be $50,000. Council approval was not required for this expenditure.

The same day of the pageant announcement the Caddo Commission placed on its agenda a vote for a $50,000 sponsorship. The expenditure was approved on Thursday March 22. 

The Shreveport Bossier Tourist & Convention Bureau will add another $100,000 to the pot for a guaranteed $300,000 selection fee. 

A film tax credit application for the pageants has been filed with the Louisiana Economic Development Department. The application estimates that the pageants will spend a total of $5.7 million, $5 million of which would be in Louisiana. The total expenditure on Louisiana payroll is estimated to be $275,000. The maximum tax credit is 40 percent of the total qualified in-state production expenditures. 

Stacy Brown, the executive director of the Shreveport Bossier Tourist & Convention Bureau, advised the Shreveport City Council and the Caddo Commission that the pageants would pay for themselves in direct tax revenues. In the two- to three-week pageant period, she said, more than 4,000 hotel nights would be booked and visitors would dine and shop locally.

Brown also promised residual return from the pageants’ economic impact. Those visiting for the pageant as well as those watching on TV will be introduced to the attractions of Shreveport and Bossier City, she said.

Hopefully, the pageants provide the economic boost, both short and long term, that is predicted. The local economy certainly needs a boost and a beauty pageant, strange as it may seem, may just be the answer.

The long awaited Shreveport ordinance to regulate wireless cell towers will be introduced to the Shreveport City Council on Monday March 26.

And if Councilman James Flurry has his way the City’s final version of this ordinance will be gutted for several reasons.

The first is that the permits for the cell towers will be filed with, of all places, the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC).

Yes, the same office that was the subject of a well attended meeting recently at the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce to air long simmering problems of the building community with the MPC.

And this is the same separate governmental entity that is the subject of discussion to internalize as a city department.

Flurry has an ordinance which was tabled to do just that. He will attempt to force a vote on this major planning/permitting change before the vote on the wireless cell tower ordinance. 

Flurry’s second objection to the ordinance is the requirement that permit application for cell towers must be reviewed by the city’s independent expert consultant. The City has been working with a national consultant who has a track record of requiring unreasonable, expensive requirements for cell tower installations.
Verizon Wireless successfully sued the Town of Brutus, N.Y. to have this very same consultant removed from permit application process. The judgement also required that a flat fee be charged for wireless cell tower permits rather than a large deposit for unknown fee charges.

The ordinance also sets high fees ($750 for the MPC and $3500 for inspection/permit) and requires a deposit of $4250 for the consultant.

Seemingly the City of Shreveport is going down the same path that lead to its adoption last year of the much heralded, but greatly disappointing, Unified Development Code (UDC). This code was to make it easier, more efficient and less costly to do business with the city for development and construction. Just the opposite has been the effect.

The proposed cell tower ordinance has been cut down from the 80 page treatise in February to less than 30 pages. But it still greatly exceeds the scope and complexity of similar ordinances adopted in Bossier City, Baton Rouge and Monroe. 

Mayor Tyler can avoid the heat on the UDC since it was funded by both the City and the Parish and developed by the MPC, which is a separate government entity. However, Tyler cannot duck responsibility for the wireless ordinance which is the brainchild of her legal department. 

At a time when a major tax election is set for April 28 and Tyler is looking at a re-election bid, this ordinance is exactly the wrong legislation at the wrong time. Will somebody at City Hall wake up?
 

Yes, its that time in an election year. Much like jonquils sprouting here, yon and everywhere, more names keep popping up as potential candidates for the mayor’s race. 

For those keeping tally, Jim Taliaferro should now be added to their March Madness “mayor wantabe” list.

Taliaferro is widely known for his association with the Shreveport Crime Stoppers program. He currently serves as the Executive Director.

Taliaferro challenged Shreveport City Marshal Charile Caldwell in the 2014 Marshal’s race. He lost to Caldwell in the runoff election by a 57%-43% margin.

