BusinessReport.com

Posted by jaybee on December 11, 2007 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't agree more with JR's comments about the lack of leadership coming from the Mayor's office. Whether it's quashing Dwight Brashear's bold and progressive vision for public transportation (with BRAC piling on); or siding with the NIMBYs on the downtown library - Kip is acting more like a politician trying to get re-elected than a leader.

Posted by blue_ink_pin on December 11, 2007 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like Kip. I like what he attempts to do for Baton Rouge. And I like his genuine caring of Baton Rouge. But what I don't like is a mayor that is too afraid of public backlash to take a stand. With last night's absence of Mayor Kip Holden it proved to me that he is unable and unwilling to make a tough choice that could affect a few votes. I was hoping Kip was a mayor that would make some decisions that would be tough but could prove great in the future. As it stands, I am sorry to say that we might be stuck with another lifetime mayor that does just enough to help a few voters at the unknowing expense of the whole community.

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 11, 2007 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Frank Muscarello and Ervie Ellender.

What a difference in character on display! No matter which side of the issue you were on, sadly, you couldn't help but notice that.

Posted by wondering on December 11, 2007 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Ball do you consider your chronic name calling of anyone you disagree with good writing? Almost every issue is, to you, a battle between the NIMBYs and the folks who "get it."

Public policy debates are rarely so simplistic and our growing metropolis requires and deserves more reasoned contributions from the Editor of our primary source of business news.

Perhaps you might find more respect and success in sports writing.

Also, how was "not in my backyard" a factor in the Main Library discourse?

Posted by Tara on December 11, 2007 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They've brought it upon themselves with their bullying and selfish weilding of power they don't possess, now it's official....Southdowns Civic Association is irrelevant.

Posted by cmac on December 11, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another observation from last night’s meeting …

Did you notice the blank stares on many of the commission member’s faces? It was as if they were tuning out the proceedings. When Ellender spoke he erased all doubt. He obviously confused the two sides. Of course since his and everyone else’s minds were already made up before the meeting I guess those blank stares should come as no surprise.

Posted by Christopher on December 11, 2007 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a resident in Southdowns. I am not sure where I stand on this issue which is why I don't have signs for either party in my yard, but I do believe they both have points that should be heard and mulled. I am a supporter of free market (even though that is a very difficult task in this economic era) and I believe that this will shake itself out, but I also believe this is very relevant and should have CONTINUED discussion

There is a real problem from Essen to Stanford when traveling on Perkins drive and there is a much larger issue that needs to be addressed on College (then Lee) to Highland Rd.

I am not sure where you live Mr. Ball, but come on down to my house at certain times of day and you would never visit me again as a result of the high congestion.

Trying to stay healthy I run a great deal and on my side street of Picket stop signs are treated more as, take a quick look, signs rather than stop signs and while I realize this is an enforcement issue, it will only get worse for my family and their safety.

There are times of the day that I know not to leave the house or to come home from work because of the congestion. I deal with it. I will deal with it when the Rouzan property is complete and I will be fine.

I am looking forward to the final project of Rouzan and I wish Mr. Spinosa great success. I am looking forward to finding out the businesses he thinks might situate themselves there. I hope there is a park area there for the greater Southowns community to be able to take advantage of, but I also would like to see more communication and dialogue on what truly IS best for the community here in Southdowns. It may be Rouzan AND other attention given to upgrading traffic concerns etc.

This brings me to my point on your piece.

You are an educated person and I am happy for your success as an editor of such a fine publication, however after reading this piece I felt talked down to as someone who isn't sure where they stand on this issue and wwas not sure of the outcome. Is that the reaction you intended? For those who have hope that there is more dialogue on this issue before it has such a major impact on my daily life, to feel un-educated as you put it in your piece? I am not sure I need remedial education, but I would not have been surprised if the voting body had voted the other way with a recommendation that Rouzan take a slightly different approach on the architecture, types of structure, and density. Why does that make me Naive or in need of remedial education?

