New Iberia’s Economic Development Strategy — Raise Taxes

Economic development is always stated in positive terms — new jobs, new investment, revitalized properties, more shoppers, better infrastructure and a growing tax base. But if those same terms flow from the mouths of politicians, skepticism should be your first reaction.

What often receives considerably less attention is the mechanism government relies on to “produce” those promised benefits: create a special district, impose another tax, and then use the money collected from the public (YOU) to subsidize their favored private business.

That is essentially the model New Iberia has been working to implement at Lagniappe Village.

Lagniappe Economic Development District

The City has already created the City of New Iberia Lagniappe Economic Development District. The ordinance doing so came before the Council on June 2, 2026, for introduction, where Councilman Ron Davis was the sole vote in opposition. When it came back before the Council on June 16, 2026, it was unanimously approved.

We are told the district encompasses the shopping center near Admiral Doyle Drive and South Lewis Street. The actual boundaries are far murkier—something we will address later. The next steps were laid out months in advance by the City’s special counsel, calling for the district to impose an additional 0.50% sales tax, approve a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement, and begin collecting the tax on October 1.

There is one important feature of that proposed tax that should not be lost beneath the language of economic development: The people expected to pay it do not get to vote on it.

A Taxing District Built Around a Private Development

The story did not begin with citizens petitioning their government to create an economic development district, let alone an additional tax. And understandably so. In a community plagued with crime, vagrancy, burdensome taxes, and a deteriorating infrastructure, most citizens have other priorities. Public safety is a huge one.

However, not every citizen has access to the wheels of government or the capital required to grease them. But “private investors” do. In March of 2026, RockStep Capital Chief Operating Officer Tommy Stewart contacted Mayor Freddie DeCourt about what he explicitly described as an “incentive opportunity.” Stewart reminded DeCourt that the two had previously met regarding government incentives for the Academy. He explained that Mike Sherman, whose company had helped RockStep obtain incentives in the past, had also been put in touch with the Mayor. From there, the machinery began moving.

RockStep provided the map showing the proposed district. In an April 8 email, Foley & Judell attorney Jason Akers explained the proposal to DeCourt in unusually simple terms:

“The blue line is what they own. The red line is what they want the district to be.”

Akers then asked the Mayor what he had decided concerning the outparcels. That is worth dwelling on.

The murky blue and red lines on the map don’t actually define any parcels or boundaries. The “district map” contains no identifiable parcels, no scale, no measurable boundaries, no metes and bounds. It is more akin to a 16th-century treasure map showing the general location of buried booty than the legal description of a governmental taxing district.

Nor was the private property owner merely applying to participate in a pre-existing public program. Its representatives were involved in defining the geographic boundaries of the new governmental taxing district. At the same time, it was being developed long before the public was ever provided any opportunity to comment on the project.

Half a Cent — No Election Required

By April 23, Foley & Judell had already prepared a timetable stretching from the creation of the district to the imposition of the tax and the approval of the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement. The district did not yet legally exist. The ordinance had not yet been introduced. The public hearings had not occurred. But the destination was already mapped.

The eventual timetable became remarkably specific. The Council’s first action in creating the district occurred on June 2, 2026. That occurred three months after RockStep Capital reminded Mayor DeCourt of their discussion from years prior. On June 16, 2026, the district was created. Mayor DeCourt met privately with council members Brooke Marcotte and Warren White, then Ron Davis and David Merrill on July 1. The internal timetable called for the Council—acting as the district’s governing authority—to declare its intention to levy the 0.50% sales tax on July 7.

By then, however, public opposition had derailed the original timetable. The criticism—and even the “mean” memes Mayor DeCourt complained about—caused the City to change course. The plan for the district to adopt the tax, approve the CEA on August 4, and begin collections on October 1 was scrapped. Instead, DeCourt called for a stronger, generally applicable economic development district ordinance before proceeding, while assuring the public that the new process would be transparent.

There was no scheduled election in the timetable. That is one of the fundamental problems with special taxing districts. Government can draw a boundary around a particular commercial area, create a separate political subdivision, and impose a tax inside it that would face considerably greater political resistance from residents at the polls.

Louisiana law ordinarily requires a special election before a district tax can be imposed. But it contains an exception for districts with no qualified electors, allowing a tax paid by thousands of shoppers to be imposed without any of them voting on it. The result is a tax with a small enough geographic scope to avoid an election while still extracting real money from everyone who shops there. And Lagniappe Village already has plenty of shoppers.

This Isn’t New Money. This Is Existing Money.

A March 2026 financial analysis prepared from Lagniappe Village sales figures shows the center generated approximately:

• $23.4 million in sales in 2023;
• $29.7 million in 2024; and
• $31.46 million in 2025.

