- 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
0
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:03 pm to redneck
quote:
If this passes I'm just going to put a bunch of debris at the mouth of my canal. End that shite real quick when a couple lower units sink
Every single real estate purchase comes with a certain amount of risk. Nothing lasts forever.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:18 pm to HotKoolaid
quote:
Every single real estate purchase comes with a certain amount of risk. Nothing lasts forever.
I don't even know how to respond to this. I guess there is risk? but when the law changes with regard to your property, it is considered a taking, and the landowner should be paid for same. Who is going to pay this? 
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:19 pm to Motorboat
quote:Crooks v. La Dept of Nat. Resources
but when the law changes with regard to your property, it is considered a taking, and the landowner should be paid for same. Who is going to pay this?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:33 pm to AlxTgr
I read the appeal on the MSJ, but what eventually happened?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:47 pm to Motorboat
State hit with an eleventy billion dollar judgment. The judge appears to have let the plaintiffs have their cake and eat it too. Called it a reverse condemnation and gave them the property value plus the royalties.
It went to oral argument earlier this year. I check for the opinion every Wednesday. It was not issued today.
It went to oral argument earlier this year. I check for the opinion every Wednesday. It was not issued today.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:48 pm to civiltiger07
quote:
I know of two separate cases where trespassers, 1 drunker than Cooter Brown and another spotlighting at night, got hurt and sued landowner and company holding the lease and got settlements.
i know i would, and i think everyone who is in support of this bill would fully support 100% to make land owners immune from any lawsuit involving injury on the water within the boundary of their property unless it can be proven it was a deliberate act built or created with the intent to cause injury to boaters.
the lawsuit argument is a red herring used as an excuse to mask the real intent of trying to claim ownership of the states natural resources for private restricted harvest for profit.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:48 pm to Motorboat
quote:
I don't even know how to respond to this. I guess there is risk? but when the law changes with regard to your property, it is considered a taking, and the landowner should be paid for same. Who is going to pay this?
That's not a question I can answer. What I do know is if they change the way the waterways are defined then the property values will tank. As for just compensation, I would have to guess the state feels the property is worth far less than the property owners.
I'm trying to remain as neutral as I can although I do have a question. If the law changes and the definition of these waterways is changed, how do you compensate the owner for a 50 foot wide bayou that flows through his property? Would every single tract have to be surveyed to exclude the waterways? I guess you would keep your mineral rights that are covered by state owned waterways and continue paying sales tax on the land under the water in order to keep potential mineral royalties.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:54 pm to Motorboat
First of all no one would be taking anything as the water bottom still would belong to the landowner. The free flowing water belongs to the public so one could argue that if anything was taken it was the landowner took public water by allowing his property to erode to the point of water flowing freely on it or as in cases of canals being dug they took the water when they broke open the land to allow water to flow in the canal. The crux of the public's argument is that the water belongs to the public so therefore the public should be allowed to access the water.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:56 pm to rsoudelier1
quote:
First of all no one would be taking anything
Tough sell. They would most certainly be taking something away that makes the property valuable. Without control of access they property isn't worth much of anything.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 2:57 pm to pointdog33
I can fly a drone at your house and hover at pretty much any height I want and as long as I'm not recording you by audio or video than I'm allowed. The air belongs to the public just as free flowing tidal water does.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 3:00 pm to HotKoolaid
Never said it was an easy fix but again if the landowners would have maintained their property as to prevent water from flowing on it then this wouldn't be an issue.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 3:00 pm to redneck
quote:
no cameras to prove it was me
Same goes for landowner that finds his property destroyed by guys grinding up non navigable waterways during the week when he or she isn't there.
My favorite are the guys that jump levees and create new cuts for the lilies and salvania to access your lease.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 3:08 pm to rsoudelier1
quote:Yay, my hover craft deer and duck hunting plan is going to work perfectly!
I can fly a drone at your house and hover at pretty much any height I want and as long as I'm not recording you by audio or video than I'm allowed. The air belongs to the public just as free flowing tidal water does.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 3:08 pm to rsoudelier1
If you want to from a state owned public road way sure, be my guest, but not if you're standing on my non submerged, bonafide private property.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 3:11 pm to AlxTgr
You got one more hoop to go through first
quote:
Taking quadrupeds and resident game birds from aircraft or participating in the taking of deer with the aid of aircraft or from automobiles or other moving land vehicles is prohibited.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 3:16 pm to pointdog33
Poaching is a separate issue.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 3:43 pm to HotKoolaid
quote:
how do you compensate the owner for a 50 foot wide bayou that flows through his property?
Is this like someone buying property with or without a highway running through it? Just because its your land on each side, doesn't mean you own the road.
These roads "Bayous" have been there a while, probably before the land was acquired by an individual.
But then, some of these bayous end or become non-navigable one someones property. is it not private?
I can arue with myself on this Topic all day!
Question,
When was all of the southern marsh aquired? from whom and to whom? for the most part the oilfield owns it now. but who was before them?
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 3:53 pm to Motorboat
quote:
I don't even know how to respond to this. I guess there is risk? but when the law changes with regard to your property, it is considered a taking, and the landowner should be paid for same. Who is going to pay this?
Nature is doing the taking, you don’t have land anymore and have not done anything to repair or stop that loss of land yourself. Assuming it’s ruled navigable. Good luck getting nature to pay.
Obviously if you built the canal/pond/lake/whatever privately, it’s yours as long as you got the permits and all that to tie into whatever waterway your canal runs into and all that.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 4:17 pm to AlxTgr
quote:It is not poaching, they are public property. Poaching no longer exists. Especially if you hover and shoot ducks. You can go where ever you want. Unless you shoot em on the wate.........................
Poaching is a separate issue.
Page 8 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News