Riverfront Is An Embarrassment
Louisv

United States

#642 Mar 21, 2013
Agree wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. I'm not understanding the surveying off a chunk of the land. There was never any chunk flagged off in the past. It sounds to me like the Lamberts are being bull headed if this is what they are doing. But, this is just what you are thinking they have done, right?
He is stating the Lamberts have marked a ground as "common" area for the busses to park. Also marking where the Jury can place the barricades back
Sigh

Lafayette, LA

#643 Mar 21, 2013
Agree wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. I'm not understanding the surveying off a chunk of the land. There was never any chunk flagged off in the past. It sounds to me like the Lamberts are being bull headed if this is what they are doing. But, this is just what you are thinking they have done, right?
Yeah that's is just what someone told me, but it makes since if they did, the agreement is not allowing "full access." I forgot that one of the terms, they are going to give the concrete barriers back to the Lamberts, from what I understand those will used to block access from the rest of the property.
I can see your point, why not just open up the whole thing right? That may be "bullheaded" it may even be "spiteful" ...but it is what is and I can understand then limiting access to a specific area until all is settled.
Like I said, having some area to use for the buses now, time to continue research and have settlement talks, and have things cleaned up down there is worth it. At the end of the four month term if they don't come to an agreement then it is back to litigation
Sigh

Lafayette, LA

#644 Mar 21, 2013
Louisv wrote:
<quoted text>
He is stating the Lamberts have marked a ground as "common" area for the busses to park. Also marking where the Jury can place the barricades back
Correct...that is what "she" was stating
Catfish

Saint Francisville, LA

#645 Mar 22, 2013
DO NOT sign agreement wrote:
<quoted text> For the jury to sign the proposed agreement with the Lamberts would be an open admission by the jury that they believe the Lamberts own the property in question. Simply put, this is why the Lamberts are pushing so very hard for the jury to sign.
Jurors, please hold steadfast. Uphold your oaths and PLEASE help save our riverfront property.
See! Right above the words I am typing now is a perfect example of posters that PISS MY OFF!

It is obviously made by someone that has NO idea what they are talking about and all they are trying to do is get people all worked up so we continue to bicker like school children.

It is not an admission of anything, it was discussed in chambers with both sides and their attorneys present and it is a GOOD deal for everyone. No one gains with this deal except the public.
Aintthatashame

Saint Francisville, LA

#646 Mar 22, 2013
Sigh wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, please excuse any typos in advance, i'm posting from my phone and i broke my reading glasses today.
They listed the terms in the paper...it would not be a admission of anything as one poster said. When they went to court the other day they were in the judges chambers for 2 hours, when they came out the judge aunoonced that the parties have come to an interim agreement for four months and the jury should ratify it at the next meeting. So it was technically prepare by both parties through negotiations in the judges chambers.
The article was posted a couple of pages back, basically it places everything on hold for four months, which would be great for both sides. It gives time for the Police jury to finish their research and will give both sides a chance to talk and perhaps come to a final settlement.
It calls for the Lamberts to remove the "junk" and to allow enough area for parkin and busses to turn arojnd for the next four months.
The Jury will place the Lamberts on their insurance policy in regards to the area in question , that way if a member of the public using the land is injured the Lamberts are covered , which has been a big concern for them.
It is actually a great deal for all parties...no one is admitting that anyone has any rights or don't have any rights, it simply cools things down and gives everyone a chance to slow down and think this out.
Instead of ratifying at the last meeting they authorized Hashagan and a committee (Percy, Kean, and Lea Lea) the authority to authorized.
I'm told by a friend of mine that the Lamberts already surveyed and flaged off chunk of land that the agreement will give the parish temporary use to, hopefully noone gets bull headed and signs this baby so we can have a clean river front and time to come to a deal that want cost us 100K +
I wonder if lambert will remove to old cranes which have been an eyesore for years?
Sigh

Saint Francisville, LA

#647 Mar 22, 2013
Aintthatashame wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if lambert will remove to old cranes which have been an eyesore for years?
Don't know, the agreement is to "clean up the area" ... so maybe
Sigh

Saint Francisville, LA

#648 Mar 22, 2013
Aintthatashame wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if lambert will remove to old cranes which have been an eyesore for years?
Also...I know it sounds strange, or maybe even BS, but I've always liked the old cranes. I don't know why but I've always found them neat.
Aintthatashame

