West Feliciana Police Jury committee splits on lawsuit offer

May 2, 2013 Full story: The Advocate 77

Advocate staff photo by JAMES MINTON -- Buses await passengers from the riverboat American Queen at the old St.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#1 May 3, 2013
I will be so glad when this finally goes to court. Has a date been set?
SMell

Oklahoma City, OK

#2 May 3, 2013
This Parish is in trouble with Mel Percy serving on any committee. I know him from Clinton. He is an insecure nobody with "little man syndrome". Good luck with that one.

Since: Apr 13

Donaldsonville

#3 May 3, 2013
I am new here not sure how things work. But to me things seem to NOT work. Why has it taken years with nothing taken place. Does this family not want people who come into this parish to visit and SPEND MONEY enter and not see trash. Just wondering?.....

“Fresh Air”

Since: Jan 11

Saint Francisville

#4 May 3, 2013
Funeralguy70775 wrote:
I am new here not sure how things work. But to me things seem to NOT work. Why has it taken years with nothing taken place. Does this family not want people who come into this parish to visit and SPEND MONEY enter and not see trash. Just wondering?.....
Here's a suggestion: Go to a police jury meeting. Wait 3-6 months to a year and go to another one. You will find deliberations are continuing on many things that should have been resolved within that period of time. P. S. You are 100% right that it is far from unreasonable to expect the people who have the junk down there to have enough pride in our community, if not themselves, to clean it up.

Since: Apr 13

Donaldsonville

#5 May 3, 2013
countrylad wrote:
<quoted text>Here's a suggestion: Go to a police jury meeting. Wait 3-6 months to a year and go to another one. You will find deliberations are continuing on many things that should have been resolved within that period of time. P. S. You are 100% right that it is far from unreasonable to expect the people who have the junk down there to have enough pride in our community, if not themselves, to clean it up.
I have not been able to make a meeting because they have them to early in the evening. I think it may be for that reason so that not a lot of people can go. I maybe wrong but u don't think so. They won't admit it of course but I think it's the case.
Time Warp

Gonzales, LA

#6 May 3, 2013
Funeralguy70775 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not been able to make a meeting because they have them to early in the evening. I think it may be for that reason so that not a lot of people can go. I maybe wrong but u don't think so. They won't admit it of course but I think it's the case.
At one time the meetings were aired on cable and the Internet. Obviously, someone or somebody decided that wasn't a good thing, too many people were coming to the same conclusion you did!

Since: Apr 13

Donaldsonville

#7 May 3, 2013
Time Warp wrote:
<quoted text>At one time the meetings were aired on cable and the Internet. Obviously, someone or somebody decided that wasn't a good thing, too many people were coming to the same conclusion you did!
Well I guess it's time for a change!
Catfish

Saint Francisville, LA

#8 May 3, 2013
zachary wrote:
I will be so glad when this finally goes to court. Has a date been set?
I'm sure everyone is ready for this to end.

The date for the Lamberts suit was set for either the last week of March or early April. I can't remember, but after the went for the hearing on the motions filed by the Jury they pushed the dares back (without setting a new one i think) to give the parties time to ratify the agreement.

I would assume that if the Lamberts reject the interim offer, the case will be heard next month as long as there isn't any reconventional demands by the parish. If they accept then I would then it would be at least 4 months down the road after the term for the interim agreement has expired.

Funeral guy, this hasn't actually been going on that long. There was no dispute in ownership until last summer. Also, of course they care, but thy also have to protect what they believe is theirs.

Just like the parish cares , but they don't want to jump to the finish so the area can be cleaned up when they may be giving up rights to something they own.
Actually

Saint Francisville, LA

#9 May 3, 2013
Time Warp wrote:
<quoted text>
At one time the meetings were aired on cable and the Internet. Obviously, someone or somebody decided that wasn't a good thing, too many people were coming to the same conclusion you did!
There was no big conspiracy to stop airing them, the guy that did it went out of business. I'm sure if anyone else stepped forward to do it they would be "allowed" to.
No Fault

Oklahoma City, OK

#10 May 3, 2013
SMell wrote:
This Parish is in trouble with Mel Percy serving on any committee. I know him from Clinton. He is an insecure nobody with "little man syndrome". Good luck with that one.
This is really not Mel's fault. He owes his allegiance to Tom McVea. Tom has made his stance with his in laws clear on this matter. I believe Mel knows that the Lamberts don't really own this land but he wants to please Mr. McVea so he must try to look good in the Lambeets eyes.
Bob

Oklahoma City, OK

#11 May 4, 2013
No Fault wrote:
<quoted text>
This is really not Mel's fault. He owes his allegiance to Tom McVea. Tom has made his stance with his in laws clear on this matter. I believe Mel knows that the Lamberts don't really own this land but he wants to please Mr. McVea so he must try to look good in the Lambeets eyes.
Mel has not come out in favor if the Lamberts, he just liked the other proposal better. The only difference between the two was the amount of land they are getting to use for the next four months. He voted no on this one because he believes , as Williams believes, that the Lamberts are going to reject it.

