Please Sign In


New To Sportsman Network?

Fourchon Beach

Reply
I read The Tri Parish Times, The Gazette, and The Comet on line. All in my opinion are great newspapers. In the jeer section of Saturdays on line edition of the comet. I felt legitimate questions were raised along, with several inaccuracies.

I would like at this time to answer those questions and correct the mistakes.

The Wisner Foundation own no part of the property addressed in the jeer. The opinion that Fourchon should be developed by private entities sounds good, but in fact private entities will want to maximize profits, making Fourchon beach unaffordable to 95% of the people. The same people that have spent hundreds of millions accessing and protecting Fourchon beach.

Am I against private development of some areas of Fourchon?

No, I just want to make sure there are vast areas of Fourchon that will have affordable access, so the taxpayers will have the opportunity to get a bang for their buck.
As for the delay in the process, it is not for a lack of need or urgency. The commission made an offer to Caillouet land for the appraised value of the property. They were given ample time to respond and did not.
When the commission got no response I decided, after having been given authority to negotiate in behalf of the board, (with the board having to approve any compromises I may reach with the landowner of course).
So despite 5yrs. of fruitless negotiations I decided to try again because, the negotiator for the landowner had changed.
I talked to the D.A. and he felt it was a good idea, but could not get involved because the new negotiator was an Asst.D.A. I then asked our attorney to contact the negotiator, after at least four attempts he got no response. There is urgency and need for access, but the facts are, the construction of the Caminada Headlands project will not allow access till probably mid-2014. So there is still a small window of time for negotiations.

Can we afford it?

That’s a no brainer. The parish’s long range master plan calls for the development of tourism and ecotourism.

What other area in the parish can offer what the beach can?

Again, can we afford the opening of 12 miles of beautiful white sugar sand beach? Millions of dollars are being spent on promoting tourism in Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Jefferson parish. The opening of Fourchon beach would allow the region to offer tourist a continuing destination, not just a place to make a onetime visit.
This would have a tremendous economic impact on the region. Greatly increasing the sales tax base and hotel motel taxes. So yes, we can afford it. It would become a new economic engine for the region. So I would like the region to support the commission’s effort. Lafourche has been very generous in assisting other parishes in the region, for example charity hospital in Terrebonne and sediment pipeline in Jefferson. Also nearly 6 million dollars on elevated highway one. This allows service companies in
Neighboring parishes to better access Port Fourchon.

People, does it make sense that half a billion dollars of your tax dollars will be spent on Fourchon beach between state and federal projects, and you would not be able to use it? This is not fair; I hope you agree with me. I hope The Comet; a great newspaper doesn't view this letter as an attempt to make them look bad, but only an attempt to inform them and the public as to certain facts about Fourchon beach.
I am signing this letter as a private citizen because I felt the need to respond quickly, and the commission doesn't meet till next month. After all the public needs to know the facts.
Please print my contact info so I can answer any questions.

Rickey Cheramie
985 677 0309
P.o. Box 141 Golden Meadow LA.70357
rtcheramie@gmail.com
Reply
   e-man (R)
Ricky,
I agree w/ you 100% that If public money is spent on the beach then the public should have access to the beach. As someone like you that has been fishing the beach since i was a child. ( over 40 years) I would love to see the parish / state purchase the beach and open it back up to fishing again.
Haven't they been spending public tax dollars for years fighting erosion on the beach?
This was the argument when caluette land first posted the beach years ago.
Many fishermen said that they shouldn't spend public money on a private beach.
But anyone w/ half a brain would know that the state had no real choice. If they didn't fight the erosion, the beach would be gone and the gulf would be at La1 sooner or later .
I am in Baton Rouge . If there is any one i can contact or anything i can do please do not hesitate to call on me. Bob
Contact info sent in e mail.
Reply
   rhall301
Mr. Cheramie...I too would loved to have acess to the Fourchon Beach, but I cannot follow your logic.

The subject property is own by private citizens. What gives the government the right to seize it. For a lawful seizure to occur, there must be a public necessity. The fact that this property would make a good public playground, does not make it a public necessity.

