Comments
1 - 20 of 59 Comments Last updated Apr 24, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#1 Apr 20, 2013
In most areas no matter who owns it there is laws against blighted property. The authorities notify the owners and order the blighted property to be cleaned up or the powers of the local government clean it up or pay to have it done and bill the property owners. Clearly the property is in dispute as to who owns it but I think the rusted cranes and all the other junk and scrapped metal and broken concrete is owned by the family that claims to own the property. I find it hard to believe that they can turn that area into a legal dump for their own private use without the local government forcing them to clean it up. If they want to keep everyone else off of it they should have to put up a normal fence or acceptable barricade and signs declaring no trespassing signs like the nuclear plant has. I drove up there awhile back and was surprised to see what a eyesore they have created for the local public to have to put up with and for the visitors and tourist to see what the local government will tolerate. Whoever controls that parish and town needs to step up to the plate and do their job.

“Fresh Air”

Since: Jan 11

Saint Francisville

#2 Apr 20, 2013
And now that riverboats stop here regularly, imagine what their passengers' first impressions of our town must be. It is hard to believe the people who own that and other junked-up and littered-over property in our parish cannot see or don't care how trashy it makes them and the rest of us look.
Aintthatashame

Saint Francisville, LA

#3 Apr 20, 2013
countrylad wrote:
And now that riverboats stop here regularly, imagine what their passengers' first impressions of our town must be. It is hard to believe the people who own that and other junked-up and littered-over property in our parish cannot see or don't care how trashy it makes them and the rest of us look.
Some posters on Topix think it is justified as if it is something new to protect the property. The old cranes have been an eyesore for years and the junk just adds to the eyesore. I know a person who does bus tours picking up tourists from the paddle boats and several comments have been made about the junk. As you might suspect none were favorable. It is a miracle that some kids have not been hurt playing on the debris.
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#4 Apr 20, 2013
I would think that St. Francisville has some kind of laws,ordinances, beautification rules or something to make a legal standing on removing the junk by whoever owns it or clean it up and make whoever owns this junk pay the bill for its removal. If the owner of this junk thinks it has value give them a week or two to haul it off and keep it. The people need to go to the police jury meetings and make their opinions heard and let them know that they were voted in to enforce the laws and take care of the public areas.
I think

Saint Francisville, LA

#5 Apr 20, 2013
I think property owner's rights are absolute. If you would like to clean it up, you should approach the owners with a reasonable offer. If it is in a state of disrepair, it should be worth less than if it were improved. This sounds like a perfect opportunity to buy low, improve it, and turn a profit.
Realtor

Saint Francisville, LA

#6 Apr 22, 2013
I think wrote:
I think property owner's rights are absolute. If you would like to clean it up, you should approach the owners with a reasonable offer. If it is in a state of disrepair, it should be worth less than if it were improved. This sounds like a perfect opportunity to buy low, improve it, and turn a profit.
I don't think you can get a deal on this property!

Since: Feb 13

Baton Rouge, LA

#7 Apr 22, 2013
For someone who constantly comments on this topic Zachary, you sure don't keep up with it much.

The parish does have such and ordinance, this one would fall under the nuisance ordinance, and such complaints have been filed.

The problem here is that though all that is out there can be considered "junk" , it isn't simply "littered" about , it is a ad hoc barricade in a nonresidential area.

Now, you, like myself, want it gone and the area to be cleaned up so thy visitors will get a better first impression as they step off of the boat. Apart of the agreed upon interim agreement is all of the "junk" must be moved. So yes, we should all speak to our jurors, and ask them to stop wasting time and ratify what they agreed to in the judges chambers over a month ago, and then they will have 4 months to come to a more permanent agreement or to continue win the trial.
Old Timer

Oklahoma City, OK

#8 Apr 22, 2013
Old_Gator wrote:
For someone who constantly comments on this topic Zachary, you sure don't keep up with it much.
The parish does have such and ordinance, this one would fall under the nuisance ordinance, and such complaints have been filed.
The problem here is that though all that is out there can be considered "junk" , it isn't simply "littered" about , it is a ad hoc barricade in a nonresidential area.
Now, you, like myself, want it gone and the area to be cleaned up so thy visitors will get a better first impression as they step off of the boat. Apart of the agreed upon interim agreement is all of the "junk" must be moved. So yes, we should all speak to our jurors, and ask them to stop wasting time and ratify what they agreed to in the judges chambers over a month ago, and then they will have 4 months to come to a more permanent agreement or to continue win the trial.
Old Gator, you need to talk with your buddy Pal and his brother Ricky to get them to agree to the terms of the agreement that the PJ submitted. I understand that the PJ presented a fair agreement that The Lamberts and their attorneys refused to ratify. Pal and Ricky will never agree to anything that does not put money in their pockets.

