Board, council join loop opposition
The Livingston Parish School Board and the Ascension Parish Council joined a growing number of suburban governments Thursday in lining up against the proposed Baton Rouge Loop.
The Livingston Parish School Board Thursday night unanimously approved a resolution opposing the 85- to 90-mile, toll-funded beltway that would pass through five metropolitan Baton Rouge parishes.
The Ascension Parish Council also backed, 10-0, a resolution Thursday night opposing the southern half the loop that would pass through Ascension, Iberville and West Baton Rouge parishes. By council custom, Council Chairman Chris Loar does not vote unless to break a tie.
The council resolution also expressed support for the proposed West Bank Turnpike, or expressway, as an alternative linkage to I-10 west of the Mississippi River that would use La. 3127 and possibly toll revenue from three bridges crossing the Mississippi in the River Parishes.
The Livingston Parish Council and the city of Central also have gone on record opposing the loop as the comment period on the first tier of environmental review comes to a close. The deadline to make comments, which was extended, is Monday.
The then-parish presidents in Ascension, Livingston and Iberville pulled out of the authority overseeing the project in 2010. Newly seated Livingston Parish President Layton Ricks Layton Ricks has stated his opposition.
In Livingston and Ascension parishes Thursday night, critics spoke of the loop’s impact on surrounding communities.
The School Board resolution, proposed by Kellee Hennessy Dickerson, who represents Watson, rejects any of the proposed routes in Livingston Parish as unacceptable.
“It’s obvious that it’s going to affect the community as a whole,” Dickerson said during the board’s meeting in the town of Livingston. “It’s detrimental to the entire parish.”
“There are numerous (proposed) routes,” Livingston Parish Councilman Jim Norred, of Watson, told the School Board. “All of them go through Livingston, and none of them are good.”
Norred added, “The more opposition we can generate now, the better chance we have of stopping it.”
Board member Jimmie Watson questioned the School Board’s involvement.
“I don’t know how much weight the School Board’s vote will carry,” he said.
After discussion the issue, the board voted 8-0 to approve the motion.
In the Ascension Parish Courthouse Annex in Gonzales, Councilman Randy Clouatre said his main concern in strongly backing the anti-project drive is that the southern loop is not financial feasible, but he explained the proposed loop corridors would be hanging over landowners’ future prospects.
“My main concern is that I represent people (who) have land that’s tied up,” Clouatre said. “We have people that might want to build a house in two years. They might want sell a house in five years. They want to might split up land. They might want to do things with it.
“There’s nothing good for Ascension Parish on the way it’s proposed right now,” Clouatre said.
During the public comment period before the vote, Harold Magee, of Prairieville, said opposition has re-emerged in early discussions about widening Interstate 10 in Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River Bridge and the I-10/I-12 split.
Magee said a similar project was defeated 10 years ago by business interests and area residents.
Magee read quotes from the public in a recent newspaper article discussing how the widening project might wreck the ambience of the Perkins Road overpass area.
“Those quotes sound familiar. There’s no doubt many of you have had similar comments from your constituents here in Ascension,” Magee told the council.
In an interview earlier this month, Councilwoman Teri Casso, who serves on the Baton Rouge Area Chamber board of directors, said she was considering voting against the resolution opposing the loop because her constituents in Dutchtown appear to support it.
But she supported the resolution Thursday, saying in a post-meeting interview that she struggled with the decision.
Casso said she sees the need for the loop, but two issues swayed her vote.
There was no economic impact information because of the scope of the loop study did not allow for it, she said.
Also, she said she was concerned about language that investors in the loop public private partnership could own potentially lucrative land around future loop interchanges, not the affected landowners.
“That’s where the needs of the people outweighed the needs of the investors,” she said.