I have a 45 acres dove field, Massive amounts of doves are killed annually. The public would have a great time hunting my private acreage. Does that make it a public necessity? Absolutely not.

I will not even address the fact that the offer for compensation was not even near the actual worth of the property. The Parish's offer for all the tract was nearly as much as one, 1/4 acrea lot cost in the front of the subject property.

As to public funds being used on the property, that was at the bequest of the government, not the land owners.

If the Parish really sought a fair transaction, it would have bought the land formerly known by many as Elmer's Island from the Louisiana Land Trust.

I have to join the 'jeers' of the local papers, because there has been, and never has there been a showing of public necessity.

The landowners are not required to respond to a absurd offer for land that is not even for sale.
Reply
How many hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars were spent on your dove field? The appraisal was done by Craig Stanga, certified master appraiser. This property is taxed as salt marsh, the lowest possible assessed rate. The reason Lafourche didn't buy Elmers Island is because it's in Jefferson Parish.
Reply
   rhall301
The reason Lafourche did not buy Elmer's Island is that it did not like the price tag, which was a fair price. Portions of the tract are in Lafourche, and the purchase tract could have been easily annexed.

No tax dollars were spent on my dove field; however, if Lafourche government begged me to use tax dollars on my field I would have surely considered it. That is exactly what happen on Fourchon Beach. The government begged to use tax dollars on private land (illegal) so that Highway One and the Fourchon Road would be protected.

Finally, tax assessment does not equal value. But before you can even get to what is 'just compensation' to have to prove a public neccesity. A question I asked earlier but you failed to answer. Simply put, there is no necessity, nor has the Port Commission, nor the Parish government ever urged one.
Reply
'You didn't build that' where have I heard this logic before?
Reply
rhall301,
I enjoy the back and forth on the subject of Fourchon Beach.
Bayou Thunder runs by the old garbage dump (2nd bridge on LA. One) first bridge is on Bayou Fer Blanc.
The center of Bayou Thunder
Eastward is Jefferson , center of bayou westward is Lafourche Parish.
Many yrs. ago Bayou Thunder started flowing through Bayou Fer blanc. The parish line is still the center of the bed of Bayou Thunder.
Bayou Fer Blanc is the one that flows into the gulf. The parish line, several hundred yards east of that. If you are caught between Bayou Thunder and Fer Blanc pass The Wisners will have you removed and may prosecute you. Dr.Elmer owned no land in Lafourche Parish and no Lafourche Parish land was offered for sale in the Elmers Island purchase.
All of this can be verified by Amanda Phillips secretary of the Ed wisner donation advisory. What might be confusing you, the Elmers Island map showed bayou Fer Blanc as Bayou Thunder. If a bayou course changes, it does not change the parish or state line. For example, the Mississippi River is the dividing line between La. and Ms., because of changes of the course of the river, some La. property lie east of the river and some Ms. property lie west of the river.
You asked I address the need for the property in question. The Lafourche Parish Council and Administration voted unanimously to make the offer to the landowner.
The Port Commission put in a bridge and toghether with the parish a road. All for public access.
To qualify for eminent domain it could be railroad, utilities, highways,and public recreation. We represent all the people rich or poor, not just the people that can afford paying 275,000 for a 1/4 acre of land.
Reply
This is the new USA apparently. The govt has always had the ability to force the sale of property for things such as roads, powerlines etc. Apparently now the state thinks it can take land against the will of the land owners anytime it wants. First Florida now maybe here. Very sad.

I would love for this property to be developed like proposed by the state, but not by force. Taking land for this sort of thing was never written into law. Just more abuse of power and terrible judges making their own laws up.
Reply
   rhall301
Mike...You are correct

Mr. Cheramie...We are only going back and forth because for the third time you dodged the most important issue. Please explain where is the public necessity.

