- 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: Spinosa meet Nakamoto
Posted on 4/28/17 at 2:26 am to Jim Rockford
Posted on 4/28/17 at 2:26 am to Jim Rockford
Wanna bet?
0
Posted on 4/28/17 at 3:14 am to SG_Geaux
quote:quite a mover and shaker - set up Terry Saban with some sweet apartments - which she still owns.
Amazed that people do business with Spinosa.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 5:58 am to Jester
Nakamoto is a great investigative reporter. And my kid goes to school with his, so I can also attest to how nice of a person he is. Very friendly and outgoing.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 7:23 am to Scruffy
quote:
What is Rouzan?
Currently it's just a higher-end housing development set in the back of the large open area along Perkins near College. Eventually, toward the Perkins frontage, there is to be another Perkins Rowe style development of shops and such.
tl;dr - Spinosa is trying to cram another couple hundred cars into the College/Perkins area because there's not enough traffic there already.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 7:26 am to Bard
quote:
Eventually, toward the Perkins frontage, there is to be another Perkins Rowe style development of shops and such.
Remains to be seen. He'll probably sell the development to cover losing his arse in this lawsuit. He'll retain the sewer treatment plant so that he can squeeze more money out of the people, though.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 7:43 am to Commando
quote:
Another Spinoza development, another legal mess. This is the ultimate Germans.
Although I hate the use of Germans on this board, this is not what it means.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 7:48 am to baseballmind1212
quote:
et's be honest. With the way media is going today, do you really think a big market wants someone like Nakamoto digging around their public officers?
Willing to bet big steps would be made by shady public officials to NOT have someone like Nak digging in through their dirty laundry
^this guy gets it
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:02 am to supadave3
quote:
So this involves that big house in the middle of the property, right? This has always been a crazy situation
Yea this has been going on forever.
I hadnt heard about it in a long time, the development is developing, and figured it had been settled.
Guess I was wrong.
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 8:55 am
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:04 am to LSUpetro
quote:
Rouzan
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:05 am to member12
quote:
Is anyone over there not violating the law breaching serious ethics rules?
i'm not
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:13 am to LSUpetro
There's a situation in north LA where a guy paid over 3 million dollars for exclusive rights to an oxbow on the red and some surrounding property, turns out he doesn't even own all of the lake bottom and starting building a fence on land he didn't even own. Who pays 3 million dollars for a piece of property without even getting a survey done? The seller even employed a professional broker who told the buyer he would have exclusive rights to the property.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:16 am to LSUpetro
Does anyone know the details of this case? The report reference the plaintiffs property but then mentioned a 30' servitude. I wonder if it is/was legally Spinosa's land but a right of passage or servitude was granted to the plaintiffs by the previous owner. This seems to be the only scenario I can imagine to make this kind of a frick up.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:17 am to Strannix
I apologize for my noobish question but can one of you clarify something in the article
The article goes back and forth calling the disputed area "Servitude" and "not owned by Rouzan"
Did the plaintiff argue that the land the Rouzan homes were built upon was owned by him?
Can someone properly explain the use of "servitude" in this situation please...
The article goes back and forth calling the disputed area "Servitude" and "not owned by Rouzan"
Did the plaintiff argue that the land the Rouzan homes were built upon was owned by him?
Can someone properly explain the use of "servitude" in this situation please...
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:22 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Who was the chick in the video with the nice arse?
Came to post this. That quick profile shot certainly got my attention.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:24 am to Dont_Call_Me_RAY
The big boys, like CNN, don't do investigate journalism anymore. He may be safe.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:26 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Did the plaintiff argue that the land the Rouzan homes were built upon was owned by him?
Can someone properly explain the use of "servitude" in this situation please...
The report is confusing. You can read the ruling here. I'm reading it now, but it looks like the plaintiffs in the case had a 30' servitude (right of passage) across somone else land. Spinosa bought the land and relocated the servitude so they still had access to their property. However, they claim the roads they travel now are less than 30' and violate the previous servitude.
edit: I did a little more reading... Basically there are a couple older homes in the middle of Rouzan. These people had a 30' servitude which appears to be a dirt road (via google maps) leading to their property. Now they have paved roads. There argument is that the paved roads aren't as wide as the dirt servitude. I haven't been out there, but I'm sure Spinosa just has to give them a different servitude. It isn't like he built on anyone's actual property.
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 8:40 am
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:31 am to skullhawk
The parish will acquire the parcel that the servitude provides access to through condemnation for the library. The parcel then becomes part of the TND and the servitude goes away. Book it.
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 8:38 am
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:35 am to notbilly
quote:
The report is confusing. You can read the ruling here. I'm reading it now, but it looks like the plaintiffs in the case had a 30' servitude (right of passage). Spinosa relocated the servitude so they still had access to their property. However, they claim the roads they travel now are less than 30' and violate the previous servitude.
OK, and I assume the new servitude cannot simply be widened because of the homes.
Spinosa will find a way to settle this argument without having to destroy those homes...
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:47 am to notbilly
quote:
edit: I did a little more reading... Basically there are a couple older homes in the middle of Rouzan. These people had a 30' servitude which appears to be a dirt road (via google maps) leading to their property. Now they have paved roads. There argument is that the paved roads aren't as wide as the dirt servitude. I haven't been out there, but I'm sure Spinosa just has to give them a different servitude. It isn't like he built on anyone's actual property.
This actually makes sense. If you go back and look at some of the site plans for Rouzan (they were attached in each Metro Council agenda) you can see the servitude they mention that leads to the property. I'd imagine the contractor assumed the road leading to the property would suffice as a legitimate alternative to the servitude, but the landowner in the middle of the property/lawyer says this isn't adequate because it doesn't meet the 30' requirement. So the whole "tear down the houses" thing is sensationalism, and what really needs to happen is the road needs to be widened to 30' or a new servitude to replace the one paved over should be allocated from other Rouzan property to the landowner.
Just my take, I know nothing about this case.
The news really should have pulled maps from google, the court, Rouzan documents, etc to show people where the houses are and how they are built on the servitude. Maybe they didn't because it would have shown a 20' road instead of a 30' servitude, with no actual buildings on the servitude.
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 8:50 am
Posted on 4/28/17 at 8:48 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
OK, and I assume the new servitude cannot simply be widened because of the homes.
Spinosa will find a way to settle this argument without having to destroy those homes...
Exactly. I'm not familiar with what is developed out there, but it may be possible to widen a street or give them access using a different route. The misleading part of the story is that it seems from the First Circuit ruling that the plaintiffs' land was never disturbed. The argument is the 30' wide servitude versus the 20' street they now have to use to get from there homes to Glascow ave.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News