- 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: Louisiana House kills bill to restructure East Baton Rouge Parish schools
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:22 pm to theunknownknight
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:22 pm to theunknownknight
quote:I know I'm not retarded....my parents had me tested.
Either that, or he's just straight up retarded.
0
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:23 pm to CptBengal
The question remains the same.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:25 pm to LSURussian
Only if you assume a railroad ONLY owns the tracks.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:26 pm to CptBengal
You're boring me.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:38 pm to LSURussian
[URL=quote:
Not" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer">LINK all property owners are required to "sign off." Where does the annexation ordinance say it requires 100% of the property owners to sign an annexation petition?
The petition for annexation requires that all property owners wishing to be, and included in, an annexation must sign off the petition. In their rush to thwart the SG movement Kip and the metro council screwed it up.
Not" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer">LINK all property owners are required to "sign off." Where does the annexation ordinance say it requires 100% of the property owners to sign an annexation petition?
The petition for annexation requires that all property owners wishing to be, and included in, an annexation must sign off the petition. In their rush to thwart the SG movement Kip and the metro council screwed it up.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:43 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
The petition for annexation requires that all property owners wishing to be, and included in, an annexation must sign off the petition. In their rush to thwart the SG movement Kip and the metro council screwed it up.
I knew that cowboy hat looked too tight on Kip's head .
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:43 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
The petition for annexation requires that all property owners wishing to be, and included in, an annexation must sign off the petition.
But it does not require ALL property owners to sign....only 50%+.
Eta: the second image you posted is not showing up for me so I don't know what it is. All I see is a blue box with a question mark in it.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 9:47 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:48 pm to Sprocket46
quote:Is that your best reply?
(No message)
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:52 pm to LSURussian
I think he said too much already .
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:52 pm to doubleb
Posted on 5/28/14 at 10:03 pm to LSURussian
Having trouble getting to article on mobile.
Basically, the level ventures property is what connected the mall to the hospital. The property was vital to connecting the mall. Level ventures signed the petition for annexation, however they did not own all of what they signed for.
Basically, the level ventures property is what connected the mall to the hospital. The property was vital to connecting the mall. Level ventures signed the petition for annexation, however they did not own all of what they signed for.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 10:08 pm to doubleb
The full write up is on capital city news fb page. Can't cut/paste
Posted on 5/28/14 at 10:26 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
Level ventures signed the petition for annexation, however they did not own all of what they signed for.
That's not what the FB article you tried to link says. It says they signed for some of the lots which they owned.
Again the annexation ordinance does not require 100% of the property owners being annexed to sign the annexation petition. It only requires 50%+ to ask to be annexed. If that happens then all of the area within the boundaries designated in the petition can be annexed by a vote of the council.
There was nothing in the FB article about the supposedly railroad issue you mentioned. Do you have a link for that?
The date of the article you linked is May 20. If there was any substance to this story don't you think other "real" media would be reporting on it by now? Woody Jenkins is not exactly known for his "journalism" integrity.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 10:37 pm to man in the stadium
The bill had nothing to do with St. George.
The political consultants, I mean "volunteers" for St George are simply using this as a propaganda moment to imply that they were victimized somehow.
The bill was about the state forcing school districts to delegate fiscal responsibility away from the school board to the principals - who work for the school board. I couldn't say it is bad or good, but it had no impact on St. George.
The political consultants, I mean "volunteers" for St George are simply using this as a propaganda moment to imply that they were victimized somehow.
The bill was about the state forcing school districts to delegate fiscal responsibility away from the school board to the principals - who work for the school board. I couldn't say it is bad or good, but it had no impact on St. George.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 10:39 pm to LSURussian
quote:
The date of the article you linked is May 20. If there was any substance to this story don't you think other "real" media would be reporting on it by now? Woody Jenkins is not exactly known for his "journalism" integrity
You can change the argument to the validity of the source if you like. Its all in black and white. The cash sale I posted along with the petition itself. Its not a matter of validity.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 10:41 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Again the annexation ordinance does not require 100% of the property owners being annexed to sign the annexation petition. It only requires 50%+ to ask to be annexed. I
Doesn't change the fact you can't sign for property you don't own.
Carry on with the debate gentlemen. This will all sort itself soon enough.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 10:46 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
Doesn't change the fact you can't sign for property you don't own.
The FB article you tried to link does not say they signed for property they don't own so your statement is irrelevant.
I see you completely ignored my other comment about the railroad. That's very revealing.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 11:15 pm to LSURussian
The information about the railroad will come out in due time. No, I'm not privvy to anything top secret, but their property was used without permission to make the annexation contiguous, and it has the attention of people with power (not me, ha)
The property thats listed in the cash sale was included in the annexation petition as being owned by level ventures....and they don't own it.
You might want to also investigate why the properties that were voted on for annexation are not legally annexed yet.
The property thats listed in the cash sale was included in the annexation petition as being owned by level ventures....and they don't own it.
You might want to also investigate why the properties that were voted on for annexation are not legally annexed yet.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 11:35 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
The information about the railroad will come out in due time
When is "due time"? When would be too late?
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 11:37 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News