This voter education guide is published primarily as a resource and does not constitute an endorsement of any candidate or proposition by ANTIGRAVITY Magazine.
Welcome once again to your ANTIGRAVITY voter education guide for the November 15 election. On this ballot, you will be voting on criminal district court clerk, District A and District E councilmembers, a few amendments and bond measures, and potentially a neighborhood proposition.
We have published these guides since 2014—previously in collaboration with the New Orleans Harm Reduction Network and now under the ANTIGRAVITY banner. We utilized national media, local media, and social media. Our research included but was not limited to public records, campaign finance reports, court filings, and real estate records.
Despite lacking faith in politicians or the political order, we create this document as a way to dissect and map power. We do not offer endorsements, but we do provide summaries, as this is a resource designed to aid and alleviate the work for you, the reader. News relevant to this ballot will continue to break. We are but one resource, and we hope that you consult as many as possible before heading to the polls.
We suggest you bring a photo ID to the polls, but if you do not have one you can still cast a ballot by signing a voter affidavit which vouches for your identity. The secretary of state audits all voter affidavits after the election to ensure that you are who you say you are.
If you have a disability, you are entitled to receive assistance to cast your vote. If your assigned polling place is not accessible, report the issue to the ADA compliance officer at ada@sos.la.gov or 225-362-5113.
The makeup of the ballot, including texts of propositions, as well as information about how, where, and when to register and vote is based on information provided by the Louisiana secretary of state and the City of New Orleans website. For info on what your ballot looks like, as well as information about disability and voting, go to the SoS website, voterportal.sos.la.gov.
If you find that you cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a specific ballot measure, you are allowed to skip that ballot item. According to the secretary of state’s office, “A voter cannot cast a blank ballot; otherwise, they are free to vote for as many or as few races/questions as are on their ballot—from all of them to just one of them.”
This voter guide is offered without cost or sponsorship as a service to our beloved readers, but donations are accepted to help cover research fees and labor. A suggested donation of whatever your lifestyle considers $5 is appreciated. Payments can be made via Venmo or PayPal to @antigravitymag (all one word, no dashes). Please include “Voter Guide” or “VG” in the comment or memo.
We know what you’re thinking—didn’t I just vote? Wasn’t the mayor already chosen? Does any of this matter under the cloud of a City budget “apocalypse?” The answer to all of these is yes, and we’re here to break it down for you.
On October 11, many races were decided outright—including the race for mayor, in a perhaps somewhat surprising fashion. But there were a few races that didn’t cross the majority threshold, and so we return to the polls once again for a runoff, as well as a few amendments and parcel fees. Conventional wisdom dictates that turnout for this type of election could be extremely low. While we lament the lack of civic participation, the good news is that if you do show up to the polls this go-around, your vote may carry extra weight.
Clerk
Criminal District Court
Calvin Duncan (Democrat)
Darren Lombard (Democrat)
A lot has happened in this race since we published our previous guide, none of it good. Shortly after our October 11 guide went live, incumbent Darren Lombard, along with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, called into question challenger Calvin Duncan’s innocence—Duncan spent 28 years wrongfully imprisoned and was later exonerated. Duncan, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2011 in order to receive a lesser sentence, was later “fully cleared by a judge in August of 2021,” according to NOLA.com. It’s a bizarre move by Lombard, who led by 53% in early voting, to play so dirty against a man who spent nearly three decades in person for a crime he didn’t commit and subsequently became a jailhouse lawyer to help other incarcerated people with their own cases. It’s like instead of simply crossing the finish line Lombard decided to pause and kick a puppy instead. To make matters worse, on election day Lombard was accused of electioneering (a violation of state law), with poll workers around the city being seen wearing lanyards with Lombard’s name.
Despite Lombard’s mudslinging, however, Duncan earned more votes than him on October 11, and so here we are for a runoff.
Calvin Duncan’s website claims that his wrongful conviction was “in large part because the Orleans Parish Clerk of Criminal Court repeatedly denied him access to the records he needed to challenge his wrongful conviction.” In that time he taught himself law and helped other incarcerated people with their cases, and “worked on hundreds of cases while he was in prison” according to NPR. He earned a bachelor’s from Tulane, his J.D. from Lewis and Clark College, and this year received an honorary law degree from Loyola Law School and released a book titled The Jailhouse Lawyer.