I am not sure what a NIMBY is, but it seems like another slant or jab at a group of people who may think differently than you?

(Continued on nxt post)

Posted by Christopher on December 11, 2007 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the Mayor and his intent on this issue, I may be wrong and if I m then I will seek that remedial education you suggested, but isn't he part of the group that will hear these issues tomorrow night? If so, then why would he want to influence the group who voted last night one way or the other with his intentions? I personally feel that is a good leader, a person who takes in all of the information, hears all opinions, allows the process to follow the prescribed course and when it is that leader’s time to lay judgment on the issue, he or she does so. That is due process. So why are you being so hard on the man?

While I would never be able to do your job nearly as well as you, I would still like to make a very humble suggestion. When you are writing your next piece on this issue try and think about the families who were there in that room and who took time to express their thoughts and concerns, whether it was by speaking out or maybe just being there was their way of expressing their concerns, think about why this is so important to them. Are they just angry people who want to be angry or are there truly good intentions on their part just wanting to have a little input on how their daily life will be changed by this event. Then try not to call those people names, but just write about facts, which you are very capable of doing.

My neighbors are good people and I have talked to those on both sides of the issue. More against Rouzan AS IT IS CURRENTLY PROPSED and a couple with signs of support for Rouzan in their yards and each of them just want to be heard, but none of them want to be called names. I also have to point out something about the signs in support of Rouzan, they seem to only be in the yards of one particular owner of MANY residences in Southdowns who rents them, I actually find that funny and questionable at the same time, hmmmm?

Mr. Ball, thank you for covering this issue. Your articles are the only real time accounts of what is transpiring on this issue and it is nice to know where to go to find this information.

Whatever happens I hope we find the means to alleviate some of this congestion in the areas I mentioned earlier.

Last note, I am adamant about building another Casino in Baton Rouge and more specifically in the area where traffic will only continue to congest already horrible areas. Casinos are no good for anyone but the shareholders. I won’t bore you with my personal opinions of Casinos, but the fewer the better, again, in my humble opinion. So if you could possibly spend a little of your time on that issue I would enjoy reading your opinion.

Thank you again for your voice and the information you have provided on this issue.

Have a brilliant day!

Posted by fourx5 on December 11, 2007 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those who take issue with J.R.'s tone, consider the following:

-Ball has visited (along with others, including the Mayor) cities that have taken demonstrably progressive (and disruptive!) steps, and seen the benefits that all citizens receive when politicians and people move forward together.

-Ball plays the role of an iconoclast at this publication. (See also the point above.)

-He's someone who appreciated Baton Rouge's unique charms and believes that intellectual laziness shouldn't be one of them.

-Ball is probably tired (as was I) of people in Baton Rouge who complain constantly about the conditions of the city's roadways and drainage, but who won't sacrifice a sliver of time to understand the strategic needs of the city. (These are the people who, before the construction starts, complain about traffic. After the construction starts, they complain about the delays. And after construction is finished, they complain about traffic again.)

You'd be ticked off too, if you were listening to all the nearly pointless bickering and knowing how well Baton Rouge _could_ do if people got off their self-important soapboxes and tried to make all parts of the city work cooperatively.

As for his writing style, his use of terminology doesn't affect his talent.

Posted by mdavis03 on December 11, 2007 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if all of these people clamoring to have Baton Rouge resemble Austin - many of whom still shamefully sport "W" stickers on their cars - would welcome the rest of the Texas town's forward thinking, liberal policies.

How about carpool lanes on I-10 and I-12? How about a REAL commitment to public transportation? Of course, these won't make money for developers and those rolling around our city in a 7 series or a Mercedes couldn't possibly fathom being restricted from the fast lane while they're trying to make their tennis matches.

Or how about commissioners who can't be bought - or at least ones who'll follow the UDC?

