Council kills sewer buyout 

Advocate staff photo by HEATHER MCCLELLAND -- Shontelle Mitchell, seated next to attorney Adam Babich, wipes away a tear as the Metro Council discusses whether to approve an estimated $6 million dollar buyout plan for residents living near the North Baton Rouge Waste Water Treatment Plant. The motion to approve the deal failed, rendering the item dead unless it is placed on the council's agenda next year. Show caption
Advocate staff photo by HEATHER MCCLELLAND -- Shontelle Mitchell, seated next to attorney Adam Babich, wipes away a tear as the Metro Council discusses whether to approve an estimated $6 million dollar buyout plan for residents living near the North Baton Rouge Waste Water Treatment Plant. The motion to approve the deal failed, rendering the item dead unless it is placed on the council's agenda next year.

A deal to relocate at least 44 Scotlandville families living next to a foul-smelling sewage treatment plant was rejected at Wednesday night’s East Baton Rouge Parish Metro Council meeting after it failed to muster the seven votes required for approval.

Outgoing Councilman Ulysses “Bones” Addison, who represents University Place residents affected by the sewage plant and who also resides in the same subdivision, was among the three council members who voted against the deal to relocate residents at an estimated cost of $6 million.

In April 2011, Addison initiated the council action asking the city-parish to craft a buyout plan for residents. But on Wednesday, at Addison’s last meeting as a council member, he said he couldn’t support the plan because, once it was approved, residents would be forced to relocate even if they wanted to stay.

“My vote was based on what I hear from my community,” he said. “If I thought it was in their best interest, I’d be the first to vote for it. No one wants them out of this condition more than I do.”

At the end of the meeting, Addison ended up in a heated verbal argument with a handful of his constituents who were upset about his vote.

“Why would you bring it up if you were going to vote against it?” asked Shontelle Mitchell, a University Place resident, who accused Addison of “playing politics.”

“Well I’m not your councilman anymore,” Addison responded.

In addition to Addison, council members Joel Boé and Scott Wilson voted against the buyout proposal. Council members Trae Welch, Mike Walker, Ronnie Edwards, Alison Gary, Rodney “Smokie” Bourgeois and Tara Wicker supported the deal. Council members Chandler Loupe, Donna Collins-Lewis and C. Denise Marcelle were absent from the meeting.

An item requires seven votes on the 12-member council to pass.

After the deal failed, an attempt to defer the item for 60 days also failed by again falling one vote short. Addison abstained on that vote instead of voting no.

Adam Babich, an attorney representing the University Place residents, urged the council to accept the deal, but his comments were undermined by some of the University Place residents attending the meeting.

“What we don’t want is perfect to be the enemy of good,” Babich said. “My concern is if we go down the road of unrealistic issues of what could have been, then we’ll have to go back to the drawing board and have residents stuck in unsanitary conditions.”

Councilman Mike Walker then called on the residents in the audience, who were shaking their heads in disagreement with their attorney, to address whether they wanted the deal.

“It’s six in one hand, half a dozen in the other,” said Greg Mitchell, a University Place spokesman. “Council, it’s on you guys.”

Other residents said they were concerned that they were being asked to accept the deal without knowing how much money they’d get for their homes.

Assistant Parish Attorney Bob Abbott said the city-parish can’t get appraisals for the property owners until the Metro Council approves the project, because they can’t legally spend money without a designated purpose.

The buyout would have been made possible by the Metro Council declaring the area a “public project,” which would then allow the city-parish to expropriate residents from their homes.

The city-parish uses that method when it needs to build a road or other construction project.

In this case, the city-parish intended to build a buffer zone blocking the sewer plant from view with greenery that city-parish officials said would absorb the odors.

Several Metro Council members stressed that the buyout proposal before the council Wednesday might be the only deal that residents would receive from the city-parish.

Edwards noted that the city-parish was adhering to federal relocation guidelines that ensure the residents are fairly compensated for their homes. The guidelines provided for a home of comparable size and condition, relocation costs and utility hook up costs.