As a part of his platform he wants to ensure that evidence is properly filed and “never thrown in a landfill,” a reference to the hundreds of documents that were “accidentally thrown out and buried in the Gentilly Landfill by city employees,” according to WDSU. He also wants to digitize files, as the office currently has no usable online filing or digital system, which is outrageous in the year 2025. His intimate knowledge with how catastrophic a dysfunctional clerk’s office can be grants him an insight that almost no politician can gain through canvassing or focus groups.
Duncan raised nearly $40,000 with nearly all of the contributions being under $1,000 and many of them falling under $100, with the biggest contributions coming from Norris Henderson, the founder and executive director of Voice of the Experienced (VOTE). Duncan currently works as the director of the Light of Justice Program at the Jesuit Social Research Institute at Loyola University New Orleans and provides legal assistance to people sentenced to the death penalty through the Mwalimu Center for Justice.
Darren Lombard was elected to this seat in 2021 and is up for re-election. His campaign boasts his massive overhaul of the office, with the first page of his website saying that he “has brought court records online.” He expands on this further within his website to say, “Under his leadership, the Clerk’s Office secured funding to fully digitize criminal court records, launching ‘Clerk Connect’ to allow attorneys, journalists, and the public to file and track cases online.” Clerk Connect is a portal that many other parishes in Louisiana already use, and to his credit, he seems to be the first one who has actually tried to digitize court files. However, according to an attorney currently practicing in Orleans Parish, the system is not up and running yet and there has not been a date given for when it will be (as of press time).
In August, “two trailers containing decades worth of case files were moved without notice, and the contents were discarded” in the Gentilly Landfill. According to WDSU, “no one from the city notified his office before removing the trailers.” Whether or not his office was informed, the fact that it happened at all under his watch does not inspire confidence.
Summary: Calvin Duncan spent nearly three decades in prison for a crime he didn’t commit and is running to help prevent the same injustice happening to others. Under Lombard’s watch two trailers worth of files ended up in a landfill and he has run an especially dirty campaign against his opponent.
Councilmember
District A
Holly Friedman (Democrat)
Aimee McCarron (Democrat)
District A stretches along the East Bank of the city, including parts of Lakeview, the City Park and Fairgrounds neighborhoods, Mid-City, Carrollton, Uptown, and the Audubon Park area.
During the October 11 primary, Holly Friedman earned 39% of the vote and Aimee McCarron earned 32%. Both candidates have experience in the District A office and bear a striking resemblance to each other, so it might be hard to keep them straight, but there are a few key differences.
Holly Friedman has worked as constituent services director and campaign manager for current District A Councilmember Joe Giarrusso. Her political history denotes a focus on crime. According to her website, she “[l]ed an intelligence project at the DA’s Office targeting violent crime,” the same program that sheriff-elect Michelle Woodfork used, which uses unreliable AI technology to track crime, as well as “[c]oordinated efforts to shut down the London Lodge.” Her work experience also includes being a minute clerk for Judge Keva Landrum, who was supposed to be a shoo-in for DA and was Leon Cannizzaro’s “self-selected successor,” as we put it at the time in 2020.
She served as president of the Isidore Newman School Parents Association and is a member of the Anti-Defamation League—an organization that, by its own admission, often equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. She also has stock in Tesla.
She answered the Bureau of Governmental Research (BGR)’s candidate survey, but her answers weren’t very specific. There are vague statements about not spending money on things that don’t work, while moving to spend money on things that do work. She did recommend that the City aim for 20% of its general fund in reserves, as we are prone to hurricanes and flooding. Her campaign finance report features Morris Bart and current Democratic Parish Executive Committee (DPEC) Representative for District A Caroline Fayard.
Aimee McCarron is the policy and budget director for District A. She also serves as a commissioner for the Lakeview Crime Prevention District—you might be familiar with these, as our standard response to funding them is to “say no to privatized police.”
She has proposed local satellite offices so people can easily access their councilmembers without having to get downtown. She suggests these would be set up in public spaces, according to a Reddit AMA. But, as is to be expected in the Lakeview/Mid-City demographic, she does have a substantial focus on crime and blight. She suggests “A Renewed NOPD, Better Lighting, Less Blight, and an Accountable Justice System” as well as a police department with “more civilians” and “modernizing our technology.”
Of the people running for this office, she does appear to have the most intimate knowledge with how the office is currently functioning and how the money works. In her BGR questionnaire, she mentions a “storm water management fee” after reforming Sewerage and Water Board, to “reconfigure millages to ensure residential homeowners pay no more than they do today while property, tax-exempt [sic] properties begin paying.” When asked about NOPD funding, she said that it is important to fund NOPD to keep the city on a downward track in terms of the way crime is trending, but also wants to focus on NORD programming. She also mentions building an in-house team so that the City doesn’t need to rely on outside contractors to fix everything, noting that the City only has one electrician, so every streetlight or outage that needs repair has to be sourced from elsewhere and costs the city more money.