Public Necessity does not equal Public Desire.
Reply
Mr.hall
I will try one last time to explain the necessity and public desire in acquiring Fourchon Beach. In Lafourche Parishes master plan the development of tourism and ecotourism is a big part of the plan. This is vital to the future of Lafourche,what bigger tourist attraction is there than 12 miles of beautiful sugar sand beach?
Thousands of workers work at the port. Many staying weeks at a time with no place to recreate.
The port plans to double in size in the near future,creating thousands of new jobs. Who will want to move their family to Lafourche if there are no opportunities to recreate?
As for desire, before we were evicted from the beach for more lucrative opportunities. We had the sheriffs office handling weekly trash pick ups using inmate labor, the district attorney handling all citations issued,Port Commision
Harbor police providing 24hr.patrol and fire dept. training firemen in sea rescue, and the parish willing to buy a ten million dollar liability policy. there is strong support and endorsement from the tourist commission and the South Lafourche Levee District. It is the desire
of the people that prompts Govt. to acquire property for public facilities.
Does this show desire? If it doesn't, ask all ofthe people that were raised with Fourchon being part of their culture if they desire to have access to Fourchon Beach. I think you will find Lafourche and Terrebonne want this. I don't think this answer will satisfy you, but I would love to discuss this more in person. You have my contact info, please contact me when you come to Lafourche. We may have to agree to disagree ,but I think we may learn something. Looking forward to meeting you.
Reply
I was surprised at the position you took on public access. Im sure many loyal readers in Lafourche will be disappointed also. Perhaps you are not aware that in the last 5yrs in Lafourche Parish we have lost the Gheens boat launch accessing lake Cataouatche, the Clovelly boat launch accessing Little Lake, Fourchon Beach and the Wisner Management area, also 85% of the marshes. All of these areas allowed public access
Less than five yrs ago they were developed with your tax dollars. Now they are available only to the highest bidder. Where does this stop? If anyone out there has a solution please post it .
The commision continues to persue negotiations. Expropriation remains a last resort, however public access remains a priority.
Reply
God built Fourchon Beach, but hundreds of millions of your tax dollars were spent accessing and protecting it.rn Please join our fight for access.
Reply
I am new to this topic and I am seeking some answers/information.

Are we talking about the purchase of just 45 acres?

The state bought elmers island to make a refuge. Why can't a portion of that be used? I am assuming because of some legal issues with removing the west most section from the refuge?

Is there something about the fourchon land that makes it that much more attractive for development?
Reply
   shadrig
Not to detract Mr. Cheramie, but where between Texas and Mississippi are there sugar sand beaches?
Reply
The views I posted are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for LASM. Even though I might be a very small part of the LASM I have the right to express MY views and that is all I am doing. MY views.

Maybe you can change my opinion about this project. Seriously.

A few years back, in florida I think, the govt forced the sale of private property so it could be developed and they could collect more tax money from the new owners. Confiscating private property against the will of the land owners is not something that should be taken lightly. I am not suggesting that you are taking it lightly.
Reply
   rhall301
Mr. Cheramie.....Again, I ask, where is the public necessity. You again address the public desire, with all due respect, so what. Because a public entity wants to attract tourism is not a legal mandate to create a necessity.

You also continue to discuss the tax dollars spent on the Fourchon Beach. That was done at the request of the Port Commission and not the private landowners. It is the Port Commission who illegally spent taxpayers dollars to preserve a private landowner's property. Maybe, before the Port Commission spent tax dollars on a private tract of land, it should have gotten an agreement from the landowners for public access.

The Port Commission failed miserably and now seek to deprive private landowners of their property, illegally, to cover a major mistake by the Commission. A mistake that also happens to be illegal.
Reply
maybe they should have used those hundreds of millions of tax dollars to build us a bridge to fourchon that we don't have to pay for twice. once with our taxes and twice with your tolls. what you gonna do after you take somebody's private property at fourchon beach, charge them $2.00 per leg to walk on it.
Reply
   sportla
If we are going to start talking about necessity in Lafourche Parish I suggest that any money we have available to spend be used towards something a bit more important than being able to drive cars on a beach. Driving vehicles on a beach is not going to all of the sudden going to transform fourchon into an enormous tourist destination.
Does anyone here know how much money our parish spends to house inmates and juvenile offenders in other parishes because our jail and juvenile facilities are so out of date? It is an awful lot...and I would dare say that having adequate correctional facilities far outweighs the necessity of allowing people to drive their vehicles on the beach (which I might add is against the law). And the notion that these beaches are sugar white sand is just laughable...have you ever seen fourchon beach??
Does anyone else have any better uses for our parishes money in mind?
Reply
   rhall301
You sir are correct. There is no public necessity and that is why Mr. Chermaie has refused to answer that exact question despite making five post since the question was asked.

