- 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
1
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:17 am to LSURussian
quote:
When you start reacting like your above comment is when I know you know I'm right.
You aren’t making any sense at all.
quote:
You stop using logical thoughts and facts to refute what I've posted and resort to name calling and personal attacks.
I have and you respond with nonsense.
And it’s strange you are lecturing me about name calling when that is one of your tactics here.
quote:
That's been your SOP for years going back to the first petition drive.
And your SOP has always to gin up some straw man argument like this that isn’t based on the law.
Tell your friends and relatives to study what the SG proponents did and get out of SG as quickly as they can. The SG committee can’t help them. You know it and I know it.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 11:33 am
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:18 am to The Boat
Great neighborhood.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:22 am to doubleb
quote:I've never said that.
But you are acting as if SG leaders have the right to change the city of SG simply by a committee vote,
I've said several times I don't know what's legal, if anything, to "opt out" of being included in SG at this stage. I described the "un-annexation" process earlier which you already commented on, but that's different from opting out.
At least try to remember what's already been posted and stop making shite up claiming I said something that I never said before you commence with your personal attacks.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:25 am to doubleb
quote:
You aren’t making any sense at all.
Sure, okay. Let's go with that.....
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:26 am to LSURussian
quote:
But some people living in those large contiguous areas on either side of Highland Road from about Bluebonnet almost to I-10 where a majority of voters didn't want to be incorporated are already discussing how they can remain unincorporated and not be included into St. George.
You're misreading it. Past Pecue, it's St.G on both sides of Highland. As was noted before, its essentially Oak Hills area that voted against.
The area against that's so big is below Bayou Fountain and is mainly swamp. The vast majority of votes for that precinct are Fairhill and Harveston.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 11:56 am to udtiger
quote:No, I'm not.
You're misreading it.
quote:I know.
Past Pecue, it's St.G on both sides of Highland.
quote:Plus several subdivisions on Highland Road northwest of Pecue and two precincts south of Highland but only touching Highland in one small location next to the "Highland Road" text on the map.
its essentially Oak Hills area that voted against.
One of those subdivisions is where LSU Coach Will Wade lives and although his house faces Highland Road it is technically part of the subdivision that goes back off of Highland Road to the north. Coach Will Wade does NOT live in Oak Hills. Trust me on that. I've been in his house when it was for sale before he bought it.
Let me try it this way, the precincts I'm referring to are the ten precincts numbered 3-40, 3-4, 3-68, 3-49, 3-64, 3-35, 3-23, 3-56, 3-63 and 3-36.
That's a whole lot more than just "essentially Oak Hills" where a majority of voters who voted on election day voted no. That's an over simplification on your part.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:11 pm to LSURussian
There is a process for de-annexation just as there is a process for annexation.
The property owners have to file a petition, have it signed by a percentage of affected residents, and have it approved by the city council. I think it is all in the same RS.
If they are contiguous to the city they can petition for annexation into Baton Rouge.
Murrell said SG leaders encourage people who are inside SG, but want to be part of baton rouge to apply for annexation.
That would indicate they are ok with de-anexation, but as they have not been honest about anything to date, I am sure he is being disingenuous now.
The property owners have to file a petition, have it signed by a percentage of affected residents, and have it approved by the city council. I think it is all in the same RS.
If they are contiguous to the city they can petition for annexation into Baton Rouge.
Murrell said SG leaders encourage people who are inside SG, but want to be part of baton rouge to apply for annexation.
That would indicate they are ok with de-anexation, but as they have not been honest about anything to date, I am sure he is being disingenuous now.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:13 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
The irony is the area known as "Village St. George" (3/4, 3-40) voted against St. George.
That's awesome. Don't worry baw, it's fine, they're gonna call it the City of St. George Man I am so happy they finally got this done. I left BR a while ago and I don't know that I'll be able to come back for a while. If I do I'm going to St. George. God bless those people!
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:19 pm to BlackAdam
Exactly, and if they are fired up about getting out of SG then they should follow the process.
I haven’t seen anything posted by anyone that says they shouldn’t do it.
I haven’t seen anything posted by anyone that says they shouldn’t do it.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:19 pm to BlackAdam
quote:Thanks, but you obviously didn't read this entire thread before posting. I do that, too, when a thread gets to be multiple pages.
There is a process for de-annexation just as there is a process for annexation.
The de-annexation process has already been discussed.
Someone else brought up the question is there an "opt out" provision from incorporation before the incorporation actually takes place short of individuals filing a lawsuit?
No one has been able to answer that question. Maybe you know the answer.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:20 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:22 pm to Upperdecker
quote:were they supposed to give up properties that create tax revenue that the city poured money into to develop? Serious question.
BR annexed a bunch of money making things when the first St George push happened. Specifically the Mall of LA, LSU, Siegen Marketplace. But left out all the neighborhoods around them. If that doesn’t show you what BR is about, nothing will
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:24 pm to LSURussian
quote:
No one has been able to answer that question. Maybe you know the answer.
What I don't know could fill a library.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:26 pm to Bedhog
quote:
were they supposed to give up properties that create tax revenue that the city poured money into to develop? Serious question.
They did what they had to do to protect the city, but the city did not develop the Mall. I believe General Growth Properties did with the help of the Parish.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:27 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
BR annexed a bunch of money making things when the first St George push happened. Specifically the Mall of LA, LSU, Siegen Marketplace. But left out all the neighborhoods around them. If that doesn’t show you what BR is about, nothing will
Kip* doing the brothas wrong
edit: I got the timing wrong and thought it was Broome, thanks Russian for correction.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:37 pm to doubleb
quote:
They did what they had to do to protect the city, but the city did not develop the Mall. I believe General Growth Properties did with the help of the Parish.
Did general growth also develop all the roads, traffic lights, drainage, and related infrastructure as well?
I'll save you some time... They did not.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:41 pm to LSURussian
quote:
True, the majority of voters within an area that was drawn up arbitrarily by just a handful of people voted yes.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:41 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
Did general growth also develop all the roads, traffic lights, drainage, and related infrastructure as well?
I'll save you some time... They did not.
They developed the Mall, the ring road and the parking and out parcels. They also had to widen Bluebonnet and add lanes over Wards Creek.
They didn’t build I-10 or Bluebonnet and neither did the city of Baton Rouge.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 12:54 pm to doubleb
quote:
Put Louisiana First. The Republican-leaning political action committee
Um, no
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News