Recently, a couple of local bloggers have called attention to two proposals currently being considered by the City of Alexandria. Normally, I don’t like to intervene in these discussions, but I think it is important to clarify some misconceptions about these two proposals:
First, regarding Red Flex:
The City has been discussing the notion of installing traffic cameras for over a year, and currently, the City is considering a proposal made by Red Flex, an Australian company that provides the same services for municipalities across the nation. Unlike Lafayette, Alexandria is not considering the use of “speed vans;” they are only looking at red light cameras. A decision has not yet been made. The City has not yet received pertinent information from Red Flex, including copies of contracts with other Louisiana municipalities, their SEC filings, and current litigation against Red Flex.
Three days ago, the City Attorney, Chuck Johnson, advised during a public City Council meeting that it may be necessary to discuss some of this information in executive session. The reason is simple: The City doesn’t want to be sued. If Red Flex produces protected trade secrets and the City elected to discuss this information to the general public, the City would open itself up to potential litigation. Any discussion of protected trade secrets, by their very nature, must be discussed in executive session.
And there is another point to be made: the City would never enter into an agreement with Red Flex without a thorough public discussion. Thus far, the City has discussed this proposal in public on at least four separate occasions. Red Flex even made its own public presentation. There is no reason to assume this discourse would be shut down.
Second, concerning the Cabrini proposal:
The City’s discussion of vacating Prescott Street is not, by any means, illegal or improper. They are following the exact letter of the law, and currently, every substantive discussion of this proposal has been made public.
Check it out (the State law and an AG opinion):
§ 48:701. Revocation of dedication; reversion of property
The parish governing authorities and municipal corporations of the state, except the parish of Orleans, may revoke and set aside the dedication of all roads, streets, and alleyways laid out and dedicated to public use within the respective limits, when the roads, streets, and alleyways have been abandoned or are no longer needed for public purposes.
Upon such revocation, all of the soil covered by and embraced in the roads, streets, or alleyways up to the center line thereof, shall revert to the then present owner or owners of the land contiguous thereto.
Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing any of the provisions of special statutes or charters of incorporated municipalities granting the right to close or alter roads or streets.
§ 48:702. Abandoning certain roads and exchanging property with other property owners
Whenever the governing authorities of any parish or municipal corporation of this state desire to construct a road, street or alley leading to any property of the state or any of its subdivisions, boards, commissions, or political corporations, and it appears that the construction will make it unnecessary to the public welfare to continue any then existing road, street or alley or any part thereof to permit access to or from the public property or to or from any property served by the old road, the parish or municipal corporation governing authority may, by proper ordinance, revoke and set aside the dedication of the road, street or alley, or any part thereof, and exchange it with property owners, so that new roads, streets or alleys or parts thereof, leading to or from any property of the state or any of its subdivisions, boards, commissions or political corporations may be laid out and dedicated to the public use. The property so exchanged shall become private property.
§ 48:712. Methods of disposition of property
The said property may be disposed of by one of the following four methods: (1) revocation of the dedication of the property if it consists of a street, road or alley dedicated to public use; (2) sale of any type of property at public auction; (3) sale of any type of property at private sale; or (4) exchange of any type of property for other property of approximately equal value.
§ 48:717. Private sale
If the governing authority decides to dispose of any of said property at private sale, it shall have the property appraised by an expert appraiser or appraisers appointed by the authority and the property shall not be sold for less than the value so established.
§ 33:4712. Sale, exchange, or lease of property by a municipality
A. A municipality may sell, lease for a term of up to ninety-nine years, exchange, or otherwise dispose of, to or with other political corporations of this state, or private persons, at public or private sale, any property, or portions thereof, including real property, which is, in the opinion of the governing authority, not needed for public purposes.
La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 1996-4; 1996 La. AG LEXIS 203, *
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
OPINION No. 96-4
La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 1996-4; 1996 La. AG LEXIS 203
May 28, 1996
50-HIGHWAYS
540 So.2d 983, 986 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1989)
The City of Westwego, in declaring the property in question no longer needed for public purposes has removed the street from the public domain and is free, in accordance with the strict provisions of law, to dispose of the property either under 33:4712 or 48:712.
John J. Molaison, Jr.
Westwego City Attorney
419 Avenue A
Westwego, LA 70094
RICHARD P. IEYOUB, ATTORNEY GENERAL; Robert B. Barbor, Assistant Attorney General
You have asked for an opinion from this office regarding the right of the City of Westwego to lease property dedicated to the city for use as a street, but no longer needed for public purposes, to a private individual under the terms and conditions of LSA-R.S. 33:4712. The street property in question was never opened as such nor improved.
