- 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: Mall of La / BR General petition for Annexation into City
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:20 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:20 pm to Mickey Goldmill
From the nola.com link earlier quoting Rainey:
I still wonder why the Costco, Celtic Studios and that credit union on Airline Hwy which were annexed a few weeks ago does not make the petition moot? Were they not included in the legal boundaries described in the petition?
The statement by Rainey is not consistent with that earlier annexation.
quote:
The petition has a legal definition of the boundaries that would encompass the new city, and if that boundary changes as properties leave the unincorporated area, that could mean the petition is moot.
I still wonder why the Costco, Celtic Studios and that credit union on Airline Hwy which were annexed a few weeks ago does not make the petition moot? Were they not included in the legal boundaries described in the petition?
The statement by Rainey is not consistent with that earlier annexation.
2
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:21 pm to redandright
quote:That goes both ways.
If some of you people could see what how those kids are spoken to by their teachers, you would be disgusted.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:26 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I still wonder why the Costco, Celtic Studios and that credit union on Airline Hwy which were annexed a few weeks ago does not make the petition moot? Were they not included in the legal boundaries described in the petition?
The statement by Rainey is not consistent with that earlier annexation.
If I remember correctly, SG people have said they didn't include those properties in their original boundaries. I could be wrong though.
Also, after reading up on it more it seems that all the outparcel businesses surrounding the mall (AMC, Pluckers, Dicks, Chase Bank, etc) are all tenants of General Growth Properties. I don't think any of these restaurants and businesses have a say so because it doesn't appear that they own the property.
https://www.ggp.com/properties/tenant-list/mall-of-louisiana
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:27 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I still wonder why the Costco, Celtic Studios and that credit union on Airline Hwy which were annexed a few weeks ago does not make the petition moot? Were they not included in the legal boundaries described in the petition?
The statement by Rainey is not consistent with that earlier annexation.
I saw some statements that said that SG had revised their maps removing Celtic/Costco before the petition went out. So I think they have been aware of this situation. But that begs the question, why didnt they alter their annexation borders so they could prevent a Baton Rouge counter-attack?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:33 pm to Lloyd Christmas
quote:
I saw some statements that said that SG had revised their maps removing Celtic/Costco before the petition went out.
That makes sense. Thanks!
quote:My guess is they knew if the MoL was not part of SG their remaining tax revenues would not support a city so the incorporation would fall apart anyway. But that's just a guess.
But that begs the question, why didnt they alter their annexation borders so they could prevent a Baton Rouge counter-attack?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:39 pm to LSURussian
quote:
"The Celtic Studio/Costco area was not in their maps," Councilman Buddy Amoroso noted, "so this does not affect the new, proposed St. George at all."
A spokesman for the incorporation committee said organizers believed the businesses were already within Baton Rouge city limits, based on their interpretation of the law, so they never considered including them in the boundaries of St. George.
LINK
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:42 pm to LSURussian
quote:
My guess is they knew if the MoL was not part of SG their remaining tax revenues would not support a city so the incorporation would fall apart anyway. But that's just a guess.
The land grab/tax base grab that their plan evolved to is certainly proving to be their undoing.
A Shenandoah area incorporation probably would have accomplished what they wanted, with a slight property tax increase.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:51 pm to Mickey Goldmill
The BATON ROUGE general doesn't want to be in St. George.
Hmmm.. Really?
So, now the BR General, the Mall of LA, and the Lake are city government agents? What does that even mean? A grand conspiracy?
Hmmm.. Really?
quote:
“Annexation of the Mall of Louisiana could likely invalidate the current petition process,” St. George spokesman Lionel Rainey said. “This is nothing more than the Baton Rouge City Parish Government yet again trying to inject themselves into the legal, petition process and deny over 70,000 registered voters the right to vote. This is city government and politics at its very worst.”
So, now the BR General, the Mall of LA, and the Lake are city government agents? What does that even mean? A grand conspiracy?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:52 pm to Mike da Tigah
"Powerful forces," remember???
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:56 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
A grand conspiracy?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 7:57 pm to LSURussian
quote:
"Powerful forces," remember???
I need to brush up on my nudge nudge wink wink, and secret handshake.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:05 pm to LSURussian
Exactly, it was public knowledge thd mayors right hand guy Daniels was negotiating with GGP to get them in the city.
Negotiations imply a give and take, a back and forth . So what were they promised?
Maybe just police and fire service, but maybe more. Who really knows, but it's obvious powerful people had a hand in all this from the legislature on down to City Hall.
Negotiations imply a give and take, a back and forth . So what were they promised?
Maybe just police and fire service, but maybe more. Who really knows, but it's obvious powerful people had a hand in all this from the legislature on down to City Hall.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:09 pm to doubleb
quote:
Exactly, it was public knowledge thd mayors right hand guy Daniels was negotiating with GGP to get them in the city.
Negotiations imply a give and take, a back and forth . So what were they promised?
Maybe just police and fire service, but maybe more. Who really knows, but it's obvious powerful people had a hand in all this from the legislature on down to City Hall.
I am sure Browning and Rainey were promising the moon as well, they didn't include them on the maps by accident.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:09 pm to doubleb
quote:
Negotiations imply a give and take, a back and forth . So what were they promised?
No they don't. I negotiate all the time in business with set pricing and also in personal, and so do you when you sell something or sell yourself, or ask someone out on a date, or convince your kid it's in their best interest to do their homework and excel in school, etc. it's not always so dark and sinister as you may think it is. Negotiations can be something as simple as selling someone on the benefits of something or the negatives of the counter offer.
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:11 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Lionel Rainey, a spokesman with the effort, said an exact count of the signatures will not be disclosed at the meeting. But he said the group is close to hitting their 18,000 signature mark. “If we keep at this pace, we’ll have the signatures within the next four to eight weeks,” he said.
From an updated Advocate online article tonight
The way I interpreted Boe's comments earlier, I thought the SG guys were ready to turn their petition in any day now and he wanted an AG opinion before he votes on the annexation. Four to eight weeks? That could be almost two months!
And didn't Rainey say a couple of weeks ago they were collecting 500 signatures a week? So they are "almost" there but 4 to 8 weeks means they are 2,000 to 4,000 shy of their needed 18,000. His definition of "almost" is different from mine.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:17 pm to Mike da Tigah
You are right, they probably called GGP and offered them to be in the city and nothing more. They probably jumped at the chance after thinking about it for a couple of days . After all there has been a run of people trying to get into the city of late , right?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:18 pm to doubleb
quote:
Daniels was negotiating with GGP
You jumped from "discussions" to "negotiations" without even blinking. Your paranoia is showing again.
I told you last December the MoL owners would not want to be at the mercy of some newcomer politician wannabes who might trap the Mall into a higher property tax situation without a penny's benefit going to the property owners...not even a decrease in their fire insurance premium rates.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:18 pm to LSURussian
What does it matter anyway?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:19 pm to LSURussian
Their lack of transparency regarding the petition for signatures has bothered me from the get go. Nobody ever knows how many they have. It really makes you wonder how well its going. You'd think if it was going really well, they would sound more positive about it and be trying to get that number out there more.
I could be reading into that too much, but I just think their signature collection process has been too secretive.
I could be reading into that too much, but I just think their signature collection process has been too secretive.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 8:21 pm to doubleb
quote:
After all there has been a run of people trying to get into the city of late , right?
Actually, yes....
Celtic Studios
Costco
The credit union on Airline Hwy
LSU
L'Auberge Casino
Perkins Rowe
OLOL
BR General Hospital
Mall of Louisiana
Page 6 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News