Since: Feb 13

Baton Rouge, LA

#9 Apr 22, 2013
Old Timer wrote:
<quoted text>
Old Gator, you need to talk with your buddy Pal and his brother Ricky to get them to agree to the terms of the agreement that the PJ submitted. I understand that the PJ presented a fair agreement that The Lamberts and their attorneys refused to ratify. Pal and Ricky will never agree to anything that does not put money in their pockets.
Are you taking about a new proposal?

I am not aware of the police jury submitting anything to the Lamberts, not saying they didn't just that I'm unaware of it and I was talking to my juror about this situation last week and they didn't meantion anything about offering any proposal to the Lamberts and I specifically asked when the jury was going to ratify tw interim agreement or if they were close to completing a deal.

The interim agreement was agreed to by both attorneys in the judges chambers, if the Lamberts turned anything down, I'm sure it is because the police jury added something they was not already agreed to.
Cotizen Kane

Oklahoma City, OK

#10 Apr 22, 2013
Old_Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you taking about a new proposal?
I am not aware of the police jury submitting anything to the Lamberts, not saying they didn't just that I'm unaware of it and I was talking to my juror about this situation last week and they didn't meantion anything about offering any proposal to the Lamberts and I specifically asked when the jury was going to ratify tw interim agreement or if they were close to completing a deal.
The interim agreement was agreed to by both attorneys in the judges chambers, if the Lamberts turned anything down, I'm sure it is because the police jury added something they was not already agreed to.
Of course, Old Gator you think that the Lamberts are so fair and they would do no wrong against the public and that their attorney would only draw up an interim agreement that was fair to the public's interest.

You say "I'm sure its becaus the Poice Jury added something..." What a joke. Your obvious only interest is protection of the Lamberts.
Of course you know that the PJ offered revisions that protected the public's land. You know EVERYTHING else about this lawsuit.
The Lamberts need to get their junk off the publics land. If they had a clear title to this land, they would not have filed a lawsuit to begin a possessory claim.

You said before you are an old retired attorney. Are you one of the lawyers that worked for the parish and helped the Lamberts over the years with their attempts at taking away the publics land. Seems to me like you are mighty protective of the Lamberts.
GPS43

United States

#11 Apr 22, 2013
It is blatantly obvious on which side of this debacle Old Gator's interests lie. His "pro bono" advice is totally pro-Lambert. Worry not, Old Gator, the check is in the mail.
Gretchen Noble

United States

#12 Apr 22, 2013
Isn't it amazing how Old Gator becomes so quiet when his hand is called? He must not have been a very good lawyer. Even with the mediocre practitioners they always have a retort, and some of them almost make sense.

Since: Feb 13

Donaldsonville, LA

#13 Apr 22, 2013
I don't comment on personal attacks , If someone wants to talk facts and have a rational dialogue on a given issue then I partake in the discussion. Otherwise I have no reason, or desire to go back and forth with a faceless person on the interwebs. It is a waste of my time and energy.

In other words, the two posters didn't say anything worth replying to, thus I have nothing to say, and now that I think of it....neither did you Mrs. Noble.
Bubba

Donaldsonville, LA

#14 Apr 22, 2013
Gretchen Noble wrote:
Isn't it amazing how Old Gator becomes so quiet when his hand is called? He must not have been a very good lawyer. Even with the mediocre practitioners they always have a retort, and some of them almost make sense.
Are you the Noble that lives out on Audubon Lane?
Cotizen Kane and GPS43

Baton Rouge, LA

#15 Apr 22, 2013
You are right! We really should get all the facts before we post on here. Our error!!!
Just Saying

Donaldsonville, LA

#16 Apr 22, 2013
Cotizen Kane and GPS43 wrote:
You are right! We really should get all the facts before we post on here. Our error!!!
Or at least simply keep to posting your opinion on the subject at hand and not sling personal insults at a poster you disagree with. It is incredible childish and cowardly to do so. At least Ms. Noble had the ovaries to post under her name when doing so. Ill advised, but respectable that she is not hiding.

