[StBernard] Update From State Representative Kenneth Odinet Sr.

[Westley Annis]

In reading Representative Odinet comments, let me say I respect his position
in doing what "he" feels is in the best interest of St. Bernard.  However,
the only thing I will raise issue to, for purposes of clarification, is a
segment in his commentary that could lead the reader into questioning
Senator Walter Boasso's intentions for Senate Bill 95 as being anything
other than what is best for St. Bernard and the entire region.

I refer to the following segment which stated:

    "During the recent special session, the Business Council of New Orleans
and the River Region, a group of top executives from various local
corporations, lobbied heavily for the passage of Senate Bill 95.  They even
took out full-page newspaper ads calling for levee reform.  Notably,
however, several of these same executives recently expressed their
opposition to the closing of the MR-GO.  They claimed that the permanent
closing of the channel would result in the loss of business for the Port of
New Orleans and force several companies along the Industrial Canal to
relocate.  Some members of our congressional delegation even agree with
them. . . . .Admittedly, like Sen. Boasso, whose own business relies on the
Port, these business executives may have a valid reason for keeping the
MR-GO open.  If a measure like Senate Bill 95 ever passes and the new single
regional levee board has the support of business, when confronted with the
issue of closing the MR-GO, whose interests do you think will prevail?  Will
the board protect regional business or the human lives in St. Bernard, the
Lower Ninth Ward and eastern Orleans?"

What immediately struck me about this particular passage - and its wording -
is that it could easily lead one to believe that Senator Boasso is somehow
in favor of keeping the MRGO open - due to his being "guilty by association"
because his buisiness depends heavily on Port activity and his being close
friends with the business executives who took out the full page ad in the
T-P.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I'm not certain if there is a person alive who "doesn't know" that Walter
Boasso is an adament and militant fighter in closing the MRGO - having spent
money out of his own pocket to get state and federal officials down to St.
Bernard to see first hand the devestation it has caused..    He has even
been quoted in the media as telling his "friends" affiliated with the Port
of New Orleans that he "intends on closing the MRGO with or without them."
Also, Walter Boasso's company, Boasso America, is a "Mississippi River
based" company (at the St. Bernard Port) and does not benefit from the MRGO
or the Inner-Harbor Canal (aka Industrial Canal).

I am not accusing Representative Odinet of "conveniently" forgetting to make
this clarification about Senator Boasso.  I'm just saying that I'm happy to
do it for him.

However, one thing stated in Representative Odinet's comment is a valid
question - "Whose interest do you think will prevail?"  Of course, I have no
doubt these business executives will support keeping the MRGO open.  But
this is where Senator Boasso and his "business friends" will butt heads - as
they already have.  I am confident in Walter Boasso's ability - and
tenancity - to protect the interests of St. Bernard Parish should such a
"super levee board" ever become a reality.

Respectfully,

John Scurich

P.S.  As a disclaimer I should note I consider myself a friend of Walter
Boasso and served as his campaign manager in his senate election.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Westley Annis" <westley at da-parish.com>
To: <stbernard at da-parish.com>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 5:38 PM
Subject: [StBernard] Update From State Representative Kenneth Odinet Sr.



> Let your voice be heard!

> Tell the St. Bernard Citizens Recovery Committee what you think the future

of St. Bernard should be.  Visit http://www.stbpcrc.com

> ----------------------------------------------------

>

> Not all emails sent through this list reflect

> the opinion of da-parish.com or Westley Annis

> -----------------------------------------------------

> No messages distributed through this list are

> meant to be or should be considered legal

> advice.  Please consult with your own personal

> attorney for any legal questions you may have.

> -----------------------------------------------------

> Update From State Representative Kenneth Odinet Sr.

>

> December 2, 2005

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> ----

>

>

>

> RE: Senate Bill 95 by Senator Boasso - Levee Board Consolidation

>

>           After having been vilified, ridiculed and chastised in the media

> for "obstructing" the passage of Senate Bill 95, I believe it necessary

that

> I explain my position on this crucial issue.

>

> Senate Bill 95, which was introduced by Sen. Boasso, R-Arabi, would have

> transferred power over flood protection in Orleans, Jefferson, St. Tammany

> and St. Bernard Parishes from the local levee boards to a newly created,

> single state board named the Southeast Louisiana Levee Authority.  After

> lengthy debate, the Senate amended the original bill to exempt the West

> Jefferson Levee District as well as the part of the Orleans Levee District

> that deals with non-flood control matters from the provisions of the act.