In fact, on a local talk radio show yesterday, Mr. Chermaie's supportors called and said there is a public necessity because the 'oil field workers down at the Fourchon need a place to recreate'

In my opinion and reading numerous reports, let me explain the dymanics of what happen: The Port on the advice of Lafourche Parish's attorney used tax payer's dollars to protect and enhance private property.

How should such a thing happen in Louisiana: The Parish's attorney is the Lafourche Parish District Attorney, and the private property owners are in part two Lafourche Parish assistant district attorneys and the former Thibodaux mayor.

Since a grass root entity is looking into this conduct and the illegal actions of the Port and others, the Port believes it can 'dodge the bullet' if it seizes the land.

So in sum.....The Port illegally uses public funds to enhance private property on the advice of the local district attorney, who has an obvious conflict of interest, and is now claiming a public necessity because of tourism.

I do not think even the great Adm. Rabbit could make this type of stuff up.
Reply
   maisweh
the parish screwed up in throwing money at the gheens launch, clovelly, and fourchon beach. throw money at it expecting the public will use it or will eventually be able to use it, then the landowner says 'nope,' after they recieve all this funding. good business by the landowner, bad business by the parish.
Reply
   Wilson
If I'm not mistaken, I don't think the state bought Elmer's Island. I believe they just said that a certain amount of beach property was actually owned by the state (up to the high tide mark) and then created a right of way through private property (which is legal) to access the land owned by the state. Now w hether the public is only accessing state land or not is another issue but basically the state found a way around spending 4.5 million to buy Elmer's Island.

I am all for preserving private property. I actually have a lease in a gated area but I must commend the state for their ingenuity with gaining public access to Elmer's Island. I have enjoyed being able to drive to the beach and fish, although Isaac has made access much more limited now.
Reply
Nowhere that I am aware of. The Caminada headlands project and the fed. Govts triple b.s. project would build an 8ft.high dune, nearly half a mile wide. This will be done from Belle Pass to Caminada Pass. Sand used to do this would be mined at Ship Shoal. This sand is coarse grain (white sugar sand), total cost to the tax payer half a billion dollars. Since we are paying for it wouldn't it be nice to see it? Landowners have closed off all access to the seashore that belongs to all of us. Unfortunately we will have to look at pictures to see our seashore if something is not done. Thank you so much for your interest if you have any more questions call me nights @985 677 0309.
Reply
Mr. Guerin,
I understand that you are entitled to your personal opinion, and I'm sure you agree the people of Lafourche are entitled to theirs.
Mr. Guerin I will attempt to give you the information you seek.
The western most part of Elmers Island boundry is in Jefferson Parish. We have no jurisdiction there.
West of the boundry belongs to the Wisner Trust, it cannot be bought or sold. That is in Lafourche Parish.
The 45 acres in question have the only three roads that access the state owned seashore from bayou Fer Blanc to Belle Pass. You, I, and all of the people in the state own this seashore. No one can keep us off of it, however they can deny access across their land. The South Lafourche Beachfront Development has negotiated for over 5yrs for access only to no avail. The Beach Front Commission only has plans to build a pavilion, a public fishing pier extending past the rock barges,an rv park, and an inland fishing pier on Bay Champagne. All of this will be free of charge to the public. Currently there is one mile of state owned beach behind the seashore that cannot be access, because the landowner will not give permission to cross their property. This includes Bay Champagne, the seashore, and the Bed of Old Pass Fourchon. We have no other plans for development. We have no problem with the landowner developing the rest of their property if they can get permits.
What makes Fourchon Beach special? For a hundred yrs. we had access to Fourchon beach. It became part of our culture. We want access to what belongs to all of us.
The seashore,the bed of old pass Fourchon,and Bay Champagne Beach.
Thanks for the questions. I hope I answered them for you. If you have any more please ask.
Reply
Mr. Hall
The Port Commision, the state, and federal govt has every right to spend money on Fourchon, because the seashore belongs to the public, and they have the right to spend tax dollars to protect public property.
The law of eminent domain in the 5th. Amendment to the constitution as interpreted by Columbia school of law, says the state has the right to seize private property with just compensation for highways, utility lines, and public facilities. The property is assessed as to what is there at the time of appraisal.
Not what may be there in the future.
As for need I don't think anyone can say we don't need to get access to the state seashore, but anyhow it won't be me or you making that decision. Still looking forward to meeting you. Oh by the way Port Fourchon, the biggest economic engine in this parish that supplies 20% of this entire country's oil, was built by spending tax dollars on private land. Is Port Fourchon illegal?Should it be shut down? Try to convince the parish, state, and federal govt. of that. Also, the states multi million dollar master plan for restoration, 75% of that will be tax dollars spent on private land. Mr. Hall if you knew the offers we have made for access to our seashore, you would not be taking the position you are taking. If you would like to hear the offers call me nights. Thanks for the interest.
Reply
You are exactly right. The seahore belongs to all of us . The Beach Front Development Commission has negotiated for over 5yrs for access only,to the seashore. The 45 acres
in question contain the only 3 access rds to the seashore for 9miles from Bayou Fer Blanc to Belle Pass why should the people be denied a ccess to what is rightfully theirs? Thanks for showing your love for our seashore. If you have any questions about Fourchon Beach call me nights @ 985 677 0309
Reply
   ceb99
would protecting hwy 1 from erosion by purchasing the beach and maintaining it be considered a public necessity? would saving the only vehicle access road to grand isle be a public necessity? is this an issue or am i selfishly just trying to justify the governments attempt to basically seize these peoples land?
Reply
Rickey Cheramie thanks for taking the time to answer all these questions.

