- 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: Opponents to ask for rehearing in St. George matter
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:30 pm to LSUTigerFan247
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:30 pm to LSUTigerFan247
Isn't Lamont "Big Dummy" Cole the head of the local NAACP?
ETA: Former Leader
ETA: Former Leader
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 12:35 pm
0
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:30 pm to tommy2tone1999
I think it could easily be argued that the date of the vote being certified is the official date of incorporation.
St George has been running transition meetings for years which BR refused to attend. Pretending that a transitioning wasn’t happening didn’t mean that it wasn’t happening.
St George has been running transition meetings for years which BR refused to attend. Pretending that a transitioning wasn’t happening didn’t mean that it wasn’t happening.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:33 pm to teke184
Argued yes certainly, but decide...not so certain. We all know the powerful have a lot of influence in Louisiana
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:35 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
Argued yes certainly, but decide...not so certain. We all know the powerful have a lot of influence in Louisiana
Problem is that you already have a 4-3 majority which ruled in favor of St George.
Who do they peel off and how, short of stalling the case until the composition of the state SC changes?
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:37 pm to teke184
Anything can happen. I'm confident the decision to allow incorporation will stand, but concerned about the decision on the date that incorporation will be certified as
Posted on 5/1/24 at 12:41 pm to tommy2tone1999
I don’t think the question of the incorporation itself gets reheard.
I think arguing the boundaries and incorporation date happens.
The boundaries should hold up because state law freezes them in the areas in question while an incorporation is in process. A successful incorporation vote, even despite the lawsuit, should have meant they were not allowed to incorporate those areas.
They may be more successful arguing the incorporation date but I think the fact that the city blew off budgeting based off a potential St George win and did not put money in escrow is a strike against them. They were supposed to draw up two budgets based on potential outcomes of the vote and all indications were they never drew up one for a St George win.
I think arguing the boundaries and incorporation date happens.
The boundaries should hold up because state law freezes them in the areas in question while an incorporation is in process. A successful incorporation vote, even despite the lawsuit, should have meant they were not allowed to incorporate those areas.
They may be more successful arguing the incorporation date but I think the fact that the city blew off budgeting based off a potential St George win and did not put money in escrow is a strike against them. They were supposed to draw up two budgets based on potential outcomes of the vote and all indications were they never drew up one for a St George win.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:00 pm to GBPackTigers
quote:
The problem with our freaking country. Litigation and lawyers.
It’s a top 5 problem
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's completely irrelevant to this thread and is just dogwhistle virtue signaling
You move further left daily. Now you are using the leftist deflection terms.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:06 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
The big issue is going to be the lawsuits when it comes to getting the money that was supposed to be escrowed.
SG continued to receive services from these tax dollars. How much? No one really knows.
Were these dollars supposed to be escrowed? Is that the law? Does anyone know or are they just talking?
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:09 pm to doubleb
quote:
SG continued to receive services from these tax dollars. How much? No one really knows.
No accounting on how it is spent is one problem.
Parish budgeting being that BRPD and BRFD get a straight percentage of EVERYTHING in the General Fund means there are clearly tens of millions belonging to St George which went elsewhere.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:11 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
My worry is that the Louisiana Supreme court will agree with this while still appearing to side with St. George on the incorporation, but being influenced by the likes of John Enquist, Charles Landry and Dick Lipsey
Considering the other state law issues in play, the latest the incorporation would be "recognized" is the date the vote was certified. Otherwise, an incorporation can be demolished solely because of litigation.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:26 pm to doubleb
quote:
SG continued to receive services from these tax dollars. How much? No one really know
What would seem fair to me would be to say, ok, this is how much tax dollars were earned in the area, subtract the value of services rec'd, and they are owed the rest.
How in the world they can value that will be hard, given how incompetent EBR likely is with accounting.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:29 pm to LSUFanHouston
I figure they try the Grambling defense of not having accounted for anything.
That won’t work here.
That won’t work here.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 1:57 pm to tharre4
quote:
St. George
I am happy for ya'll.
Hopefully the court shoots them down (no standing) and ya'll can break free from the leaches, rot, and corruption.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 2:00 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
What would seem fair to me would be to say, ok, this is how much tax dollars were earned in the area, subtract the value of services rec'd, and they are owed the rest
Yes, that seems very fair; however, they already spent the money on other things.
How can you claw back and take money from the FD pension fund, the civic giveaway at the community center, or the turning lane added to make traffic around some fat cats house flow better?
Posted on 5/1/24 at 2:01 pm to doubleb
quote:
How can you claw back and take money from the FD pension fund, the civic giveaway at the community center, or the turning lane added to make traffic around some fat cats house flow better?
Earmark money going forward in BR’s budget to be paid to St George.
Doesn’t have to be all at once but going “Lol, don’t have it” isn’t a sufficient defense.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 2:03 pm to doubleb
quote:
How can you claw back and take money from the FD pension fund, the civic giveaway at the community center, or the turning lane added to make traffic around some fat cats house flow better?
Lack of accountability got us this mess.
As far as I am concerned, they can float a bond and let the remaining taxpayers - the ones who benefitted from money that was not theirs - pay the bond back.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 2:05 pm to LSUFanHouston
I’m good with that.
BR’s bond rating is high because they were able to use St George as a piggy bank to help ensure they got paid.
Time for it to pay St George back.
BR’s bond rating is high because they were able to use St George as a piggy bank to help ensure they got paid.
Time for it to pay St George back.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 2:09 pm to doubleb
quote:
SG continued to receive services from these tax dollars. How much? No one really knows.
We do know that SG did not receive service of the BRPD and BRFD, not should SG be responsible for the pension funds for those departments
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 5/1/24 at 2:13 pm to teke184
quote:
I figure they try the Grambling defense of not having accounted for anything.
That won’t work here.
SG organizers have accounted though
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News