July 30, 2008
By Rebecca Breeden
Councilwoman Lorri Burgess has no shame in having the reputation of being a benchwarmer. She seems to abstain on all the important votes, such as the blue laws and Pinnacle. "I did receive a popular vote to say I could sit here," she said before abstaining on the blue law vote at the April 25, 2007 Metro Council meeting.
This time, Burgess abstained from sending the $989 million bond proposal before the voters. Sure, she's term-limited and lost her bid for state representative the last election, but don't people with "going-out syndrome" tend to take more risks?
At last week's Metro Council meeting, Burgess summoned Jim Ellis of BRAC and Christel Slaughter of BRAF to "look them in the eye" to sound off on the $989 million bond proposal—the same proposal she refused to vote on. In case you're not familiar, the Baton Rouge Area Foundation connects "rich folks" to local nonprofits to help people in need, especially those in Old South Baton Rouge, which includes Burgess's district. They also invest in community development and downtown revitalization efforts, in case you're wondering why a BRAF rep was called to the hot seat.
Burgess took a patronizing tone with Ellis and Slaughter, telling them they're the "heavy players here" who "pull the puppet strings," and admitting that she has given up on the efforts for community development here because no one listens to her.
"I think it's so unfair, so I'm asking you to come back with your goal and talk to your friends at the wine parties or the city clubs or the social clubs and make it happen for poor people in this parish," Burgess said condescendingly, drawing several moans from the audience. "And they can talk about what we're doing but we're not doing enough ... Instead of paying consultants, won't you pay for a few roofs to be fixed?"
Hooray for helping people. But how in the world is Lorri Burgess helping her constituents in Old South Baton Rouge when she won't even vote on some of the most important issues at the Metro Council meetings?
From her high chair on the Metro Council, she scolds philanthropist groups for not doing enough to help poor people, yet she's sitting on the sidelines this entire time by not voting to let the people have a voice in this. Benchwarmers with bad attitudes have no place in public service.
What do you think?
Comments
Posted by liberatedtiger on August 4 at 9:47 a.m.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think her pouting attitude goes back even further to when she lost out to Joe Greco on being Mayor Pro Tem. She's not the only one that abstains on the difficult political issues, however.
The Metro Council needs better leadership pretty much across the board. It's obvious that we have a Mayor now that will bring fresh (albeit costly) proposals to the table. We will need strong leaders unafraid to implement many of these ideas.
Posted by por_deni on August 7 at 1:54 p.m.
District 10 was redrawn in 2004, prior to the Metro Council election. As of Autumn 2007, when I attended a council meeting to speak out on a zoning issue in my neighborhood, Councilwoman Burgess still was not comfortable with this new section of her District and admitted as much.
How, after three years, could you sit in council chambers and readily admit, on the record, that the neighborhood was "unfamiliar to me" and " I just got it when Jim Benham retired"? She had a campaign cycle and 3/4 of a term to get familiar with it!
She proceeded to vote against the wishes of the majority of the public attendees and against the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
There is a forum for Metro Council District 10 candidates on Sept 23 at Shiloh Baptist Church on Eddie Robinson Dr. Please attend!
Posted by pmccarron on August 18 at 3:59 p.m.
Agree, I too was disappointed with Lori Burgess' borderline racist remarks during that meeting. She seemed to accuse BRAF and Rich White People of all the failures in her district - yet offered no solutions herself. Then Burgess demanded an answer from the BRAF Spokeswoman (that did not allow for "Gentrification"), yet did not allow the BRAF Spokeswoman a chance to respond to her question. But I am going to give Lori the benefit of the doubt - overall she tends to make valid points during council meetings from a point of view that I do not always understand - perhaps her frustration, of a potential higher sales tax on the low income people in her area, that can't afford it, got the best of her on this one issue. And I agree with her frustration - this Kip Holden Tax Proposal is too much expense on the low and middle class of our parish and will continue to drive the hard working people of our parish away, where the cost of living is lower.
Posted by dpuryear on October 15 at 8 p.m.
Maybe councilmembers should have to vote on a minimum number of issues (based on a percentage) or their seat goes into an automatic re-election. :)
Post a comment
(225 magazine reserves the right to remove any comments from this site we deem offensive, malicious or otherwise inappropriate.)