With regards to Rouzan in particular, Baton Rouge is a town held hostage by the fad du jour. It's been evidenced time and time again that Baton Rougeans, like children with ADHD, become quickly bored with their new toy and move on to the newest, shiny object put in front of us. Unfortunately, when all of you who do not live on the south side of Perkins Road grow tired of the businesses in Rouzan, those of us in the surrounding neighborhoods will be left with the newest version of Citiplace in our backyards.

My wife and I are part of the demographic that city leaders claim they're trying to lure and keep in Baton Rouge - young professionals in our 30's. We're not wealthy people (I teach high school and my wife works for a non-profit organization) and we can't afford to live ANYWHERE we want in Baton Rouge. We can however, afford to live WHERE we want in Baton Rouge. Forced out of Capital Heights by similar corporate encroachments, we moved to the Southside area three years ago and acknowledge it's the only remaining place in Baton Rouge in which we'd like to live. But as we see the long standing traditions which have governed the south side of Perkins road tumble, we are being forced to consider if there aren't greener pastures (no pun intended) out there for us.

Respectfully submitted (unlike Mr.Ball's article),
Michael Davis

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 11, 2007 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Christopher,

I'm a single mom, a homeowner not a renter, living in Southdowns. Many of my family members, also home owners, live in Southdowns. We all have Support Rouzan signs in our yards as do many of our friends, also homeowners.

The "particular owners of MANY residences" in Southdowns you refer to are the Heberts who also support Rouzan (note the sign at the apts corner of Stuart/Perkins which they also own)and have done more for Southdowns than any person, group or government entity has done or is likely ever to do.

Posted by Jon_Deaux on December 11, 2007 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent commentary Christopher.

JR’s editorials on this issue have been without any objectivity what so ever. Rather than make effort to consider the concerns of the opposition he simply insults and attacks. He has an obvious love for the city but on this issue he has spit out a bunch of garbage.

Having said that, it is an editorial and I appreciate the fact that the Business Report allows contribution (rebuttals). Along with JR’s editorials, it is a tremendous service to the city.

Posted by cmac on December 11, 2007 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SDwnsMom, ah yes, the Hebert's. Owners of numerous Southdowns rentals ... and many not a pretty sight! Isn't Ann(?) the one working with George Bayhi on developing the Christian Street condo project that was rejected by the Planning Commission, but slipped in by the Metro Council? Money, money, money...

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 11, 2007 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cmac,
As usual you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Wrong again on both counts.

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 11, 2007 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They bought the 54 blighted AC Lewis properties and had them all renovated, also got rid of all of the open ditches in front of the yards (mine included). Perhaps you weren't around to remember what Pickett used to look like, but there are those of us who do.

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 11, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Most of the 54 homes were sold to families, or single moms, who still live in Southdowns or who sold them for MUCH more than they paid which is how we originally got our increased property values. Consider yourself educated, at least a little.

Posted by cmac on December 11, 2007 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SDwnsMom, actually I do remember; I've been here for 26 years. And you're right, a few of the properties are much improved, but not the majority.

And please enlighten me on my misunderstanding of the Bayhi/Hebert alliance.

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 11, 2007 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you call 54 blighted houses in your neighborhood now renovated "a few", I really don't know what to say to you. I toured the finished homes and see them everyday. Of course not every house in Southdowns was part of that circumstance.

I don't recall anyone other than the Heberts having anything to do with it.

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 11, 2007 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blue_ink_pin,
I couldn't agree more. Just when it seems we have a mayor who's putting Baton Rouge first, he seemed to put his finger in the air to check the political winds and decide to duck back inside rather than stick his political neck out.

Posted by 4perkins2 on December 11, 2007 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is good to know somone has taken notice of the lack of progress on our sewer problems since Holden took office. How are our fees being used? How about some real investigative reporting?

Posted by blue_ink_pin on December 11, 2007 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I live in Southdowns and what pushed me to support this development more than anything were the countless signs spread across the neighborhood pressuring everyone to "Stop Rouzan". We have a two lane street that is the root of the problem and these same individuals wouldn't do a thing but complain if the city council ever considered widening the road. They complain about traffic but will complain even more with solutions to fix the traffic. I've grown to the point that these individuals don't represent this city well; rather, they focus on zero growth and no change. I live on the opposite side of Lee Dr but if anyone would like to sell me their house at a cost I can afford, I would be more than happy to live closer to such a development.