She has stock in both Amazon and Apple.
Summary: Aimee McCarron has experience with the budget in this district as well as some decent proposals for building in-house services, though she does have pro-policing tendencies. Holly Friedman has worked for the DA, is a member of the ADL, and has a heavy crime focus.
Councilmember
District E
Jason Hughes (Democrat)
Cyndi Nguyen (Democrat)
In the October 11 election, Jason Hughes earned 36% of the vote to Cyndi Nguyen’s 46%. He is the current state representative for District 100, for which he serves on several committees, including the House Appropriations Committee as the Vice Chair. Born and raised in District E, he is also a member of the state Democratic Parish Executive Committee (DPEC) for District E and has the DPEC endorsement. According to his campaign website, Hughes is running for District E councilmember because he believes that “New Orleans East and the Lower Ninth Ward can and must be a driving force in our city’s future.” His priorities for the district include investment in infrastructure; working with community leaders, youth programs, and the NOPD to improve public safety; the creation of economic opportunities; and holding negligent landlords accountable through such measures as removing the tax exemption status on blighted properties and strengthening code enforcement.
In his day job, he is a senior consultant at Circular Consulting, the type of job that seems to be the fashion for many politicians. In his role as state representative, Hughes partnered with New Orleans City Council member (and current mayor-elect) Helena Moreno in 2023 on an affordable housing bill, which passed both the House and Senate. This past legislative session, he had several bills pass into law, including HB 486, which requires public schools in Louisiana to offer mental health screenings for children from third grade to twelfth grade. Though the bill states that these screenings are voluntary, it can only be hoped that they will not be used to discriminate against students of certain demographics and that they will be linked to quality resources, especially given the looming threat of budget cuts.
As we have reported previously in the ANTIGRAVITY Voter Education Guides, Hughes was involved in oversight of the proposal for the Bywater mixed-income HANO development and STR regulation. He has also called to give control over New Orleans schools back to the Orleans Parish School Board. Last year, he attempted to mandate, via legislation, that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) participate in the federal Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) program in order to address and reduce food insecurity for 594,000 children across Louisiana, which the Landry Administration turned down.
On September 3, after the Trump Administration announced that it was considering deploying the National Guard to invade New Orleans, Hughes issued a statement on his campaign Facebook page. In the statement, Hughes opposes the proposed deployment, along with the federal plans to cut Medicaid, and calls for more federal funding for early childhood education and to reduce insurance costs.
After winning 46% of the vote in the October election, it looks like the race to fill Oliver Thomas’ District E council seat is Cyndi Nguyen’s to win, though her fundraising dramatically lags behind Hughes. Her platform’s focus is economic development in the East, and she points to a number of new developments from her first term as proof that she can make it happen again. Nguyen is a co-founder of the community nonprofit Vietnamese Initiatives in Economic Training (VIET), which connects the Vietnamese community in New Orleans East with resources and economic opportunities, from financial literacy to small business technical assistance. Most recently, VIET collaborated on a commemoration of the 50-year anniversary of the Fall of Saigon with events such as an HNOC exhibit that included Nguyen’s moving testimony as a child refugee growing up in New Orleans. Fun fact about Cyndi Nguyen: she has twice been kicked out of Catholic school, once for giving all her classmates punk haircuts. Combine this problem with authority with memories of fleeing wartorn Vietnam at age five, and you have the right state of mind for standing up to the encroachment of present-day authoritarianism.
During her 2018 campaign, she was accused of accepting payment from Entergy as a community liaison through her nonprofit during the company’s campaign to get approval for building a plant in the East, a connection she insisted was overblown. Following Thomas’ departure from City Council, she is hoping her dogged commitment to her district will get her a second chance. “My time was cut short but I’m asking you to bring me back so I can finish the work that we all started together in 2018,” she told the audience at a July District E candidates forum.
Summary: Jason Hughes is currently a state representative who has a fairly decent track record in regards to housing and education. Cyndi Nguyen held this seat previously and in 2018 was accused of accepting money from Entergy through her nonprofit. Nguyen goes into this runoff as the frontrunner, though Hughes leads in fundraising.