> The final passage by the Senate occurred late Thursday evening, November

> 17th.   Meanwhile, the House had already recessed and was scheduled to

> reconvene at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, November 20th.  At that time, with only

48

> hours remaining in the session, the House had to consider a motion by Rep.

> Roy Quezaire, D-Donaldsonville, to expedite the legislative process to

> consider the bill the next morning in the House transportation committee.

> Because Senate Bill 95 was controversial and would directly impact my

> district, which includes most of St. Bernard and parts of eastern Orleans,

I

> believed the matter deserved a fair hearing to allow the local governments

> and those opposed to the bill the opportunity to be heard.  With little

time

> remaining, however, that was not possible.  Thus, I objected to the

motion,

> which resulted in the House 51-38 floor vote that prevented an expeditious

> hearing, effectively killing the bill for the session.

>

> The article that appears on the front page of the December 1st edition of

> the Times-Picayune, regarding the change in that procedural vote by seven

> legislators after the fact, leads the reader to believe that I did not

want

> the House to consider Senate Bill 95.  Nothing could be further from the

> truth.  Remember, it was the Senate that delayed getting the bill over to

> the House.  Perhaps the bill's proponents were planning to rush the

> controversial measure through the House committee and onto the House floor

> without debate, well aware that only two days remained and legislators

were

> eager to return home.

>

> In any event, I had testified at the earlier Senate committee hearings

that

> I was opposed to Senate Bill 95 for several reasons, all of which are very

> legitimate considering the history of the Orleans Levee Board and its

> relationship to the region, particularly St. Bernard.  Allow me to

explain.

>

> In 1924, the legislature authorized the Orleans Levee District's Board of

> Commissioners to acquire 33,000 acres of land on the east bank of the

> Mississippi River about 50 miles south of New Orleans in order to build

the

> Bohemia Spillway between the River and the Gulf of Mexico.  Approximately

> half of this land was public property owned by Plaquemines Parish; the

other

> half was expropriated from private landowners.  The levee board paid a

total

> of $389,000 for the land.  In 1928, while the Bohemia Spillway was under

> construction, the high water stages in the Mississippi River threatened

the

> City of New Orleans.  Local New Orleans business leaders and the heads of

> several of the city's largest banks made a covenant with the citizens of

> lower St. Bernard Parish to allow the levee around their lands to be

broken

> to prevent flooding in the city in exchange for monetary reparations for

the

> loss of their property that would result from the flooding.  The levee was

> broken, the waters flooded lower St. Bernard, people died and property was

> destroyed, but monetary reparations were never paid to the St. Bernard

> citizens.

>

> The Bohemia Spillway was completed in 1931 and the expropriated land had

> proved to be useful for more than just a spillway, and by the mid-1980s,

the

> Orleans Levee District was receiving about $5 million a year in mineral

> royalties from the land. Between 1929 and 1984 the levee district had

> collected approximately $57 million in mineral royalties.  In 1984, the

> Louisiana legislature passed Act 233 ordering the Orleans Levee District

to

> return the expropriated land including mineral royalties to the original

> owners and to provide an accounting of all mineral royalties it received

> from the affected property.  The Orleans Levee Board stalled the return of

> the land, refused to remit the mineral royalties and challenged the

> constitutionality of the act.  After years of litigation, both the

Louisiana

> Supreme Court and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor

of

> the original landowners.  The Orleans Levee Board was cast in judgment for

> millions, with interest accruing from 1984.  Needless to say, twenty-one

> years later, that is now a substantial debt.

>

> Furthermore, as a result of the Orleans levee breaches during Hurricane

> Katrina, individual and class action lawsuits certainly will be filed

> against the Orleans Levee District.  If the levee district is cast in

> judgment in any of those suits, conceivably the debt could amount to

> billions of dollars.  In the event Senate Bill 95 had become law, it was

> possible that the Lake

>

> Borgne Levee District in St. Bernard Parish as well the East Jefferson

Levee

> District would have had to assume a portion of the Orleans Levee

District's

> debt.  This fact was and is not clear from a reading of the Senate passed

> legislation and that seriously concerns me.  I cannot speak for Jefferson

> Parish, but St. Bernard Parish tax payers cannot bear that burden and

> shouldn't have to.  Unlike Jefferson and St. Tammany, St. Bernard was

> completely destroyed by Katrina, and any tax revenue it collects in the

> future must be used to rebuild the parish, not help reduce the debt of the

> Orleans Levee District.  This brings me to my second point.

