- 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
Downtown BR & The Coke Sign
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:07 am
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:07 am
From the Red Shtick
That quote is the tone of the entire article.
Hit piece editorial with some personal feud angle or legit gripe written by someone who is getting a bit too emotional in their writing?
I await the PT's analysis and any insider insights that may be out there.
quote:
Mr. Crouch:
Go frick yourself.
I know that may seem rash, blunt, and crudely hyperbolic, but I mean it. Go frick yourself.
You’re the kind of a-hole who gives capitalism a bad name. The shite you pulled last week with the venerable, last-of-its-kind Coca-Cola sign sitting atop your building at the corner of Florida and Third in downtown Baton Rouge is such a dick move, Gordon Gekko wants you to tone it down a notch.
That quote is the tone of the entire article.
Hit piece editorial with some personal feud angle or legit gripe written by someone who is getting a bit too emotional in their writing?
I await the PT's analysis and any insider insights that may be out there.
This post was edited on 5/27/14 at 10:10 am
10
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:13 am to Bard
as much as he is being a total D-Bag, it really boils down to whether or not he legally owns the sign
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:15 am to Bard
Seems like it would be easy enough for someone to go rip the cover off the thing. In time, Mr. Crouch would grow tired of spending money to keep covering it up.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:15 am to Mr.Perfect
That's what confuses me about the diatribe. If he doesn't own the sign, then why didn't someone from the Arts Council just remove the tarp? If he does own the sign, then what else that the author wrote is incorrect and did he knowingly put out false information (and if so, why)?
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:18 am to Bard
If he doesn't own it then he should remove the tarp. If he does own it, take the sign down instead of having a tarp draped over it. It looks like shite.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:19 am to Bard
I thought it was spot on.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:25 am to Layabout
well ... my only comment is that I really enjoy a good rant.
I give that rant about a 9.1 out of 10.
Not too shabby.
I give that rant about a 9.1 out of 10.
Not too shabby.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:27 am to Layabout
quote:
I thought it was spot on.
Was he? The question about ownership still has me puzzled. If the Arts Council owns it then why wouldn't they just get a quick C&D to have the tarp removed? The author never asks that question, just rails at the owner like he ran over his dog.
And to get that wound up over a sign? Really?
There just appears to be more to it than the author has put out.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:34 am to Bard
quote:
If he doesn't own the sign, then why didn't someone from the Arts Council just remove the tarp?
Maybe they have to hop up on his roof to get to the sign. What an odd situation. Richoux's was a cool place when I was in school there.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:35 am to Bard
Wait, what's all this about a Coke sign?
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:35 am to Bard
quote:
Was he? The question about ownership still has me puzzled. If the Arts Council owns it then why wouldn't they just get a quick C&D to have the tarp removed? The author never asks that question, just rails at the owner like he ran over his dog.
Wasn't the tarp put up Friday? Not sure.
quote:
And to get that wound up over a sign? Really?
There just appears to be more to it than the author has put out.
Yes, maybe a personal grudge, but from reading other accounts it does seem Crouch is being a douchebag.
Let's see what the Arts Council says/does.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:44 am to Layabout
It was spot on. He doesn't own the sign. The art council does.
They will take the sign down unfortunately because the owner f the building is a dbag
They will take the sign down unfortunately because the owner f the building is a dbag
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:53 am to monsterballads
quote:
It was spot on. He doesn't own the sign. The art council does.
They will take the sign down unfortunately because the owner f the building is a dbag
Is this insider info or just speculation?
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:02 am to Bard
The sign may be owned by the Arts Council, or not. Wait to see. However, the sign has to make penetrations into the building for support. In that regard, the building owner should be reimbursed, or paid, a fee for maintenance of his building to keep those penetrations from causing water damage or structural damage to his building. In that light, I see fairness in compensation is due the owner of the building.
Also, if that is a prime advertising space, the sign may belong to someone else, but simply sitting there for years on end does not convey ownership of the space where it sits. A building owner is entitled to compensation for allowing the sign to remain there, especially if he can produce affidavits from knowledgeable outdoor advertising consultants of the value that space might demand on the open market.
Amazing how emotional people get about crap that has nothing to do with them, personally.
Also, if that is a prime advertising space, the sign may belong to someone else, but simply sitting there for years on end does not convey ownership of the space where it sits. A building owner is entitled to compensation for allowing the sign to remain there, especially if he can produce affidavits from knowledgeable outdoor advertising consultants of the value that space might demand on the open market.
Amazing how emotional people get about crap that has nothing to do with them, personally.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:20 am to Bard
quote:
And to get that wound up over a sign? Really?
You do not want to get in the way of the Baton Rouge Progressives/Cocktail Circuit and downtown. Screw the rest of the city bc downtown. Government funded entertainment is desired.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:23 am to Bard
I read where the former owner said the price of the building was reduced because the sign was not part of the purchase agreement and Michael Crouch was well aware he didn't own the sign.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:24 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
Screw the rest of the city bc downtown. Government funded entertainment is desired.
I'm guessing you live in Livingston Parish?
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:25 am to Jay Quest
quote:
I read where the former owner said the price of the building was reduced because the sign was not part of the purchase agreement and Michael Crouch was well aware he didn't own the sign.
yes... but the question that is out there is did they document this?
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:26 am to Asgard Device
quote:
I'm guessing you live in Livingston Parish?
You would be guessing wrong.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:27 am to Bard
Bonus points for using this:
One of my favorites.
quote:
Question: What kind of fricktard bitches about needing money to maintain property he neither owns nor maintains, and at the same time, bitches that someone else is maintaining that property without first getting his permission to do so?
One of my favorites.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News