Mel also voted for the abstract, for hiring the attorney, and to remove the barricades. Dude hasn't been "pro-lambert" in any of this. He actions of late has just shown that he is 1) growing tired of this and thinks it is taken too long and costing to much to complete the abstract, and 2) that he dosen't know for sure who owns it but wants to put a cap on this and end the dispute before we rack up a half a million dollars worth of bills.

With all that said, I can't stand the dude and hope he gets beat out next term.
serve the public

Clinton, LA

#12 May 4, 2013
Why doesn't the jury just expropriate the land in question? Providing a landing place and a parking lot for the buses that carry the money-laden tourists from the riverboats into the parish and its tourist attractions is obviously in the public interest.
End of lawsuit- end of problem- end of wasting the public's time and money.
Expropriation

Oklahoma City, OK

#13 May 4, 2013
serve the public wrote:
Why doesn't the jury just expropriate the land in question? Providing a landing place and a parking lot for the buses that carry the money-laden tourists from the riverboats into the parish and its tourist attractions is obviously in the public interest.
End of lawsuit- end of problem- end of wasting the public's time and money.
This is a great plan. Who does the Parish expropriate it from? The Lamberts do not have a title to the land. They are trying to possess against the public. They never bought it from the Parish. Neither did the Lacost. It has never stopped being public land or being used by the public so who do we expropriate from? Ourselves? The Lamberts would have to prove ownership and they can not.
Bob

Saint Francisville, LA

#14 May 4, 2013
They have a title, the current Jury just dose not agree that the title is for the property that they are claiming.

The poster is right, they could expropriate the property and be down with it, they would just have to agree that the Lamberts do own it....that ain't goin to happen

“Fresh Air”

Since: Jan 11

Saint Francisville

#15 May 4, 2013
How about if the parish exercised eminent domain via condemnation or whatever and put the fair market value of the property in escrow to be paid to the owner if the ownership is ever actually established? It seems like that could at least give the parish the right to clean it up and make whatever improvements are needed sooner rather than later.
Bubba

Saint Francisville, LA

#16 May 5, 2013
countrylad wrote:
How about if the parish exercised eminent domain via condemnation or whatever and put the fair market value of the property in escrow to be paid to the owner if the ownership is ever actually established? It seems like that could at least give the parish the right to clean it up and make whatever improvements are needed sooner rather than later.
It dosen't work like that, procedurally they have to identify and pay a owner. Now they can pay the Lamberts for it and be done with it but they won't, Rey wouldn't pay anyone because two of the are convinced that the parish actually owns it and even though it would likely be cheaper than a lawsuit to buy it and end the dispute, the "principle" of the matter comes into play and they seem to have a "fight this no matter the cost" approach.
Me Too

Oklahoma City, OK

#17 May 5, 2013
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>
It dosen't work like that, procedurally they have to identify and pay a owner. Now they can pay the Lamberts for it and be done with it but they won't, Rey wouldn't pay anyone because two of the are convinced that the parish actually owns it and even though it would likely be cheaper than a lawsuit to buy it and end the dispute, the "principle" of the matter comes into play and they seem to have a "fight this no matter the cost" approach.
I want in on this Lambert action. It's obvious that they do not own this land and yet you suggest that the taxpayers can pay them without any proof of ownership. Please sir, I want some of that.
Scrap

Baker, LA

#18 May 5, 2013
Anyone have a guess as to the value of scrap metal on the property?
Bubba

Baton Rouge, LA

#19 May 5, 2013
Me Too wrote:
<quoted text>
I want in on this Lambert action. It's obvious that they do not own this land and yet you suggest that the taxpayers can pay them without any proof of ownership. Please sir, I want some of that.
Obviously it is not obvious that they don't own it, if it was obvious as you say, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now and the abstract would of been completed in a month, not going on six months with no word as to when it will be done.

The facts are they have a valid claim, you may not like it, but that they do. The question is how much do we want to spend to show they don't ... If in fact they don't. I've seen info from both sides and I'm not sure 100% either way.
Uhm

Saint Francisville, LA

#20 May 5, 2013
Scrap wrote:
Anyone have a guess as to the value of scrap metal on the property?
$100,000 in the three cranes easy

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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
Rodeo Arena 2 hr Craig Graham 4
Opperman for DA 2 hr okay ill tell 97
Historical Bayou Sara Riverfront 3 hr Levee Batture 60
WF Schools 6 hr thatguy 18
who should take place as New Sherrif. 8 hr HowSad 23
Publics Settlement Proposal on Lambert lawsuit Sep 27 Well 142
sydney picou judge !! really Sep 27 Mother Earth 35

St. Francisville Jobs

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 ]