Amendments
PW Prop. No. 1 of 3 (Affordable Housing) – $45M Bond – CC – 30 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans, Louisiana (the “City”), incur debt and issue up to $45,000,000 of general obligation bonds of the City, in multiple series, each series to run not exceeding thirty (30) years from the date thereof and bearing interest at a rate not exceeding eight percent (8.00%) per annum, for the purpose of making capital improvements in the City approved by the New Orleans City Council and permitted by the City’s Home Rule Charter consisting of constructing, renovating, acquiring, and/or improving affordable housing facilities, including acquiring all necessary furnishings, fixtures, and equipment therefor, which bonds will be general obligations of the City, payable from ad valorem taxes to be levied and collected in the manner provided by Article VI, Section 33 of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana of 1974 and statutory authority supplemental thereto, with no estimated increase in the millage rate to be levied in the first year above the 14.5 mills currently being levied to pay General Obligation Bonds of the City?
PW Prop. No. 1 is one of three bond sale propositions on this ballot that seek to address gaps in affordable housing and infrastructure in New Orleans. If passed, these propositions would allow the City of New Orleans to pay for these projects by selling bonds to investors, who would thus loan the funds to the City. This debt would be repaid in a series of payments over the course of 30 years, along with an interest rate of no more than 8% per year, with a 14.5 mill property tax to be utilized as part of the repayment. Prop. No. 1 is focused on expanding affordable housing in the City. Despite some progress, New Orleans is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis, and has been for decades. With inflation, tariffs, rising insurance costs due to the climate crisis, and other challenges, this issue will only continue to worsen without more investment. If Prop. No. 1 is passed, the City would issue up to $45 million in bond sales to be invested in affordable housing initiatives, including but not limited to buying housing, improving and/or renovating existing housing units, building new housing, and procuring necessary equipment and furnishing. These funds would be in addition to the affordable housing trust fund, which was passed last year and which is supposed to allocate at least 2% of the City’s budget to the trust (approximately $17 million) per year to affordable housing projects. If Prop. No. 1 fails, the City would not have this additional funding for affordable housing; though opponents of PW Prop. 1 argue that this would undermine the new housing trust fund.1This section has been updated (specifically the last two sentences) from the original published version due to recent developments and news, as well as community feedback about this proposition.
Summary: The City of New Orleans continues to face an affordable housing crisis, which is likely to only get worse unless investments are made to address this issue. Prop. 1 would provide up to $45 million in funds for affordable housing initiatives in addition to the affordable housing trust passed last year.2this sentence has been updated per the above footnote We recommend voting “Yes.”
PW Prop. No. 2 of 3 (City Infrastructure) – $415M Bond – CC – 30 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans, Louisiana (the “City”), incur debt and issue up to $415,000,000 of general obligation bonds of the City, in multiple series, to run not exceeding thirty (30) years from each date thereof and bearing interest at rates not exceeding eight percent (8.00%) per annum, for the purpose of making capital improvements in the City approved by the New Orleans City Council and permitted by the City’s Home Rule Charter, including (i) constructing, renovating, acquiring, equipping, and/or improving roads and streets, bridges, buildings, lands, public safety facilities, parks and recreational facilities, and other infrastructure in the City; (ii) acquiring long-lived software and technology improvements; and (iii) acquiring heavy equipment, furnishings, and essential service vehicles for public purposes, which bonds will be general obligations of the City, payable from ad valorem taxes to be levied and collected in the manner provided by Article VI, Section 33 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 and statutory authority supplemental thereto, with no estimated increase in the millage rate to be levied in the first year above the 14.5 mills currently being levied to pay other general obligation bonds of the City?
PW Prop. No. 2 is focused on expanding and improving the city infrastructure of New Orleans. It would perhaps be an understatement to say that improving the city’s infrastructure is sorely needed. Indeed, this is an issue that most candidates included on their platform, to say nothing of the fact that you can’t go anywhere in New Orleans without encountering a street, bridge, storm drain, or public building in dire need of repair, or experience any heavy rain without street flooding. This bond proposition would allow for up to $415 million in bond sales to be invested in projects including (but certainly not limited to) constructing, renovating, and improving New Orleans’ roads, bridges, parks and recreational facilities, sewage and water systems, public buildings, and public lands. As with the other bond propositions, this debt would be paid back over the course of 30 years, with an annual interest rate of no more than 8% and a 14.5 mill property tax to be utilized to help with the repayment. And, like the other two bond propositions, if it passes, the money would be invested in these projects; if it fails, alternative sources of funding would need to be identified and secured, none of which are guaranteed. The question, then, is whether we want to invest now or risk a major climate event or other disaster occurring while we wait to find another solution.
