Louisiana Sale of New Orleans Property, Amendment 13 (2014)

Amendment 13 Origin Louisiana State Legislature Topic Property Status Defeated d

2014 measures November 4 Amendment 1 a Amendment 2 a Amendment 3 d Amendment 4 d Amendment 5 d Amendment 6 a Amendment 7 a Amendment 8 a Amendment 9 d Amendment 10 a Amendment 11 d Amendment 12 d Amendment 13 d Amendment 14 d Endorsements

The Louisiana Sale of New Orleans Property, Amendment 13 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Louisiana as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have authorized the governing body of New Orleans to sell property in the city's Lower Ninth Ward. The property's sale price would have been fixed by the Louisiana Legislature.

The amendment was sponsored in the state legislature by Representative Wesley Bishop (D-99) as House Bill 489.

Election results

Louisiana Amendment 13
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		775,434	59.44%
Yes		529,163	40.56%

Election results via: Louisiana Secretary of State

Text of measure

Ballot title

The proposed ballot text read as follows:

“

Do you support an amendment to authorize the governing authority of the city of New Orleans to sell at a price fixed by the legislature property located in the Lower Ninth Ward of the city of New Orleans? (Amends Article VII, Section (14)(B))

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VII, Louisiana Constitution

The proposed amendment would have amended Section 14(B) of Article VII of the Constitution of Louisiana:

[Section 14.] (B) Authorized Uses. Nothing in this Section shall prevent (1) the use of public funds for programs of social welfare for the aid and support of the needy; (2) contributions of public funds to pension and insurance programs for the benefit of public employees; (3) the pledge of public funds, credit, property, or things of value for public purposes with respect to the issuance of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness to meet public obligations as provided by law; (4) the return of property, including mineral rights, to a former owner from whom the property had previously been expropriated, or purchased under threat of expropriation, when the legislature by law declares that the public and necessary purpose which originally supported the expropriation has ceased to exist and orders the return of the property to the former owner under such terms and conditions as specified by the legislature; (5) acquisition of stock by any institution of higher education in exchange for any intellectual property; (6) the donation of abandoned or blighted housing property by the governing authority of a municipality or a parish to a nonprofit organization which is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization and which agrees to renovate and maintain such property until conveyance of the property by such organization; (7) the deduction of any tax, interest, penalty, or other charges forming the basis of tax liens on blighted property so that they may be subordinated and waived in favor of any purchaser who is not a member of the immediate family of the blighted property owner or which is not any entity in which the owner has a substantial economic interest, but only in connection with a property renovation plan approved by an administrative hearing officer appointed by the parish or municipal government where the property is located; (8) the deduction of past due taxes, interest, and penalties in favor of an owner of a blighted property, but only when the owner sells the property at less than the appraised value to facilitate the blighted property renovation plan approved by the parish or municipal government and only after the renovation is completed such deduction being canceled, null and void, and to no effect in the event ownership of the property in the future reverts back to the owner or any member of his immediate family; (9) the donation by the state of asphalt which has been removed from state roads and highways to the governing authority of the parish or municipality where the asphalt was removed, or if not needed by such governing authority, then to any other parish or municipal governing authority, but only pursuant to a cooperative endeavor agreement between the state and the governing authority receiving the donated property; (10) the investment in stocks of a portion of the Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge Trust and Protection Fund, created under the provisions of R.S. 56:797, and the Russell Sage or Marsh Island Refuge Fund, created under the provisions of R.S. 56:798, such portion not to exceed thirty-five percent of each fund; (11) the investment in stocks of a portion of the state-funded permanently endowed funds of a public or private college or university, not to exceed thirty-five percent of the public funds endowed; or (12) the investment in equities of a portion of the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly created under the provisions of R.S. 46:2691 et seq., such portion not to exceed thirty-five percent of the fund.; or (13) the sale, at a price that the legislature may set, of property located in the Lower Ninth Ward of the city of New Orleans by the governing authority of the city of New Orleans to qualified purchasers as provided by law.

Support

A full list of legislators by how they voted on the amendment can be found here.

Arguments

The Public Affairs Research Council provided arguments for and against the constitutional amendment. The following was the council's argument in support:

“	The Lower Ninth Ward was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina and many residents chose not to return. Proponents of the amendment say it is needed to revitalize and repopulate the Lower Ninth Ward and that selling the properties at a nominal price would facilitate growth. The amendment can put blighted and abandoned property into the hands of private owners and boost the tax rolls. These sales would reduce the expenditures being incurred by the Redevelopment Authority to maintain the properties.	”
—Public Affairs Research Council

Opposition

A full list of legislators by how they voted on the amendment can be found here.

Arguments

The Public Affairs Research Council provided arguments for and against the constitutional amendment. The following was the council's argument against:

“	This amendment would make exceptions in the Constitution for a special class of individuals. Other jurisdictions would seek similar privileges, weakening a fundamental tenet in the Constitution prohibiting governments from giving away public goods. The companion legislation forces the parish to sell the properties at the lower rate rather than giving the parish the option to do so. The amend- ment is based on the mistaken philosophy that people who acquire properties cheaply will be more likely to cherish and maintain their new homes than those who make a more substantial fair-market investment. Buyers might hold on to the properties to sell later at a large profit rather than actually building homes. Federal regulations may not allow implementation of this program anyway.	”
—Public Affairs Research Council

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Louisiana Constitution

A two-thirds majority vote was required in the Louisiana Legislature in order to place the constitutional amendment on the ballot. HB 489 was approved in the Louisiana Senate on May 28, 2014. The measure was approved in the Louisiana House on June 1, 2014. The amendment was enrolled with the secretary of state on June 2, 2014.

Senate vote

May 28, 2014 Senate vote

Louisiana HB 489 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		36	100.00%
No		0	0.00%

House vote

June 1, 2014 House vote

Louisiana HB 489 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		88	100.00%
No		0	0.00%

See also

Suggest a link

• 2014 ballot measures
• Louisiana 2014 ballot measures

External links

• House Bill No. 489