- 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: St. George on track to collect signatures needed to be put on ballot
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:04 am to Huck Finn
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:04 am to Huck Finn
quote:
illegally annexed the profit centers without regard for the surrounding areas there.
This line again.
Those entities requested to be annexed by BR after SG decided they would become part of the new city automatically without their input.
Remember, SG are the ones who drew up the original boundaries and started the cascade of businesses running to BR for safety.
1
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:12 am to ColeCoushCoush
quote:
And as for your comment about Austin, TX. HA! The progressives in Austin would laugh at the backwards conservative movement that is St. George. What's ironic is that you're appealing to the liberal hippie capital of America as some kind of support for a conservative "let's all bitch about taxes" Louisiana movement.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:18 am to magildachunks
quote:Right..."illegally"? If they're illegal, then why haven't they been challenged? In fact, Jenkins' opposition to the MOLA annexation was thrown-out by a court. But SG backers have to stick to the narrative of being the victims. They bitch about neglect by the City-Parish while conveniently forgetting about the millions and millions of dollars that the C-P spent on transportation and sanitary sewer improvements in that area.
This line again.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:20 am to Grit-Eating Shin
No dog in this hunt, but I have no idea why someone would be against the people who live in the area voting on incorporation. The signature issue is a non-issue. This is America. Ultimately the people will speak via a vote, right? Carry on.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:23 am to Grit-Eating Shin
Lol. They were thrown out by "the people's judge" immediately. That's why she was selected to get that case. And why as soon as she was assigned the case we all rolled our eyes and said we'd wait for an appeal.
It's still illegal. Because of the law. There are two particular stipulations regarding annexations that were transgressed and any impartial judge that was not hand picked by goons in power would recognize it.
It's still illegal. Because of the law. There are two particular stipulations regarding annexations that were transgressed and any impartial judge that was not hand picked by goons in power would recognize it.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:30 am to Solo
quote:Then you haven't been paying attention. If the city breaks away, there are potential negative impacts to the residents of Baton Rouge.
No dog in this hunt, but I have no idea why someone would be against the people who live in the area voting on incorporation.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:32 am to Huck Finn
quote:Victim card, yet again.
They were thrown out by "the people's judge" immediately. That's why she was selected to get that case. And why as soon as she was assigned the case we all rolled our eyes and said we'd wait for an appeal.
Besides, your demagogues have said time & again that the annexations wouldn't affect the proposed city's finances, so why do you care?
quote:You're being awfully vague for someone who seems so sure of what they're speaking.
There are two particular stipulations regarding annexations that were transgressed and any impartial judge that was not hand picked by goons in power would recognize it.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:32 am to Huck Finn
quote:
Lol. They were thrown out by "the people's judge" immediately. That's why she was selected to get that case. And why as soon as she was assigned the case we all rolled our eyes and said we'd wait for an appeal.
The case was denied at multiple levels and finally Jenkins saw the writing on the wall and dropped it all together. If you're "waiting on appeal", maybe don't hold your breath, because the matter is settled. The annexations were legal and they will stand.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:36 am to Grit-Eating Shin
Victim card? Ha. You do understand that some of our local judges, metro council members, and politicians are complete jokes, right?
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:38 am to ColeCoushCoush
quote:
profit on some gold old no-bid government contracts
All day everyday, quick cash grab then leave the residents with the bill and a tax increase. see Central and Zachary
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:40 am to doubleb
quote:
They said we needed to be more like Austin, Texas well guess what; Austin Texas is in a county with numerous ISDs that seem to work well. Why can't we too be like Austin, Texas?
Schools districts in TX were formed primarily because of growing populations, not because of failing schools. And this dates back to their oil boom.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:42 am to ColeCoushCoush
They may stand, but they weren't legal. They attacked Jenkins standing instead of judging the legality of the annexations. My question is who DOES have "standing" when the city and a business collude to do something illegal?
The merits of the case were never argued.
The merits of the case were never argued.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:43 am to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
On average, Austin residents are much more well-educated, affluent, and liberal than that of BR. If you can devise a way to pull of that conversion, then I fully support your efforts!
I didn't say it first, Kip Holden and his crowd pushed that back in 2003.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:45 am to Huck Finn
quote:Again, you're offering up nothing but vague talking points that do nothing to substantiate your claims.
You do understand that some of our local judges, metro council members, and politicians are complete jokes, right?
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:45 am to doubleb
quote:
I didn't say it first, Kip Holden and his crowd pushed that back in 2003.
They used it as an example of the opportunity available to BR. In the 60's & 70's BR and Austin were the same city...but their community leaders at the time invested in regional growth and planning to attract high-earning industries such as the semiconductor sector.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:46 am to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
there are potential negative impacts to the residents of Baton Rouge.
and you say St. George is playing the victim card
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:47 am to doubleb
quote:Yes, I remember the Austin 6. I supported the idea then, and I support it now. But there are fundamental differences between the 2 cities that stand in the way.
I didn't say it first, Kip Holden and his crowd pushed that back in 2003.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:47 am to ColeCoushCoush
quote:
That's not ironic at all. Forming a new city and a new school district will cost a lot of money. The money that gets pulled out of the city parish will put Baton Rouge in a financial crisis, but it won't be enough to pay for everything that "St. George" will need. That's pretty simple actually. Taxes will have to be raised, new buildings built, and I'm sure Lionel Rainey will be right there to profit on some gold old no-bid government contracts, as is his way.
LOL, sure it costs a lot of money to run a city, but the fact is we are already spending a lot of money, but we don't have a city.
quote:
And as for your comment about Austin, TX. HA! The progressives in Austin would laugh at the backwards conservative movement that is St. George. What's ironic is that you're appealing to the liberal hippie capital of America as some kind of support for a conservative "let's all bitch about taxes" Louisiana movement.
Tell them to Laugh at Kip Holden not me. He and his crew told us that back in 2003.
quote:
But, there is legislation recently brought forth that would make it easier to start ISDs. And in fact, the creation of a new city doesn't not in anyway guarantee an ISD to begin with. So there are definitely other ways of addressing those issues.
And if we could form our own ISD, I would drop the idea of a separate city. The city to me was a means to and end. After all that's what St. Georgeans were told. They needed to be like Central or Zachary so they could get an ISD too. Remember?
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:49 am to Grit-Eating Shin
Either you're completely ignorant or you actually want me to list every hyphenated name of the morons in our local politics.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:50 am to mpar98
quote:The difference is that SG's playing of the victim is predicated on falsehoods.
and you say St. George is playing the victim card
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News