Summary: The City of New Orleans is in dire need of funding to improve its infrastructure. As there are no alternative sources of funding for infrastructure improvement at this time, voting no on the proposition would set back City improvement further. We recommend voting “Yes.”
PW Prop. No. 3 of 3 (Drainage & Stormwater Mgmt.) – $50M Bond – CC – 30 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans, Louisiana (the “City”), incur debt and issue up to $50,000,000 of general obligation bonds of the City, in multiple series, to run not exceeding thirty (30) years from each date thereof and bearing interest at rates not exceeding eight percent (8.00%) per annum, for the purpose of constructing, renovating, and improving surface and subsurface drainage systems and stormwater management facilities in the City approved by the New Orleans City Council and permitted by the City’s Home Rule Charter, including acquiring all necessary equipment, property, and installations therefor, which bonds will be general obligations of the City, payable from ad valorem taxes to be levied and collected in the manner provided by Article VI, Section 33 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 and statutory authority supplemental thereto, with no estimated increase in the millage rate to be levied in the first year above the 14.5 mills currently being levied to pay other general obligation bonds of the City?
New Orleans has a history of severe flooding due to poor drainage infrastructure. PW Prop. No. 3 aims to solve that problem. This proposition, if passed, will allocate up to $50 million towards drainage and stormwater projects; $10 million more than the $40 million shortfall the City experienced this year in order to address issues to the drainage system. As it stands, the drainage system can only handle one inch of rain per hour for the first hour, and half an inch per hour afterwards. It’s not uncommon for the entire metro area to experience rains heavier than what the drainage system can handle, resulting in flash flooding. Polling of citizens shows that this proposition could likely be a slam dunk for approval, as according to a survey commissioned by the nonprofit The Water Collaborative earlier this year, over 53% of respondents stated that they would be willing to incur extra costs if it meant that the issue of flooding would be solved. In addition, 70% of residents stated they’d support the creation of a stormwater management department that would manage fee spending and coordinate drainage and stormwater retention projects, showing that this issue is at the top of many residents’ minds.
Summary: Flooding and drainage in New Orleans is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, as factors like climate change and an aging infrastructure will only make the flooding worse. A “yes” vote for this proposition will provide the City the funds needed to address these issues, before they can get any worse. We recommend voting “Yes.”
PW HRC Amendment No. 1 of 2 – Amends Sec. 5-404 – CC
Shall Section 5-404 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans be amended to extend the deadlines for the City Planning Commission and City Council to act on the Master Plan and amendments thereto, as described in Ord. Cal. No. 35,155-30397, M.C.S.?
The City Planning Commission is made of nine citizen members appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. The CPC is responsible for providing analysis and recommendations related to the present and future development of the City, including building and permitting, in line with the goals and priorities laid out in the Master Plan.
The Master Plan, titled “Plan for the 21st Century: New Orleans 2030,” is a 20-year strategic plan developed by the CPC at the approval of voters in 2008 that outlines key recommendations and strategies to rebuild the city following Hurricane Katrina. It took 18 months and $2 million to create the plan through conducting community surveys and collecting evidence-based practices intended to give City leaders community-informed guidance on zoning, capital improvements, City programs, and public/private partnerships. The City Council approved the plan back in 2010.
Currently, if the CPC has a change to the Master Plan, the City Council has 90 days to adopt the changes, reject, or propose a modification. If a modification is proposed, CPC has 60 days to conduct hearings before sending it back to the Council with its recommendations. The Council then has 45 days to act on those recommendations, with a 21-day mandatory review period prior to City Council approval of the changes.
This Home Rule Charter amendment extends the time allowed for the City Planning Commission (CPC) to reconsider a modification to the Master Plan from 60 to 90 days and for the City Council to respond to recommendations from the CPC from 45 to 90 days. This amendment makes it so that both CPC and the City Council have the same 90-day deadline to review and enact changes.
Councilmember Joe Giarrusso said during the July 10 Council meeting that this amendment was requested by the Land Use Regulation office within the City Planning Commission. Giarrusso reasoned that this extended deadline allows CPC and the City Council more time to engage in public dialogue and feedback prior to making changes to the Master Plan. The City Council agreed unanimously to add this amendment to the ballot.
Summary: If anything, this amendment highlights an opportunity to become more involved in shaping the next five years of this plan to consider sustainable ways to address affordable housing, gentrification, and land justice. We recommend voting “Yes.”
