Crime districts proposed

Goodwood, Sherwood hit glitch

Two more neighborhoods — Sherwood Forest and Goodwood Homesites — are looking to create crime prevention districts.

But they ran into a glitch before the proposals can be considered in the legislative session that opens April 8.

Last fall, voters statewide approved a constitutional amendment that required legal notices to contain more-specific information about crime prevention district proposals for which legislation would be sought.

The initial legal notices published for the Sherwood Forest and Goodwood Homesites proposals didn’t fully comply with the provisions.

Now the notices are being redone to include the missing information with a deadline for publication fast approaching. The last of three required notices must be published at least 30 days prior to legislative introduction. That means the latest they could be published is March 15-17.

“We did have an incorrect notice. We think we have remedied the situation. As of today, they have been redone,” said House governmental affairs division chief Bryan Vincent. The revamped ads have been submitted for republication prior to the deadline, he said.

House Legislative Services Executive Director Mary Quaid said the detailed bills will be filed as late introductions April 17. The legislative session opens April 8.

The problem occurred with the change from the traditional notice. A template is used and it wasn’t updated with passage of the constitutional amendment.

The new requirements include three separate notices — instead of two — with the last day of publication 30 days prior to introduction of the legislation that contain the substance of the contemplated law.

The notice must also disclose whether the crime prevention district would have the authority to impose and collect a parcel fee; whether the parcel fee will be imposed or may be increased without an election; and the maximum amount of the parcel fee if a maximum is set forth in the contemplated law.

“The folks are entitled to know all that,” said state Sen. Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge, sponsor of the constitutional amendment.

The Sherwood Forest and Goodwood Homesites notices alerted neighborhood residents of the possibility of a parcel fee. But the notices did not take it the further step and disclose whether the fee would be imposed or could be increased without an election.

Neither notice contains a maximum parcel fee which has been in crime district legislation previously approved for other East Baton Rouge Parish neighborhoods.

The Sherwood Forest legal notice ran Feb. 25, 26 and 27 and the Goodwood Homesites ran Feb. 22, 23 and 25.

State Rep. Ted James, D-Baton Rouge, said the Sherwood Forest homeowners association board has voted to seek the legislation, which he agreed to sponsor.

“They are looking to beef up security,” James said.

James said the proponents had been working with legislative staff on the legislation prior to the constitutional amendment going into effect. “They are going to redo it,” said James.

No one could be reached related to the potential Goodwood Homesites legislation.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (41)


1) Comment by Being_Stupid - 12/03/2013

Business Owners like myself are taxed 5 times the rate at $500 per year that residential lot owners are charged in Melrose "Crime Prevention" District. Yet we get zero votes because we do not live in the district. Property Taxes need to be voted per property lot owner, not whoever lives in the proposed district drawn up by the Non-Elected, Self-Appointed Board of Dictators. These unconsititutional ballots allow for Non-Property Owners or Residential Property Owners that pay far less per year to vote the tax burden onto Business Property Owners like myself. Same with CATS Tax, all those Residential Property Owners that voted for the tax on my business are now tax exempted from having to pay for a the tax they voted for. NOT FAIR. NOT AMERICAN. Where is Attorney General Buddy Caldwell in declaring all these Non-Municipal Taxing Districts operated by Non-Elected, Self-Appointed Boards without oversight, illegal?!?

2) Comment by foldgers - 12/03/2013

pwmayeux, maybe I am lucky enough to live in a neighborhood that is "safer" than others. The point being, if there was a crime rate increase in my neighborhood, I would complain to the police department since I am already paying them to protect me and my neighbors. I am paying property taxes yearly to pay the police salaries, CATS and many other things. In return, I get a bus stop in my yard that I didn't want, along with that comes the litter that the bus riders leave in my yard, because they assume my yard is one large trash can. I deal with it. I go outside and pick up the trash whenever I see people waiting for the bus, hoping they will see that I like my property clean. I do not go and ask all the neighbors to pay for extra trash cleanup in the neighborhood. You are ALREADY paying for their salaries to be protected. EVen if you pay rent, you are paying because I promise your landlord includes the cost of taxes in the rent. People say George Bush used fear to spend money on things like the Homeland Security and the patriot act. The police can now use fear so you will pay more to have them get paid overtime to go protect you. And now, you and 80% of your neighbors are forcing the other ones who maybe can't afford the extra $50 a year to pay for owning their land. If you live in a bad area and home prices are low, move. Maybe you were able to afford that home because the prices were so low. I pay enough in taxes, for fire, police, buses I never ride, mosquito control, schools that I have no kids to send to, libraries I never go to and so on. Why don't you pay an extra $50 a year to make sure the fire trucks show up when they are needed? And what does using a screen name for privacy have anything to do with this? Why don't we just send our ENTIRE paychecks tot he government, they will know how to spend it and how to keep us safe. we could have 100,000 new cops on the streets tomorrow! A 100 more fire stations, trash pick up every day, buses at bus stops every 5 minutes... my MAIN point is people say, "Well, it is only this small amount." Yeah, well, the extra $800 or so in property taxes I had to spend this year was a big chunk. And most likely $800 I will not be able to put in my retirement this year...all because the government knows how to spend my money better than I do. Since they work with surpluses every year and always have more than enough money, right?