First off I see that forced acquisition is at the very least not such a cut and dried issue in this case like it was in the Florida case. That is good.

The Beach Front Development Commission has negotiated for over 5yrs for access only, to the seashore you say. I do not understand this. Why is access over existing private roads even an issue that needs to be negotiated. Servatude/right of way can be had by the gov't anytime a new road or powerline is being made. Why not the same thing for access to the beach?

This next question might not be something you can answer. A number of years ago you could take the road past the public launch and drive to the beach and then to the jetties at bell pass. Then access was stopped. I think it went all the way to Mike Foster??? on allowing pilings to be driven into the sand to prevent vehicle access to a public beach.

The pilions were driven in by the land owner on public land!!! This to my way of thinking should have been illegal but it was allowed! Why?

This doesn't solve the issue with a pier or camping but seems to me it should be an easy move for the gov't to get access through those existing roads and then open up the beach to the public via this access point.
Reply
   maisweh
Mike, I had NO idea that those pilings were on public land. My understanding is that it belonged to the Caillouets.

'The Beach Front Development Commission has negotiated for over 5yrs for access only, to the seashore you say. I do not understand this. Why is access over existing private roads even an issue that needs to be negotiated. Servatude/right of way can be had by the gov't anytime a new road or powerline is being made. Why not the same thing for access to the beach?'

Rickey, I have the same question. I remember as a child when I lived in Leeville that the family would go down, on that one road. Sometimes stopping right over the bridge to fish in the canal. Where does the Caillouets land start? Right after the bridge? And from that point on them not allowing anyone access to a PUBLIC beach that the parish spent tax dollars on?
Reply
   rhall301
Mr. Cheramie....You failed again to show a public need, which is required by the very Constitution you sited.

The Parish is not trying to seize a roadway to seashore access, it is trying to seize all the private property in the area.

I also beleive your most recent post (which has been copied) will be used against you as to value of the land, and what is just compensation. You admit that the Foruchon area is a thriving tract of land, yet you think 260,000.00 is just compensation for 44 acres of that property.

