Residents of St. Bernard are understandably angry about HLS 25RS-21 insofar as it intends to create a mechanism for New Orleans to takeover parts of St. Bernard. As we previously reported on, whoever is behind this legislation had as his or her goal the escalation of the dispute between the Port of New Orleans and St. Bernard. The anger and outrage at this escalation has brought well needed attention to the fight against the Port of New Orleans and has reinvigorated many residents who have become discouraged by the president and all of the council members not named Fred Everhardt who show us time and time again that they do not have the fortitude to see this fight through.
State Representative Mike Bayham has been one of the few politicians to take a firm and sincere stand against the Port and everyone should give him credit for that. So we take no pleasure in having to respond to Representative Bayham’s update this way, but his most recent update is unacceptable nonsense. In case you missed it, please take a look at what Representative Bayham said.
Representative Bayham begins by acknowledging that he does not have information on the text of the bill, or even who its author is, because “there is a legal confidentiality protection in place.” Nothing new here! We already knew all of this.
But despite having no actual knowledge about this bill, Representative Bayham then proceeds to try to reassure the residents that this bill has nothing to do with the Port of New Orleans. Why? Because the Port did not instigate the bill and Port was not named in the bill. Wow! As the saying goes, there’s a sucker born every minute.
The bill says what it says and the bill says it “provides relative to the city’s authority to incorporate areas within the parishes of Jefferson, Plaquemines, and St. Bernard.” We can all connect the dots from there. Let’s take a look at that bill again just to be sure.
But according to Representative Bayham, the bill doesn’t mean what it says. What does it actually say? What is it actually related to? That’s apparently not important.
Why else would the city of New Orleans seek to incorporate parts of the three surrounding parishes who all just happen to have their own port authorities? Until we can get a clear and satisfactory answer to this question, we should operate under the most obvious assumption that this is related to the dispute with the Port of New Orleans.
This simply can’t be just another of those coincidences surrounding the Port of New Orleans. Is it just a coincidence that the Port of New Orleans is also trying to intrude into the jurisdiction of the St. Bernard Port? Is it just a coincidence that the Parish just happens to have a lawsuit saying that the Port of New Orleans does not have jurisdiction beyond the boundary of the City of New Orleans? Is it just a coincidence that this proposed law would circumvent the Parish’s lawsuit by expanding the city of New Orleans? No! None of this is a coincidence and its time to get real!
The most disappointing part of Representative Bayham’s “update” was his attempt to de-escalate the situation. We should remember: there is such a thing as righteous anger.
He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.
SAINT John Chrysostom
Any attempt by New Orleans to encroach upon St. Bernard is a legitimate cause to be angry! This is irrespective of whether this has to do with the Port of New Orleans or not. Experience teaches us that when you don’t get angry when you should, that just gives the other person the green light to run all over you.
It is not right to try to deny people the right to be angry by telling them something that is obviously not true. It is the anger that will motivate the residents of St. Bernard, but it is also that anger that so many of the politicians are afraid of.