3) Comment by twinkie1cat - 12/03/2013

Those neighborhoods are both nice. I don't see why they would need special protection. If they do, why not just hire security guards. The people already have guns I'm sure because they tend to vote Republican.

4) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 12/03/2013

Although the home owners pay a yearly fee, guess who pays for the gasoline and wear and tear on the police units...all tax taxpayers that's who guess who pay's for on the job injuries if they get hurt...all taxpayers do.

5) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

Typical statist mindset at work, again. To you people, the only rights us free people have are those specifically spelled out to prevent your kind from being confused.. History teaches it will repeat itself, you and yours will get another opportunity to learn what you should already know.

6) Comment by pwmayeux - 12/03/2013

Please reference the "left alone" right Mark.

7) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

No, mayeux, you didn't "strengthen a community." With the help of your accomplices, what you DID do is violate one of the most basic rights we USED to have: the right to be left alone. Supreme court justice Brandeis made it abundantly clear this right was so basic it didn't deserve to be argued before his court.

8) Comment by Being_Stupid - 12/03/2013

Like 1 Big Condo Association = Future of Property Ownership in EBR Parish.

9) Comment by Being_Stupid - 12/03/2013

DUES ARE MANDATORY !!! MEMBERSHIP IS MANDATORY !!! WE ARE WATCHING YOU.

10) Comment by pwmayeux - 12/03/2013

Mark, give me a substanative argument please. I sir, help strengthened a community. I along with others used our own private funds to make this possible. It's easy to complain without actually getting your hands dirty.

11) Comment by Being_Stupid - 12/03/2013

The Individual no longer owns property in East Baton Rouge. Property belongs to the Greater Collective.

12) Comment by pwmayeux - 12/03/2013

Folgers... I suspect that if crime increased in your community you would be a first in line to scream about lowering home values. You are the very reason that subdivisions have had to take such drastic measures. I'll pay now, not later or whenever I feel like it. How can a neighborhood association (charged with keeping code up that was there when you bought) run with such wishy-washy residents? How do you budget? This was not a "tax" issue, it was a security issue. I stand fully behind it and naysayers can holler all they want, but at voting time they did not come out of the woodwork. Easier to hide behind curtains of anonymity online I suppose. Philip W Mayeux (pwmayeux)

13) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

Either this IS truly the land of the free or it is not. If mayeux and crew can help themselves to the contents of your wallet at will, it surely doesn't appear to be the land of the free from where I sit. The difference between mayeux and me? I would never DREAM of forcefully taking my neighbor's money, that would make me a thief.

14) Comment by LSUalum08 - 12/03/2013

I'd rather be protected from certain citizens than from government.

15) Comment by foldgers - 12/03/2013

pwmayeux, I think the point is here that you supposedly ALREADY are paying for police protection. Now that is not good enough, you and the other 80% of your neighbors believe the only way to the adequate amount of protection is to force everyone in the neighborhood to pay MORE taxes for the very same thing they are already paying taxes for. And yes, this is a tax, not a "dues" or whatever else you may call it. It is a mob type tactic. Police get paid by normal taxes, but not enough. Doing what you have done, though ONLY $50 a year, is giving them MORE money to give you and your neighbors the ADEQUATE protection. They weren't paid enough before to concern themselves with your neighborhood, but now that they are paid more, they will drive around 20 hours a week for you. If I chose to pay for it, for my own house, that is different. I pay $40 a month to have an alarm system. MY choice. $50 a year for this, $10 for that, $75 for this, $40 for that, $125 for this, $92.50 for that, $5 for this, $8 for that.... it all adds up! I truly feel that I bring home maybe only a third of what I truly make in any given year with every tax that is out there. Stop the taxing, decrease the spending!

16) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

pwmayeux, you do understand our country is a constitutional republic and not a democracy, correct? You do understand a single citizen, standing on his rights, is supposed to be protected FROM government,correct? I seriously doubt it.

17) Comment by pwmayeux - 12/03/2013

Mark, you do understand democracy correct? A majority vote decides. You are not making any substanative argument, just generalities. Your comments seem to try and portray these districts as covert acts of law, when that is not the case. Have you ever been active in a decision making body or do you simply sit back and complain?

18) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

Donald Ray Kennard? LOL, that tells me all I need to know.

19) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

There's that statist mindset again. "All was done within accordance of the law" and "80% support." Question: what about the rights of the 20%?

20) Comment by pwmayeux - 12/03/2013

One final note... Former State Rep. Donald Ray Kennard (R) sponsored our legislation with the backing of then Sen. Clyde Fontenot (R) as Former Councilman Mike Walker (R) assisted through Metro Council.

21) Comment by pwmayeux - 12/03/2013

Mark... The proposed district went before the people within the lines of the proposed district and won with just under 80% support. All was done within the accordance of the law. Phil... Go read the Wedgewood District legislation. We had stricken using private companies for security, only law enforcement agencies. There is a greater good in these districts. Not all "fees" or "taxes" are bad. Say what you want about them, but they work!

22) Comment by phil - 12/03/2013

I do not think I am missing the point.

23) Comment by phil - 12/03/2013

Just so you actually know what is involved, here is some info from one RS for one crime prevention district. DO you really know what you are getting into? Note almost all of these RSs are worded somewhat differently so the devil is in the details: "(1) To sue and be sued. (4) To enter into contracts with individuals or entities, private or public, for the provision of security patrols or other programs in the district. (5) To purchase items and supplies which the board deems instrumental to achieving the purpose of the district. (6) To perform or have performed any other function or activity necessary for the achievement of the purpose of the district. (7) To provide for police protection, jurisdiction over any facilities owned by the district, and may contract for such services with municipalities or parishes, or both, or with private enterprises within its jurisdiction. (4) In addition to all other means of collection, the district may collect the parcel fee by use of any means authorized by law for the collection of taxes. The district may submit to the assessor a certified list, either in hard or electronic form, reflecting the fee amounts due, the property upon which each amount is levied, and the last owner of record of such property. Upon receipt of such information, the assessor shall place the fee on the tax roll. If the list is received by the assessor on or before October fifteenth, then the fee shall be placed on the roll for the current year. If the list is received by the assessor after October fifteenth, then the fee shall be placed on the roll for the next tax year. Upon filing with the recorder of mortgages, the roll shall operate as a lien against all property against which the fee has been assessed as provided by Chapter 3 of Subtitle III of Title 47 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950. All fee amounts reflected on the roll shall be subject to interest in the same manner as ad valorem taxes. The assessor shall be reimbursed in the same manner as provided in R.S. 47:1993.1(C), but the governing authority of the district shall not be required to pay such reimbursement in advance."

24) Comment by phil - 12/03/2013

Speaking of groups, where are all of those so-called groups that claim to be "conservative" right now? Have they possibly lost their taste for really getting into local politics? I think be really careful who you follow these days.

25) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

Typical statist mindset. HE truly believes something is a good idea. In pwmayeaux's mind, that equates to him having the power to force his ideas and beliefs on others, whether they want it or not.

26) Comment by pwmayeux - 12/03/2013

I truly believe most of you are missing the point. I was president of Wedgewood and worked diligently to have a crime prevention district passed and it did, with overwhelming support. We passed $50 per year allowing for over 20 hours per week of off-duty police patrol. The law is very specific and stringent in how those funds can be distributed and the board is completely voluntarily. No per diem, mileage or any compensation. As crime levels rise in Baton Rouge off-duty officer protection is a sound investment. We saw evidence in statistics that crime rates reduced. Wedgewood has historically had strong leaders and it was my joy to have served while I lived in Baton Rouge.

27) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

There's a huge difference between a "conservative" and a "libertarian."

28) Comment by phil - 12/03/2013

Being _ stupid - We do not always agree 100 percent but I will say that you bring up a good point here. Where are all of the so called conservative people when it comes to these crime prevention districts and other subjects like the $1.6 billion SSO sewer project? At least some of us seem to be somewhat consistent in our "conservative" views.

29) Comment by phil - 12/03/2013

There seems to be big money in crime in Baton Rouge with the addition of all of these crime prevention districts. I personally believe this is similar to the old days of protection rackets, but with a little bit of a new twist. I think property owners need to read all of the Revised Statutes in the LA Legislature that created the existing districts and see what they really contain. You can go to the LA Legislature website and do a search just for "Baton Rouge" for one way to find the RSs. If you do not believe me, go read them yourselves. If you want to add a new layer of quasi-government headed by an appointed board, and add fees that look and act almost exactly like a property tax, then vote yes for these crime districts. I hope they never come to my neighborhood. Some are even called crime prevention and "development" districts, so the money you pay in fees could even possibly be used for purposes other than crime prevention. In addition, it appears that at least one district has requirements for the board members to have liability insurance which is paid by the fees. I wonder why that might be? In my opinion, unless you want to be "double taxed" for something you already pay for, then vote NO for these crime prevention districts.