>

> The catastrophic flooding that killed hundreds of people and obliterated

St.

> Bernard, eastern New Orleans and the Lower 9th Ward was caused by the

flood

> waters that surged through the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MR-GO)

during

> Katrina in addition to the flood waters from the industrial canal levee

> breach.  In 1956, New Orleans business leaders and the federal government

> claimed the proposed 76-mile shipping channel, a shortcut between the city

> and the Gulf of Mexico, would be an economic boon to St. Bernard and New

> Orleans.  As soon as the channel was dug, saltwater from the Gulf entered

> into and eventually killed thousands of acres of marshland, destroying St.

> Bernard's fur industry and a significant portion of its oyster industry.

> Long-term it destroyed the natural storm buffer once provided by that

> marshland and caused an estimated loss of $200 to $350 million to the

> commercial and recreational fishing industries.

>

> Shortly after the MR-GO was completed in 1965, Hurricane Betsy hit,

wreaking

> havoc on St. Bernard and the Lower Ninth Ward.  Sen. Boasso may not recall

> that horrible event 40 years ago, as he was a young child, however I

> remember it well.  At the time, my wife and I had seven children under the

> age of nine and she was eight months pregnant.  When the levees breached

and

> the flood waters began to rise, I put them in a small boat and walked in

> chest-deep water well over a mile, pulling them to safety.  It was one of

> the most harrowing experiences of my life.  From that day on, years before

I

> ran for political office, I became a vocal opponent of the MR-GO.  Despite

> the property damage and loss of life during Hurricane Betsy in St. Bernard

> and the Lower Ninth Ward as well as opposition from the citizens and

> environmental groups, the business leaders in the New Orleans area

continued

> to maintain that the channel was necessary for the regional economy.  With

> the support of the federal government, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

> continued to dredge and maintain the channel.  As the channel enlarged

over

> the next forty years, experts warned of the potential disaster.  Yet, in

the

> interest of business, the warnings went unheeded.  Then Katrina struck.

>

> During the recent special session, the Business Council of New Orleans and

> the River Region, a group of top executives from various local

corporations,

> lobbied heavily for the passage of Senate Bill 95.  They even took out

> full-page newspaper ads calling for levee reform.  Notably, however,

several

> of these same executives recently expressed their opposition to the

closing

> of the MR-GO.  They claimed that the permanent closing of the channel

would

> result in the loss of business for the Port of New Orleans and force

several

> companies along the Industrial Canal to relocate.  Some members of our

> congressional delegation even agree with them.

>

> Admittedly, like Sen. Boasso, whose own business relies on the Port, these

> business executives may have a valid reason for keeping the MR-GO open.

If

> a measure like Senate Bill 95 ever passes and the new single regional

levee

> board has the support of business, when confronted with the issue of

closing

> the MR-GO, whose interests do you think will prevail?  Will the board

> protect regional business or the human lives in St. Bernard, the Lower

Ninth

> Ward and eastern Orleans?  If past history is any indication, the City's

> business interests will certainly win.  However, in my opinion, it is

never

> a choice, the protection of human life must always come first, and I will

do

> everything in my power to insure that it does.

>

> Don't get me wrong.  I realize the necessary and vital role that business

> plays in the comeback of the New Orleans region.  I also have a personal

> interest in wanting to successfully rebuild the City.  Three of my

daughters

> reside in New Orleans, two of whom lost their Lakeview homes; one is now

> living in Florida and the other in Baton Rouge.  Nonetheless, regionally

> speaking, it is undisputed that the residents of both the Lower Ninth Ward

> and St. Bernard Parish have always been shortchanged when it comes to

> receiving public services and the attention of business and governmental

> leaders.  St. Bernard is no longer the rural, sparsely populated parish

that

> it once was and the Lower Ninth Ward will no longer tolerate being treated

> as the City's stepchild just because it is geographically severed from the

> rest of New Orleans.  The thousands of residents who live east of the

> Industrial Canal and have been displaced as a result of Katrina demand

that

> their voices be heard and their lives safeguarded.  A large percentage of

> them are my constituents from House District 103.  As long as I am serving

> in the legislature, I will continue to vote in their best interests.

>

> Any legislator will tell you that it is easy to vote in favor of a piece

of

> legislation that is labeled as "reform" if it has the backing of the media

> and has no direct impact on one's district.  Perhaps that explains how

> Senate Bill 95 passed unanimously in the Senate.  If the true intent of

Sen.

