- 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: FOR SALE: Corner of Bluebonnet and Jefferson
Posted on 8/1/17 at 4:49 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 8/1/17 at 4:49 pm to LSURussian
Thanks for the help regarding the statute, but I had already found it myself.
0
Posted on 8/1/17 at 4:51 pm to doubleb
quote:
Anyone on that Council who knew the real worth of that property was in the wrong.
the lost across the street sold last year for $1MM
literally anyone (not just council members) could have that knowledge within seconds
Posted on 8/1/17 at 4:52 pm to doubleb
quote:
Thereafter, notice of the proposed ordinance must be published three times in fifteen days, one week apart, in a newspaper published in the municipality or, if there is no such newspaper, in a newspaper having a general circulation in the municipality, and if there is no newspaper of general circulation in the municipality, by posting in three public and conspicuous places in the municipality.
Posting in the newspaper should be revisited.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 4:53 pm to slackster
quote:
Unless I'm missing something, it seems to clearly state a minimum price must be established on the ordinance. Any idea what it was in this case? Presumably $0?
There should have been an ordinance passed permitting the property to be sold, and a price set at that time.
This would have been before it was advertised, and you would think the minimum sale price would be on the advertisement.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 4:55 pm to LSURussian
quote:
It wasn't Heck who said that. It was an assistant parish attorney.
Ah, my mistake. I guess that makes everything else in my post irrelevant.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 5:13 pm to slackster
quote:Nope. I guess someone would have to go back to the council meetings last year (I think I read where the original ordinance was proposed in September) and see what that ordinance said.
it seems to clearly state a minimum price must be established on the ordinance. Any idea what it was in this case?
The link in the OP quotes the assistant parish attorney as saying he told the eventual buyer "he could bid whatever he wanted" because the C-P council would still have to approve the sale.
And he's still not my brother-in-law.....
This may be doubleb's chance to nullify the sale.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 5:22 pm to doubleb
quote:Nah, it doesn't say a price is required to be set. It says a "minimum price" must be determined, along with some other terms of the sale.
There should have been an ordinance passed permitting the property to be sold, and a price set at that time.
Go for it! File a lawsuit to get the sale nullified because you don't think a minimum price was set.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 5:29 pm to slackster
quote:Or maybe require a minimum number of bids to consider the auction to be valid. At least for the first auction.
Posting in the newspaper should be revisited.
If the first auction doesn't get the minimum number of bids, allow the minimum to be waived for a re-advertisement of the auction.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 5:29 pm to LSURussian
Can we at least all agree, with the way the motion was written, to include the following clause
To approve this motion is totally out of line. It is clearly NOT in the best interest of the public. All of the councilmen/women failed the city. Especially the ones with a little (or likely a lot) knowledge of the process.
Now if the motion read "since we put it up for auction and technically followed all the rules, we should go a ahead and sell it", that would be accurate, and I could understand it getting approved.
quote:
, this Council is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to convey the above mentioned property to Mr. Radu Cosman for the offered bid / consideration
To approve this motion is totally out of line. It is clearly NOT in the best interest of the public. All of the councilmen/women failed the city. Especially the ones with a little (or likely a lot) knowledge of the process.
Now if the motion read "since we put it up for auction and technically followed all the rules, we should go a ahead and sell it", that would be accurate, and I could understand it getting approved.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 5:31 pm to mikelbr
quote:Wow, the nerve of that guy.
He blocked me on facebook for offering to tongue-tickle his taint.
Seriously.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 5:36 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Or maybe require a minimum number of bids to consider the auction to be valid. At least for the first auction.
If the first auction doesn't get the minimum number of bids, allow the minimum to be waived for a re-advertisement of the auction.
Different scenario, but IIRC, this was how the bid process was supposed to go down in NOLA for the statue removal. There was one bid from a contractor to do the job and it came in 400-600k over budget.
That's when Mitch said 'frick it' and, well, you know the rest.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 5:46 pm to Supermoto Tiger
Is there a site that advertises these auctions? It seems like that land would draw more interest than 1 person.
I should start going to these auctions in all the area parishes. At some point I should come across a good steal like this..
I should start going to these auctions in all the area parishes. At some point I should come across a good steal like this..
