- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 4/29/14 at 9:17 am to doubleb
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:17 am to doubleb
quote:Yes. Just yesterday you tried to say the $7 million for L'Auberge casino wasn't possible because you don't think the casino collects that much in sales taxes. You forgot that it wasn't from sales taxes but was from gaming fees although that has been pointed out several times in links and in posts.
I'm the one with the bad memory,
quote:I remember it was from a link in a thread that was discussed months ago. I made a mental note of the $38 million and have mentioned it several times since then. Of course you only remember me mentioning it just over the past few days.
you FORGOT where you saw the 38 million?
I see now I should have bookmarked the post with that link because you can't remember anything that's been posted more than 2 weeks ago.
0
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:26 am to LSURussian
quote:
I didn't. When i first posted about the $38 million I posted a link to the article where it came from.
As Mickey's post above shows, there have been several different sales tax numbers given for the MoL/Perkins Rowe area. Which number is correct? I don't know.
But if you prefer to believe I made it up, that's okay with me. Links and facts don't influence your already made up mind anyway.
I was kind of hoping to read the article, actually. I figured it might explain the difference.
I actually did a quick search, and this is the earliest I found the 38M figure in your posts.
LINK
If I had to guess, I don't think you made it up...I suspect you don't want to link the article because it will indicate that you misread it. And, we know you don't like to admit a mistake.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:29 am to doubleb
how likely is this St. George thing to happen. Thankfully I'm just outside of the limits so it doesn't effect me but I'm just interested.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:38 am to moneyg
quote:
If I had to guess, I don't think you made it up...I suspect you don't want to link the article because it will indicate that you misread it. And, we know you don't like to admit a mistake.
Maybe that's the case, or maybe he made it up???? I don't know, but I'm with you and the others, I can not recall seeing the 38 million dollar figure anywhere other than in Russians more recent posts.
But Russian will blow it off, saying I have a bad memory, or I'm an idiot. We all know how he tries to deflect and spin things away from the issues at hand.
ETA: One way to get close to the 38 million dollar figure Russian says is fact is to look at the Advocate article and use the numbers they site to extrapolate and determine what ALL the sales tax collected by the Mall of La. AND ITS SURROUDING PROPERTIES.
9.2 is the parish take which makes up 2% of the total 9% which is collected. Accordingly 1% is approximately 4.6 million dollars.
9 X 4.6 million = 41.4 million dollars. Maybe something "out there" had the total tax collected at 38 million and that's what Russian picked up?
But the issue at hand is the article I linked which gave a good analysis of the impact the Mall has on tax revenues, and how it compares to other areas in SG. It also gives a good idea of the difficulty in annexing areas because even though we see a lot of stores and developed properties, they all do not have one owner.
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 9:53 am
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:40 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
how likely is this St. George thing to happen.
I think it's better than a 50% chance these people will get enough signatures to get an election.
I think it's better than a 50% chance that by the time the election is held there will be so many outside forces hammering at the movement and that circumstances change to a significant extent, that the election will not pass.
Just my guess.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:41 am to doubleb
quote:
I seriously doubt that the loss of L'auberge if annexed will be 7 million dollars
L'auberge will not be annexed by the city and will not be included in St. George. It will remain unincorporated regardless of what happens.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:42 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
L'auberge will not be annexed by the city and will not be included in St. George. It will remain unincorporated regardless of what happens
Can you share why you are predicting this?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:45 am to doubleb
quote:
Can you share why you are predicting this?
It's not a prediction.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:55 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
It's not a prediction.
Can you explain?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:55 am to Antonio Moss
They are included within the boundaries of the st.George petition. If BR can't bribe them to annex, I don't see how they have a choice in the matter?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 9:58 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
It's not a prediction.
Can you share with us what you are "hearing"?
TIA
Posted on 4/29/14 at 2:13 pm to doubleb
quote:
It's not a prediction.
Can you share with us what you are "hearing"?
TIA
Posted on 4/29/14 at 2:32 pm to doubleb
quote:well, there you go.
Just my guess.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 4:55 pm to skinny domino
My feeling is that, if the SG advocates get enough signatures and get them validatred, the city of SG WILL win in a November, 2014 vote.
I say it is 50-50 that SG gets onto the ballot. It is 70-30 that it will pass if it gets onto the ballot.
Note: I was raised in what would be SG and lived here for the first 25 years of my life. I retired and have returned to 70816 last year.
I say it is 50-50 that SG gets onto the ballot. It is 70-30 that it will pass if it gets onto the ballot.
Note: I was raised in what would be SG and lived here for the first 25 years of my life. I retired and have returned to 70816 last year.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 6:37 pm to LSURussian
Russian
Why are you against SG incorporating?
I know you consider it important to stay on this site basically all day arguing back and forth over semantics.
But how would you personally be effected by the move? Baton Rouge dragged their feet trying to save a buck by not annexing.....it's not SGs fault, they got tired of waiting.
Why are you against SG incorporating?
I know you consider it important to stay on this site basically all day arguing back and forth over semantics.
But how would you personally be effected by the move? Baton Rouge dragged their feet trying to save a buck by not annexing.....it's not SGs fault, they got tired of waiting.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:56 pm to GeeOH
So Russian made up/misread and won't admit the $38 million. The blogger used $20 million. Others say $7 million.
There is only one way to solve this:
WE MUST HAVE A THIRD PARTY AUDIT RUSSIAN, THE BLOGGER AND OTHERS POSTS TO GET TO THE DAMN TRUTH!!!!
There is only one way to solve this:
WE MUST HAVE A THIRD PARTY AUDIT RUSSIAN, THE BLOGGER AND OTHERS POSTS TO GET TO THE DAMN TRUTH!!!!
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 8:56 pm
Posted on 4/30/14 at 9:00 am to GFunk
I'd just like to know what he has to lose or gain from the SG situation.
I'm not from BR, so I don't give a frick either way. And I'm not saying either side is right.
But damn, surely he has a dog in the fight.
What the frick does it matter what the correct #s are in his post? I'm positive they won't consult Russians post before making a decision!
So again, Russian, what co owls you to spend your life, or a good part of it, on TD arguing against SG?
I'm not from BR, so I don't give a frick either way. And I'm not saying either side is right.
But damn, surely he has a dog in the fight.
What the frick does it matter what the correct #s are in his post? I'm positive they won't consult Russians post before making a decision!
So again, Russian, what co owls you to spend your life, or a good part of it, on TD arguing against SG?
Posted on 4/30/14 at 9:38 am to GeeOH
quote:
So again, Russian, what co owls you to spend your life, or a good part of it, on TD arguing against SG?
In the beginning, he made it pretty clear that his kids were products of the magnet school system. He's fearful of what the move will do to the BR magnet school system.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 10:00 am to moneyg
quote:
In the beginning, he made it pretty clear that his kids were products of the magnet school system. He's fearful of what the move will do to the BR magnet school system.
It would take years to go back thru all of the arguments and find his motive...which is why I just asked.
I wish he would again tell us how it would effect him....would it possibly make his kids end up at a school that is considered worse than where they are now?
If so, that would be weird, since a big part of the SG movement is because BR is so shitty at keeping up the school system.
Point being, is it strictly personal for his situation, otherwise he would agree the SG people are smart doing what they are doing?
It is just hard to tell, but it is obvious there is an extremely personal reason he is arguing all day.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 10:04 am to Lsut81
quote:
However, BR's actions in this fight have made them supersized giant douches and I hope they suffer for it.
BR has really made themselves look bad here. If this ends with a "victory" for BR then I think long term it'll cause a greater flight from the city by those who want better education. So, in the end BR loses here.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News