The opinion
FILMORE PARC * NO. 2024-CA-0475
APARTMENTS II
* COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
NORMAN WHITE, CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER AND * STATE OF LOUISIANA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE,
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; *
ERROLL WILLIAMS,
ASSESSOR, ORLEANS *
PARISH; AND THE *******
CHAIRMAN, LOUISIANA TAX
COMMISSION
CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:
MFLC PARTNERS, A LOUISIANA NO. 2024-CA-0476
PARTNERSHIP IN COMENDAM
VERSUS
NORMAN WHITE, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF FINANCE,
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; ERROLL
WILLIAMS, ASSESSOR, ORLEANS
PARISH; AND THE CHAIRMAN,
LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION
DLD DYSART, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
I respectfully dissent and provide the following reasons why I believe
Filmore should have been granted relief from the Ad Valorem taxes imposed by
Orleans Parish Assessor Erroll Williams.
The Board of Tax Appeals applied the wrong standard to determine whether
Filmore qualified for the constitutional exemption disregarding the long-standing
precedent set forth in Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund v. Bd. of Assessors, 38 La.Ann.
292 (1886); Warren County, Mississippi v. Hester, 219 La. 763, 54 So.2d 12, 14
(1951); Holly v. Plum Creek Timber Co., 38,716, p. 8 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/23/04),
877 So.2d 284, 290; and Abundance Square Assocs., L.P. v. Williams, 2010-0324,
p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/23/11), 62 So.3d 261, 264. Here, the Board held that
Filmore was “not restricted to operating as extensions of public entities” and that
the exemption claim was “inextricably intertwined” with “private contracts.” My
reading of Tulane and those cases that followed does not find any such language or
holding and, as such, it appears the finding of the Board was of its own creation
and a wholesale deviation from the established standard that a purely private entity
can qualify for the constitutional exemption if the property and revenue are
dedicated to a public purpose.
Aside from applying the wrong standard, the Board failed in recognizing the
public purpose demonstrated by Filmore but instead focused its ruling on Filmore’s
private ownership. Providing affordable housing for low-income families has long
been recognized as a public purpose. See Porterie v. Housing Authority of New
Orleans, 190 La. 710, 182 So. 725 (1938). In the last election held in the City of
New Orleans an amendment to the city charter was voted upon to set aside 1% of
the City’s budget to spend on affordable housing. What more noble and deserving
public purpose is there than that of providing affordable housing to low-income
families. Here the facts clearly establish that Filmore solely and exclusively has
provided the public service of affordable housing since 1995 when the property
was acquired by Mirabeau Family Learning Center, Inc., a nonprofit corporation,
from the Resolution Trust Corporation for the purpose of constructing housing
units providing affordable housing to low-income families. The property was
acquired with the inclusion of a “Land Use Restriction Agreement” which
dedicated the property for use solely as low-income housing. Had the property
been used for any other purpose the owner would forfeit the property. In fact, the
property was treated as exempt from 1995 through 2014 when the Assessor began
treating the property as taxable. There was no change in ownership during this
period of time, nor change in purpose for affordable housing. It is also persuasive
that though the properties were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, instead of taking
the insurance proceeds and folding their tent, the Filmore owners rebuilt the units
to continue the mission, then more acute than ever, of providing affordable housing
to low-income families.
The properties consist of two complexes with Filmore I having a total of 164
units, comprising two categories of tenants. 103 of the units are “project based
voucher” (“PBV”) units which are dedicated solely to tenants that are referred by
HANO and on the terms dictated by HANO. The remaining 61 units, referred to as
“tax credit” units are available for Filmore to rent to qualified low income tenants
with appropriate “Section 8” vouchers. Filmore only appealed the exemption
denied for the 103 PBV units.
In my opinion, through the use of private equity and funding from
governmental programs, Filmore fulfills the most needed public purpose of
providing affordable housing to low income families through the use of a much
desired and necessary public/private partnership. Accordingly, I would reverse the
Board’s judgment and grant the relief sought by Filmore.