Editorial/Op
Letter to the Editor – To Loop or Not to Loop: Central’s Choice
By |
For the past five years Woody Jenkins, editor of the Central City News, has been warning Central about the Baton Rouge Loop. In editorials and bleak headlines he has prophesized the loop “would deliver all the problems of the nation right to the heart of Central,” and “forever change the community for the worse,” leading to “criminals passing through, illegal aliens, drugs, prostitution, pollution and noise.”
According to Louisiana State Law, Central is given the right to prohibit the construction of the Baton Rouge Loop through any part of Central. House Bill 411 adopted by Louisiana House of Representatives in 1997 gives cities protection and recourse. Woody Jenkins, the Central City News editor and a resident of Baton Rouge, served as a State Representative in 1997 when this law was adopted, and it states in part:
H.B. NO. 411: §.2028; Para. A
“An authority created and established pursuant to this Chapter may only construct new additional highway toll and/or transitway toll facilities under the terms and conditions set forth in this Chapter, with the prior express written consent of the affected governing bodies within the geographical boundaries of the authority after a public hearing. Said facilities must be part of the approved transportation plan and program of the department and the local metropolitan planning organization, where applicable.”
I must ask, did former State Representative and current Central City News Editor Woody Jenkins print headlines and articles stirring up fear and controversy all the while knowing the Loop could not be built through Central without Central’s permission? Or, did then State Representative Woody Jenkins, whom I supported, simply not know what the legislation meant when he voted for its adoption?
– John E. Green III
Central Speaks encourages letters to the editor form Central Citizens and may choose to print letters on pertinent topics which are responsible and accurate. Central Speaks also encourages letters from an opposing viewpoint. The claims of fact made in the preceding letter are accurate.
13 Comments