Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by M S Butler on August 27, 2009 at 5:51

FromGuido

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on August 27, 2009 at 8:21

interesting story. Too bad many off his facts aren't just right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Sadow on August 27, 2009 at 8:50

>Too bad many off {sic] his facts aren't just right.
Really, now? Which ones? Be careful ....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by E & E on August 28, 2009 at 3:07

BUMP!! .....oh hell no.....this one is not slidin down the page into oblivion until its addressed. Can't wait to see the answer...... tell us everything....omit nothing.

Earl

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on August 31, 2009 at 4:11

Earl, do you disagree?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on August 28, 2009 at 5:39

If I must:

"Some were agile and took immediate advantage. On the government side, DeSoto Parish was the nimblest, deciding quickly to use the traditional route of going through the state’s Mineral Board and cashed in near the peak that by doing so will provide benefits for its citizenry (if with wise governance) for years to come. Others, like Bossier Parish, hemmed and hawed and/or tried to do it themselves and eventually were unable to do anything but wait on forced unitization directed by the state. Shreveport moved cumbersomely, in part hampered by already-leased land at next-to-nothing at the instigation of former Mayor Keith Hightower, and hadn’t reaped anything but searched to do so"

1) DeSoto wasn't more agile, those tracts were nominated by O&G companies.

2) Bossier did not "hem or haw", they tried to lease all their lands with a high min. bid. They were delayed, not because they hemmed and hawed, but because they are required to use certain procedures. Whether they lease themselves or through the Mineral Board, their actions must follow rules for notice and must be put out to bid. Even if they went outside of the Board, they still need final permission from the Board to lease.

3)"hampered by already-leased land at next-to-nothing at the instigation of former Mayor Keith Hightower"

Really?????? is he serious. The land they speak of is what i assume to be the airport. Hightower did not lease the airport. It was leased after the tract was nominated, and bid on at a state lease sale. If I remember correctly, the original bid was rejected, and re-bid with no other interested parties.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on August 28, 2009 at 5:41

"For whatever reason, Glover let it go. Politically, a veto would have been disastrous."

A veto would have been a pointless delay. Politically it may have been taken well by his core electorate, IMHO. But the council had the votes to overide his veto, so what was the point, he made his point, and the council made theirs.

• ▶ Reply