Posted by mkm on December 11, 2007 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There may be no escaping the fact that Rouzan,as proposed, is not particularly dense by TND standards but when Rouzan is built in the Concord/Pollard/Woodchase/Southdowns/Lee/College/Perkins area, its density will add to the congestion/gridlock.

Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on December 12, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I appreciate hearing from those of you who take issue with my tone. The point of my columns is to get people talking, something Baton Rouge seems to have trouble doing. We tend to ignore our problems and hope either they go away or nobody notices. Those of you who have communicated directly with me via telephone and e-mail know my tone is quite different "away from the column." As for the term NIMBY, well, it is true... opponents do not want Rouzan in their backyard. What I think should be more upsetting than my tone is 1) people on both sides of the issue poured out their hearts for some three hours on Monday and the commission decides the issue in less than 10 minutes and 2) based on what I heard at the meeting there is a very serious sewer problem in Southdowns. The first part should indicate to the opponents crowd this issue was decided long before the planning meeting began. As for the sewer problems, seems to me the Southside Civic Association should focus its energies on bombarding the mayor and DPW with complaints and a demand for action. What are you folks getting in return from those monthly sewer fees? From what I heard at the meeting, the streets of Southdowns are paved with raw sewage. (By the way, some of the sewer problems are directly related to the incredible sprawl in this city.)

Posted by Tara on December 12, 2007 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JR, I agree!

Maybe if the Southside Civic Association and it's counterparts would stop whining about and trying to prevent EVERY proposed new development (look what they put Mike Wampold thru w/ The Crescent on Stanford Ave. for Heaven's sake!!) and work on addressing the PROBLEMS themselves, they would have more credibility. Unfortunately, then they wouldn't have anything to do!

Posted by Dot on December 12, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JR, I love this place, but in a rainy season -- Southdowns IS a flood zone of sewer overflow! I've read -- and have been told by DPW workers -- that the sewerage problems are coming from the corrosion of concrete lines. Sulfuric acid has eaten away at them over the past 70 years. Rain water and ground see page then permeates the lines, resulting in the overflow of raw feces and urine onto property, streets, and into the bayou. Aside from the repercussions this overflow for kids playing in the yard -- wildlife suffers (no more bullfrogs in the bayou), and the chorine seepage has a deleterious effect on plantings, and fosters disease.

Given the importance of bond issues paying for sewer upgrades, and constituents demanding a fix, I can certainly understand why the Mayor is keeping quite on the Rouzan plan. There wasn't enough money in the coffers to do tunneling, so they've been talking about putting epoxy in the lines to seal them. When?

My neighbors and I have been "on the list" for city sewer line upgrades for the 15 years that I've been in this particular Southdowns house. I don't know about the Civic Association, but we ARE vocal, JR!!! I shouldn't have to be a member of a civic association to keep hazardous waste out of my yard, anyway! We all call DPW to suck lines clean on a regular basis -- weekly when it is raining. A friend who works for EPA informs me that we have another eight years to solve the entire city's sewer overflows. The clock is ticking. Where is the epoxy truck, and when will it get here?

Ultimately, my point is (aren't you relieved I have one) ...

Shouldn't the city focus on correcting problematic infrastructure BEFORE tying more people into it???

Why isn't basic groundwork done before increasing density? Maybe I do need remedial education, since my undergraduate logic and graduate statistic courses appear to be failing me.

