- 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
A minor victory for SG.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 4:18 pm
So many exceptions to the bill are bogging it down. But (wink wink) we all know it's a good govt. bill and its not targeted at SG, right?
quote:
Capitol Views: St. George bill overloaded, then yanked
The House had to take a step back today from a bill that would force the organizers of the city of St. George incorporation drive to gain enough signatures by a July 23 deadline in order to get the initiative before voters on the Nov. 4 ballot, or wait until 2016. The intent of SB 674 is to set a moratorium on incorporation elections until January 2016, in order to allow a committee to study possible changes in the current law and come up with recommendations for the 2015 legislative session. But the author, Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, has had to create special exemptions, like the one for the proposed city of St. George, as well as complete opt-outs for several parishes around the state. When the legislation came up in floor debate today, the legislator handling the bill, Rep. Mike Danahay, D-Sulphur, was bombarded with additional amendments for opt-outs from East Feliciana, West Feliciana, St. Tammany, St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge and Iberville parishes. All were included in the bill. Rep. Hunter Greene, R-Baton Rouge, had another amendment on deck to exempt East Baton Rouge Parish. But Danahay ended up shelving the bill. It may only be a temporary move, but with four days remaining in the session, the timing couldn’t be worse for supporters of SB 674. Nevers said one change he would have liked to see after the proposed moratorium is a time limit on petition drives. “Now you can file a petition and it can go on forever,” he said. “This causes concern in the business community.”
2
Posted on 5/29/14 at 5:35 pm to doubleb
The Price bill is essentially dead too. Both were unconstitutional, and would have likely been vetoed anyhow. The beat goes on....
Posted on 5/29/14 at 5:46 pm to Sprocket46
I see this as a major victory for St. George
Posted on 5/29/14 at 6:10 pm to mpar98
How close is St George to getting enough signatures?
At what point do they say frick it, and give up? After 2 years? 5, 10, infinity and beyond? You'd think a couple of years would be enough time to account for any pro St Georgeans that were living under a rock.
At what point do they say frick it, and give up? After 2 years? 5, 10, infinity and beyond? You'd think a couple of years would be enough time to account for any pro St Georgeans that were living under a rock.
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 6:24 pm to Asgard Device
They have been at it for about 8 months. It takes time for volunteers to get 18,000 signatures. They get more signatures every week, so until such time as they stop getting signatures there is zero merit to your argument.
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 6:25 pm to doubleb
inB4
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 6:36 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
They get more signatures every week
How do you know? The St George politicians will have openly declined to share any of that information.
quote:
there is zero merit to your argument.
Which argument is that?
Posted on 5/29/14 at 6:41 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
How do you know?
Because I am "out there" most weeks. But that doesn't even matter. Just go ton a petition signing location and watch, and talk to the volunteers.
quote:
Which argument is that?
Your comments indicate that you believe the movement has gone on for too long, and that they don't have or won't get enough signatures. This isn't the first post you have made on the subject.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:27 pm to Sprocket46
Curious why this topic hasn't attracted more input
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:32 pm to Sprocket46
I think St George proponents have already passed the required signatures, but they keep adding more in an effort acquire so many above 18K that no one against it can hold it up on some BS technicality.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:35 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
Your comments indicate that you believe the movement has gone on for too long
I didn't indicate that but I realize you are a SGite and thus will believe whatever you want to believe. But yeah, at some point it will have gone on for "too long" to any rational person. I stated that two years should be enough time. Really and truly 1 year should be enough to get all the supporters to sign.
Let me do the math for you.
8 months < 2 years.
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:40 pm to Asgard Device
So then you have no problem with the 8months so far? Why are you bringing up 2 years, 5 years etc?
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:45 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
So then you have no problem with the 8months so far?
Not really. I thought it was kind of a tight timeline but still doable to do it in 7 or 8 months. 1 year seems reasonable. Does it not? Everybody knows about it so if they wanted to sign they would have by then.
quote:
Why are you bringing up 2 years, 5 years etc?
Because technically they could drag it out for years, which would kind of be funny. Whether or not they would is pure speculation. Mostly due to the fact that St George politicians are not forthcoming.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:53 pm to Asgard Device
You just blew up your own argument and state that SG proponents haven't taken thst long but tell us they might.
Well they might not.
Well they might not.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 10:00 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Everybody knows about it so if they wanted to sign they would have by then.
Then why do they keep getting hundreds of signatures every week? That was my point.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 10:10 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
Then why do they keep getting hundreds of signatures every week?
First of all, show me evidence that they're getting hundreds of signatures a week. Are you personally privy to them? Do you simultaneously attend all the petition locations and count the people that sign?
Secondly, 4 months to go before it's been a year. Can you not comprehend any of this?
Lastly, even at 200 a week it would take 2 years to get enough valid signatures.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 10:24 pm to Asgard Device
Nobody is going to release hard numbers to you, thats a strategic decision. You are the one questioning that people are still signing the petition. I'm telling you to visit a petition location if you don't believe it. You're not going to take my word for it, so you can go see for yourself.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 10:28 pm to Sprocket46
You posted more than 3 weeks ago they were going to submit their petition "soon" even before the Mall annexation vote in order to stop the annexation.
Yes, you are desperate.
Yes, you are desperate.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 10:31 pm to LSURussian
I said I hope they did. They chose not too. It would have been smart IMHO. Stop misquoting me. Don't make me break out the 9+2-2=11, 38million, and bodies white links.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 10:34 pm to Sprocket46
No, the link you posted said they were going to submit the petition the day before the council's annexation vote. That was posted 3 weeks ago. Still no petition submitted.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News