- 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: CPA firm's analysis shows higher taxes needed to support St George City
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:20 pm to Asgard Device
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:20 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
I was giving you a break-down for how the vote would go because you seem clueless to the fact that it will get shot down in a parish-wide vote.
If you're so sure it will be shot down, why bother posting about it so much. According to your expert voting analysis, it's a non-issue. Move on.
2
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:21 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
quote: Then you have all the people who live in unincorporated areas not included. That'll be a big "no" from them. Which residential areas are not included?
You can't possibly be serious.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:21 pm to Sprocket46
quote:I don't remember you saying you disagreed with the article you linked when you started that thread. I must have missed that....
I never said how many signatures we had, at any point in time. Scott McKay of the Hayride is the person who wrote the editorial about turning in the signatures early. I linked the article.
quote:
Liar.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:22 pm to c on z
quote:
quote: Then you have all the people who live in unincorporated areas not included. That'll be a big "no" from them.
Which residential areas are not included?
You can't possibly be serious.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:23 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I don't remember you saying you disagreed with the article you linked when you started that thread. I must have missed that....
So using your logic, can I assume you agree with the budget numbers in the study in your OP?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:27 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
If you're so sure it will be shot down, why bother posting about it so much.
You just can't differentiate between two things being discussed, can you?
This thread is about incorporation and Asgard, like I am, is opposed to that. The rest of the parish can't vote on that issue, only SG residents.
His comment regarding the parish wide vote was regarding the establishment of a SG independent school district. That proposition has to pass parish wide as well as state wide.
Try to focus. FOCUS, DAMMIT!!!
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:29 pm to Sprocket46
quote:I've already said I disagree with their numbers. That's something you didn't do with the article you linked. See the difference???
So using your logic, can I assume you agree with the budget numbers in the study in your OP?
No? You don't? Seriously??
Oh, well.....
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:29 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
If you're so sure it will be shot down, why bother posting about it so much. According to your expert voting analysis, it's a non-issue. Move on.
Good grief. The school district is the #1 reason behind incorporation which is what I'm against. I'm on a slightly different position than Russian in that I wouldn't be against an ISD. I am just against incorporation and I think the whole thing is BS.
Oh, and by the way - I never said "left out". Not sure why you felt the need to make that up. I said unincorporated areas that were not included when describing the different areas of the parish that will vote on the school district. There's really no other way I know of to describe these areas.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:33 pm to LSURussian
Mckay's article was an opinion. Good, bad, or other. It was an interesting tactic/thought.
As far as your new forum rules of implied agreement with links.....I'm not sure where you're going.
Remember, after all, that you were the one who thought 9+2-2=11.
As far as your new forum rules of implied agreement with links.....I'm not sure where you're going.
Remember, after all, that you were the one who thought 9+2-2=11.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:35 pm to Asgard Device
How could they be legally included? They couldnt, so I'm not sure why you *think* you know how they would vote.
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:38 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
How could they be legally included?
Non sequitur. Has nothing to do with what I said. Stop being dense.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:44 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Then you have all the people who live in unincorporated areas not included. That'll be a big "no" from them.
You made the point of them not being included, not me. They cannot legally be included, as we both know. I was, and am, questioning your assumption that not being included has any effect on their voting. However, I question your entire position on how people vote, but time will tell. I'm not going to get into voting trend assumptions based on people "I know ", as you have.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:48 pm to Sprocket46
I noticed that the proposed SG boundaries stop just short of some property along the Comite river. Just north of Hamilton Ave going across the Central Thruway all the way to Waddill Wildlife Refuge.
I'd be very curious to know who owns that property seeings how they were able to "opt-out" from the very beginning before it even gained traction.
I'd be very curious to know who owns that property seeings how they were able to "opt-out" from the very beginning before it even gained traction.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:02 pm to Asgard Device
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:12 pm to Sprocket46
quote:I don't doubt your inability to use logic. In fact, you've convinced me of it.
As far as your new forum rules of implied agreement with links.....I'm not sure where you're going.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:17 pm to LSURussian
Is logic what told you 9+2-2=11 in the transition bill?
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 11:17 pm
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:31 pm to Sprocket46
Since that Bodi White bill never made it out of committee we'll never know. And you believe the legislature will just rubber stamp a Bodi White St George school district creation bill?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:33 pm to LSURussian
9+2-2 never equaled 11, sorry.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:42 pm to Sprocket46
Ah the property SG organizers excluded is owned by C & S Development which is registered to FG Sullivan Contracting, owned by a prominent family in Central (of course.)
FG Sullivan is in the database as donating $1,000 to Bodi White's campaign for state senator.
FG Sullivan is in the database as donating $1,000 to Bodi White's campaign for state senator.
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 11:46 pm
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:51 pm to Asgard Device
To be fair, you can also tie judge janice Clark to kip, delgado, etc.
I don't know if there is anything fishy about that land. Celtic studios wasn't included in the SG map, either.
I don't know if there is anything fishy about that land. Celtic studios wasn't included in the SG map, either.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News