Taliafferro has combined 34 years of service in the San Diego and Shreveport police departments. Before his law enforcement career, Taliaferro served in the U.S. Navy and U.S.
Air Force. 

Taliaferro is a white Republican. So is Lee O. Savage who has said he will formally announce on April 28. The other white candidate in the mix is Ray Smith, who lists his party affiliation as Libertarian. 

Taliaferro’s potential candidacy raises many questions. 

Initially, his law enforcement background will be questioned by many rank and file at the Shreveport Police Department (SPD). Reportedly, his service as public information officer and then head of the SPD Crime Stoppers Program did not entail any supervisory or investigative activities. 

Another concern that was raised during his Marshal’s race was his actual residence. Taliaferro has a Shrveport address that is the same as his mother. He also has farm outside the city limits.

If he decides to jump into the race, Taliaferro must address several realities.

The first is the ability to raise money, as in serious funds. Most observers believe that this will be a major issue for any challenger, especially because of an ailing Shreveport economy.

The second is the difficulty in upending an incumbent mayor. Under the Mayor-Council form of government 3 incumbent mayors have won re-election: John Hussey, Keith Hightower, and Cedric Glover. Only Bo Williams lost a re-election bid and that was to Hightower.

And the third challenge, and perhaps the most difficult to evaluate is that of race, sex and political party.

Tyler is a black, female Democrat.

Taliaferro is a white, male Republican.

The total number of registered voters in Shreveport , as of March 1, 163,043. 

By political party, there are 78,657 Democrats, 45,231 Republicans and 39,155 voters who listed “other” as affiliation. 

By race, the breakdown is 80,750 white, 75,502 black and 6791 “others.” By sex, the breakdown is 58 percent female and 42 percent male.

Having both Savage and Taliaferro in the mix is not a good situation for local Republicans. And add to this is the possibility of Rod Demery, a black Republican, will jump into the Mayors race. 

If more than one Republican candidate actually files, then any endorsement will most likely not be make by the Republicans until the run off election.

If Taliaferro decides to run, he will need to resign from his Crime Stopper’s post. Additionally, he is an officer in a company that, reportedly, has a contract with the City of Shreveport. If so, he will need to resign that position as well.

The best bet is that Taliaferro will kick the can, get some publicity, and then decide to stay in the house when its time to file for the Mayor’s race. 

If not, his candidacy could be a major letdown, much more than his foray into the city marshal’s race. Simply put, Taliaferro is a familar face to many, but not one that engenders any real excitement or energy.
 

Most of the hot stove political conversation this year has been, to date, focused on this year’s mayor’s race. Not to be lost in the glare of the top elected spot lights are the 7 council races that will also be on the November ballot.

There will be at least 3 new faces on the Council once the dust clears from the primary and run off elections. Jeff Everson (District B), Oliver Jenkins (District C) and Michael Corbin (District E) have “termed out”. They have served 2 consecutive 4 year terms and can not seek re-election this year. 

Willie Bradford (District A), James Flurry (District E), Stephanie Lynch (District F), and Jerry Bowman (District G) are expected to run again. Lynch wore a ”Re-Elect Stephanie Lynch City Council District F” tee shirt to a January council work session. Flurry had a re-election fundraiser on March 6.

Voter demographics are always important, and especially this year when one or two districts could be “the swing district”. This reference is to “swinging” the Council from a white to a black majority.

District A is a solid black district, with 81% of the voters African American, 15% white and 4% others. By party, 69% of the voters are Democrats, 10% are Republicans and 21% are other party. Bradford upset the incumbent Rose McCulloch when he ran in 2013.

District B is the likely district to elect its first African American council representative. Voter registration as of March 1 of this years reflected 57% registered black voters, 38% white voters and 5% others. The party breakdown is 55% Democrat, 28% other, and 17% Republican. Everson defeated blacks candidates in both his elections in the run-offs.

District C is the largest white voter district. Voters are 79% white, 16% black and 5% other. By party, the registration is 43% Republican, 30% Democrat and 27% others. Jenkins ran unopposed for re-election in 2013.