“I don’t know any other standard that gives you more protection,” Edwards said.

The failed settlement, estimated at $6 million, effectively kills a negotiation that was more than a year in the making among the city-parish, University Place residents, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, who had all been tied up in litigation.

The costs of the relocation and buffer zone would have come from the Sanitary Sewer Overflow program, which is paid for from a dedicated half-cent sales tax and sewer fees. The relocation was tied to the EPA’s approval of extending the city-parish’s deadline to complete federally mandated sewer projects, which would have freed up more funds.

William Daniel, chief administrative officer to Mayor-President Kip Holden, said after the meeting that the Metro Council can place the item back on the agenda for consideration. But he said he didn’t know if the mayor would continue to offer funding for the project.

Holden did not attend Wednesday’s meeting, which was the council’s final meeting in 2012.

About 17 years ago the University Place residents sued the city-parish for damages related to expanding the sewer plant, but the courts ultimately decided in 2011 that the city-parish had no liability, except for one resident.

Parish attorney Mary Roper said the court ruling prevents the city-parish from being able to negotiate with the residents, without declaring the area a public project.

“We can’t offer to just go in and buy up their houses because it’s a violation of our constitution,” she said. “The Supreme Court ruled that the city-parish owes nothing to these people.”


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (20)


1) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 14/12/2012

“The Supreme Court ruled that the city-parish owes nothing to these people.” and this is what is what they should get. Anyone giving them a red cent after this ruling should go to jail. This is why I vote against any taxes.

2) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 14/12/2012

There were more talking monkeys there than in the Planet of The Apes. They wanted more bananas and ended up with egg on their face.

3) Comment by Dawson - 13/12/2012

@twinkie...Why are they owed housing in "a better area"? Why are they owed housing at all? They don't have to live there, they didn't have to buy a house there. Earl K Long is not your hospital. Any hospital that will accept your insurance or your cash can be utilized. Why are the schools so bad in North BR? Why are new businesses not opening up there? Why aren't people flocking to live there? There is a reason. The residents of Sherwood Forest or Shenandoah chose to purchase homes in a neighborhood that weren't next to a sewage plant so you are right there will not be a stinky sewer plant there. I understand we live in a new age where government is the answer to any situation but in this case they actually got it right. Government owes these residents nothing.

4) Comment by Whatnow - 13/12/2012

This should have DONE BEEN fixed? Man, those schools are bad. Gee, I haven't died yet and I've been taken to the Lake from Prairieville in an ambulance and it's further away. Why should someone else fix these neighborhoods? Fix them yourselves like everyone else in America. Don't keep voting for the same politicians that do nothing for your area.

5) Comment by twinkie1cat - 13/12/2012

These people have been working on this problem for years. Did someone give Bones a nice retirement bribe? Nobody should have to live in a neighborhood that smells like sewage. This should have DONE BEEN fixed. And as for the comment that said most of the housing was not worth $80,000: Maybe not. But it would cost the homeowners at least that much to replace their housing in a better area. You can't buy a decent house for say, $26, 000 like my parents did in 1965. Why should they have to go into debt because the parish won't do something about the sewage. Maybe they do it differently here, but I never noticed a sewer odor from the plant in Atlanta and it is right off a four lane road fairly near were the Georgia Dome is......There seems to be this attitude about north Baton Rouge that it is not worth saving and that there is something wrong with the people. We get stuck with RSD and Charter schools. Our roads are full of potholes. We have not one decent grocery store except Cortana Walmart and that is the worst of the Walmarts. I mean I usually go to Baker because the staff has been known to serve attitude. Our hospital, Earl K. Long and ragged to begin with, is about to close down leaving us with nothing. I mean what are people going to do when they have to get a ride all the way to Lake or BRG? Die, perhaps? Good riddance perhaps? All I can say is there would not be a stinky sewer plant in Sherwood Forest or Shenandoah. It would either be scent free or turned into tennis courts real quick.

