re: FOR SALE: Corner of Bluebonnet and Jefferson

quote:

---

everything else you mentioned is in line with how these sales are conducted. What else are they supposed to do?

---

Just my opinion, but Heck was quoted as saying "These land deals are rare", so I would think something so rare would be newsworthy. I've seen some of the low quality stories the local channels pick up. I'd think the auction of a city owned piece of property along a major road would be something they'd cover.

I think whoever put the ad in the paper should have also let the local media know about the auction of the land to create a competitive bidding atmosphere to get the most value of the land for the taxpayers of Baton Rouge. Again, just my opinion.

While technically they legally followed the letter of the law, this is the sort of "good enough" behavior that will keep Baton Rouge behind while other cities prosper.

quote:

---

An auction is one of the most efficient ways to establish the "market value" of anything. eBay does it everyday.

---

If a lot directly across the street sells for $15/square foot, and you sell your lot for $.20/square foot, you (Heck) and the entire Metro Council deserve to lose your job.

quote:

---

People were not paying attention

That sums it up nicely.

---

The entirety of the Metro Council weren't paying attention.

I find it comical that Heck says he is fulfilling his role as a fiduciary for the city-parish. A fiduciary selling land that far under market value would/should be taken to court.

quote:

---

I don't disagree, but who would have been the decision maker here. Who said OK, less sell our land. Shouldn't that person have a reasonable idea of what it should bring, and since it was a "rare" occurrence; don't you think he or they would track the process?

---

, of course.

Heck is in construction. He knows that purchase was far under value, but since it was made by his buddy, he obviously moved it right along.

Do I think something shady was done prior to the auction? No. However, letting the sale go through after that point is absurd.

quote:

---

Do I think something shady was done prior to the auction? No. However, letting the sale go through after that point is absurd

---

Anyone on that Council who knew the real worth of that property was in the wrong.

I can't speak for everyone, but Heck had to know the true value of the land and by seconding the motion and then voting to sell the property what he did was at best unethical and at worst illegal.

quote:

---

so now its my fault. I should have stopped it.

---

You have as much standing on the issue as anyone else who resided in EBR Parish. And state law says you have the right to protest any ordinance dealing with disposing of surplus property.

quote:

---

Any opposition to the proposed ordinance shall be made in writing, filed with the clerk or secretary of the municipality within fifteen days after posting of the above notice or its first publication. If an opposition is filed, the governing authority shall not adopt the ordinance until a hearing has been held.

---

The quote above is in the same link I've provided below.

And you keep asking questions like "I wonder what that state statute says."

Do you not know that all Louisiana statutes are on the internet (except for the recent legislative sessions)? You can easily look up a statute. Or, would you rather just keep bitching??

You seem to be mentally challenged so here is a link to the statute you were wondering about:

LINK

I'll save you some time. There's nothing in the statute that requires a local government disposing of surplus property to get an appraisal contrary to what you've been repeating.

And you never did explain what you meant by "Perhaps our administration is do into that stuff like this is easily explainable."

RS 33:4712

§4712. Sale, exchange, or lease of property by a municipality

A. A municipality may sell, lease for a term of up to ninety-nine years, exchange, or otherwise dispose of, to or with other political corporations of this state, or private persons, at public or private sale, any property, or portions thereof, including real property, which is, in the opinion of the governing authority, not needed for public purposes.

B. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, before disposition can be made of property under the provisions of this Subpart, an ordinance must be introduced, giving the reasons for the action on the part of the governing authority, and fixing the minimum price and terms of the sale, lease, exchange, or other contract to be made with reference to the property. In instances of exchanges of municipally owned immovable property valued at one hundred thousand dollars or more, the municipality, prior to introduction of the aforementioned ordinance, shall for a minimum of three times in thirty days advertise for and receive other proposals for the exchange of property comparable with the exchange of properties proposed by the municipality; however, exchanges involved in the relocation of public streets, roads, highways, servitudes, rights of way, and/or public franchises shall not be subject to this requirement. 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.

The law

Was the law properly followed?

quote:

---

Well, you know how dishonest those St. George supporting politicians are, right?

---

No doubt, we have crooked pols everywhere. SG is not exempt, we all know that.

AND FWIW, I didn't really think the guy was your BIL, but really how can you defend this process?

This is no better than what Broome or the COA was doing. This entire place is corrupt.

And I think you owe me an apology.

Thanks for the link. 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?