Comments for Shelvin: Waste Facilities claims $17M in damages at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 11 out of 11 comments http://www.theind.com Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:53:16 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26352 Monty Warren, I incorrectly typed in Waste Facilities when I meant to type IESI, the company Waste Facilities is building the site for. Sorry about the mistake and hope the editor will make the correction in my original post. - Guy Hebert Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:17:28 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26315 How has Waste Facilities been involved in a lawsuit in St. Tammany if they did not exist until April 2011? - Monty Warren Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:44:50 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26283 As usual Gene is waiting to consult with a Tutorial Firm in Mensa, Colorado before he makes any more foot in mouth assertions as to what is realistic and what seems surreal. Methinks... Gene retired as a BFI driver with commendations after nevah evah dumping a load. - chano leal Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:33:23 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26282 I can attest to back room deals and cheating. look at Joie de Vivre, know who's district were in? That project was a go from the minute the "boys" got together and decided to make money. - Krista Fontenot Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:29:56 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26279 Gene Broussard: I might be a knuckle-head. But I know you are pissed off because I called you an ENEMA MACHINE!! Have a nice day! Burn a candle for my redemption!! P.S. Gene, what say you about Guy's post? - Michael A. Moss Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:18:48 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26272 Gene, Maybe you don't know the facts here. They DID NO get permits honestly and fairly. * Durel's office, and all of the city council, state that they worked on this project almost a year without any of them being advised that a trash facility was being looked at. * No traffic study was ever done * The permit process supposedly started in mid/late 2010, but Waste Facilities did not exist until April 2011. * They violated DEQ rules and were shut down only weeks after starting Someone is lying. There is no possible way their staff worked with zoning for almost a year and not one official was notified that a waste facility was being put in the middle of the city of Lafayette. It is standard procedure for zoning to advise the council liaison and executive branch of any substantial permit applications. Do you really think the director of zoning worked on this a year and didn't tell ANYONE? Have you not read about the business deals between Durel and the owners of Waste Facilities and the seller of the property? The council was put in a corner by someone. Either Durel or Zoning did not tell them until it was too late about a highly controversial project. One or both was either incompetent for not knowing they should have made this public, or they intentionally hid the project. Hebert's opinion to the council was nonsense (as described by attorneys I had review it). The damages Waste Facilities is seeking will never be awarded as they are 90% speculative future profits. Their only possible damages are the improvement costs on the land from the time they received a permit and when it was revoked. There is a BIG story here. It's not the council acting irresponsibly, it is why Zoning, Durel's office, or both intentionally hid this highly controversial permit from the public for almost a year. Waste Facilities is involved in a similar lawsuit in St Tammany, which has been going on for years. They bought land from a business partner of a council member, then had it rezoned to allow for a similar station without public hearings. Does this sound familiar? Someone needs to get an explanation of how something like this can go on for a year and not a single person outside of zoning knew about it. - Guy Hebert Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:26:56 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26269 Unquestionably, the council did the wrong thing here. I would not want this facility in my back yard either but they got the permits fairly and honestly. Our laws and regulations did not require them or the city or parish to advise other property owners of their intent. Sad, but that's the way it goes and the council was wrong to cancel their permits. Chano, I have not been on any Govt. teat, but you must need a teat to get some sort of brain food. - Gene Broussard Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:32:26 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26268 Aw Gene, get back on that govahment hind teat. You have'nt the slighest moronic clue, cool hand ding a ling. - chano leal Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:25:13 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26266 I wonder how Michael A. Moss reaches his conclusions. Does he have a crystal ball or do these visions just appear to him. Knuckle-head who makes stupid assumptions he knows nothing about. - Gene Broussard Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:04:18 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26264 $24k per acre is very cost effective for commercial land. The land was on the market (available to the public) and listed for the price that was ultimately paid. - Monty Warren Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:02:59 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/10179-shelvin-waste-facilities-asked-for-17-million#comment-26260 Who would pay $24,000. an acre on Sunbeam Lane? If this was not a political payback situation I don't know what is! All the papers were filed before approval! - Michael A. Moss Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:18:22 +0100