Monday, August 8, 2016

where not to put a park



Time and again, we have seen the lengths the administration and council will go to satisfy the demands of the plants while hiding the truth from the people, who deserve to know what other plans they are hiding.                                               repost from 2013










Saturday, September 21, 2013


where not to put a park

68530.

where not to put a park

by sbcitizens, 09/17/13 6:46 PM

don't put a park in the oil spill area; its too close to the tank farm and contaminated air; that's why the air monitor is in that area, its bad air.

don't put a park next to the solid waste ditch and ponds; there is a required exclusion zone for solid waste areas up to 250 feet or 500 feet and that part of the oil spill property is where nothing is supposed to be.

don't put a park where special interests groups are forcing the park on others.

don't put a park where the streets are going to be removed or where the street lights are not maintained.

put a new park where kids and old people and family and neighbors will be safe and protected, where people live close enough to just walk to the park and not have to drive. put a new park where the people who live in that area want one.

can we even afford another park? don't think we would even be talking about another park until all the previous neighborhood and recreational parks are renovated. so, why are parish employees advocating for a park in the oil spill green belt? are they advocating for the oil company? if you receive a survey for where the next park ought to go, think about what that park is supposed to be and why certain parties would push to spend limited resources on something we don't need, don't want, and would be liable for anyway.

Saturday, August 6, 2016

no zoning changes, no trees





zoning change seemed traded for ball park in what residents think is a quid pro quo donations for zoning change

shortly after the council approved a zoning change for Valero's administration building on Ohio Street, it is slowly being revealed that councilmembers have been discussing Valero's funding of a ball park in District C in the area of the oil spill, reminiscent of the zoning change for trees trade by Murphy.  


reposted from Tuesday, March 16, 2010

no title



Playing politicians against survivors instead of taking responsibility for failing to implement its own hurricane preparedness plans, and with little to no humanitarian aide to residents while gifting generous donations to politicians post crude oil spill, Murphy Oil adds insult to injury in its proposal to use residential homes for its own gain. Although presented as a transient contractor's parking lot, Murphy Oil admits it really wants heavy industrial zoning for future usage. Future heavy industrial usage not just on the north side, but the south side as well.

Industrial and Commercial Usage of residential properties in this area are a determent to the residents who have returned, provide nothing towards the safety of the community and lowers the buffer while rewarding an unjust enrichment for an incident of their own negligence.

Encroachment, incursion, a taking, you name it what you want, the result makes the parish further liable.
.
It's our land, we'll use it as we do, if you please. [We'll do what we d*** well please]
.
Denying secure tenure to victims after the worse environmental disaster, the worse land based oil spill, Murphy Oil proposes the financially strapped community raise its own funds to construct a dog park and other recreational usage where existing residual crude oil remains on the land of domiciled residents. Residents want no such thing and point out the numerous, readily available parks and parkways throughout the parish, which would be better suited for these suggestions.
.
Accepting donations for trees with the implication "No Zoning Changes, No Trees", newly elected officials are pushing this lovely linear park as the best thing for the community, while not only ignoring their constituents, but also the existing facilities and economic development opportunities at .
.
Slicker than oil and more offensive than obnoxious smells, this proposal was rejected by residents who serve on the Council's Murphy Oil Buffer Zone Committee. Yet, the Council continues the misnomer that if Murphy were only to reveal "The Plan"-- "The Plan" which everyone but the land owners and surrounding neighbors seem to have access to -- that it could move forward --- just exactly what the council wants to move forward is unclear to those homeowners who would be asked to once again lose everything.


Blog Archive