I did learn a Rouzan fact of which I was not aware before Monday's Council meeting. There was a Rouzan proponent who spoke early on (I apologize, I've forgotten her name) who spoke to the nature of TND's providing affordable housing for the community as a whole – from lower through upper socio-economic class. She also pointed to the eclectic mix of pubs, grocery stores, and offices that she grew up with in her own "TND." I will admit, I had no idea that JTS planned to include broad-class affordable housing within Rouzan. The largest and fastest-growing population in Baton Rouge is at or below poverty the line, but are often the least represented in the planning process. I think it's fantastic that the wage-earners serving the coffee in Rouzan will actually be able to afford to live there. That is how a TND really works, and I was surprised and impressed to learn it's part of Tommy Spinosa's plan for Rouzan. Hat's off to you!

Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on December 12, 2007 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dot, the remedial education line was intended toward those who truly thought the outcome of the rezoning request would be in jeopardy until after the public part of the hearing. The votes were counted and known days before the hearing took place. That's how it works 90%-99% of the time. That's why Mayor Holden was able to instruct Roxson Welch to vote against Rouzan. He knew it was going to pass regardless of how she voted. As for the sewer issue, perhaps it would be wise for people to ask what is the city doing with the money collected from the monthly sewer fees? I know we will ask this question. There was a massive jump in this fee under Bobby Simpson to accommodate the deep tunnel plan. I agree, deep tunneling was too costly and would not really solve the problem... but what is being done with the money. Is anyone out there paying less than $55 a month for sewer? The EPA granted Baton Rouge an extension to come up with a solution... do we have to wait until the outcome of a bond election in November of 2008 to find out what's being done to solve the problems of Southdowns and other neighborhoods? By the way, the bond issue includes numerous matters. In short, how much longer will the residents of this city put up with band-aid solutions? The people must demand change--not just the media or some cynical columnist from the East Coast.

Posted by cmac on December 12, 2007 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dot, the truly traditional neighborhood that some of us grew up in no longer exists. I know you were speaking tongue-in-cheek and it is unfortunate that Spinoza isn't really the pioneer he claims to be. Instead, he's part of the new breed of developers who pick and choose what a TND is ... and what it ain't is for the poor.

Posted by blue_ink_pin on December 12, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When has any development been catered to those that can't help the developer pick up the costs at the conclusion of the project? It's not a breed of developer but simple economics.

I think that the two problems here are problems not associated with the TND at all. Problems that have been problems for quite some time already. We have a two lane road where there should be a four lane and we have sewer problems. Maybe a development like this is exactly what we need to prompt those two changes in the future. Naturally, one of those options will make Rouzan seem like a cakewalk. Wonder why that is?

Posted by Jon_Deaux on December 12, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree JR. Although we may disagree on issues, this forum encouraged thought, debate, research, and most importantly participation. I’m ok w/ disagreement and I am most certainly aware that there are other valid schools of thought…but please people have an opinion. (and Dot, you’re a hoot!!)

I also agree that this is an issue of such extreme importance that for Commission/Council members not to express a well thought out, unambiguous position is shameful. Commission/Council members, regardless to whether Rouzan is in your district or not your decision indicates your approach (view) to the development of our city. We deserve to hear more than yes or no.

Posted by Tara on December 12, 2007 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Jon, at least Bones Addison let us know his position with more than a yes or no in the Dec. 10th issue of The Advocate,
"..this is not in my district and I really don't care about something in another members district.."

Posted by KateMcLean on December 12, 2007 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am in SUPPORT of Rouzan as a resident & as a design professional.

After graduating from LSU with a 5-year professional degree in Architecture I moved from the Garden District to my current home on Stanford. I have been in this house for over 16 years. I love my NEIGHBORHOOD. I have a grocery, a pharmacy, restaurants, taverns, dry cleaners, bookstores, a yoga studio, health food stores, Attorney’s & CPA’s offices, Insurance agents, hair salons, antique & gift shops, barbers, a travel agency, dance studios & medical supply company all within my NEIGHBORHOOD, the Perkins Road Overpass area. A neighborhood is not a collection of homes on streets. A neighborhood is a collection of families, people & services they use & need. Pollard Estates is not a neighborhood. It is a subdivision. Even the word subdivision allows a clue to what’s inside. It sub-DIVIDES people from each other. It separates a group of homes from the city.

