- 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: Advocate prints comprehensive article on St. George, the Mall of La.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:32 am to DR Hops
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:32 am to DR Hops
quote:
If you are not referring to sales tax in that post, then enlighten us as to what you are referring to?
Hops it is confusing, but then he says we are uneducated so that might explain how all of us get so confused.
BTW, where did the 38 million dollar figure come from?
0
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:34 am to doubleb
quote:Shame on my for assuming that you and the other SG fanboys actually remember what has already been posted in SG threads or that you are aware of the SG proposed budget. My bad....
That clears that up,
As far as me searching for the article saying that the Bluebonnet retail corridor accounts for $38 million in sales taxes, why should I?
You would just forget it again and ask for the link again in a few weeks.
You consistently forget what has already been quoted and posted from links, just like you "forgot" that my $7 million gaming revenue from L'Auberge came from the SG organizers own official website, which I have posted no fewer than 4 times over the last few months.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:35 am to doubleb
quote:You believe wrong......again.
I believe the legacy costs are only associated with the school systems
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:36 am to DR Hops
quote:
If you are not referring to sales tax in that post, then enlighten us as to what you are referring to?
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:42 am to LSURussian
quote:
Shame on my for assuming that you and the other SG fanboys actually remember what has already been posted in SG threads or that you are aware of the SG proposed budget. My bad.... As far as me searching for the article saying that the Bluebonnet retail corridor accounts for $38 million in sales taxes, why should I? You would just forget it again and ask for the link again in a few weeks. You consistently forget what has already been quoted and posted from links, just like you "forgot" that my $7 million gaming revenue from L'Auberge came from the SG organizers own official website, which I have posted no fewer than 4 times over the last few months
Shame on you for bringing all of these incorrect and half arse information to the discussion.
Just a day or so after you claimed SG would lose 38 million in sales tax revenues the Advocate blows that to hell and back, and you try spinning things to make you the innocent purveyor of BS.
And Now you are saying the Bluebonnet retail corridor when you specifically were saying Mall of La. I see what you did.
And I did remember you writing 38 million dollars in sales taxes, 7 million dollars and 4 million dollars in a sales tax discussion. It's you who were wrong, or were trying to mislead others with your post. My memory isn't that bad.
Just as you did with your outlandish 11% sales tax when you added 9-2+2 and got 11.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:43 am to LSURussian
quote:
You believe wrong......again.
So which legacy costs is Central on the hook for and which legacy costs would SG be on the hook for?
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:45 am to LSURussian
quote:No, I don't think it was a lie. I think at the beginning, they truly intended to honor that promise. But after seeing how BR has handled this entire process, I say the hell with those legacy cost. At this point, I would be pissed if they honored that promise. Even if the mall stayed in SG.
So you agree with me that the SG organizers promise to pay BR is a lie? Okay, good to know.....
This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 10:47 am
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:45 am to doubleb
quote:
So which legacy costs is Central on the hook for and which legacy costs would SG be on the hook for?
Dunno for sure, but my guess would be:
1. bond issue payments for infrastructure improvements.
2. retirement costs for city-parish workers
But that really is just a guess.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:49 am to doubleb
quote:Memory issues again? I've asked you several times and you've never answered. Have you been diagnosed with dementia problems? If you have, I'll overlook your obvious memory lapses. If not, GFY.
Just a day or so after you claimed SG would lose 38 million in sales tax revenues the Advocate blows that to hell and back,
I've been stating the $38 million figure for several months now based on a news article months ago.
I don't know which figure is correct. And neither do you.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:49 am to BigJim
quote:
Dunno for sure, but my guess would be: 1. bond issue payments for infrastructure improvements. 2. retirement costs for city-parish workers But that really is just a guess.
From my readings SG would remain in BREC, the Libray System, DPW, Sewage system, Sheriff, etc.
What other parish employees would we be on the hook for. We do not get police or fire service.
As for bond payments, aren't the bonds for the Green Light Plan coming from a dedicated parish wide sales tax and not the 2% that we are discussing?
Now school construction bonds would be a different matter and that's would apply only if a SG school system was formed, right?
This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 11:09 am
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:52 am to LSURussian
quote:
Memory issues again? I've asked you several times and you've never answered. Have you been diagnosed with dementia problems? If you have, I'll overlook your obvious memory lapses. If not, GFY. I've been stating the $38 million figure for several months now based on a news article months ago. I don't know which figure is correct. And neither do you.
I remember very well that you posting the 38 million dollar figure. I didn't dispute it because I thought you knew what you were posting, but njow I do not.
I posted information that blows your 38 million dollar figure out of the water. I asked you to provide back up to where you got the 38 million dollar number, and either you can't or you don't want to.
But in the Advocate article they site two sources, the city/parish numbers and Jim Richardson's numbers and both are way below your 38 million dollar figure.
Until I see it in writing from another reputable source I have to conclude your 38 million dollar number is either FOS or taken out of context.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:57 am to doubleb
I bet he tells you that he doesn't have to prove anything he says, and it's your fault for not remembering the article.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 11:09 am to FalseProphet
quote:
I bet he tells you that he doesn't have to prove anything he says, and it's your fault for not remembering the article.
We are all either uneducated, or have dementia I guess.
Wouldn't you like to know where the 38 million dollar figure came from? I would.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:19 pm to Sprocket46
Are you still trying to find a link to all those lawsuits you claim have been filed against SG? 
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:29 pm to LSURussian
I posted the link to the suit I was referencing. As I posted, I was mistaken about it being filed, it was just a threat, so far. I linked the NOLA.com article.
That doesn't much have to do with anything though. Someone was questioning racial motives because they thought st.George drew the boundaries.
As you were.....
That doesn't much have to do with anything though. Someone was questioning racial motives because they thought st.George drew the boundaries.
As you were.....
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:30 pm to LSURussian
So Russian, does your deflection above mean you can't answer the questions you have been asked?
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:33 pm to Sprocket46
So there are no lawsuits and you were wrong? Okay, I got it now....
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:43 pm to LSURussian
Every one of your posts in this thread has been defensive in nature. You've offered no substance or rebuttals on any claim, other than you relied an an unknown article months ago.
Are you willing to engage in any substantive discourse, or do I have to endure another attack when I have no dog in this fight?
Are you willing to engage in any substantive discourse, or do I have to endure another attack when I have no dog in this fight?
This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:45 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So there are no lawsuits and you were wrong? Okay, I got it now....
That was never being debated. Why don't you try to focus on the discussion at hand.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News