Saint Francisville, LA

#649 Mar 22, 2013
Sigh wrote:
<quoted text>
Also...I know it sounds strange, or maybe even BS, but I've always liked the old cranes. I don't know why but I've always found them neat.
That does sound like BS. Why not ask if they can be moved to your ffront yard.
Sigh

Saint Francisville, LA

#650 Mar 22, 2013
Aintthatashame wrote:
<quoted text>
That does sound like BS. Why not ask if they can be moved to your ffront yard.
Because they would look out of place…though if I owned property on a creek or river…I could make it work… maybe use it like a statue. Landscape around it a bit. You know, like the town did with the old caboose.

Could look nice, but I like old stuff like that.
Figures

United States

#651 Mar 22, 2013
Sigh wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they would look out of place…though if I owned property on a creek or river…I could make it work… maybe use it like a statue. Landscape around it a bit. You know, like the town did with the old caboose.
Could look nice, but I like old stuff like that.
It does not surprise me that you would like this eyesore of trash at the River. You are, Afterall, a champion of the Lamberts.
Sigh

Saint Francisville, LA

#652 Mar 22, 2013
Figures wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not surprise me that you would like this eyesore of trash at the River. You are, Afterall, a champion of the Lamberts.
Meh... beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I just see potential for it.
almost normal

United States

#653 Mar 23, 2013
Sigh wrote:
<quoted text>
Meh... beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I just see potential for it.
You gotta be kidding me. This poster has more than one screw loose.
Lauren G

United States

#654 Mar 23, 2013
Ask yourself WHY Old Gator, Bigbill1,Sigh and louisv are so strongly pushing for the PJ to sign the agreement? Surely it could not be that they are among a "stacked audience" which seems to be quite similar to the "stacked supporters" at the PJ meeting last Monday. I have to admit, the Lambert's are doing one helluva job of playing the roll of "Poor Pitiful Pearl". I encourage you to ignore the postings of the above four. Their intent is so obvious. Let's cut out this back and forth dialog which will resolve nothing more than an ego trip for the squatters and their supporters.

LET'S GO TO TRIAL!!!!!....and the truth shall prevail.
Lauren G

United States

#655 Mar 23, 2013
O.K. you four. Respond with how stupid I am. If there is any fairness and honor in our judicial system, the Paul, Sr. long ranged plot will surface and will be exposed for what it is, an oblique attempt to steal public property.
Get Real

Foley, AL

#656 Mar 24, 2013
Who owns the river frontage, Old ferry landing, old hwy 10, and adjacent lots on the Point Coupee side?
Lauren G

Denham Springs, LA

#657 Mar 24, 2013
OK gang, miss information on my part!!! I hear some have been reported for bullying. I will be more careful.
Who Knows

United States

#658 Mar 24, 2013
Get Real wrote:
Who owns the river frontage, Old ferry landing, old hwy 10, and adjacent lots on the Point Coupee side?
This is a great question
Lauren G

United States

#659 Mar 24, 2013
Lauren G wrote:
OK gang, miss information on my part!!! I hear some have been reported for bullying. I will be more careful.
OK, AH. Quit poting under my screen name. Get a screen name of your own. Here's a suggestion.."JERK"
Lauren G

Zachary, LA

#660 Mar 24, 2013
Ok, I am a JERK! I am still giving misinformation! I will try to be careful.
WF Landowner

Baton Rouge, LA

#661 Mar 29, 2013
Gee! I just stumbled onto this forum.
I just have one question: What makes any of you think that the Parish has an ownership claim to the property in dispute? Are these the same people who regularly trespass onto my property to fish out my ponds and the same folks who regularly trespass to hunt? Please don't call me names. I am just asking a question.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News St. Francisville agrees to work with parish to ... 1 hr Riverfront 1
The 2019 WFP Elections Fri littleasy 60
BTon Rouge Mar 21 Crawdaddy 78
Can We Identify The Top Ten Characteristics Tha... Mar 21 Reply 25
4H building Mar 20 Good times ahead 6
D'Aquilla Sues Council - What Do You Think? Mar 20 not so fast 40
HSBaseball Mar 19 Nowandnever 7

St. Francisville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

St. Francisville Mortgages