> Boasso's bill was to create a regional levee board and to take politics

out

> of the levee system, the Senate passed version of the bill did not achieve

> that end, as the West Jefferson Levee District was exempt from the Act and

> the Orleans Levee Board still retained control of the New Orleans

Lakefront

> Airport and its real estate developments.

>

> In its editorial on November 26th, the Times-Picayune stereotyped all

levee

> board members as "second-rate political cronies."   How dare it make such

a

> blanket statement?  Not all elected and appointed public servants are

> corrupt and self-serving.  The newspaper does a grave disservice to the

> State of Louisiana and its people by perpetuating the image that its

public

> officials are all deal makers, backwards and corrupt.  Such statements

> merely give the members of congress and the powers that be in Washington,

> D.C., further reason to delay or deny Louisiana and the Gulf Coast the

> financial aid that is so desperately needed.

>

> Moreover, unlike the Orleans Levee Board, the Lake Borgne Levee District

in

> St. Bernard has been managed beyond reproach, and patronage and cronyism

> does not exist.  Yes,

> Randy Odinet, my nephew, presently serves on the Lake Borgne Levee

District.

> I appointed him to the board in 2000.  The position is not a part-time or

> full-time job and has no salary or benefits.  Board members get paid $75

> only when they meet, which averages about once a month.  Many will attest

> that Randy is an honest, hardworking, family man.  He had previously

served

> one four-year term (1988-1992) on the former St. Bernard Parish Police

Jury

> but decided not to seek a second term.  During his time in office there

was

> never the slightest hint of impropriety on his part.  Due to his

experience

> as police juror, Randy was very familiar the operations of the Lake Borgne

> Levee District, which is why I asked him to serve on the board.  As

> Hurricane Katrina approached, rather than evacuate with his family to

> Houston, Randy chose to stay in St. Bernard to assist the levee district

> personnel.  When the flood waters topped the levees and inundated the

> parish, Randy was one of the first persons to board a boat to start

rescuing

> people from the rooftops and flooded streets.  Eventually, after saving

> hundreds of people over several days, Randy was able to leave St. Bernard

by

> riding a barge up the Mississippi River to Baton Rouge.  However, prior to

> doing so, he gave the keys to his own pick-up truck to parish officials

and

> told them to use the vehicle for as long as they needed that he would

> maintain the insurance on it.  My nephew is not a second-hand political

> crony.  In my opinion, he went above and beyond the call of duty.  If the

> newspaper wanted to vilify me, an elected official, it was free to do so,

> but smearing Randy Odinet's good reputation merely for the purpose

printing

> a juicy story was poor journalism and totally unnecessary.

>

> To those who have called, written, and e-mailed me, demanding that I

> apologize for my procedural vote on Sen. Bill 95, I hope the foregoing

> explanation clarifies my position because you will never get an apology

from

> me for the way I voted.  Twice in my lifetime I have lost every material

> possession that I ever owned, first in Hurricane Betsy and recently in

> Hurricane Katrina, but I have never lost my faith in God, my dignity or my

> integrity.  I fall asleep at night with a very clear conscience, knowing

> that I am doing the best that I can to represent my constituents and to

> protect their interests.  Most important, I survived Katrina along with my

> wife, children, grandchildren and other loved ones.  Many others were not

so

> fortunate.

>

> Finally, I want the people to know that I did vote for Senate Bills 27 and

> 71, which the Governor supported, relative to the creation of a new state

> authority to oversee a state plan for coastal restoration and flood

control,

> while a newly reformed fund will become a depositary for federal revenue

> generated by offshore oil and gas activity that might be allocated to the

> state for levee and wetlands programs.  I believe the passage of these two

> bills will alleviate the federal government's concerns.

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Kenneth L. Odinet, Sr.

> House District 103

> 127 Hwy. 22 East-S7

> 985-845-1205

> (Temporary Location)

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Not all emails sent through this list reflect

> the opinion of da-parish.com or Westley Annis

>

> Such emails list the author in either the subject line or within the

message itself.

>

> THIS MESSAGE IS NOT MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT

BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH.

>

> This message is copyrighted by Westley Annis.  No distribution through

electronic, paper, or other means is permitted without the express written
permission of Westley Annis.

>

> StBernard mailing list

> StBernard at da-parish.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/stbernard

> This list is provided as a free service of

> da-parish.com and AskWestley.com

> http://www.da-parish.com

> http://www.AskWestley.com

>

> To get your own free copy or to cancel your subscription visit

http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/stbernard

>