A heated debate led by Mayor Friday Ellis and City Councilman Doug Harvey erupted online this week after the I-20 Economic Development District Board voted to begin drafting a contract to provide $4.5 million in infrastructure improvements that would benefit a Black investor’s housing development inside Monroe’s I-20 corridor.
Their pushback is stirring fresh scrutiny over the board’s mandate, legal boundaries, and public transparency.
If finally approved, it will be the first time the I-20 District has assisted a Black investor in its 26-year history. It would also allow a black investor to join others in Monroe planning to benefit from the $27 billion META facility in Richland Parish.
History of the Deal
The idea began in 2023, when investor Alven Square, through his company DZE, LLC, first approached Mayor Friday Ellis for city support to fund drainage, sidewalks, and access improvements for his planned subdivision project—intended to serve future META and Amazon employees.
When the final CEA is approved, as expected, Alven Square’s company, and any other company, could take advantage of infrastructure expansions in the I-20 corridor.
Instead of city funding, Ellis recommended Square present his proposal to the I-20 Board, the authority overseeing growth and public works in the corridor.
Acting on the mayor’s advice, Square’s company submitted detailed plans and responded to months of board scrutiny, meeting requests for impact analyses and compliance safeguards. Mayor Ellis was absent from most of those meetings.
But at Tuesday night’s board meeting, where the team sought final approval for funding, Mayor Ellis expressed strong reservations—arguing the district’s focus should stay on commercial development, not housing. He did, however, vote to allow the initial contract (CEA) to be drafted, which he acknowledges will probably be approved.
Public Pushback and Transparency Concerns
Once the initial report of the decision was reported in the Monroe Free Press, the pushback began. The media usually ignores I-20 Board activity. A reporter for the Ouachita Citizen attended the meeting the publication did not report the historic action.
The pushback gained momentum after Mayor Friday Ellis posted on social media, clarifying his stance: although he voted to proceed with drafting a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement (CEA) for the project, he said remains personally opposed to allocating the board’s funds for housing.
He said the final approval is likely assured but emphasized his ongoing reservations.
Discussion on Councilman Doug Harvey’s public page was lively, with many commenters claiming surprise at the board’s move and lamenting that “no one knew about it” until after the meeting.
Rev. James Earl Jackson, I-20 Board member, responded to critics post-meeting by pointing out that a CEA is a binding contract, and once drawn up, the majority’s approval would make the infrastructure deal nearly complete.
Jackson defended the district’s action, asserting that the board’s previous infrastructure investments had often paved the way for non-retail projects, and that extending infrastructure to Square’s development would serve future businesses as well.
The housing project is meant to provide new homes for anticipated employees of the META facility and Amazon’s workforce in the region, creating demand for local commerce, Jackson said, but the I-20 Board’s focus is on infrastructure, not housing. The infrastructure will be used by any future developments in the area as well
Legal and Mission Challenges
Harvey and other critics argue the move runs counter to the district’s statutory purpose, which is to “create jobs and sales tax” along the I-20 corridor using tax increment financing.
Harvey called such allocations for residential projects “a slush fund to spend anywhere else on projects.” He questioned whether the housing site falls inside the district boundaries and insisted housing wasn’t a direct generator for jobs or sales tax.
Some pointed to recent legislative renewals reaffirming the district’s mandate for commercial and industrial development, warning that the board’s current direction could imperil future funding or legal standing.
Mayor Ellis echoed these objections, explaining that the Tuesday vote merely authorized legal counsel to draft the agreement, with stringent provisions—such as clawbacks and enforceability checks—to protect public money.
He insisted “the Board is straying from its original purpose,” and listed concerns about the project’s consistency with established criteria for economic benefit and public purpose.
Statute and Process Questions
Online commenters seized on these issues, raising further doubts about legality and oversight.
Aaron W. Eley, referencing Act 579 and LA RS 33:9038.32, argued that no tract of land “used for residential purposes shall be included in the proposed economic district…” barring certain exceptions, and warned that granting public funds to housing could violate both legal and economic development principles. Others argued that housing projects are “net consumers” of resources and don’t bring the “highest and best use” or sustainable economic returns to the city or corridor.
Concerns about process and public involvement surfaced repeatedly, with residents questioning why the project was not disclosed sooner, whether legislative approval was required, and who should ultimately have authority over allocating public development funds.
Critics React
Critics of the decision called for greater transparency, close adherence to legislative mandates, and caution against setting precedents that could divert economic development funds away from their intended purpose.
The I-20 Board’s majority, however, maintains that infrastructure investment for future growth is both legal and in keeping with the district’s long-term mission.
As Rev. Jackson put it, unless the board changes its mind, “it’s just about a done deal”.