District D has the largest number of registered voters with 4000 more voters than the next 2 largest districts (G and E). Voter composition is 73% white, 21% black and 6% other. By party the voters are 48% Republican, 30% Democrats and 22% other party. 

District E could also be a swing district. The incumbent Flurry is a white Republican. The ratio of voters by race is 51% white, 45% black, and 4% others. Party wise, 51% of voters are Democrats, 45% are others and 4% are Republicans. Flurry swamped an An African-American candidate in his 2013 runoff victory.

District F has the largest black concentration of voters of the 7 districts. Voters are 90% black, 7% are white and 3 % are others. By party, 72% are Democrats, 24 % are others and 4% are Republicans. This election could be a rematch of the Lynch- James Green 2013 battle. 

District G voters are 78% black, 18% white and 4% other. By party, 69% are Democrats, 11% are Republicans and 20% are other party. Bowman was a surprising primary victory over several opponents in 2013.

Not to be confused with the raw registration voter numbers are the numbers of “active voters”. In many districts, voters on the rolls have either moved out of the district and not re-registered or have become virtually non-existent at the polls. Those seeking office have many filters to utilize in deciding which voters should be actively pursued and what method of communication is the best in today world of social media.
 

Friday a large number of Shreveport builders, architects, engineers and real estate developers meet with Shreveport Chamber Executive Director Tim Magner to discuss the continuing difficulties encountered when working with the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC). The meeting was closed to the public to encourage open and free discussion, without the risk of identification to the MPC staff. 

The mere fact that this meeting was held is an undeniable statement that the MPC and its Executive Director Mark Sweeney are basically “out of control” when it comes to business accessibility, responsiveness, and accountability. The Chamber’s role as unified lobby will probably not be that helpful. The simple reason is that the MPC is a separate governmental entity that is not accountable to voters.

Shreveport funds the MPC to the tune of over $800 grand, plus provides office space and in kind services. Caddo Parish funds a little over $200 thousand to the MPC. 

In theory Sweeney reports to the 9 member MPC Board that is appointed by the Shreveport City Council and the Caddo Commission. 

Sweeney has steadfast allies with 5 of the Board members (Theron Jackson, Nancy Cooper, Lea Desmarteau, Winzer Andrews and Curtis Joseph) who would walk the plank into shark infested waters behind him. The remaining MPC Directors (Ronnie Remedies, Alan Young, Bessie Smith and Dale Colvin) would gladly push Sweeney off the plank.

Sweeney has a well deserved reputation of being autocratic, controlling and stubborn when dealing with any members of the public and the building community. In testimony to both the Council and the Commission he has been less than truthful on many occasions and he is generally very evasive in answering questions from Council members and Commissioners.

To make matters even worse, Sweeney orchestrated the development of the Unified Development Code(UDC) for Shreveport and the Parish and its ultimate adoption. Either out of ignorance or by design, Sweeney’s expenditure of $650 thousand dollars purchased a high end, very sophisticated development code that would be more suitable for Beverly Hills or Carmel California, than Shreveport. The Shreveport Caddo UDC has many more requirements that the ‘norm” , especially when compared to Bossier City. Thus, even with a cooperative staff (which is not the case), those seeking building permits from the MPC must do much more expensive “hoop jumping” than on the east side of the river.

In response to complaints about how long the permit process entails, Sweeney has complained about reductions in this budget and his staff. What Sweeney does NOT explain is how the Bossier MPC office with 5 employees hands 40% more volume in permits that Sweeney’s staff of 15. These numbers alone are evidence that the City could operate this department with less staff and save money.

And since Sweeneys budget is funded in part by fees charged during the permit process, there are no incentives for his staff to be more efficient, to approve permits without requiring timely and expensive changes etc. In effect, the MPC is a separate kingdom, funded with $1 million dollars of public money and the power to collect additional fees through the permit process.

Its not surprising that no other city in Louisiana has a separate planning and permitting office structured and funded like the Shreveport Caddo MPC.

