- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
0
Posted on 8/22/17 at 5:41 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
The chilled water was the very first thing built on that property and that was a very smart move on his part to set that up as a separate company.
smart move? you mean a completely crooked move when he starting price gouging.
From a pure business standpoint it was smart. He held the leverage. Price gouging? He might argue market rate. Crooked? Says who? A dick move? Sure but dick moves happen in business everyday.
He held it until they forced his hand and then he sold. It softened his blow tremendously. You get behind the 8 ball you work your way out. He did.
I'm not agreeing with it or debating the ethics of it but purely where he sat it was a good move. He lived to play another day-hence the very reason for this thread.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 5:46 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
im pretty sure they completely redid their system after that and his plant isnt doing anything right now.
His plant is running the whole complex. They bought it from him. They jackhammered some concrete and laid a few lines and he realized they were going to build their own chilled water and he sold.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 6:17 pm to anewguy
If I was the adjacent landowner I would have tried to settle with Spinosa for 50% of the value of the houses. That little bit of servitude can’t be worth that much per SF
Posted on 8/22/17 at 7:29 pm to RatLTrap
quote:
If I was the adjacent landowner I would have tried to settle with Spinosa for 50% of the value of the houses. That little bit of servitude can’t be worth that much per SF
Spinosa claims he can relocate the servitude easier and cheaper than tearing down houses. I would honestly be surprised if any house ever gets torn down. I would have to go back and read the appeals court opinions from April, but I am fairly certain he has the right to relocate the servitude. The main requirement is that he cannot diminish it in width.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:07 pm to anewguy
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:20 pm to notbilly
quote:
This was beaten to death in the other thread from a month or so ago. Nothing was stolen. It was Spinosa's property. The plaintiff's just had a servitude across his property. It appears it was something they didn't use. He tried to relocate it. In doing so, he made it 20', not the 30' they had previously. Pretty dumb move on Spinosa's part, but it's not like he took someone's property.
Mother fricking this.
"But the news said he's mean, and he's a crook!"
Those "landowners" are not telling the whole truth.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:25 pm to notbilly
quote:
I would honestly be surprised if any house ever gets torn down.
This. Very tiny chance a house goes down.
A couple people in here understand the issues, everyone else is grandstanding like St. Pierre and the adjacent land owners. They never owned the 30', they simply had a servitude of passage. Spinoza made it narrower, probably to spite them, and that is the issue. State law is pretty clear that he can move it as long as it is not diminished. If he can get it back to 30' and a semi direct route, it all goes away. Havent looked at the layout so can't speak to how easy that is. Just like in April, WBRZ is sensationlizing it. The City has no exposure here either. They aren't responsible for private servitude issues, only public servitudes.
Sounds like some people on the board are Southdowns resident and are still bitter. NIMBY's are the worst. I was here first so no one should ever be able to do what the developer who developed my subdivision did.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:27 pm to anewguy
No. Don't do that
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:34 pm to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
quote:
Spinosa piece of shite is one of only 9 members of the Oak Grove Hunting Club
Who are the other 8?
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:37 pm to Cash
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:41 pm to Cash
The list is on their website if you care that much
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:59 pm to LSUengr
quote:
State law is pretty clear that he can move it as long as it is not diminished. If he can get it back to 30' and a semi direct route, it all goes away.
Correct. The owner of the servient estate has the right to re-locate the servitude of access, but he can't make it look like the crooked section of Lombard Street in San Francisco.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 9:03 pm to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
quote:
Oak Grove Hunting Club
that place is unreal
Posted on 8/22/17 at 9:52 pm to PapaPogey
Book marking for the semi annual owners title insurance is a scam discussion.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 5:52 am to rmc
Whomever issued the title insurance ought to have fun with all those policies. The attorney and title abstractor are more than likely suuuuuuper chummy with Spinoza also. But that's what happens when a potential borrower doesn't shop for services like curative title work. They get someone with the seller's interest at heart.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:27 am to Jester
quote:
The floor drains in the kitchen at Kona Grill were installed too high, so the floors didn't drain as intended.
Is that why it always smells so bad?
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:28 am to LSUBoo
quote:
The 'landowners' gain nothing by making him tear down the houses.
If their house was on fire, the fire department can not access their property.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:47 am to TigerDeBaiter
quote:
Nothing was stolen. It was Spinosa's property. The plaintiff's just had a servitude across his property.
quote:
Mother fricking this.
Y'all do know that people own a servitude, right? It's a real right of ownership. You take my servitude without providing me a comparable one, you've stolen my property.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:53 am to FalseProphet
while correct, it's insane that LA law requires the houses to be destroyed. they should get a reward for the diminished value of their servitude and it's over. the "corrective" power is punitive and VERY sub-optimal
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News