I would like to hear what she has to say about all of this. Please, tell us your opinion Gretch
Catfish

Baton Rouge, LA

#17 Apr 23, 2013
Cotizen Kane wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, Old Gator you think that the Lamberts are so fair and they would do no wrong against the public and that their attorney would only draw up an interim agreement that was fair to the public's interest.
Where are you conning from with this? He never said anything of the such, they agreed to the terms in the judges chambers, that is all the agreement should say no matter who draws it up.
It should say something to the effect of , 1) Lamberts will remove the concrete colverts and other items, 2) the jury will return the barricades they removed, 3) the jury will add the Lamberts to their insurance policy to indemnify the Lamberts from anyone lawsuit if a person /persons are injured while on the property, 4) they parish will be allowed to use a portion of the property for parking and for bud turnarounds, 5) all of the aforementioned agreements will expire 4 months form signing. That's it! After talking to both sides I'm of the opinion that it is he parish that is hold up as Gator said.
Cotizen Kane wrote:
<quoted text>You say "I'm sure its becaus the Poice Jury added something..." What a joke. Your obvious only interest is protection of the Lamberts.
Of course you know that the PJ offered revisions that protected the public's land. You know EVERYTHING else about this lawsuit.
The Lamberts need to get their junk off the publics land. If they had a clear title to this land, they would not have filed a lawsuit to begin a possessory claim..
What is obvious here is that you don't understand what a possessory action is. It is an action to recover possession of property. It is the appropriate action to file because they have just title to the property in question. They are suing because the parish disturbed they peaceful possession of the concrete barriers , which were theirs by the terms of the contract, and by pouring concrete of a section of land that they owned by acts of sales. The suit is not attempting to establish ownership, as you seem to think, if that was a case they would of files a petitory action is what thy would of filed to enforce their legal claim on the property.

In regards to the rest of your post, I don't think Gator is being "protective" over anyone, he is simply expressing his opinion on this matter. The facts leads him to believe that the Lamberts are the proper owners , obviously you disagree, but there is no need to attempt to insult him because of it.
Catfish

Baton Rouge, LA

#18 Apr 23, 2013
Excuse the awkwardness of the last sentence of the second to last paragraph. I meant to say "the suit is not to establish ownership, as you seem to thank, if so they would of files a petitory action to enforce what they believe gives them legal title to the property."
Catfish

Baton Rouge, LA

#19 Apr 23, 2013
Old Timer wrote:
<quoted text>
Old Gator, you need to talk with your buddy Pal and his brother Ricky to get them to agree to the terms of the agreement that the PJ submitted. I understand that the PJ presented a fair agreement that The Lamberts and their attorneys refused to ratify. Pal and Ricky will never agree to anything that does not put money in their pockets.
Old Timer, are you talking about a permanent agreement? What was the terms of this "fair" agreement?
Repetition

Oklahoma City, OK

#20 Apr 23, 2013
Catfish wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are you conning from with this? He never said anything of the such, they agreed to the terms in the judges chambers, that is all the agreement should say no matter who draws it up.
It should say something to the effect of , 1) Lamberts will remove the concrete colverts and other items, 2) the jury will return the barricades they removed, 3) the jury will add the Lamberts to their insurance policy to indemnify the Lamberts from anyone lawsuit if a person /persons are injured while on the property, 4) they parish will be allowed to use a portion of the property for parking and for bud turnarounds, 5) all of the aforementioned agreements will expire 4 months form signing. That's it! After talking to both sides I'm of the opinion that it is he parish that is hold up as Gator said.
<quoted text>
What is obvious here is that you don't understand what a possessory action is. It is an action to recover possession of property. It is the appropriate action to file because they have just title to the property in question. They are suing because the parish disturbed they peaceful possession of the concrete barriers , which were theirs by the terms of the contract, and by pouring concrete of a section of land that they owned by acts of sales. The suit is not attempting to establish ownership, as you seem to think, if that was a case they would of files a petitory action is what thy would of filed to enforce their legal claim on the property.
In regards to the rest of your post, I don't think Gator is being "protective" over anyone, he is simply expressing his opinion on this matter. The facts leads him to believe that the Lamberts are the proper owners , obviously you disagree, but there is no need to attempt to insult him because of it.
The Lamberts DO NOT have just title.
The Lamberts DO NOT have peaceful possession of concrete barriers.
The Lamberts DO NOT own the State Highway to the River.
The Public has peaceful possession of this land.

This exact same Public Riverfront along with the public boat landing and public ferry landing has been in place and owned by the public since the 1800s. Mr. Lambert has been fooling and cheating the public out of its money and land for long enough. This forced Interim Agreement required by Judge Hal Ware is no different than the forced Permananrt Servitude required by DA Hal Ware.
Public Beware!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

St. Francisville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How SAFE is the NUKE? 1 hr Seve 6
Posters? 3 hr Seve 1
New Lebanese Restaurant in Town 5 hr Odetta 21
Big Man Percy 6 hr Bewildered 10
new business? 6 hr curious 1
hiking 9 hr You_must_be_joking 5
night life 9 hr You_must_be_joking 6
•••
•••
St. Francisville Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

St. Francisville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

St. Francisville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

St. Francisville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in St. Francisville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••