Louisiana Senate Bill SB338

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/19/10
• Engrossed: 4/21/10
• Refer: 4/22/10
• Report Pass: 6/3/10
• Enrolled: 6/16/10
• Chaptered: 6/30/10
• Passed: 6/30/10

Caption

Authorizes transfers of Department of Transportation and Development property to the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission. (8/15/10)

Impact

The passage of SB338 is expected to impact state property laws by formally allowing the transfer of state property for public use objectives. The bill ensures that the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission can obtain title to this land, which could have implications for infrastructure improvements and port-related developments. Consequently, this could enhance economic activities in the region, boosting trade by providing necessary space for port expansions or related facility developments.

Summary

Senate Bill 338 aims to facilitate the transfer of certain state-owned property located in West Baton Rouge Parish to the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission. This legislation empowers the secretary of the Department of Transportation and Development to convey, assign, and deliver any state interest in the designated land. This property, approximately 24 acres in size, is particularly identified by its detailed physical boundaries, enabling precise delineation for the transfer process.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB338 is primarily supportive, especially from those associated with the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission and state economic development officials. They view the bill as a critical step toward advancing the region's economic interests and fostering infrastructure growth. However, there may be concerns from various stakeholders regarding the valuation and appropriateness of the property transfer, though detailed opposition is not prominently noted in the discussions.

Contention

While the bill seems to be well-received, potential points of contention could arise regarding the preservation of mineral rights as specified within the bill. By reserving mineral rights rather than transferring them, there is a concern that the extraction of natural resources could remain a contentious issue in the future. Furthermore, the methodology of property appraisal and subsequent valuation for the transfer may also be subject to scrutiny, particularly from opponents worried about undervaluation or misallocation of public resources.