Featured Photograph: Dr. Fred Fandal, owner of a vacant downtown building, speaks to the Opelousas Board of Aldermen during a Tuesday night meeting. To the right in the photo is Cody Lanclos, another downtown property owner. (Photograph by Freddie Herpin.)
BOBBY ARDOIN
Editor/Consulting Writer
Unoccupied downtown buildings in Opelousas won’t be subjected – at least for now – to any ordinance restrictions proposing to rehabilitate the structures and prepare them potentially for commercial use.
An attempt by Downtown Development District officials to establish an ordinance that would begin regulating the currently vacant non-residential structures located within the heart of the city, failed to receive traction following a Tuesday night vote by the Board of Aldermen.
With the City Hall meeting room filled to capacity, the vote by the six aldermen ended in a tie, a decision that defeated the issue.
The Board had voted on Jan. 10 to introduce the ordinance and include the lengthy public hearing which preceded the Tuesday night vote.
DDD chairperson Lena Charles said she plans to resume attempts to prepare the ordinance again for adoption, perhaps as early as March, when the Board convenes another monthly meeting.
Charles has said in several previously published articles that revitalization of the downtown area won’t occur until the city creates ordinances and codes that hold vacant building owners responsible for maintaining their properties.
During her presentation Tuesday night, Charles used a chart which she said illustrates 60 buildings in the downtown area could be classified as vacant.
The objective of adopting an ordinance for the downtown area, Charles said, is bringing the unused buildings back into the commercial sector in order to create municipal sales tax revenues and develop a renewed vibrancy to the central area of the city.
Marvin Richard, Charles Cummings and Chasity Davis-Warren voted against the ordinance adoption. Those voting “yes” were Milton Batiste III, Delita Rubin Broussard and Sherell Roberts.
Cummings said following the meeting that at this point he has concerns about adopting the ordinance that was proposed Tuesday night.
“One thing that is ridiculous is the requirement in the ordinance which requests that the owners carry a million doors of liability insurance. None of them can afford that,” Cumming said.
Cummings said he would have liked the DDD and economic development specialists to seek more input from the Board before attempting to pass an ordinance.
“I also think another thing that was left out is getting more input from the city code enforcement,” Cummings said.
The Board however did pass an amendment to the proposed ordinance which would give downtown business owners at least a year to prepare for compliance before any of the ordinance restrictions were implemented.
Charles said the proposed ordinance would have required owners to agree to code enforcement inspections that determine the condition of the buildings before they become commercially viable.
Cody Lanclos, who owns a building and property located across from City Hall, said DDD officials had not spoken with him about details contained in the ordinance.
Lanclos said also that he felt the Board does not have enough information about the ordinance that is needed to make a decision.
Beth James, who also spoke during the public hearing, told the Board that individuals intending to invest in downtown properties don’t want to own buildings that are located next to other structures that are blighted.
