Most would suggest that we must construct or expand roadways.  However, this is neither the exclusive nor most practical approach. The alternatives include technology to maximize traffic control, distributing traffic away from overstressed roadways and managed growth which contains traffic to existing infrastructure.

The Johnston St. concept is being studied by a group of affected business leaders who are developing a plan that would be executed in stages. The original stretch of Johnston under study was from University to Doucet. I suggest we focus on that tract and use it as a model.

Presently, the Transit System serves a limited segment. LTS operates at a deficit would not exist without federal dollars. The question is whether there is enough demand for an expanded system at a great cost to tax payers? 

Regarding Johnston St. Issue.  I am for the beautification of Lafayette, and I am for the beautification of Johnston St. but not at the expense of the existing businesses. Public Transportation is something that we will have to deal with for the the entire history of Lafayette. It has never been a profit making endeavor, but we must continue to support this aspect of public use.

Reduction in traffic congestion depends on both improving existing roads and constructing new ones. We need to push for the completion of the I-49 corridor and look seriously in to the construction of a beltway that would divert traffic around central Lafayette. The Johnston St. redesign is not a solution to any real problem. Its most pronounced effect would be to harm established business and bring traffic to a halt in the event of even minor accidents. An increase in buses with more frequent and farther-reaching routes would increase public willingness to use public transportation, reduce congestion and decrease wear on public streets.

I remain firm on my stance that there be a reorganization of various departments within Lafayette Consolidated Government to better address the various elements of LINC. As exists today, the coordination of government efforts is fragmented. I would consider financial support once that is addressed.

I prefer the term “managed growth”.  This approach would better contain the sprawl which has developed in recent years.  We cannot continue to build beyond the capabilities of our traffic, drainage, water and waste water infrastructure.

One key component of managed growth is in fill development. There are hundreds of vacant properties that beg for development. But how do we “gentrify” an area without driving out established residents because of increased property values and tax assessments. This issue must be addressed on a state level with support from local government.

I will support any initiative that will promote growth to the parish without new taxes.

LINC includes some wonderful ideas for future growth, and I would support those that do not significantly damage existing business or seek to destroy Lafayette’s unique identity and history. Smart Growth strategies offer great possibilities to allow useful and practical development in areas where space is at a premium, but should be applied cautiously in developed areas to avoid creating prohibitive housing cost increases and damaging the ability of developers to compete in a free and fair market. Developers should be offered incentives for developing in blighted areas within Lafayette, rather than looking outside the city for new land.

I was a driving force in the recent adoption of an updated drainage component in the subdivision regulations.  The most important impact of this ordinance is to assure zero increase in storm water runoff following a rain event. That will be accomplished by the required construction of retention / detention facilities.  Another critical regulation is that construction be done at 12 inches above base flood elevation.

Impact fees is one revenue stream of many which is being studied by the Growth Opportunity Technical Team (GOTT) created by the Planning Commission as part of its comprehensive plan development.  There was an early effort to remove impact fees from consideration; but I asked and they agreed to leave it on the table until all possibilities have been explored.

I will not support any fee that would impede growth. Growth for the city and parish will stimulate taxes, eliminating the need for any new taxes.

Drainage issues can be addressed by using zoning restrictions to prevent development of open land, especially near natural waterways, that is needed for natural drainage. A targeted anti-littering campaign, increased fines and stricter enforcement would help prevent the use of coulees, ditches and natural waterways for the disposal yard clippings, household trash and other detritus, allowing for more efficient drainage. Reasonable impact fees that include appropriate fair-share protections can also ensure that all factors regarding drainage and flooding are carefully considered and allowed for in the planning of new developments.

The answer to the first question is found in the second.  LINC recommendations included an increase in the amount of green space per capita and the acquisition of the horse farm would be a great beginning in that quest.  However, the ultimate fate of the property remains in the hands of UL.

While I believe that we must address environmental impact issues, local government is not financially capable of doing that on its own.  Federal assistance is needed as it will be provided in the clean up of the former Southern Pacific rail yards with the construction of the I-49 Connector.

Regarding the horse farm, I would love to see it turned into Lafayette’s newest city park. I am a big proponent of green space and city parks. I will do all I can to promote such activity. 

The need for green space and public parks in Lafayette should be carefully considered in all future development, and incentives should be offered to developers who consider that factor in the development planning. The Horse Farm property should be used as a public park, and we must work with UL to find an agreement that will allow the purchase of this valuable land by the Consolidated Government. Waste cleanup is an important factor in the purchase of land for public use, and we should push for state legislation that would allow cleanup costs to be considered when determining fair market value of land needed for public development.

A recent e-opinion on The Advertiser web site best addresses this question:

“An expert in disaster preparedness says Lafayette is well-prepared in comparison with most other cities. The comments were from Roy Kindrick of Western Community Policing Institute, part of Western Oregon University in Monmouth, Ore. They were comforting and encouraging.”

Lafayette is fortunate in having an experienced Emergency Operations Director, Mike Mouton, a strong 911 presence and the headquarters for Acadian Ambulance Service … all of which bring the best available response in the state, if not the country.

Lafayette is blessed with a wealth of citizens willing to help during emergency situations.  I have lived here 46 years and have never know any one in need during emergencies to not receive the help they need.  The city has improved the evacuation routes as mandated by the state.  We do a good job in this area.

Timely communication could be ensured by a public AM emergency broadcast station that could provide updated information relayed to the station by emergency response, cleanup and utility workers. A local call-in number would allow citizens to assist in keeping the public informed. During an evacuation, all school and city buses should be immediately put in to service assisting citizens without transportation or who require special medical assistance. We should also form a volunteer emergency response team that would receive training in first aid and be kept up to date on evacuation strategies to assist in evacuating during a natural disaster.

The medical community is no different than the retail: they serve where the market is located.  I submit to you that the direction of development in Lafayette will show a dramatic shift to the north in the coming years.  With growth will come the needed services.

I was involved from the beginning in the effort to satisfactorily address this issue.  It was obvious early on that there was no majority support on the Council for the initial request.  My attempts were to seek a compromise; one of which was to do exactly what eventually was approved.  It just required some time for both sides to realize that each must give up some demands.

Listen!  Listen!  Listen!  Acquire as much information as possible so that I may cast a truly informed vote on issues before the Council.

I believe more clinics disbursed throughout the parish is the answer to providing medical needs to all.  Regarding the MLK renaming, I believe three years were wasted discussing this issue.  It was obvious from the start that there was no support from the people living on that street.  I believe the way they resolved it was amicable to all.

Emergency response on the north side can be improved by pushing for other infrastructure and economic development improvements in the area, as well as by increasing police and fire department staffing and the elimination of any exclusive operating agreements for emergency medical response companies. Fair competition in this area would improve response times and reduce costs. I believe the final solution to the Marin Luther King Dr. issue was the best outcome. However, it could have been achieved with less bickering and infighting by the council. A new council will need to work together to generate effective compromise quickly and efficiently.