- 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
1
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:12 pm to upgrayedd
quote:What's racist about the SC's decision?
Wow, Russian. I'm surprised you support this blatant, state-sponsored racism.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:14 pm to swampdawg
quote:Wasn't there an article in the paper a month or so ago saying he's already doing that? So, this decision has no impact on that part of Myers' slumlordedness.
let the section 8 housing begin
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:15 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Wasn't there an article in the paper a month or so ago saying he's already doing that? So, this decision has no impact on that part of Myers' slumlordedness.
Yes, but I think his doing so was more of a threat in anticipation of this ruling. He may actually start leasing to these tenants now.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:17 pm to LSURussian
quote:
What's racist about the SC's decision?
It's obviously a ploy to keep low-income minorities out of nice, white neighborhoods.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:23 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
It's obviously a ploy to keep low-income minorities out of nice, white neighborhoods.
I'm for neighborhoods with nice neighbors.
I want neighbors who can afford to upkeep their properties, and if they are renters; I want the renters or the landlord to upkeep the property.
Those are my qualifications.
Race has nothing to do with good neighbors.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:32 pm to Layabout
My oh my, I just can't believe the honorable Judge Clark got overturned!
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:40 pm to Keltic Tiger
quote:
Last I heard, unofficially, Clark is the runaway winner of judges being overturned by a 2-1 margin & climbing.
Is this true? Wow!
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:46 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Y'all really need to look up what the city-parish defines as "family" before supporting this. It's a joke and very disappointing that the SC reversed the lower court here.
IF the code is CONSTITUTIONAL, the the SC did what it had to do. There SHOULD be no "shame they allowed.." type laments.
Either the provision or the Constitution would need to be changed to alter the decision.
If you are arguing that the SC misinterpreted the LA Constitution...I'm prepared to hear your argument. But, if it is just "they should just let this go", then, I disagree.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:47 pm to doubleb
quote:
Change the definition of family in the zoning ordinance then. I am fine with that, but having four guys and their buddies living next door to you is not a single family dwelling by anyone's definition.
You don't understand what this case was about obviously. The definition of family was the issue and what the case was ruled on. There are specific requirements about who is and who isn't family. If your neighbors are being roudy, loud, leaving messes, parking in the side walk, there are laws agaisnt all of that.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:51 pm to Mickey Goldmill
I think this is all a marketing ploy to promote the movie Neighbors which opens in theaters tomorrow.
And Janice Clake is as bad as it gets on the bench
And Janice Clake is as bad as it gets on the bench
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:52 pm to Mickey Goldmill
There is also a law specifying how many unrelated people can legally live in a single FAMILY zoned dwelling.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 3:54 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
You don't understand what this case was about obviously. The definition of family was the issue and what the case was ruled on.
Well, did the SC not simply rule on whether the definition is Constitutional?
I doubt that the SC simply wrote out the definition....right?
I'm on your side of the "wish". But, I want the SC to simply hear arguments and determine if the ruling / language meets constitutional muster. I do not want them deciding what would be the "better idea"
Posted on 5/8/14 at 4:00 pm to LSURussian
quote:
There is also a law specifying how many unrelated people can legally live in a single FAMILY zoned dwelling.
Yes and I believe that law is unconstitutional. Kinda the whole point in this entire argument.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 4:01 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
You don't understand what this case was about obviously
Funny you say that considering the court punted on this issue stating the defendant didn't have standing to urge the defense in this particular case.
Did you read the decision?
Posted on 5/8/14 at 4:04 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Screw you Steve Myers, a true tPOS.
I'm only going off everything I've read about him and it all paints him as an overgrown petulant child with a law degree and money.
He sounds like a professional troll who wants to have it his way all the time.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 4:05 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
You don't understand what this case was about obviously. The definition of family was the issue and what the case was ruled on. There are specific requirements about who is and who isn't family. If your neighbors are being roudy, loud, leaving messes, parking in the side walk, there are laws agaisnt all of that
Was Mr. Myers going to rent to families?
I thought he wanted to rent to individuals who wanted to share expenses and live under the same roof.
I have no objection if Myers wanted to rent to a family. I'd even say if it was up to me, he could rent to a family other than a man and a woman. But it isn't up to me.
I'm for strict zoning laws and for homeowner assoc. who police deed restrictions.
I've owned several homes and I wouldn't want to lose part of my investment because the guy down the street elected to rent to four college students, four families from China, or to a halfway house unless of course it was zone for any of that.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 4:16 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Funny you say that considering the court punted on this issue stating the defendant didn't have standing to urge the defense in this particular case. Did you read the decision?
I haven't read the SC decision just released no. But I promise you I know more about the case as a whole than anyone on this board.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 4:17 pm to doubleb
quote:
I've owned several homes and I wouldn't want to lose part of my investment because the guy down the street elected to rent to four college students, four families from China, or to a halfway house unless of course it was zone for any of that.
This particular zoning law doesn't prevent a nuclear family from having 10 cars parked all over the yard. As long as they are all blood related, that's apparently ok.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 4:19 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I haven't read the SC decision just released no. But I promise you I know more about the case as a whole than anyone on this board.
Then read the decision before you start accusing others of ignorance. Read the decision before you start pretending to know what the ruling was. The court punted on the definition of family and its constitutionality. They stated the Plaintiff had no standing to argue that particular issue.
They then ruled that the definition of family is not vague...so the argument in which the defendant did have standing was not persuasive.
The court did not rule whether the definition was constitutional...just that it was not vague.
This post was edited on 5/8/14 at 4:37 pm
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News