PW HRC Amendment No. 2 of 2 – Amends Art. IV, Sec. 4-406 – CC
Shall the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans be amended to establish Article IV, Section 4-406, which provides for the independence of the City Attorney as the legal representative of the City of New Orleans and includes provisions that clarify the identity of the City Attorney’s primary client, compel compliance with ethical rules governing institutional representation, require consultation with all branches of government, mandate independent legal and impartial legal judgment in the face of conflicting directives, impose an affirmative duty to comply with and uphold laws whenever possible, prohibit conflicting representation in inter-branch disputes without consent, authorize the adoption of legislation ensuring the operational independence of the Law Department, and prevent unilateral removal of the City Attorney by the Mayor in certain situations, all as more fully described in Ord. Cal. No. 35,166-30410, M.C.S.?
This Home Rule Charter amendment makes a bunch of changes to the role of City attorney, which has had a lot of media attention over the position’s role in defending City-involved legal affairs with alleged bias toward current Mayor LaToya Cantrell.
The City attorney is the municipality’s lawyer for legal disputes involving the City. The mayor has a lot of control over the City attorney, as the mayor normally appoints this position (but which now requires City Council approval after a recent Charter amendment) and has the power to remove them without City Council’s approval. A group called the City Services Coalition (started by real estate developer and chronic political donor Pres Kabacoff) believes this power dynamic results in bias when the City attorney has to weigh in on disputes between the Mayor and the City Council and made recommendations for changes, which the City Council adopted. Ironically, Mayor Cantrell attempted to veto the amendment, claiming that it violates the Charter. In response, Councilmember JP Morrell stated clearly that an amendment to the Charter cannot violate it if it’s being proposed to change it. The City Council voted unanimously to overturn the veto and include the amendment on this ballot.
The amendment would establish the “independence” of the City attorney, directing them to remain impartial in Council-mayor legal conflicts and to enact protections from removal by allowing City Council rejection of any dismissal. It also engrains a professional ethics code of conduct that stipulates the City attorney must serve the “municipal corporation,” which is the City of New Orleans. Mayor-elect Helena Moreno and her search committee are already looking for the next City attorney, a position she describes as “one of the most consequential positions in city government.”
Summary: It makes sense for the City attorney to fairly represent the City without threat of coercion and to be protected from retaliation by the Mayor. We recommend voting “Yes.”
Orleans Parish Ballot Measures
Broadmoor Neighborhood Improvement Dist. – $175 Parcel Fee Renewal – CC – 5 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans levy an annual fee on each improved parcel of land within the Broadmoor Neighborhood Improvement District (the “District”), in an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200), with the precise amount as requested by duly adopted board resolution, currently specified as one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175) which fee is estimated to generate approximately $306,250 annually, for a period of and not exceeding five (5) years, beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2030, to be used exclusively for promoting quality of life initiatives and encouraging the beautification and overall betterment of the District, except a one percent (1%) City collection fee, and if used for additional services, such services shall be supplemental to and not in lieu of services provided by the city, the state, or other political subdivisions?
For most neighborhoods, as you’ll see in this very guide, the majority of funds gathered by parcel fees are put towards private security, and our recommendation is steadfastly “say no to privatized police.” But the Broadmoor Neighborhood Improvement Parcel Fee is a rare exception in the world of neighborhood parcel fees.
For a more thorough history of this parcel fee, and neighborhood, check out the write-up that we did five years ago when this was last on the ballot. After Katrina, Broadmoor was set to become green space, and the residents of this neighborhood fought hard to prove that this area should not be demolished.
The money collected from this fee is put towards services that we all deserve: community programming, sliding scale counseling, a food pantry, a community garden, a tool-lending library, and more. Imagine if all neighborhood associations offered something like this—and maybe they could.
Summary: Yes, renew the parcel fee.
Lakewood Crime Prev. & Imp. Dist. – $600 Parcel Fee – CC – 8 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans levy an annual fee on each parcel within the Lakewood Crime Prevention and Improvement District (“District”), as delineated in La. R.S. 33:9091.8(C), in an amount not to exceed six hundred dollars ($600), for a period of eight (8) years, commencing January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2033, which is estimated to generate approximately $251,400.00 annually, to be used to aid in crime prevention by providing security for district residents and to serve the needs of the residents of the District by funding beautification and other activities and improvements for the overall betterment of the District, except a 1% City collection fee, and if used for additional law enforcement or security personnel and their services, such personnel and services shall be supplemental to and not in lieu of those provided by the New Orleans Police Department, said fee to be in lieu of and replace the $450 parcel fee authorized to be levied through 2026 pursuant to an election held on April 28, 2018?
