Low river level spurs push for boat launch

There are 20 comments on the Jul 20, 2012, The Advocate story titled Low river level spurs push for boat launch. In it, The Advocate reports that:

The jury recently acquired the ferry landing road, formerly part of La. 10, after the John James Audubon Bridge opened in May 2011 and negated the need for a ferry between St.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Advocate.

Still Smoking

Baton Rouge, LA

#286 Sep 13, 2012
Snow wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you’re right they did offer it as a ROW and that is what kicked all this off but last week they made a new offer. No smoke, no mirrors, just the truth.
Its not a Donation of Property.
Still just a ROW for the access to the River. Its not the barricaded parking that was built by the State for the taxpayers.
The Lamberts lawyers are just calling it a Donation now but the wording is for a right of way with extreme measures to the benefit of the Lamberts.
It is working however, the public seems to think the Lamberts are not blowing smoke. Check the image in the mirror - its reversed from what you think it is.
You need to KNOW this

United States

#287 Sep 13, 2012
We know the Lamberts. We can only hope that the court will be recognizing them for what they are.
and they are

United States

#288 Sep 13, 2012
SQUATTERS
Sold Out

Euless, TX

#289 Sep 13, 2012
Old Gator wrote:
Actually you're wrong, the sub-lease they signed with the Paul Sr. was for both sides and the Parish sold what they owned to Paul Sr in the 1960's. Throw in the sale of lot "b" and "c" plus all accretion to Paul Sr. from the Lacost and you have all the reasons why the family believes it is theirs.
Are you really suggesting that the Parish President sold all our Public property to Mr. Lambert in 1960? How could this happen without a public hearing?
Old Gator

Donaldsonville, LA

#290 Sep 14, 2012
Sold Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really suggesting that the Parish President sold all our Public property to Mr. Lambert in 1960? How could this happen without a public hearing?
I'm not suggesting anything, I was stating a fact. The Jury at that time went through the proper procedures for that time. They discussed tabs approved the sale at a meeting, and then put the levee and adjacent land up for public auction. Paul Sr. Had the winning bid and became the owner.
Old Gator

Denham Springs, LA

#291 Sep 14, 2012
Sorry, "and" not "tabs"
Yes you are still smoking

Denham Springs, LA

#292 Sep 14, 2012
Still Smoking wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not a Donation of Property.
Still just a ROW for the access to the River. Its not the barricaded parking that was built by the State for the taxpayers.
The Lamberts lawyers are just calling it a Donation now but the wording is for a right of way with extreme measures to the benefit of the Lamberts.
It is working however, the public seems to think the Lamberts are not blowing smoke. Check the image in the mirror - its reversed from what you think it is.
I don't know what you are puffing on over there to make you think you know what is going on but clearly you are out of the loop and not keeping up.

Stay high my friend, they will be over to your place with some more cool aid soon
Immoral and Unethical

Euless, TX

#293 Sep 14, 2012
Old Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not suggesting anything, I was stating a fact. The Jury at that time went through the proper procedures for that time. They discussed tabs approved the sale at a meeting, and then put the levee and adjacent land up for public auction. Paul Sr. Had the winning bid and became the owner.
Yes. The Police jury Preident at the time was the close business partner of Mr. Lambert. President Garret and Lambet have multiple business dealings at this time period. Including the sell of gravel for State and Parish bids. Just look it up in the courthouse records and PJ minutes. There are court records with the business dealings of Garret and Lambert as early as 1957 and as late as 1984
The PJ minutes are online through the State libraries and archives from the Democrat Newspaper.
Garret called a Special meeting held at Mr. Lambets request with just enough jurors present to have a quorum. A very small add was ran in the Democrat and one week later Mr. Lambert had the winning bid as he and one other gentleman were the only bidders. However, the minutes from the Special Meeting reveal the jurors did not agree to sell all the public lands but in fact was only the eastern border of the Bayou Sara levee. The PJ minutes do not state "all public lands" or the Riverfront. This eastern border of the levee was actually mostly non existance in 1960 as the majority of this levee had sloughed off into the bayou thus making it the property of the State.
Proper procedures were far from followed. Perhaps the Attorney General could review this matter on behalf of the citizens of West Feliciana and the State of Louisiana. The 1960s President and his limited jurors
did not have the authority to give away an unspecified amount of public property to a private individual of their choosing. They definitely did not sell him the ferry landing or the State highway or the property managed by the State. These areas were established long before the purchases made by Mr. Lambert.
Catfish

Euless, TX

#294 Sep 15, 2012
The above post is a lot of opinion that is based off of some a very bad legal analysis, with a couple a scattered facts.

