- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rouzan homes must be torn down
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:59 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:59 pm to boosiebadazz
It means Spinoza figured he could bully these folks just as he has always done and they stuck it in his arse instead. I hope they make this hurt when they pull it out.
1
Posted on 8/24/17 at 5:54 am to jbgleason
quote:
they stuck it in his arse instead
Sounds to me like they fricked over a few homeowners more than anyone.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 5:58 am to member12
You think this isn't going to come back on the developer?
Posted on 8/24/17 at 6:27 am to jbgleason
quote:
You think this isn't going to come back on the developer
Where specifically did I say that?
I'm just pointing out that a lot of people's hatred of this developer or skepticism over local politics is blinding them to the impact that this has on several homeowners. They are going to feel this more than anyone.
This post was edited on 8/24/17 at 6:29 am
Posted on 8/24/17 at 6:33 am to CaptainsWafer
quote:
Which will probably happen rather than tearing down these homes
I'd hope so.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 6:38 am to MBclass83
quote:
My good friend is the land owner
Please pass along my admiration for them. Too many bullies and crooks in this town and Spinosa is on the short list of biggest dicks in BR. Anyone buying in one of his developments hasn't been paying attention, so it's hard to be sympathetic. Gives me hope as I get ready to square off in court with another representative from that list.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 6:39 am to LSUengr
quote:
Sounds like some people on the board are Southdowns resident and are still bitter
There is some of that. I do not know what those people expect. It's a large piece of vacant land in the middle of town that seems to be pretty well drained. It's going to get developed.
When it does, I'd rather a bunch of $400,000 homes on it than apartment complexes or a Wal Mart.
quote:
Bottom line-it was unethical and unprofessional and it has created victims who will have their lives turned upside down
Isn't property owner with the servitude basically going to be surrounded by a neighborhood with multiple streets anyway? And this was a dirt two track before the development occurred.
Seems like leveraging other people's houses for a pissing match with Spinoza kind of makes them an a-hole too. Settle with the developer, then take your sandy vagina and move the frick on.
This post was edited on 8/24/17 at 6:47 am
Posted on 8/24/17 at 6:47 am to Icansee4miles
quote:
Anyone buying in one of his developments hasn't been paying attention, so it's hard to be sympathetic.
My thoughts exactly. I remember reading about this servitude issue years ago. So not only did they buy from a known con man, they bought knowing (or should have known) that neighbors had a legal claim to the property. That's on them.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 7:23 am to member12
quote:
Settle with the developer, then take your sandy vagina and move the frick on.
Nah. That bitch needs to learn that he can't just do whatever the frick he wants.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 8:33 am to MikeBRLA
How did the title insurance issue in those cases?
Posted on 8/24/17 at 8:49 am to member12
quote:
member12
quote:
Sounds to me like they fricked over a few homeowners more than anyone.
They did? The plaintiffs did? So what you're saying is that since Spinosa had a team of engineers, lending professionals, curative title workers (including attorneys), title abstractors and the like all working together to eff these homeowners AND the plaintiffs over, it's really the plaintiff's fault?
They had a legal right to their property and the servitude and Spinosa knew about those rights for at least a decade prior to doing what he did, but, 'they' effed the homeowners over?
Great take. Rich and compelling.
This post was edited on 8/24/17 at 8:50 am
Posted on 8/24/17 at 11:05 am to GFunk
quote:
They did? The plaintiffs did? So what you're saying is that since Spinosa had a team of engineers, lending professionals, curative title workers (including attorneys), title abstractors and the like all working together to eff these homeowners AND the plaintiffs over, it's really the plaintiff's fault
That's one hell of a straw man.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 11:10 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Spinosa will probably just file bankruptcy on this business and never pay them back fully.
That's his style
Posted on 8/24/17 at 11:44 am to member12
quote:
They are going to feel this more than anyone.
Once again: if you do business with Tommy Spinosa, you don't get to cry when you're left holding the flaming bag of dog shite.
Fable of the scorpion and the frog.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 11:53 am to member12
quote:
member12
quote:
That's one hell of a straw man.
Well then let's break it down:
A Straw Man is essentially refuting an opposing opinion by replacing it with an opinion that was actually never offered originally.
The statement was binary in terms of dealing with either the homeowner or the developer. The developer-who has a team of people like engineers and title company workers involved who are privy to maps that denote servitudes for adjacent property owners that the development may impact-obviously knew about the servitude and that's been proven earlier in this thread.
So the statement addressed that of the homeowners who had the existing servitude being at fault. All they did was utilize the means available to them to prove someone did something wrong and legally require them to do right.
The statement cast them in the wrong. I disagreed and provided context behind the group of people the contractor/developer used at his disposal to do wrong by people who did-literally-nothing other than try to maintain their rights already legally established by legally perfected documents that the developer himself was already aware of.
Do you somehow disagree?
Posted on 8/24/17 at 12:02 pm to mofungoo
quote:
quote:
Spinosa will probably just file bankruptcy on this business and never pay them back fully.
That's his style
Doesn't matter if he files for bankruptcy or not. His BONDING company is on the hook. They will pay.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 12:41 pm to GFunk
quote:
The statement was binary in terms of dealing with either the homeowner or the developer
What statement?
This is a pissing contest involving a developer and someone opposed to development.
The only people really getting screwed (potentially) are the homeowners involved.
This post was edited on 8/24/17 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 8/24/17 at 1:02 pm to Martini
quote:What type of bond are you referring to? If it's a performance bond for the home construction, he actually completed the houses. If it's a developer's bond of some kind I think it would get very technical since he built on land he didn't own and the HOA has already taken over control of the development. This doesn't sound anywhere near as simple as you seem to think.
Doesn't matter if he files for bankruptcy or not. His BONDING company is on the hook. They will pay.
Posted on 8/24/17 at 1:19 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
Tommy Spinosa
A poor man's MAPP
Posted on 8/24/17 at 1:23 pm to MikeBRLA
quote:
My thoughts exactly. I remember reading about this servitude issue years ago. So not only did they buy from a known con man, they bought knowing (or should have known) that neighbors had a legal claim to the property. That's on them.
Definitely. If Spinosa was selling sno cones in hell, I wouldn't buy from him.
This post was edited on 8/24/17 at 1:24 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News