This district, on the edge of Orleans Parish near Lake Lawn Cemetery, is empowered to spend its funds on both “crime prevention” and “beautification and other activities and improvements for the overall betterment of the district.” It seeks to renew a parcel fee, essentially a per-lot property tax add-on, that enables these expenditures for another eight years.
But like many such districts, its most recent financial report indicates it spends the vast majority of its funds—more than 95% of expenditures for 2024—on “security,” which typically refers to patrols by private security and/or off-duty police. We were unable to find confirmation of exactly what the “security” funds are spent on here.
The maximum annual parcel fee allowed was recently raised from $450 to $600 by the state legislature, and this ballot measure would enable the district to begin collecting that higher fee effective in 2026.
As we’ve said in the past, these sorts of districts raise questions of equity, with districts throughout the City receiving additional policing services based on their ability and willingness to pay special property taxes. They also raise questions of democracy, with districts including this one governed by boards appointed by a complex mix of elected legislators and homeowner groups.
Additionally, research by the City Office of the Inspector General in 2013 found districts with such patrols do seem to have lower rates of property crime, but the districts don’t seem to have a significant effect on violent crime or murder rates.
Summary: Say no to privatized police.
Spring Lake Subdivision Imp. Dist. – $200 Parcel Fee Renewal – CC – 8 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans renew an annual flat fee on the taxable real property within the Spring Lake Subdivision Improvement District (“District”), as delineated by La. R.S. 33:9074(B), in an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars, for eight years, beginning January 1, 2027 and ending December 31, 2034, which is estimated to generate approximately $40,800 annually, to be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the beautification, security, and overall betterment of the District, except a 1% City collection fee, and if used for additional law enforcement or security personnel and their services, such personnel and services shall be supplemental to and not in lieu of personnel and services provided by the New Orleans Police Department?
This district is “composed of the area of Orleans Parish located between Morrison Road on the north, the Lawrence Drainage Canal on the east, the I-10 Service Road on the south, and the St. Charles Drainage Canal on the west, comprising all of the Spring Lake Subdivision,” which does, in fact, include a manmade lake.
Just under 90% of the district’s expenditures went to “security,” according to its most recent financial statement, with other expenses including landscaping, utilities, “postal box services” and a “Night Out Against Crime” event. An ominous $666 was allocated to “other” expenses. That figure could be the setup for a horror movie, but in reality, this district seems to be a garden variety New Orleans taxing district, closely affiliated with a homeowner association and largely dedicated to policing.
Summary: Say no to privatized police.
Tall Timbers Crime Prev. and Imp. Dist. – $230 Parcel Fee – CC – 5 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans levy an annual flat fee on each parcel within the Tall Timbers Crime Prevention and Improvement District (“District”), as delineated by La. R.S. 33:9091.29(B), in an amount not to exceed: two hundred thirty dollars per parcel for the first two years, and two hundred fifty dollars per parcel for the third and any subsequent year, for five years, beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2030, which is estimated to generate between $129,720 and $141,000 annually, to be used exclusively for the purposes of aiding in crime prevention for District residents and their property and serving the needs of District residents by funding beautification and other activities and improvements for the overall betterment of the District and the quality of life of its residents, except a 1% City collection fee, and if used for additional law enforcement or security personnel and their services, such personnel and services shall be supplemental to and not in lieu of personnel and services provided by the New Orleans Police Department?
This district was created by the state legislature’s House Bill 225 in 2024 to include ” lots within Sections 2 through 10 of the Tall Timbers Subdivision” in Algiers.
Its board members, under the law, include the president and treasurer of the Tall Timbers Owners Association and “seven other members appointed by the board of the association,” and all members must reside in the district and be “members in good standing” of the association. A spring 2025 newsletter from the Owners Association describes House Bill 225, saying it “allows the city to collect annual dues, along with property taxes.” That, along with similar wording in a newsletter from last December, seems to imply there would be little practical difference between the HOA—which currently reminds residents they are under threat of legal action to pay required dues—and the district, which would effectively be able to collect funds through homeowner property tax bills.
Since the district is just getting started, it’s unclear how much it would spend on security patrols versus other services, though the Owners Association website indicates that an “increase in payments allows Tall Timbers to increase Security Patrols.”
Summary: Say no to privatized police.