I guess such is the way of topix.
Captain Bennett

Euless, TX

#295 Sep 17, 2012
Baseball mom wrote:
They are shutting us out because Lea Lea and her cohorts on the jury somehow think this property, which the Lambert family has allowed free, full public access to for many years, belongs to the WFPPJ.
Where is the legal documentation that it's parish property? I've never heard of accreted property becoming public domain, either parish or state.
I'm sure if the state had any indication it was somehow state property, they would have long ago claimed ownership.
As I understand it, Pal went to the jury with a request they give him a written servitude for the strip of land the ramp is being poured on because he feels it may belong to his family. He asked that the servitude give full and unencumbered access at no cost to the jury. The jury could have easily entered that agreement with stipulations that if it was determined that it was public property, the servitude would be voided. They refused and now are upset that he isn't allowing access to adjacent property his family has maintained and paid taxes on for approximately 50 years.
I feel sure the buses would have parking today if they had signed the servitude.
Mrs Williams will know soon enough that her style of politics is counter-productive to progress. But that's her problem. How much have we/are we spending on surveys, abstract searches, etc.? Is she going to reimburse the parish when the courts rule against the jury?
Time will tell.....
Mr. P.M. Bennett was the ferry captain in 1935. He worked for a Mr. Friedricks. Mr. Frederick leased the 2 ferry landings from the West Feliciana Parish jury for the Ferry Franchise which charged a fee for people, livestock and even Mr. Lamberts gravel trucks to cross the River.
These are the same 2 ferry landings and the surrounding property the parish and the people owned as far back as the 1850s when the same ferry crossings were in existence.
The confusion was created in 1949 and 1950 when it was determined that due to the movement of the waters along Bayou Sara along Sun Street that it would be best to move the highway approach for the landings over to Principle Street. So the decision was made to move the highway over to Principle Street and then curve back to a section of Sun Street to continue to utilize the original ferry landings. The State engineers had to cross over a few abandoned lots in Square 2 which were located between Sun Street and Principle Street. They paid Ms. Lacost and her children to purchase these abandoned lots for a ROW to the cross over these few lots with the built up road and then the road rejoined the parish owned Sun Street. Sun Street split off to 2 different landings. A high water landing and a low water landing.
It was very common during the 1950s and 1960s for The State and Mr. Lambert to lease property to take timber, gravel and sand. Lambert was leasing lots further down the River from the Lacost as well as lands from Mr. Garrett and Mr. Babers to take dirt and gravel to build up the parish and state roads in West Feliciana. He was paid very well for his services. He was not leasing the ferry landings to the State or Parish. He did not own this property. The people owned this property. The people still own this property.
Mr. Lambert did purchase abandoned lots from Ms. Lacost as well as a few others. This was about the same time that he was paid by the Parish for fill dirt needed to build up the levee road in front of the Matfield to protect it from the rising waters of the Mississippi.
Hopefully, this new police jury will study their parish history and not allow the recent historical errors of the 1980s and 1990s continue to hurt this parish and it's people.
Ferry Fairy Quite Contrar

Oklahoma City, OK

#296 Mar 27, 2013
Old Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a possibility too...some of the property may be adjacent property to the lots that he purchased and do to a poor survey he might of taken claim to some abandoned property...for what it's worth you can only obtain property that is privately owned, if any of the property was public he could not claim it by AQ.
I suspect Gator has been on this tangent for the Lamberts ownership of the public land at the ferry landing for quite a few years. I think his tune is a little different now and does not care that the public possessed and owned this land over a century before the Lamberts appeared in our fine Parish.

it appears now that this was always about taking public lands for the benefit of the Lambert heirs.
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#297 Mar 27, 2013
This was the reason I wanted everyone to go to the site about federal and state laws I posted a couple of weeks ago. I believe alot of the banks of rivers, creeks, and streams are public areas according to the description of being able to walk along the banks or picnic or other basic rights for land held in public trust by the state and not legally possible to sell. I think the parish has over protected the land owners and stepped on the rights of the average citizen. Can't wait for this whole mess to go to court, I think the citizens will win and I think it will really be a win for all in the long run.
Pay the Piper

Oklahoma City, OK

#298 Mar 27, 2013
Immoral and Unethical wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. The Police jury Preident at the time was the close business partner of Mr. Lambert. President Garret and Lambet have multiple business dealings at this time period. Including the sell of gravel for State and Parish bids. Just look it up in the courthouse records and PJ minutes. There are court records with the business dealings of Garret and Lambert as early as 1957 and as late as 1984
The PJ minutes are online through the State libraries and archives from the Democrat Newspaper.
Garret called a Special meeting held at Mr. Lambets request with just enough jurors present to have a quorum. A very small add was ran in the Democrat and one week later Mr. Lambert had the winning bid as he and one other gentleman were the only bidders. However, the minutes from the Special Meeting reveal the jurors did not agree to sell all the public lands but in fact was only the eastern border of the Bayou Sara levee. The PJ minutes do not state "all public lands" or the Riverfront. This eastern border of the levee was actually mostly non existance in 1960 as the majority of this levee had sloughed off into the bayou thus making it the property of the State.
Proper procedures were far from followed. Perhaps the Attorney General could review this matter on behalf of the citizens of West Feliciana and the State of Louisiana. The 1960s President and his limited jurors
did not have the authority to give away an unspecified amount of public property to a private individual of their choosing. They definitely did not sell him the ferry landing or the State highway or the property managed by the State. These areas were established long before the purchases made by Mr. Lambert.
I believe that Mr, Garrett's family is paying dearly for their business association they had with the Lamberts. There are many in this parish who foolishly believe that the Lamberts have some idea of community but the only way they conduct business is to sue to get their way. Irregardless in what is truly right and wrong the Lambert lawyers know it is cheaper for the Lamberts to pay attorney fees to sue than to purchase their own land or property. They have fooled the government in the area for so long and have made a small mint off free leases which become top dollar leases on an unsuspecting public. The land that they have leased to the public was never purchased by them. The Lamberts simply claimed it as theirs and threatened that if the government tries to say otherwise they would just start a very costly legal battle. Their threats are real.
Pay the Piper