Subdivisions clearly do not work well. They are forcing us to be dependent upon autos for basic needs. The public transportation system in this town is lacking in common access, appropriate scheduling & useful routes. One is forced to use a car for the most basic needs. The subdivision has become an enabler for the dependence on autos.

Rouzan is an attempt to alleviate this problem. It is a well thought-out development. It includes a library, a church, small shops, office space & a school. How can this be a bad thing? Everyone lauds developments like River Ranch, Seaside, & others in “more progressive” cities.

Opponents moan about drainage. Rouzan will improve drainage. The DPW regulations require Rouzan not make the current conditions worse. Since I know a thing or two about getting a project through the Planning Commission, the DPW Drainage department & the Green Light Program, I KNOW Rouzan did not skate through. The development was scrutinized, studied & approved. Drainage will improve because Rouzan will have its own subsurface drainage, adding capacity to the system in place. DPW has agreed.

Opponents moan about traffic. Perhaps Rouzan, with its integrated streets network & logical layout will allow more cars to travel to and thru the development instead of getting onto Perkins, Lee, Highland or Stanford. If there were a grocery store in walking distance to a home no one would drive there & the cars would not be on the road. If a Rouzan-type development is NOT built, take the 491 homes allowed in A-1 zoning for this property, multiply by 2.5 & you have over 1225 cars ADDED to the traffic problem. Not developing Rouzan will increase traffic & congestion.

Posted by KateMcLean on December 12, 2007 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Opponents moan about local streets becoming speedways. Streets connected through the development will have stop signs ADDED to the streets. This slows down traffic, part of the “traffic calming” desired by DPW. If anyone wants to complain about speedways, they can stand on the sidewalk in front of my house on Stanford Avenue. Traffic regularly drives by on 4-lanes at speeds greater than the posted 40mph. Some up to 60mph. A posted 35mph 2-lane street with stop signs connected to other 30mph streets with stop signs hardly qualifies them as becoming speedways.

Opponents moan about density. Do you realize that should Rouzan apply for LEED certification as a “smart growth” community, it would be denied as NOT DENSE ENOUGH? Boston, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis, Seattle, those are dense cities. BR never has been & never will be. If the opponents truly think 6.5 people/acre is too dense, then respectfully, they do not fully understand the concept. According to the New York City Department of City Planning, there are more than 100 people/acre in NYC. Atlanta is expecting to ADD 4 people/acre in the next 20 years. Vancouver is considered one of Canada’s leaders in smart growth & that city averages 12 people/acre. Las Vegas is one of the densest cities in the American Southwest at an average of greater than 12 people/acre. Seattle averages 5-12 people/acre in over half of its city and greater than 12 people/acre in well over 30% of the city. How can a resident complain about an increase from 5 people/acre to 6.5?

BR needs a shot in the arm to bring it into the 21st century, kicking & screaming. If it takes reverting to some tried and true solutions to make our town better, we should embrace them. The neighborhood and town center concepts have been around and working as viable living solutions since before the Roman civilization reached its heyday. Neighborhoods, homes shops and civic buildings have been working together since before the time of Christ. Why do a few residents get to tell the rest of the world and the rest of human history that traditional neighborhoods are wrong? Look at the term devised for these developments, Traditional Neighborhood Development. Just the name should imply a good deal. It’s been tried, it’s been vetted, it works.

Posted by KateMcLean on December 12, 2007 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And let me conclude by pointing out, if a property owner does everything required by the local government to develop his property, what right does a neighbor nearby or a person many blocks away have to tell that property owner what he can and cannot do? If Rouzan meets all the DPW requirements and meets the Planning Commission requirements what right does anyone have to stop the property owner from moving forward with that approved development? Property rights have been & always will be, a firm foundation of the formation of this country & its continued success, right behind religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms.

If BR wants to hang on to more of its younger residents & stop the brain drain, this is one way to start. Give us a reason to want to stay, not an excuse to leave!

