re: BR Coca Cola Sign Covered

quote:

---

Does anyone take exception with the fact that Delgados only connection to downtown is that he owns a private business there? He is a Councilman for the Southdown's area. Yet he is going to propose legislation, in effect use his position as a city official, to attempt to resolve this matter in a way he sees fit. Screw the legal system and any chance for the parties to reach an agreement.

Because I see this as a huge issue. Delgado needs to go.

---

All of this.

quote:

---

Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.

---

He thinks the sign being covered will somehow make downtown less attractive, hurting his private business, so he is using his political position for personal gain.

quote:

---

BR Coca Cola Sign Covered This is stupid. He bought the property, he can do what he wants. Now we want to tell people what they can do with their personal property? GTFO. You whiners should have bought it if you love that sign so much.

---

Therein lies the problem. He bought the property with the understanding that the sale did not include the sign. Per the seller, this was expressly negotiated and the new owner paid $15k less with the understanding that he was not getting the sign. The new owner is now trying to attack an agreement between the prior owner and the Arts Council on a technicality to squeeze money out of Coke when he knows full well he himself didn't pay to buy this sign. Had he done so, then I would have absolutely no issue with his stance.

So who owns the sign?

quote:

---

John Delgado

---

This guy makes me sad to say I'm from Baton Rouge!

quote:

---

Therein lies the problem. He bought the property with the understanding that the sale did not include the sign. Per the seller, this was expressly negotiated and the new owner paid $15k less with the understanding that he was not getting the sign. The new owner is now trying to attack an agreement between the prior owner and the Arts Council on a technicality to squeeze money out of Coke when he knows full well he himself didn't pay to buy this sign. Had he done so, then I would have absolutely no issue with his stance.

---

This is the correct answer. It was discussed somewhere else last year when he bought the building from Danny McGlynn. The Arts Council took ownership a long time ago and Coca Cola decided to refurbish it and spent $20k doing so.

The new owner is a douche for this move because he was very aware of this deal and participated in it. Delgado is a douche just because he's a douche.

The question is whether all of this is recorded on legal documents or just handshake deals. And he claims he does not want to move it, he wants advertising revenue.

Since the OT sucks today.. You're welcome to those of us who have no idea what this looks like

If the title says the building owner owns the sign it matters not about any understanding. He can pack it up and move it.

Downtown is becoming an Arts and Gay Mecca.

This is Baton Rouge not Bucktown.

It's a sign. Nothing more. Few real estate transactions carry deeds for old trinkets honoring global enterprises, what is left on premises becomes property of new ownership. I hope he sells to the highest bidder in a far away land and tells coke to frick off, destroying this supremely significant cultural landmark.

If it isn't his, then whose is it?

frick Coke, what piece of shite company. Make something healthy other than tap water marketed as Dasani.

quote:

---

If it isn't his, then whose is it?

---

This is explained in the article and in this thread. One of the prior owners donated the sign to the arts council years ago. There is a legal document to this effect. If the act of donation is valid, then the arts council is the owner. The question appears to be whether the item transferred was a "movable" or " immovable." The new owner (two owners removed from the Act of Donation) is trying to nullify the actions that took place years ago saying the legal document signed transferring the sign should have been notarized because this is required under the law for the transfers of immovable property. Maybe the prior owner thought it was a movable and didnt need a notary's signature, or maybe someone just messed up when they drafted the act of donation. The validity of the document aside, which will likely be decided by the court, it is clear that everyone involved knew the sign was to be donated to the arts council years ago, including the new owner, who didn't pay to purchase the sign and knew the parties did not intend for ownership of the sign to be transferred to the new owner.