Shreveport City Councilman James Flurry has been a constant and loud voice for the building community when it comes to dealing with the MPC. He has introduced an ordinance to have the planning and development office for Shreveport to be an internal department of the city. This ordinance would , in effect, “internalize” the MPC functions for Shreveport. 

This ordinance was tabled at the last Council meeting. 

The reluctance of the Council members to adopt this measure is both puzzling and disappointing. 

Four members will seek re-election this year: Flurry, Willie Bradford, Jerry Bowman and Stephanie Lynch. Seemingly they would realize that their votes will become campaign issues this year. And how long they will continue to listen to unhappy constituents and just wring their hands versus taking definitive action is an unknown. But what is known is that to continue to sit by and watch more stagnation in Shreveport development is unacceptable—totally unacceptable.

The remaining Council members (Jeff Everson, Oliver Jenkins and Michael Corbin) are termed out, i.e. they can not run for re-election.

Why they have been reluctant to approve this measure is also mystifying. As their 8 years of public service winds down, one would think that the votes they take this year should be the most significant of their service. If nothing more, they will be the most remembered. 

The continuing excuses of “politicizing” the MPC just don’t cut the mustard. Likewise, the stating that the City does not need another department to manage is also a lame excuse. And lastly, expecting the MPC board to correct mandatary change the attitude of Sweeney and his staff is totally unrealistic.

The building community should show up, in force, at the Council work session on Monday 12 March and/or the regular meeting on Tuesday 13 March and stand in unity seeking relief from the Council. The only way of this swamp is to internalize the MPC, replace Sweeney, and then “loosen” the highly restrictive UDC requirements. 

Rome is burning. How long will the Shreveport City Council fiddle?
 

 

Its really not that surprising that Bossier Parish was the first parish in Louisiana to join the hundreds of governmental entities nationwide to file litigation against the manufacturers and major distributors of opioids. Bossier elected officials generally leave the schoolyard politics at home when they assemble and just go about good government without too much fuss.

The City of Shreveport has hired counsel for opioid litigation and Webster Parish has just followed suit. It is anticipated that the Caddo Commission will soon retain counsel.

Opioid addiction has become a national epidemic and it results in an estimated 150 deaths per day. In what could become the next “big tobacco” litigation, elected officials are reviewing the governmental costs of opioid addiction and treatment on taxpayers. 

Opioid abuse has resulted in substantial increases in hospital visits for drug overdoses. Additionally infants born to opioid users are often born addicted to these drugs. 

Local courts have experienced large increases in criminal defendants charged with illegal opioid possession and/or addiction. Local jails have become more crowded with those arrested for opioid offenses as well as those sentence to serve time for opioid related offenses. And for those convicted but not jailed, the caseload of probation officers have also swollen with opioid cases.

Litigation seeks recovery for the additional costs to the government entities for medical care, counseling and rehab service, law enforcement and public safety and child care for children whose parents suffer from opioid-related disabilities or incapacitation.
The lawsuits are based on multiple legal theories. These include public nuisance laws; fraud, racketeering and corruption; violations of federal and state laws on controlled substances. 

Opioid manufacturers are accused of grossly overstating the benefits of chronic opioid therapy as well as fraudulently concealing the harms of opioids.

Both the manufacturers and the distributors of opioids are accused of failing to properly monitor and report suspicious orders of opioids (unusual size, frequency and abnormal patterns) as required by federal law and misrepresentation of compliance with these requirements. 

The list of opioid drugs is lengthy and includes OxyContin, Dilaudid, Butrans, Actiq, Fentora, Percodan, and Percocet.

The number of cities , counties and parishes that have filed suits is over 400, and climbing weekly. The suits are filed in local federal courts and then transferred to a district court in Ohio as part of multiple district litigation. This process will streamline discovery that will be common for all the suits. After the common discovery, the cases will be sent back to the court in which suit was filed. 

These lawsuits are handled on a contingent fee basis which means any payment to the attorneys will be from the suit proceeds.