- 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: In fight over a 2,000-lot subdivision, Livingston settles lawsuit with developer
Posted on 8/1/23 at 9:24 am to member12
Posted on 8/1/23 at 9:24 am to member12
Subdivisions like that are just a style of living I have never been able to warm up to. Kind of reminds me of the subdivisions that have sprouted up along 1088 in Mandeville (ETA but smaller and crappier). I am sure the people who live there love them, though, and feel they are living the Northshore Dream.
This post was edited on 8/1/23 at 9:27 am
Posted on 8/1/23 at 9:35 am to member12
The fact that the developer dropped its claim for damages and attorney's fees is pretty surprising. If he had the law on his side (and it sounds like he clearly did) and assuming he's going to make a lot less money due to the plan changes he's agreeing to (less homes to sell, etc) then I'm surprised Livingston didn't have to cut him a big check.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 9:46 am to elposter
Who is Ascension Properties? Local developers? Regional / National Money?
Posted on 8/1/23 at 10:13 am to elposter
Im guessing this was the compromise, instead of canning the whole thing and having it tied up in court for years. Developer took the smaller profit and got the go ahead. Like i said earlier. Still might be a small disaster (crowding/traffic/flooding)for Denham , but not the huge disaster it would have been.
This post was edited on 8/1/23 at 10:23 am
Posted on 8/1/23 at 10:39 am to elposter
quote:
The fact that the developer dropped its claim for damages and attorney's fees is pretty surprising. If he had the law on his side (and it sounds like he clearly did) and assuming he's going to make a lot less money due to the plan changes he's agreeing to (less homes to sell, etc) then I'm surprised Livingston didn't have to cut him a big check.
Then it sounds like he clearly DIDN'T have the law on his side.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 10:47 am to member12
Why can’t the council just deny what they want and win? Seems a builder can’t just decide to build bit wants to?
Denham has enough people. Just what it needs, 4K more autos using I-12 at Range Road. Growth needs to stop everywhere.
Denham has enough people. Just what it needs, 4K more autos using I-12 at Range Road. Growth needs to stop everywhere.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 11:03 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
Then it sounds like he clearly DIDN'T have the law on his side.
Not how I read it. I think he eventually would have an almost complete victory based on the law. But time is money and there are opportunity costs lost on other ventures the more you have to devote time and resources to winning this fight and so he took the go ahead on the smaller scope now instead of waiting another couple of years through trial and appeals to do the bigger scope. Also probably considered some of the PR/goodwill issues that would impact his business for better or worse.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 11:25 am to Dixie2023
quote:
Why can’t the council just deny what they want and win? Seems a builder can’t just decide to build bit wants to?
They entered into a binding contract. A country whose legal system stops enforcing contracts between parties is a country that breaks down into anarchy and vigilantism really quickly.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 11:56 am to TIGERHOLD
quote:
Look at New Orleans East. That was the original place for “luxury apartments”.
Rinse and repeat.
If the oil bust never happens, NO East would be a different place, at least until Katrina. After Katrina, not sure.
Popular
Back to top


0