Upper Audubon Security Dist. – $1,200 Parcel Fee – CC – 7 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans levy an annual fee on each parcel within the Upper Audubon Security District (“District”), as delineated in La. R.S. 33:9091.12, in an amount not to exceed $1,200 per year for a period of seven years, commencing January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2032, which fee is estimated to generate approximately $232,000 annually, to be used solely and exclusively to aid in crime prevention and reduction by providing additional security for district residents, except a 1% City collection fee, and if used for additional law enforcement or security personnel and their services, such personnel and services shall be supplemental to and not in lieu of those provided by the New Orleans Police Department, said fee to be in lieu of and replace the maximum $700 parcel fee authorized to be levied through 2026 pursuant to an election held on November 18, 2017?
This measure would renew a $1,200 parcel fee on properties in this district abutting Audubon Park. It’s higher than the other parcel fees we’re covering around the city, but the Audubon neighborhood is a fancy place.
And as the ballot text indicates, the fee would be “used solely and exclusively to aid in crime prevention and reduction by providing additional security for district residents.” As of the district’s most recent financial report, it did indeed devote more than 95% of its spending to “patrol and security services,” spending the other funds on a $3,450 “consultant fee,” insurance, and a “legislative review report,” plus an unspecified $18 “administrative expense.”
Summary: Say no to privatized police.
French Quarter Economic Development Dist. – 0.245% S&U Tax Renewal – CC – 5 Yrs.
Shall the current .245% sales tax levied within the boundaries of the French Quarter Economic Development District (“FQEDD”), to be collected on the sale at retail, the use, the lease or rental, the consumption and storage for use or the consumption of tangible personal property and sales of services within the boundaries of the FQEDD, be renewed for a period of five years, beginning July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2031 (an estimated $3,158,794.00 million reasonably expected at this time to be collected as a result of the levy per year) for the purpose of funding POST Certified supplemental police patrols and homeless assistance services, with the initial $2 million collected in any year dedicated to supplemental police patrols and any additional revenue to be divided between additional patrols and public safety programs (including homeless assistance), and administered by the French Quarter Management District for fiscal and operational oversight of the FQEDD Trust Fund and services provided by such fund and subject to quarterly budget and expenditure reports to the City Council, to facilitate economic development within the FQEDD?
This is a special sales tax administered within the French Quarter. It’s essentially charged to anyone doing business there, but only Quarter residents get to vote on whether to renew the tax for another five years.
When we covered a prior renewal attempt back in 2020, it had been used exclusively to fund state police presence in the Quarter. Voters there rejected it, but it was placed back on the ballot in 2021 with the language currently in play referencing unspecified “homeless assistance” as well as police patrols.
As we said then, estimates within the ballot measure indicate the majority of funds would still go to police patrols in the quite heavily policed Vieux Carré.
Still, a 2024 annual report does show payments to the Travelers Aid Society of Greater New Orleans, an anti-homelessness organization, including for “street outreach” and “rapid rehousing,” and has some stats around their work, as well as work on streetlight issues in the Quarter. Also of note is more than $25,000 paid to SDT Productions—yes, that’s Sidney D. Torres IV—in monthly payments for an “app,” presumably this crime-reporting app.
Summary: This district does fund some seemingly legitimate work around homelessness, but it also spends millions on policing and has Sidney Torres as its preferred IT guy.
Election Info
The deadline to request a mail ballot is November 12 by 4:30 p.m (other than military and overseas voters).
The deadline for the registrar of voters to receive a mail ballot is November 14 by 4:30 p.m. (other than military and overseas voters).
Early Voting
Early voting for this election begins on November 1 and ends on November 8 (excluding Sunday, November 2), from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Saturday election day voting hours are 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
City Hall
RM 1W24; 1300 Perdido St. 70112
Algiers Courthouse
RM 105; 225 Morgan St. 70114
Voting Machine Warehouse
8870 Chef Menteur Highway 70127
Lake Vista Community Center
6500 Spanish Fort Blvd. 70124
This voter guide is offered without cost as a service to our beloved readers, but donations are accepted to help cover research fees and labor. A suggested donation of whatever your lifestyle considers $5 is appreciated. Payments can be made via Venmo or PayPal to @antigravitymag (all one word, no dashes). Please include “Voter Guide” or “VG” in the comment or memo.
If donations aren’t your thing, you can also support ANTIGRAVITY simply by signing up for our monthly newsletter—which includes early access to each issue and other info—at the top of our home page.
This voter education guide is published primarily as a resource and does not constitute an endorsement of any candidate or proposition by ANTIGRAVITY Magazine.
