- 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
They ARE the issue. 
1
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:40 pm to LSURussian
quote:
They ARE the issue.
You know better
.
quote:
Facts, and constructive criticism. Nah, I've tried that. You just ignore facts
I pay attention when you post facts, but when you BS and tell us Lagniappe can hold 300 people then I know you are losing it.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:40 pm to hawkster
quote:RACIST!
Opposition to becoming more and more like New Orleans is certainly a motivation for the St. George movement.
I see you ignored the "Livingston Parish" part of my statement....
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:42 pm to BigJim
quote:He sure won't find out much now at all. Rainey and gang have gone deep undercover, refusing to even answer questions about their signature drive's results.
. Not saying you won't be able to find out what is going on, just that it won't be as readily accessible.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:44 pm to LSURussian
quote:
RACIST!
I see you ignored the "Livingston Parish" part of my statement....
Just like you ignored the Italian in my post.
So do you think the EBR council would like to become more like Livingston or more like NOLA?
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:45 pm to SpidermanTUba
Way to focus on the trees while ignoring the forest. The only issue for residents of St. George to consider is whether they will be better off incorporated or not. The percentage of the proposed city budget that comes from sales taxes is kind of stupid. Sales taxes allow residents to transfer some of their tax burden to nonresident shoppers. The higher the percentage of city revenue the better I would argue.
As to whether the residents of St. George would be better off by incorporating there are valid arguments for and against. However, with respect to the sales tax issue I think the fact that the members of the EBR City/Parish Council opposed to St. George incorporating because of the lost sales tax revenue is pretty conclusive evidence that St. George residents would benefit from incorporating.
As to whether the residents of St. George would be better off by incorporating there are valid arguments for and against. However, with respect to the sales tax issue I think the fact that the members of the EBR City/Parish Council opposed to St. George incorporating because of the lost sales tax revenue is pretty conclusive evidence that St. George residents would benefit from incorporating.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:45 pm to doubleb
quote:Out of all the statistics and numbers I've posted regarding SG, THAT is the one statement you use as an example??? The capacity of a restaurant?!? Seriously???
I pay attention when you post facts, but when you BS and tell us Lagniappe can hold 300 people then I know you are losing it.
You've already lost it.....
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:47 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Out of all the statistics and numbers I've posted regarding SG, THAT is the one statement you use as an example??? The capacity of a restaurant?!? Seriously??? You've already lost it.....
First I pointed out you bringing Rainey and White into the discussion, and then I reminded you of the Lagnaippe BS. I could also bring up your per capita budget analysis too; but why confuse you even more.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:48 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:No, it doesn't. Not even close to being conclusive evidence. You have no idea how much the SG city will have to increase taxes just to provide the same level of services.
I think the fact that the members of the EBR City/Parish Council opposed to St. George incorporating because of the lost sales tax revenue is pretty conclusive evidence that St. George residents would benefit from incorporating.
And that doesn't include how much in new taxes will be needed to fund a new school district if that ever happens.
Poodle, I'm really disappointed in you that you have reduced the "evidence" to such a simple denominator.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:50 pm to SpidermanTUba
This St. George movement is becoming a laughing stock.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:51 pm to doubleb
quote:
First I pointed out you bringing Rainey and White into the discussion
So we are not allowed to criticize the crony government dealings of the two biggest players/"leaders" of the St George movement?
Makes total sense.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:52 pm to hawkster
quote:I suppose you don't realize that Italians have been discriminated against in the U.S., too, right? Try again.
Just like you ignored the Italian in my post.
quote:It's not unprecedented that local governments have a residency requirement for their governmental employees.
So do you think the EBR council would like to become more like Livingston or more like NOLA?
I personally don't favor it, but for those SG people who act like the idea is some sort of unheard of, outlandish proposition...well, they are just not very well informed.
And that is becoming more and more evident....
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:53 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
As to whether the residents of St. George would be better off by incorporating there are valid arguments for and against. However, with respect to the sales tax issue I think the fact that the members of the EBR City/Parish Council opposed to St. George incorporating because of the lost sales tax revenue is pretty conclusive evidence that St. George residents would benefit from incorporating.
Bingo, I don't think Holden and the gang of five are protesting because they are looking out for us.
I suspect if all the sales tax revenue from SG was captured by a new city then there would be more than enough revenue to run city govt. in the suburbs.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:55 pm to Rickety Cricket
quote:
This St. George movement is becoming a laughing stock.
I agree, the opposition along with their naiveté is costing them.
They are mostly grassroots people and aren't doing a great job of getting their message out there. At least I don't see it and I'm the type they need to get this thing passed.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:55 pm to doubleb
quote:That's right, I did. They are the ones driving the effort. And Browning.
First I pointed out you bringing Rainey and White into the discussion
And Rainey doesn't even live in the proposed St George City area.
You called me out for being involved in opposing SG when I don't live in the SG area. Are you going to do the same for Rainey or are you a hypocrite?
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:56 pm to Poodlebrain
So when do St. George's talking points turn from why BR doesn't want it to incorporate, to the nitty gritty financial numbers necessary to operate the new city.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:57 pm to LSURussian
quote:
the same level of services
I must be missing this shining beacon of light that is Baton Rouge customer service. Where I live off of George O'Neal it takes an act of congress to get anyone from the city to do anything. DPW will transfer you until you hang up or make empty promises. Animal Control will not come out if you call after 3 pm because the office is by the airport.
Whatever "services" SG provides will be automatically be better by default.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:02 pm to SuperflyLSU
quote:Right there tells me you're doing it wrong.....
Where I live off of George O'Neal it takes an act of congress
Not that I don't believe you, but I don't believe you.
Call 311 and you'll get attention to your problem. I've called it many times and have received 100% satisfaction every time. And they have never asked me if I live in the city or not.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:03 pm to LSURussian
I think we cajuns have been discriminated against as well, but I don't consider myself a victim of racism.
Residency requirements are nothing new. They are put in place for vastly different reasons. A parish with booming growth like Livingston may have one motive, while a city like New Orleans with its complex problems like urban blight may have an entirely different motive. The motive of the Baton Rouge councilwomen is blatantly clear - political retaliation and intimidation. It officially proves they are unfit to govern, and anyone who is willing to support their political careers does not have the best interest of the taxpayers of the parish at heart.
Residency requirements are nothing new. They are put in place for vastly different reasons. A parish with booming growth like Livingston may have one motive, while a city like New Orleans with its complex problems like urban blight may have an entirely different motive. The motive of the Baton Rouge councilwomen is blatantly clear - political retaliation and intimidation. It officially proves they are unfit to govern, and anyone who is willing to support their political careers does not have the best interest of the taxpayers of the parish at heart.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:05 pm to doubleb
quote:
They are mostly grassroots people and aren't doing a great job of getting their message out there.
And how people don't see that as a harbinger of what could come is beyond me. They can't get their numbers right, much less pin down their exact tax requirements, at this point when they're just trying to garner support. What makes anyone think it will magically fall into place if the vote passes and on that fateful day, they're on their own.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News