30) Comment by foldgers - 12/03/2013

And why is this issue never brought to court? If I buy a house, BUY A HOUSE, and a year or two later, some people get together and tell me all of a sudden I owe an EXTRA $500 a year, on top of the property taxes I am paying now, just so I can have better protection? I am no lawyer, but this does not seem "legal." I live in a neighborhood where the annual "dues" are voluntary. We are not forced to pay, but some years I do and some I do not. It isn't $500, but just saying. I could pay more to help out with costs of having off duty cops drive around to show more presence, and sometimes I do, some times I do not. But, being FORCED to pay that, I would fight it. It seems to me that it would not hold up in court. IMO

31) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

Put the pressure on the MAYOR'S office? LOL, why? Kip didn't appoint himself, you people elected him.

32) Comment by speakthetruth - 12/03/2013

The La Republican party is the wrong place to turn to for help. They are politicians and only care about getting re-elected. The home owner associations should be putting pressure on the mayor to have more patrols in their neighborhoods, instead of taxing themselves. Kippy loves this idea since it relieves him of the crime problem. These self taxing districts have got to be the stupidest idea I have seen since obama first got elected. People don't want the government taxing them, but they will tax themselves and create their own taxing authority!!. All in the name of crime, AND WE ALREADY PAY TAXES FOR A POLICE DEPARTMENT!!! I know BR's police department is just a step above the Wal Mart greeter (no offense Wal Mart greeter), but the pressure should be on the mayors office, not homeowners.

33) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 12/03/2013

Since this is one of the few articles that the Advocate Brown Shirts (boy am I going to get a nasty note) Why don't they allow comments on all articles not just some. I notice that in today's edition there are several articles that show comments but when you get to the bottom POOF they are not there? Why won't they be truly objective and let comments on all stories be made and left there as long as the story runs?

34) Comment by Being_Stupid - 12/03/2013

Where is Woody Jenkins, Chairman of the Local Republican Party? He should be out there trying to stop these ridiculous Non-Municipal Taxing Districts. He was all gung-ho when it came to fighting the CATS Taxing District, but where is he when it comes to fighting "Crime Prevention" Taxing Districts? Where is Buddy Caldwell? Why doesn't the Attorney General homestead exempt these "Crime Prevention" Districts as Non-Municipal Taxing Districts too, like he did with the CATS Taxing District? WHERE IS THE REPUBLCAN PARTY?

35) Comment by Being_Stupid - 12/03/2013

I want to thank the Local Psuedo Republicans DAN CLAITOR, STEVE CARTER, FRANKLIN FOIL, Hunter Greene, and Erich Ponti for stealing property rights in East Baton Rouge. The LOCAL REPUBLICAN PARTY has done more to destroy property rights in East Baton Rouge Parish than the Democrat Socialist Party. Thank You, I appreciate being forced to pay mandatory dues to an organization that claims to own and represent my entire neighborhood even though there is no mention of such an organization on my property deed. No where on my property deed does is state that I have to pay mandatory dues to a Neighborhood Association and their Self-Appointed Board of Dictators.

36) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 12/03/2013

Land of the free? LOL, doesn't sound like it to me.

37) Comment by Being_Stupid - 12/03/2013

Property Rights no longer exist in Baton Rouge. Your property now belongs to Greater Collective or Federation of Greater Baton Rouge Civic Associations. DUES ARE MANDATORY. MEMBERSHIP IS MANDATORY. WE ARE WATCHING YOU AND YOUR PROPERTY. WE WILL PROTECT YOU FROM CRIME, BLIGHT, AND YOURSELF.

38) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 12/03/2013

Sounds like the old time Mafia protection scheme to me. "You pay me and I'll see no one steals your apples or robs your store."

39) Comment by Being_Stupid - 12/03/2013

In the near future, there will be no more Individual Property Owners in Baton Rouge. All property owners will be forced to belong and pay mandatory dues to an Association or Greater Collective. This has nothing to do with "Crime Prevention" and everything to do with the Self-Appointed Nosey-Busy-Bodies stealing property rights from their neighbors and from you.

40) Comment by Woody - 12/03/2013

@ scotb...check with the almighty kippy. he has decided to run the police department and therefore he knows more than everyone else. ask him why the residents need to pay extra. just don't expect a straight honest answer.

41) Comment by ScotB - 12/03/2013

Obviously, the taxes they already pay are not enough for EBR to adequately patrol the neighborhood. What's next? A special fire protection district if the fire department responds slowly or inadequately to fires? Then a special garbage disposal taxing district? The a special road repair taxing district? A special school taxing district? Why not just start your own small city within a city?