Support Rouzan & 4-lane Lee Drive.

Posted by Christopher on December 12, 2007 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All,

What an electrifying series we have compiled here. I have learned a great deal from all of you and some of this new knowledge is scary (I didn’t know that when the rains caused flooding in my yard, the flooding is . . . YIKES!).

SDmom – If my comment on the support Rouzan signs offended you, I apologize, but I spoke with two of the renters of the homes I referred to and they didn’t even know what of this issue and didn’t place the signs in the yards of the homes they are renting. I know there are some that support Rouzan in the community, however I personally don’t allow signs in my yard unless I support what is said on the sign and it may be slightly disingenuous to place signs on rental properties where the tenants aren’t aware of the issue. Still, I fully recognize your point that there are those in the community who support this venture and allow me to restate my position on this issue - I am saying clearly that I am interested in the venue that Rouzan may create. I think I stated that clearly, however if I didn’t, let me do so again.

I am intrigued by the Rouzan project. I am neither in support nor adamantly against the project. What I am in support of is more DIRECT dialogue with those giving the approval for this project. I was unable to attend Monday’s meeting, however I had attended two previous meetings where the issue was tabled. I feel strongly that there has not been enough information (possibly on both sides of the issue) to enable success or to steal a Covey euphemism, a “win win” situation.

As a resident I am concerned about traffic and the incredible impact it will have on the 4 lane (with turning lane) road which I have to travel back and forth to work. I am also concerned that each time it rains my yard becomes a kiddies’ pool. However even with those concerns I am not against Rouzan. I simply think more attention should be given to this project and why not . . . This type building project is currently not allowed on this property. This newly purchased property isn’t zoned for the type a project such as Rouzan. The zoning has to be completely changed to accommodate the Rouzan plans and the zone changes seem dramatically different . . . to me at least.

My thinking is that there is a “win win” to this situation and it may be that both sides are able to hold onto their core efforts?

Casino.

If there is a Casino placed on River Road where I understand it is being proposed, I will move. I will hate that, but I will move. I will not be missed by anyone, but I will miss Southdowns. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I am pessimistic on this issue.

Posted by Christopher on December 12, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is there such disdain in some of your responses to this editorial and to one another?

I may be naive (yes I am poking fun Mr. Ball) about this situation, but I can see why nothing positive is progressing in a positive manner on this issue if this is how we talk to one another.

Why is it “moaning” when opponents express their very valid concerns? Especially when you are providing unsupported information as some sort of fact.

“Bullying, selfish”. Southdowns CA - irrelevant.

This thread of responses to this editorial could be used to express opinion, options, and solutions in a positive manner with the hope of reaching a compromise, but instead I hear some folks just throwing dirt and discounting others concerns as moaning.

Maybe I have no idea what is going on here or maybe everyone is mad about something that is not Rouzan at all?

Posted by cmac on December 12, 2007 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OMG, this friggin' MC is all scripted and they're not even good actors!

Posted by cmac on December 12, 2007 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I spoke too soon ... it was only Skyring and Tassin who thought they could get by with scripts. Charles Kelly appeared clueless. Kudos to Wayne Carter, Dr. Pat Culbertson, and Ulysses Addison for open minds!!!

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 12, 2007 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you say Ulysses Addison with the open mind?...falling on the floor laughing!!!!

Posted by concerned on December 12, 2007 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I watched the metro council tonight on how the developer of Rouzan was railroaded into a January postponment. I can not believe they did this. If they had been listening to the residents all this time they want to keep the property an A-1. They are not in support of the development. They changed their stradegy for this meeting after they lost with the zoning commission who saw right through them. It is a sad day for Baton Rouge.

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 12, 2007 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

concerned, go back to sleep.

Posted by Jon_Deaux on December 12, 2007 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes Concerned, when compromise and democracy prevail it’s always a sad day.

Posted by SDwnsMom on December 12, 2007 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The pasture should not be A-1 and if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that!!