Baton Rouge, LA

#299 Mar 27, 2013
There I go again, talking about something before I get all my facts. I really have no clue what I am talking about.
Good Grief

Donaldsonville, LA

#300 Mar 27, 2013
zachary wrote:
This was the reason I wanted everyone to go to the site about federal and state laws I posted a couple of weeks ago. I believe alot of the banks of rivers, creeks, and streams are public areas according to the description of being able to walk along the banks or picnic or other basic rights for land held in public trust by the state and not legally possible to sell. I think the parish has over protected the land owners and stepped on the rights of the average citizen. Can't wait for this whole mess to go to court, I think the citizens will win and I think it will really be a win for all in the long run.
Darn Zachary ! How many times do you have to be told! Louisiana law says banks are subject to private ownership that is limited to public use when it comes to navigation! This dosent mean you can picnic and fish off of them not does it mean they can't be sold! For the love of Pete! People have posted the code articles man!
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#301 Mar 27, 2013
I hope this goes all the way to a federal court and I believe the legal eagles opinion to support the rich and powerful will be in error and they will be flying lower with clipped wings. I could be wrong but I could be right, it is why we have courts. Now "good grief" if you are right I will be suprised but if a federal court agrees with you I will be satisfied that you are right but I want a court decision for everyone.
FedUp

Donaldsonville, LA

#302 Mar 27, 2013
zachary wrote:
I hope this goes all the way to a federal court and I believe the legal eagles opinion to support the rich and powerful will be in error and they will be flying lower with clipped wings. I could be wrong but I could be right, it is why we have courts. Now "good grief" if you are right I will be suprised but if a federal court agrees with you I will be satisfied that you are right but I want a court decision for everyone.
There is actually no reason for the federal court to hear this matter. It isn't a federal matter so...no jurisdiction...so no it will not and can not be heard by the feds. I doubt and HOPE that it goes no further than the district level and at the most the appellate court.
Good Job

Oklahoma City, OK

#303 Mar 28, 2013
The Rivervoats continue to roll in.

The boat launch is very nice!

Now we just need to get the Riverboats to make room for the boats that want to launch on the days when the Rivervoats dock.

My family is very hopeful that something will happen so that all that garbage is moved so we can enjoy the river.

Nice job on the boat ramp.
Remember This

Austin, TX

#304 Oct 16, 2014
Old Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
The only lots down by the river that has been sold/donated to the state or government is the lots making up Mat Field. There are no recorded documents giving the state rights to the property that the Lamberts are claiming.
The Lamberts are not claiming ownership to something they don’t own, they are simply asking for the Parish to properly lease the property that their father legally purchased years ago.
When the highway came through did people say “Hey, you know what? Don’t Worry about paying me for the land you need to take from me for the highway, it is for the public good.”? NO! Most took what was offered and some battled to get a higher priced that they felt they deserved. No difference here, the Lamberts own the property and deserves compensation for the use of it.
We have now found out that they do not own the Riverfront lots or the riverfront. We now know that the State gave control of this area first to the parish and Town of St. francisville in 1819. There were no lots below the public levee.
The levee on one side was bought by the USgovt and the parish never sold the levee on the other side of the highway.
The highway has been in place all the way to the river since 1800s. It is public dedicated.
remember what you say

Baton Rouge, LA

#305 Oct 16, 2014
What is your newly acquired information based on? Did William's or Kean provide it? Remember, you can't believe everything you hear.

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.

Louisiana State Penitentiary Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News a a If God can come down in human form, I can c... Feb '15 True Christian wi... 5
Blogs written by inmates from the Angola prison... (Sep '09) Mar '14 country girl 25
turn of century inmate at angola (Nov '13) Nov '13 raymond wade austin 1
prison inmate turrn of century (Nov '13) Nov '13 raymond wade austin 1
News Lil Boosie's release date still unclear, but go... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Chrisshaw 3
Female recently fired from angola (Oct '13) Oct '13 Aimee356 1
News Fire ordinance discussion set July 31 in St. Fr... (Jul '13) Jul '13 Lifesaver1965 1
More from around the web