[StBernard] TUES MAY 3 COUNCIL MTG 7PM - BE THERE - WEAR RED

[Westley Annis]

Once again our officials must hear and SEE us. Please attend Tuesday and
read details below.
EVERYONE SHOULD FOLLOW THE SAME RULES AND THE PARISH HAS THE POWER TO STOP
THIS.
 
WE VOTE!!  PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ANYONE ON YOUR MAILING LIST IN ST BERNARD
PARISH.


Everyone needs to contact ALL parish officials and tell them NOT TO RE-ISSUE
PROVIDENTNEW BUILDING PERMITS!!!!  GO TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT
AND SIGN UP TO LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD AND TELL OUR OFFICIALS NOT TO
RE-ISSUE PROVIDENT'S BUILDING PERMITS.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Debbie,

 

Please see the latest Order by Judge Berrigan regarding the status of the
building permits.  I'm not an attorney, but the way I interpret this Order,
she says the Parish "has the authority" to re-issue Provident's building
permits now that the multi-family zoning ordinance was reverted back.

 

Either Judge Berrigan is confused (which I doubt), or there is some
"intentional misleading" trying to go on here in the way she has worded her
Order to try to get the parish to "re-issue" Provident's building permits.
Our State lawsuit in Judge Buckley's court was about "PERMITS," and the fact
that Provident's "PERMITS" had expired BEFORE Provident started any
construction.  Our State lawsuit in Judge Buckley's court was NOT ABOUT
"ZONING."

 

Now it's going to be interesting to see what our parish officials do with
this Judgment, as the ball seems to be back in their court where these
building permits are concerned.

 

Please note that our attorneys are in the process of having our State
lawsuit remanded back to Judge Buckley's court, where it legally belongs. WE
HAVE A JUDGMENT FROM JUDGE BUCKLEY THAT AFFIRMS PROVIDENT'S BUILDING PERMITS
ARE "INVALID," AND THOSE PERMITS NEED TO STAY THAT WAY!

 

 

Everyone needs to know that if our parish officials simply "re-issue"
Provident's building permits, then our State lawsuit will immediately be
"moot," meaningless, worthless, nullified, etc.  In other words, Provident
will then have been given the "GREEN LIGHT," again, by our own officials, to
"legally" continue to move forward with the construction of these
apartments.

 

And, personally, I'm beginning to think it is being "intentionally" set up
to work out that way.

 

Thank you,

 

Dana Arcement

 

****************************************

 

Doc 541

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GREATER NEW ORLEANS FAIR HOUSING

ACTION CENTER, ET. AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 06-7185

ST. BERNARD PARISH, ET AL. SECTION: “C” (1)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Clarification. (Rec. Doc. 522).
Having

considered the memoranda of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court GRANTS the

motion for the reasons stated below.

The Court recognizes the conundrum facing Defendants. On the one hand a
state court judge

has issued a writ of mandamus ordering Defendants to set aside their
decision to re-issue Provident’s

building permits. (Rec. Doc. 488-2 at 1). While the state court action
containing the writ of

mandamus has been removed to this Court, that writ remains in full force and
effect until dissolved

or modified by this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1450. Consequently, Defendants
maintain that they cannot

lawfully conduct inspections of Provident’s developments because, pursuant
to the state court

judgment, they are required to set aside the February re-issuance of
Provident’s building permits,

which leaves Provident without any lawful permits. (Rec. Doc. 522-1 at 4)

On the other hand, this Court has recently found Defendants in contempt for
their early

efforts to enforce the state court judgment. (Rec. Doc. 510). Specifically,
this Court found that

Defendants violated this Court’s March 4, 2011 Order when they issued
several stop-work orders

without having received leave of this Court first. Id. at 1. As a result of
that order, Defendants are

concerned that if they refuse to conduct the necessary inspections of
Provident’s developments, then

this Court will once again find them in contempt of court. (Rec. Doc. 522-1
at 4). The present

Case 2:06-cv-07185-HGB-SS Document 541 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 3

2

motion seeks an order from this Court clarifying if Defendants are required
to conduct inspections

of Provident’s developments in light of the state court judgment ordering
them to set aside

Provident’s permits. Id.

On February 7, 2011, Defendants decided to re-issue Provident’s building
permits. (Rec.

Doc. 522-1 at 2). Nevertheless, Defendants appeared poised to prevent the
actual use of those

permits by attempting to obstruct Provident’s construction on various
grounds. (Rec. Doc. 470 at

1-3). Accordingly this Court issued an order enjoining Defendants from
issuing or enforcing any

cease-and-desist orders or other stop-work orders without prior approval of
this Court. Id. at 5.

Furthermore, Defendants were enjoined from re-reviewing constructions
issues, which had been

approved by Defendants at the time Provident’s permits were initially
approved in 2009. Id.

This Court finds that the March 4, 2011 Order envisioned that a construction
review process

would be ongoing at Provident’s developments, because a refusal to review
any construction issues

would make the prohibition on re-reviewing construction issues a nullity.
Such a prohibition only

has value to Provident if Defendants continue to inspect Provident’s
developments. Furthermore,

refusing to inspect Provident’s properties would have the practical effect
of a stop-work order, (Rec.

Doc. 536 at 3), which must be approved by this Court, (Rec. Doc. 470 at
1-3).

While this Court appreciates Defendants’ request for leave to stop
inspecting Provident’s

developments, that request is denied, as Defendants can comply with both the
state court judgment

and this Court’s orders. The Court notes that under the state court judgment
Defendants are only

required to set aside their February 7, 2011 re-issuance of Provident’s
permits. Specifically, the

state court judgment invalidated the re-issuance of Provident’s permits
based on Defendants’ failure to adhere to various procedural requirements
for approving improperly zoned permits. (Rec. Doc

488-4 at 3) (“The permits are not properly issued. There is a mechanism for
which they can seek

Case 2:06-cv-07185-HGB-SS Document 541 Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 3

3

redress to get these properly issued which would require a rezoning
request....”). The state court

judgment had no effect on the validity of Defendants’ decision to re-issue
Provident’s permits, but

merely on the validity of Defendants’ implementation of that decision.
Significantly, that judgment

does not enjoin Defendants from re-issuing Provident’s permits now that the
Comprehensive Zoning

Ordinance has been repealed. (Rec. Doc. 488-2 at 1; Rec. Doc. 536-1 at 3).

Because there is no longer any obstacle to implementing Defendants’ decision
to re-issue

Provident’s permits, Defendants can comply with the state court judgment by
simply re-issuing

Provident’s permits, thus allowing Defendants to resume necessary
inspections. Furthermore, the

re-issuance of Provident’s permits would also comply with this Court’s March
4, 2011 Order, which

essentially enjoins Defendants from interfering with Provident’s
developments without justification.

Refusing to re-issue Provident’s permits because of procedural mistakes,
which Provident was not

responsible for, would be unjustified in light of the fact that Defendants
admit that Provident’s

developments are now properly zoned. (Rec. Doc. 522-1 at 4).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Clarification is GRANTED to the
extent that

this Court clarifies that Defendants are required to conduct all necessary
inspections on Provident’s

developments, as Defendants now have the authority to reissue Provident’s
permits.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of April, 2011.

_______________________________________

HELEN G. BERRIGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




-- 

DEBBY ROSENBERGER
2513 JEAN LAFITTE PKWY
CHALMETTE LA 70043
504 494 1184
 
we're back home!