Your opinion request does not make clear the exact procedure used to effect the dedication of the property to the city. It is assumed, since the property was never opened or improved, that the dedication was statutory in nature and in accordance with LSA-R.S. 33:5051. If so, once the dedication is perfected, the prior owner has divested himself of title and the governing authority is the owner for the benefit of the public. Martin v. Fuller, 37 So.2d 851 (La. 1948). We must also assume that the action of the City of Westwego in declaring that the property in question is no longer needed for public purposes was done with the requisite formalities. As the court in Walker v. Coleman, 540 So.2d 983, 986 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1989) noted, once that determination is made formally, the property becomes a private thing owned by the governing authority and can be disposed of in accordance with law. In this case the City of Westwego is contemplating a lease to a private person, rather than a revocation or other alienation.
Walker, a case dealing with the Parish of Ouachita, held that LSA-R.S. 48:701 was a special law dealing specifically with dedicated streets as opposed to the general provisions of LSA-R.S. 33:4711, which provides for the disposition of other kinds of parish property. The act of the parish declaring that the property was no longer needed for public purposes resulted in a revocation under 48:701 and the property reverted to the contiguous landowners by law. In the case of a municipality, the parallel statute, LSA-R.S. 33:4712, applies. It too, is a statute of general application. Following the logic and ruling of Walker, we must accept that Part V and Part V-A of Chapter 2, Title 48 are special laws that take precedence over the general provisions of LSA-R.S. 33:4711 and 33:4712.
The City of Westwego is located in Jefferson Parish, which is a parish having a population in excess of 325,000 persons based on the 1970 census. Therefor, it is our opinion that LSA-R.S. 48:711, et. seq., applies, since these statutes deal with parish property or “any immovable property . . . title to which is in the public, including . . . streets, roads and alleys”. This broad definition could certainly encompass municipal property. LSA-R.S. 48:719 states that this part, (Part V-A), shall apply to parishes of this size and “shall be construed as affording an alternative procedure to that set forth in . . . R.S. 33:4712.” It also expressly supersedes 48:701. This is further evidence of the understanding and intent of the legislature to include municipal property within the scope of Part V-A.
Coliseum Square Association v. City of New Orleans, 544 So.2d 351 (La. 1989) is instructive, although clearly distinguishable due to the fact of the home rule charter provisions at the core of the case. The decision is indicative of the deference given to larger municipalities to exercise greater control over the use of public property. The rationale of the underlying public policy that encourages a return to consolidated tracts in residential subdivisions if the streets are never developed has less importance in the case of larger parishes and municipalities. When 33:4712 is read in conjunction with the clear language of 48:719, it is clear that the legislature did not intend to effect an immediate revocation, with its attendant transfer of title, in the case of a city located in a parish of this size, upon declaration that the street is no longer needed for public purposes. Rather, the declaration takes the property out of public use and puts it into the category of a private thing owned by the public body with the option to dispose of the property as the governing authority determines is in the best interest of the public. In this case, lease of the property in accordance with the dictates of 33:4712 is an option.
In summary, it is our opinion that the City of Westwego, in declaring the property in question no longer needed for public purposes has removed the street from the public domain and is free, in accordance with the strict provisions of law, to dispose of the property either under 33:4712 or 48:712.
CenLamar 
In regards to red light cameras – At one time early in the planning stages for Baton Rouge, there was an article in the Advocate stating DOT had come out against their use on any State Road. Does anyone know if this issue has been resolved? The problem I see here is that the roads we would want to put the cameras in place on are all state roads – Jackson, MacArthur, and Masonic to name a few.
As to Cabrini – I know the City revoked the street AFCO is located on and well I can agree with that decision – the only people traveling on that particular street were employees of AFCO and Hanley Gremillion. I still would like to the “study” published stating the people using Prescott are employees and patients of Cabrini. There are homeowners on that street, there are other business owners on that street – Prescott is a connector from Texas to the service road for MacArthur.
Before we revoke the street permanently, let’s try an experiment – for two solid weeks, let’s block off the section of Prescott the City is considering giving up to Cabrini and see how traffic is impacting. See what businesses and homeowners are impacted, see how people change their driving routes through the adjacent neighborhoods to get to where they need to be. At the same time ask business owners located on the opposite end of Prescott to simly question their customers about problems getting their place of business. Send a letter of question to the residents in the impacted area. Ask the doctors and the hospital to have their patients complete the same type survey. Then and only then can you know the true impact of closing the street.