Lafayette was just told we’re entering a new season—less noise, more direction. A renewed focus on momentum. A shift toward execution. So naturally, the next order of business for the City Council is… a million-dollar study.
Seriously, though. What in the world do we need to study that costs a million dollars?
It’s not Parking. We know where the problems are. Traffic? Nope. We live that every day. Could it be development gaps? They’re not exactly hidden. Lafayette’s needs aren’t so mysterious that we need to spend years—and millions—paying consultants to “discover” them. This is Lafayette. We’ve been talking about the same issues for decades. And yet, here we are again.
Before this plan could move forward, Mayor-President Monique Blanco-Boulet vetoed the ordinance—citing concerns about the lack of legal review and the broad authority it granted to the Downtown Development Authority.
We Already Have a Plan
Lafayette didn’t wake up without direction. The plan was already laid out—clearly and publicly—at the State of the Parish address. The Mayor outlined priorities, direction, and a path forward. So this raises an obvious question: if the plan has already been articulated, what exactly are we paying a million dollars to rediscover?
Maybe Kevin Blanchard missed the speech. Because from the outside, this looks less like planning and more like starting over.
The One Thing Citizens Can’t Stand
If there’s one thing citizens hate more than anything else, it’s another expensive study to tell them what they already know. Because studies don’t fix problems. They’re just a costly excuse for procrastination. Instead of results, they produce reports. They create the appearance of action while ensuring nothing actually changes. We spend haystacks of money and don’t turn a single shovelful of dirt.
At some point, planning stops being preparation and starts becoming avoidance. The “paralysis of analysis.” Lafayette knows this pattern well. I-49 South has been studied, restudied, and delayed for generations—always in the name of needing just one more analysis before action.
Except This Isn’t Just a Study
On paper, ordinance CO-025-2026 authorizes the City of Lafayette to provide $500,000 for a “Downtown-Urban Core Redevelopment Plan.” Never mind that Downtown already raises its own 15 mill ad valorem tax for such things. In reality, when you factor in the proposed contribution from the Downtown Economic Development District—another 1¢ sales tax Downtown created without voter approval—the number jumps to $1 million or more.
So no, this isn’t just a study. It’s an attempt to expand downtown’s control beyond its boundaries and into the rest of Lafayette. This also isn’t planning. It’s that pre-decided “planning” that Blanchard is famous for, where the study’s final recommendations are front-loaded, and the process is just theater.
Who Actually Runs the City?
The proposal (CO-025-2026), approved by the Lafayette City Council, fundamentally changes how Lafayette makes decisions, sets priorities, and defines projects. It hands everything entirely over to the Downtown Development Authority, an unelected body led by Kevin Blanchard.
Under the agreement, the DDA doesn’t just advise. It manages the process. Blanchard gets to select consultants, direct planning efforts, and shape redevelopment strategy not just for downtown, but across a broader “urban core” that extends well beyond DDA’s statutory boundaries.
This isn’t how most people define “collaboration.” The structure of this agreement shifts meaningful control over planning and redevelopment for the City of Lafayette at large into the hands of a third party.
A Familiar Pattern—Now on a Larger Map
We’ve seen this kind of “planning” before. Under prior administrations, Lafayette brought in outside groups to conduct studies that somehow reached the same conclusions they had already delivered in dozens of other cities. The answers weren’t discovered—they were imported, lightly edited, and repackaged as local insight.
That’s what pre-decided planning looks like. The outcome is known before the “research and reporting” process begins. Its entire design is meant to guide the community toward the same, pre-determined solution that had been the goal all along.
In downtown Lafayette—what many now call “Blanchardville”—development hasn’t been neutral. Decisions have shaped outcomes. Some projects move forward. Others don’t. And it hasn’t always stayed neatly within the lines. Under Blanchard’s leadership, the Downtown Development Authority has pushed beyond its lane—asserting influence over decisions affecting private property and development, and reacting forcefully when challenged. That’s not my opinion, it’s a district court ruling!
This Is About the Mayor
This ordinance certainly appears to be an attack on the Mayor. Lafayette’s Home Rule Charter is not ambiguous. The Mayor-President is the chief executive officer of the City-Parish Government and is responsible for directing and supervising all departments and administrative functions. In vetoing the ordinance, the Mayor specifically cited the agreement’s grant of “broad authority” to the Downtown Development Authority, insufficient legal review, and the absence of adequate oversight by the Administration and City departments.
Those aren’t political objections—they go directly to governance, jurisdiction, and accountability.
Executive authority flows directly from the voters, and it’s not something the City Council can casually hand off. Yes, cooperative agreements are allowed. Yes, consultants can be hired. But there is a line between contracting for assistance and delegating core executive authority. This ordinance directly encroaches on that territory.
What the council approved asks the Mayor to acquiesce to a structure that takes her planning, direction, and redevelopment strategy and delegates it to an outside entity. Worse, future decisions would have been routed through processes that block the executive from intervening. Even then, there’s a limit to how far that structure can go. Executing an agreement like this isn’t a ministerial duty—it’s an executive decision. The Council can authorize it, but they can’t compel it.
That authority remains discretionary, and it rests with the Mayor. Which makes the veto more than symbolic. It’s the exercise of the very authority the Charter is designed to protect. So even a veto override wouldn’t require the agreement to be executed.
And What About the Council?
The Council’s role here deserves some attention. Because this isn’t just about funding a study, but about delegating authority that’s not theirs to give away.
Voters don’t elect the Downtown Development Authority, they don’t vote on its leadership, and they can’t vote it out of office. But they did elect a Mayor. And when core executive functions are redirected to an unelected bureaucrat, accountability to the voters becomes impossible. If you were trying to design a system to shift control over planning and development outside the Mayor’s direct authority—without amending the Charter—this is what it would look like.
The Real Study Already Happened
Maybe this approach turns out great. Maybe it produces something useful. But that’s not really the question. The question is this: Why is a city that already understands its problems and has a clear direction suddenly being asked to spend a million dollars and hand over control of the process to study them again?
On November 18, 2023, Lafayette answered a different question: who should lead the City-Parish? The voters selected Monique Blanco-Boulet. Kevin Blanchard wasn’t on the ballot. The Mayor has now drawn that line.
So here’s the question no one should have to ask: At what point does a “cooperative agreement” override the voters? Once you step back and look at the structure, the funding, and the track record behind it, the question isn’t complicated or new. It’s familiar. It’s a million-dollar case of déjà vu.
###
