Could a Louisiana 911 district buy land solely as an investment?

Plain-English summary

Tangipahoa Communication District No. 1 wanted to buy land as a future investment and had no plan to use it. In December 2015, the Attorney General concluded that the 911 district lacked authority for that purchase because the proposal served no identifiable public purpose.

The opinion applied La. Const. art. VI, § 23, which allowed political subdivisions to acquire property for a public purpose. The AG treated the district as a political subdivision and found that acquiring this property only as an investment did not meet that constitutional condition. Its answer turned on the district’s stated lack of any planned use.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could the 911 district hold land simply because it might rise in value?

Not on the facts presented. The AG said buying immovable property solely as an investment, with no planned use, served no identifiable public purpose.

Did the opinion forbid a 911 district from buying any land?

No. The AG applied a constitutional provision allowing property acquisition for a public purpose. It decided only the proposed investment purchase.

Did the district have to identify a present public use?

The request said the district had no plans to use the property. The AG found no identifiable public purpose in that proposal; it did not decide a different acquisition plan.

Background and statutory framework

La. Const. art. VI, § 23 allowed political subdivisions to acquire property by purchase or other means for a public purpose, subject to the constitution and general law. The AG applied that requirement to the district’s proposed land investment and found it unsatisfied.

Citations

• La. Const. art. VI, § 23 (public-purpose condition for property acquisition).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/15-0084

Original opinion text

~tate of 1Uouisiana
DEPARTMENT Of JUSTICE
P.O. BOX 94005
BATON ROUGE
70B04-9005
JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWEll
ATTORNEYGENERAL

DEC 1 8 2015
OPINION 15-0084
90-A-1 PUBLIC FUNDS & CONTRACTS
La. Consl. art. VI, § 23
Clifton T. Speed
The Tangipahoa Communication District No. 1 may not
Assistant District Attorney
purchase immovable property as an investment if such a
Parish of Tangipahoa
purchase does not serve a public purpose, as required by La.
Consl. art. VI, § 23.
P.O. Box 787
Greensburg, LA 70441

Dear Mr. Speed:

On behalf of the Tangipahoa Communication District No.1 ("911 District"), you have requested an opinion of this office concerning the authority of the 911 District to purchase immovable property. Specifically, your request indicates that the 911 District wants to purchase immovable property as a future investment. Further conversations with you confirmed that the 911 District desires to purchase the immovable property only as an investment, and the 911 District has no plans to use the property in any manner.

As your request concerns the purchase of property by a political subdivision, it must be analyzed under La. Const. art. VI, § 23. La. Const. art. VI, § 23 provides:

Subject to and not inconsistent with this constitution and subject to restrictions provided by general law, political subdivisions may acquire property for any public purpose by purchase, donation, expropriation, exchange, or otherwise.

Under this article, a political subdivision, including the 911 District, may acquire immovable property if the acquisition is for a public purpose. In the instant matter, it does not appear that the 911 District is seeking to acquire immovable property for any public purpose. Acquiring immovable property as an investment serves no identifiable public purpose, and thus, the 911 District is without authority to purchase such property as an investment.

Page 2

Clifton Speed
Opinion 15-0084
Page -2­

Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that the 911 District may not purchase immovable property as an investment, as such a purchase does not appear to serve any public purpose required by La. Const. art. VI, § 23.

We trust this adequately responds to your request. However, if our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly,

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL
ATTORNE GENFRAL

By: eft:¢­
J n C. Morris IV ssistant Attorney General
JDC/JCMIV