Sales tax revenue has been increasing, while government accountability has not. At 0.5%, the proposed tax would have generated approximately $157,311 in 2025 alone. The three-year average was approximately $141,000 annually. This is not simply a financing arrangement in which the government agrees to share taxes generated by a hypothetical new development that would otherwise never occur. Lagniappe Village is already operating.

The proposed tax therefore begins with an established pool of consumers (YOU) from whom additional tax revenue can be collected immediately. Government is not creating that commerce. It is extracting more tax dollars from the people who already shop there.

The Missing Economic Question

At the July 7, 2026 Council meeting, Mayor DeCourt cried out:

“Well, we have a study we paid $60,000 for… we have a study, and that is making a difference. Some of these developers that are looking at—believe me, I send it to everybody… But that study by itself, when I showed it to the people that we courted for the Academy and the stores that are coming with them,.. there’s been a couple of deals.”

The City has not produced a $60,000 economic impact study. However, it did pay $30,000 for a study. But that study creates another problem. New Iberia hired Place + Main Advisors in 2025 to conduct an economic development analysis including demographic trends, retail leakage, IMPLAN economic modeling and an investment prospectus. The contract cost taxpayers $30,000.

The resulting report makes a compelling case that New Iberia may experience additional economic activity. But its primary subject is First Solar. The report says plainly that its purpose is to evaluate the economic implications of the First Solar manufacturing facility. It forecasts hundreds of new households and more than $14 million in new annual retail spending as workers move into the area.

That may establish that New Iberia is becoming a more attractive retail market. What it does not establish is that Lagniappe Village requires a taxpayer-supported incentive.

• There is no produced analysis showing how much, if any, assistance is necessary.
• There is no produced calculation showing why the rate should be 0.50% rather than 0.25%.
• There is no produced “but-for” analysis demonstrating that the desired redevelopment will not occur without public assistance.
• And there is no produced comparison of the expected public subsidy against the resulting public benefit.

In fact, the City’s own Lagniappe spreadsheet calculated revenue for both 0.25% and 0.50%, yet the records produced thus far contain no explanation of why the higher number was ultimately selected.

Government and Corporation, Sitting at the Same Table

There is another philosophical issue that goes beyond the size of the tax. On May 26, Foley & Judell circulated the proposed creation resolution, public notice, creation ordinance, and timetable not only to City officials but also to RockStep’s Tommy Stewart and incentive consultant Mike Sherman. Akers expressly invited their input:

“Tommy and Mike, we welcome your comments too.”

Then, on July 6 — one day before the scheduled Council action introducing the tax — representatives of the City, Foley & Judell, RockStep and Sherman Strategies were invited to participate in a private Microsoft Teams meeting titled “Lagniappe Village City.” The meeting, organized by RockStep’s Tommy Stewart, included invitees: Foley & Judell’s Jason Akers and Andrew Jarreau; Sherman Strategies’ Miles Granderson and Michael Sherman; and Andy Weiner from RockStep.

None of that necessarily violates the law. But legality is not the only measure of good government. Transparency and accountability are. There is something fundamentally troubling about the government using its unique power to tax (YOU) while working hand in glove with the private interests positioned to benefit from the resulting arrangement. Call it a “public-private partnership” if that makes it sound more respectable.

A traditional economic term is corporatism: government and favored private interests cooperating so closely that the boundary between public power and private advantage begins to disappear. Whatever label one chooses, the underlying objection is the same.

Businesses should compete in the marketplace.

Remember that Baton Rouge Grocery Store? The government should maintain public infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers, water), provide public safety, enforce neutral rules, and protect citizens’ rights. It should not become an investment partner that decides which private developments deserve special taxing districts and which businesses should benefit from taxpayer-extracted funds.

Let the Market Vote

Perhaps RockStep has an excellent redevelopment plan; perhaps Lagniappe Village needs improvements; perhaps New Iberia’s economy can support additional investment there. If so, those are arguments for private investment — not automatically for another tax. The simplest test of an economic-development proposal should be whether investors are willing to risk their own money because they believe consumers want what they intend to build.

Instead, New Iberia is moving toward another model: government creates the district, government imposes the tax, government collects the money, and government negotiates with a favored private interest over how that money will be used. That is the framework the Council began implementing with Ordinance 2026-21 (introduced on July 21 and adopted on August 4), which establishes eligibility and compliance requirements for future taxing assistance.

And the one party missing from that transaction is the person reaching into his pocket at the cash register (YOU). You pay the tax. You don’t get to vote on it.

But maybe… just maybe… Janita DeCourt won’t have to drive all the way to Lafayette just to buy some shoes.

###