6) Comment by prbeav - 13/12/2012

The article left me to think the issue will come again within the year--2013 that is.

7) Comment by BRmoderate - 13/12/2012

Wonder how soon Mr. Bones moves out of the neighborhood... Was this a case of sour grapes on Bones' part?

8) Comment by Duckyluve - 13/12/2012

Most of the house scheduled to be bought out are not worth 80k, much less 100k. Greed got the best of these people again.

9) Comment by NewsReader - 13/12/2012

Maybe this article would be a little better if it mentioned how much they were all offered. If the TV reports last night were accurate the average was mid $80K plus an additional $24K for relocation expense. I don't see an issue with that. Seems to me the residents were looking to move up from the standard of their current residences not move to a similar type but in a neighborhood not plagued with the odor that they complain about.

10) Comment by phil - 13/12/2012

After they close down the central treatment plant and pump all of that sewage down south to the south treatment plant, I wonder how things will smell down south by that new casino and the proposed developments next to it. Maybe someone needs to think about that. I am on the fence about this specific issue. The total percent of the $1.6 billion sewer project to be used for this is almost nothing compared to the waste ETC that is going into this SSO project, in my opinion. However, sewer fees are already planned to go up almost forever every year, so I have to ask why this should come out of the sewer fee anyway. Fees are supposed to be for services obtained aren't they? I think if any settlement is made it should come from the general fund and from pet projects and waste that have already been approved in the city-parish budget. I am personally getting tired of paying for all of this waste. I think people need to wake up and start asking some serious questions about this SSO project.

11) Comment by DMJ - 13/12/2012

This sounds fishy. Bones Addison voting with Boe and Wilson? Somebody got to him. And 3 council members who couldn't even be bothered to attend?! What are we paying them for, if not to sit on the council?!

12) Comment by Cousin Dave - 13/12/2012

The plant must not be too foul-smelling, if these people are rejecting these relocation offers. Maybe somebody from the Advocate ought to go out there and take a few whiffs before they publish these lies.

13) Comment by tbean - 13/12/2012

This is a good example of why you do not want the Government, any government body,to run your HEALTH CARE !!!

14) Comment by Isabella11 - 13/12/2012

Well said LastManStanding. You pay for what you get, when you buy cheap land you suffer the consequences. If you want to move, sell it and buy a different one....like everyone else. Your not special.

15) Comment by Isabella11 - 13/12/2012

Well said LastManStanding. You pay for what you get, when you buy cheap land you suffer the consequences. If you want to move, sell it and buy a different one....like everyone else. Your not special.

16) Comment by LastManStanding - 13/12/2012

I love how the picture associated with the article is a woman crying. Im glad this was squashed. If not, you open up pandoras box of residents demanding money because they don't like where they chose to buy a house. Keep trying to benefit off the government and have them afford you to do the things you want because you aren't willing to do it yourself. Stop buying rims and save that money for a down payment for a new home.

17) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 13/12/2012

This is what happens when greedy little wide eyed people run the show. Merry Christmas fools there will be no money in your stockings. Pity the poor lawyer who foolishly chose to try and represent them. It was like someone loosed all the animals from the zoo.

18) Comment by tball - 13/12/2012

KIP skip the meeting, He was in Hawaii with OBAMA!!

19) Comment by Hello Baton Rouge - 13/12/2012

So Addison, who lives in the same neighborhood, votes against the payout because he feels like the Parish may structure it to where residents HAVE to move if they accept the money? Are you kidding? What other reason in the world would you want money for if you have to smell wastewater at your home 24/7? Are you telling me that the residence of this area would be ok with a foul odor if they had a little more cash in their pocket? Im totally shocked. Totally.

20) Comment by LawyerDan65 - 13/12/2012

Looks like the residents blew their only opportunity, but imagine if a few still object to the price, thenthe City would have to expropriate the property at even more cost to the rest of us.