Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises conflict‑of‑interest and valuation concerns over Red River Express right‑of‑way survey request
Summary
A resident urged council scrutiny of a proposed right‑of‑way servitude agreement allowing Red River Express LLC to survey city property; councilmembers said appraisals and public input are part of the process and that the agreement is an initial step to permit surveying, not an acquisition.
A Shreveport resident told the City Council he is concerned that a proposed right‑of‑way servitude agreement with Red River Express LLC could benefit a private developer at the expense of local neighborhoods and raised possible conflict‑of‑interest questions about counsel and past representation.
The speaker, identifying himself as a resident of the Esplanade neighborhood, said Tim James of Red River Express had paid $500,000 for a parcel of roughly 0.6 acres and questioned what the city intended to accept in return for allowing a roadway to be constructed through adjacent property. “If he's willing to pay $500,000 for 0.6 acres, what is he willing to pay the city for however many acres that is?” the resident asked.
Councilman Butcher responded that the right‑of‑way servitude on the agenda is an early procedural step to allow surveying and appraisal work; he said appraisals will be performed with the city as the appraiser’s client and that any acquisition would require fair market compensation. “I wanted to make sure before we even went down this road that there was plenty of input to the neighborhoods,” Butcher said, adding that he had discussed stipulations with the city attorney and that the process would include input from affected neighborhoods including Esplanade and 12 Oaks.
City staff later described the resolution on the council’s docket as authorizing the developer to enter the property for survey work only; staff said appraisals and acquisition negotiations would follow if appropriate. No transfer or sale was authorized at the meeting; some residents asked for transparency and assurance that the city would receive appraisals selected by the city and that any compensation would reflect fair market value.
Council members said they had met with the developer and city attorney and that neighborhood engagement and appraisal work were conditions they expected to be satisfied as the process proceeded. The council did not vote on the matter at Tuesday’s meeting; the item was presented as an introduction to allow surveying to begin.