Posted on 8/1/17 at 6:25 pm to OweO
These auctions happen monthly throughout the state in every municipality/parish. This kind of deal is extremely rare though. Any other person could of showed up that day and bid this property up or even bought it if they had the cash. It looks like all the laws we're followed, but nobody else was paying attention. That's what made it such a "rare" deal.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 6:34 pm to StinkBait72
Were all the laws followed.
Did they set a minimum price as indicated in the state statute? If not the law was not followed.
Did they set a minimum price as indicated in the state statute? If not the law was not followed.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 6:49 pm to doubleb
The minimum price could have been set to 0. In the dozens of auctions I've participated in over the last few years I have never seen an appraisal done on a property prior to auction by any government entity. This includes thousands of properties in South Louisiana.
The only reason this is getting any attention is because of the low price paid by a single bidder. Sometimes they sell for well above FMV, and I've seen them at 20-30% FMV. This is around 1% which is why it's considered "rare".
The only reason this is getting any attention is because of the low price paid by a single bidder. Sometimes they sell for well above FMV, and I've seen them at 20-30% FMV. This is around 1% which is why it's considered "rare".
Posted on 8/1/17 at 6:56 pm to StinkBait72
quote:
The only reason this is getting any attention is because of the low price paid by a single bidder. Sometimes they sell for well above FMV, and I've seen them at 20-30% FMV. This is around 1% which is why it's considered "rare".
Metro Council still has to accept the bid. Accepting a bid of $10k proves just how clueless they are about spending/protecting the public's money/assets.
I still can't believe this story. A managing partner of a concrete company structures the auction and seconds the motion that it is "in the best interest of the public" to sell the property for $10k, knowing full well the real value and that a property across the street sold for $15/sq ft.
The rest of the council should be held accountable, but Heck in particular given his background and relationship to the winning bid.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 6:59 pm to slackster
quote:Like father, like son....
Heck in particular given his background
Posted on 8/1/17 at 7:06 pm to slackster
Oh I agree the council had the last say-so on the deal. That is supposed the final step in the process, but once again from what I've read and reviewed it appears the process (law) was followed in this case.
Now if it comes out Heck stands a chance to make $$ in the future or has in the past off of this deal their will be some legal action. That may be hard to prove and still may not result with the land being resold at another auction.
These are state laws, not local. This is how every parish and local entity has to conduct their business when it comes to selling surplus property. BR just appears to be a bit more incompetent, blatantly corrupt, or both.
Now if it comes out Heck stands a chance to make $$ in the future or has in the past off of this deal their will be some legal action. That may be hard to prove and still may not result with the land being resold at another auction.
These are state laws, not local. This is how every parish and local entity has to conduct their business when it comes to selling surplus property. BR just appears to be a bit more incompetent, blatantly corrupt, or both.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 7:11 pm to StinkBait72
So.. I rarely read an entire thread this long but I live very nearby so I'm interested.. 
Sounds like the deal was done in a legal manner, but it's still shady because of the Heck-Cosman connection, and Heck was on the council when it was voted. Heck had to have known about the price and didn't speak up at the absurdity of selling that land so cheaply. At the very least, it's appalling incompetence that the council didn't see the price, the square footage, and the area it was sold in and put a nix on the deal.. because that's an insane price.
I wonder if it's possible for the c-p or the state to put the poo-poo on the deal and force a new auction?
Sounds like the deal was done in a legal manner, but it's still shady because of the Heck-Cosman connection, and Heck was on the council when it was voted. Heck had to have known about the price and didn't speak up at the absurdity of selling that land so cheaply. At the very least, it's appalling incompetence that the council didn't see the price, the square footage, and the area it was sold in and put a nix on the deal.. because that's an insane price.
I wonder if it's possible for the c-p or the state to put the poo-poo on the deal and force a new auction?
This post was edited on 8/1/17 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 8/1/17 at 7:16 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
At the very least, it's appalling incompetence that the council didn't see the price, the square footage, and the area it was sold in and put a nix on the deal.. because that's an insane price.
They don't do their jobs. Plain and simple.
All 11 members present voted to adopt the resolution for the sale, going so far as to say:
quote:
WHEREAS, this Council is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to convey the above mentioned property to Mr. Radu Cosman for the offered bid / consideration.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News