Posted by Tara on December 13, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, 30 more days of interest payments on $15 Million for Tommy Spinosa to pay when he's already met all of the requirements of the government and the planning commission to develop his property. Now that would make me sad.

I think he should sue. Seriously, I hope he looks into it.

Posted by Christopher on December 13, 2007 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I made this comment on another column where I wanted to express my concern.

The name calling I hear and the disdain I read on this issue leads me to believe that this is deeper than some Rouzan project.

Why do you all feel that you need to call someone names to get your point across? If this is how the communication process has occurred between the proponents and opponents of Rouzan, then I see why there is such a divide.

Tara, what grounds would Mr. Spinosa have to sue? The reason I ask is because I am not sure why you would recommend such an action when there seems to be no grounds for this action? Then you are just recommending threats of a suit. The law is not made to threaten.

I don’t know Mr. Spinosa, but I have a neighbor who speaks highly of him. I also know that anyone can be made to look like a saint or the devil and I don’t get into making personal comments on individuals I don’t know. I try and focus on the situation rather than the people, with that said. Mr. Spinosa bought a large piece of property as an investment. That property is zoned for a certain type of building project, he wants to put a project, called Rouzan, that is not currently allowed on the property he purchased, therefore he has to go through the proper channels to get the area re-zoned to accommodate his vision of a TND. The channels he has to go through and the procedure is being followed. There is in-depth discussion and opinion on both sides. This will take time. Why would you threaten a law suit?

Do you think this type of “speak” is going to accomplish anything productive? Is it your goal to see Rouzan succeed or do you simply enjoy the fight that is going along with the process.

I think this issue would be much better served if name calling ceased and we all stop thinking about helping “our team” win and begin to focus on how we can create a positive environment for Southdowns with Rouzan (or something like it).

I am neither in support nor against Rouzan. I hope Rouzan is successful AND my alternative desire is that a project the size of Rouzan might bring positive change to Southdows. I wish there was more intelligent mature conversation that might bring the two sides together to focus on how to create a win win situation. One where Rouzan is able to succeed and Southdowns is able to flourish. I have a vision where Rouzan also puts its girth behind supporting enhancements to all of Southdowns which would only give Rouzan a better chance of long-term success.

But if this is how the communication is going to continue with a “we win, you lose” attitude . . . everyone loses.

Posted by Gary on December 13, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can understand the anxiety this project is creating. There are a little under 60 acres of land near my current home. I have some concerns about what will be done with that acreage if the current TND code isn't fine tuned. I do think it's important to get more specific conceptuals from developers, so Baton Rouge doesn't botch TND planning up like it did with the road grids.

Anyone have details on the people who still own private property on the Rouzan site? If you look at the conceptual, it's the area in white. Their representing attorney, StAmant presented a case for UDC non-compliance. Anybody know if the developer is planning to file for transfer of ownership of that land to JTS? Maybe that's why he didn't approach those folks about a buy-out. He doesn't need to buy them out. When this is done, he can take it. Miss McClean thinks property rights are on a firm foundation in this country? Unfortunately, she's not correct. Take a look at the landmark 2005 Eminent Domain ruling of the Supreme Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Cit... . Private developers were given the right to take private property for development, regardless of the condition of the property, for redevelopment planning. I think TND developments are a good idea. But it would be a black eye on Baton Rouge's first TND if these people take it to court, or if JTS gives them a raw deal on a buyout. I think this will be the most interesting thing to watch. It could be a huuuuuge factor. I'm surprised we don't hear more about it. I'm also surprised we haven't heard more about that guy who lost his shirt to a bad Vermillion investment involving Spinosa. Anybody with more details on that too?

Posted by Tara on December 13, 2007 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Christopher,
I thought it was pretty obvious from my post, but I'll spell it out for you - because he has met all of the legal requirements to re-zone his property, the commission recommended that it be re-zoned, and the City delayed without good cause costing him a great deal of money in interest payments. He would win if he sued, that's what I meant. The metro council is betting our tax dollars that he won't.