VIDALIA v. Unopened Succession of Ruffin

663 So. 2d 315, 1995 WL 579714
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 4, 1995
Docket95-580
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 663 So. 2d 315 (VIDALIA v. Unopened Succession of Ruffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
VIDALIA v. Unopened Succession of Ruffin, 663 So. 2d 315, 1995 WL 579714 (La. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

663 So.2d 315 (1995)

TOWN OF VIDALIA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
The UNOPENED SUCCESSION OF Sherman RUFFIN, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 95-580.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

October 4, 1995.

*316 Jack Hendrix McLemore Jr. and Linda Lee Kincaid, Vidalia, for Town of Vidalia.

Robert Elisha Clark, Vidalia, for The Unopened Succession of Sherman Ruffin et al.

Before KNOLL, THIBODEAUX and DECUIR, JJ.

KNOLL, Judge.

This is an expropriation suit instituted by the Town of Vidalia (the Town) against the owners of two tracts of immovable property situated in Concordia Parish. Defendants are the unopened successions of nine deceased members of the Ruffin family. From a judgment granting the expropriation and ordering the Town to pay compensation in the amount of $2,050.00, the defendants appeal. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1994, the Town's Board of Aldermen authorized acquisition of approximately fifty-eight acres of batture land located between the levee and the Mississippi River at Vidalia, Louisiana (hereafter referred to as "the site"). The site, part of the Old Town of Vidalia, was acquired by the Fifth Louisiana Levee District in 1939 for flood control purposes, and since 1946 has been occupied by the U.S. Corps of Engineers as a mat casting field.[1] With the consent of the Corps, the Town sought to develop the site "for the public use and enjoyment for recreation and tourism purposes, to preserve the area as a significant historical site of the original Town of Vidalia, and to promote economic growth through tourism."

Defendants' two tracts of land constitute approximately ¼ acre within the fifty-eight acre site. The Unopened Successions of Sherman Ruffin, James Ruffin, Millie Ruffin, Charlie Ruffin, Henry Ruffin, and Ida Ruffin Washington are each the owners of an undivided 1/7 interest in the two tracts, and the Unopened Successions of Rose Johnson Butler, Lettie Johnson Simmons, and Ida Johnson are each the owners of an undivided 1/21 interest in the two tracts. The Town negotiated unsuccessfully with the defendants for the acquisition of their interest in the property and subsequently filed an expropriation suit. Defendants alleged in their answer that the expropriation was not for a public purpose and that defendants were not offered a fair price for their property. After a hearing, the trial court granted the expropriation and adjudicated defendants' property to the Town for $2,050.00, the fair market value estimated by the Town's appraiser.

Defendants' appeal of the adverse judgment raises only the issue of whether the expropriation is for a public purpose; the award is not contested.

THE VIDALIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Sidney Murray, Chairman of the Vidalia Riverfront Development Project (the Project), testified at trial regarding the history and purpose of the Project. He explained that the Project originated in 1970 when the Corps of Engineers allowed the Town to host its week-long centennial celebration on the site. On other occasions over the years, the Corps allowed the Town to host several public ceremonies there. Mr. Murray testified that on each occasion, the townspeople commented how nice it would be "to obtain this site of the old town back and develop it into a recreational area for public enjoyment. By the people in Vidalia. As well as maybe able to attract some tourism in here by having access to view the Mississippi River here."

*317 Mr. Murray stated that the Town created the Riverfront Development Committee and selected Grover Mouton, an urban designer in New Orleans, to plan the Project. Mr. Mouton was assisted by faculty, graduates, and students of the Tulane University School of Architecture. The Town solicited ideas for the Project during a series of three public workshops; these ideas were discussed with the planning team, and a preliminary master plan was formulated, consisting of the following:

(2) Hotel/Commercial/Retail Center
According to the original design recommendations, this area will be developed as a hotel that would include commercial and retail space. The hotel will initially contain 100 rooms with attendant, but limited capacity for medium-sized meetings as well as in-house dining, pool/ health club facilities. A firm decision should be reached relative to the importance of accommodating larger scaled conventions which might visit the area....
The general configuration of the entire core complex follows the basic outline of the original town plan (and the original line of the river) and will be developed to maximize views through the structure toward Natchez. The hotel, sited within fifty feet of the riverbank, will offer dramatic views of the Mississippi River, the bluffs of Natchez across the river and the twin spans of the bridge from balconies on the riverward side. The interior court between hotel and commercial/retail spaces is to be landscaped and will provide dual access to the hotel rooms and the commercial area on the landward side of the complex. This court is conceived as a continuation of the larger public landscape connected to the Riverwalk and recreational fields outside the core.
The hotel occupies the upper two levels of this three story building, while the lower level is raised on pilings (much like the old buildings of Vidalia which existed outside the old levee). This raised platform of the hotel provides a direct view on grade through from the interior courtyard to the river and beyond. One possibility of use for this lower level would be for meeting rooms, restaurants and marina offices. Occupation of this area depends in large measure on whether or not the area is above insurance flood level....
(3) Marina/Boat Ramp
This element of the proposal has been investigated in close relation to both the hotel and the Riverwalk. It should be large enough to accommodate a small number of medium sized pleasure craft.... Two factors of the design and placement of this facility were particularly significant in the decision-making process. First, we are aware of the value of the historical relationship between the old town of Vidalia and the river. Consequently, we positioned the marina in such a way as to enhance the visual massing of the core area as it moves upward from the river. Second, the design team feels strongly that the proposed location of the marina must be such that the concentration of people and economic interests in the core will serve to enhance the long-term viability of the marina....
Direct access to the river via a new boat ramp is provided by utilizing an access drive and ramp on the riverside of the hotel. This location allows site and river access for pleasure boating without compromising the integrity of the public open spaces to the south of the primary core, while simultaneously localizing boat and river traffic.
(4) Outdoor Theatre
This outdoor (and uncovered) theatre will provide ample seating for a variety of both large and small performances, from local plays or performances to larger performances by nationally recognized talents. The strategy allows for maximum flexibility in use, while utilizing the new landscape structure to provide an appropriate location for the stage. A simple stage and backstage structure (including dressing rooms and storage areas) is sited to face the commercial walkway and a permanent seating *318 area.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC v. Soileau
141 So. 3d 367 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad
35 So. 3d 192 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2010)
New Orleans Redevelopment Authority v. Johnson
16 So. 3d 569 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
Exxonmobil Pipeline Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad
15 So. 3d 246 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
Crooks v. Placid Refining Co.
903 So. 2d 1154 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2005)
Opinion Number
Louisiana Attorney General Reports, 2003
City of Shreveport v. Shreve Town Corporation
314 F.3d 229 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Mayeux
301 F.3d 359 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
City of Shreveport v. Chanse Gas Corp.
794 So. 2d 962 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Mayeux
178 F. Supp. 2d 663 (M.D. Louisiana, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
663 So. 2d 315, 1995 WL 579714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vidalia-v-unopened-succession-of-ruffin-lactapp-1995.