Ask Gary if he thinks C-Port is worth less than $6,000.00 an acre.
Reply
   Wilson
$6,000 an acre seems high to me for marshland but it all depends on where the 45 acres is located. I would say you have two distinct types of property. One is beach property which is worth more than $6,000 an acre, assuming that you can build on it and it's not enrolled in some sort of conservation or mitigation program. So the value of this part completely depends on how much beach frontage there is. I'd guess about $1,000 per foot of beach frontage if you broke it up into lots like on Grand Isle (estimated $100,000 for a 100 foot wide lot). Now this amount may be a little high because there is no electricity, sewer or water ran to these 'lots' yet. This will cost money along with the cost of getting the property subdivided into lots and possibly re-zoned.

Then you have the property behind the beach lots. I am assuming this is some type of marsh/wetlands, which is not worth a whole lot. Maybe $1,500 an acre max. If it is some sort of solid ground that can be built upon, then it will be worth more but no where near what the beachfront property is worth.

Another issue with this property that definitely affects the value are the mineral rights. Assuming that the current landowners also own the mineral rights, did the $6,000 an acre offer include the minerals? Also, could the minerals be excluded from the sale and therefore lower the cost of the land? Maybe someone else can chime in with more details about the property and then we'll have a better understanding of the relevant issues.

I just have one more comment directed towards Mr. Rhall. I think that we have finally established just cause for the state. Not for them to seize the property but for them to create a right of way through the property to access the beach. I tend to agree with you that the state shouldn't seize someone's property just to turn it into a RV camping site. But it is important for the state to be able to access their land.

Does anyone know why the state isn't doing the same thing with Fourchon that they did with Elmer's island?
Reply
   rhall301
In response to Wilson.....Very good response and information. However, please understand a little more about the location. This property would be the entrance to Port Fourchon. Approximately 27% of all oil/gas that is comsumed in North America comes through this Port.

To give you a little more insight, when 9/11 happen, fighter jets and helicopters were dispatched to Port Fourchon the very same day to guard the facility.

No one with local knowledge beleives the Port Commission wants this property for recreational purposes. Once the Port Commission would take ownership of this tract, it would do the very same thing it need with C-Ports--Lease the land for industrial purposes.

If there is any doubt to my logic, the following is the Port Commission's mission statement:

'The Commission's founders targeted Port Fourchon for growth and development of port facilities because of its ideal geographic location on the Gulf Coast. Fourchon's primary service market is domestic deepwater oil and gas exploration, drilling, and production in the Gulf of Mexico. Port Fourchon is comprised of 1700 developed acres that house state-of-the-art service facilities, and the port is in the final phase of its Northern Expansion project, which is more than doubling the port's size and will further accommodate the industry's growing needs.'

If the Commission really was concerned about recreational desires, it had 1700 acres of land it could have development. Instead, it is leasing that land to every major player in the oil and gas industries at usury rates.
Reply
Forgive me if I say something that someone else might have pointed out. I'm not a political guy, and it really bores me to read about it. My thinking on the subject is this: The beach at fourchon is a very important barrier to a good portion of Louisiana. I am pretty sure that the owners cannot afford to maintain it from washing away. Therefore it is important for the state to purchase the land in order to keep maintaining it from washing away so that it can continue to act as a barrier for the state. Give the owners a fair price for the land and be done. As far as recreational usage, that would be great, because I myself grew up near there and spent a lot of time windsurfing,surfing,stunt kite flying, hobie cat sailing, surf fishing, crabbing, camping,bird-watchung, 4 wheeling with my jeep, and many other really cool things that I just couldn't do in any other place in Louisiana. However, I don't think that the recreational part is why we need to purchase the land for the state. It is to protect the state. The recreation will just be a by-product.
Reply
...any bets the toll will be close to double with-in six monthe after commitments...just wait till 'ya get popped w/beach fees and porta-potty contract fees and security...they might even charge a extra $15 for a 'EPPS' (emergency po-poo stamps) to stick on'ya licence...(remember the 'think tank' in Baton Rouge are the only ones that work 14 hrs a day right into their O/T Happy Hour)...anyway have no fear the money will go into the 'general fund' so they can all get 'tabs' from each other !!!...cheers

PS...don't forget the 'Wal-Mart Cart Path'... it's gonn'a be beautiful !!!...cheers
Reply
maisweh yes the piling were on public land. Yes they own the land there but the gulf of mexico is not owned by them! The piling went all the way to the water to prevent people from driving down the beach to the rocks. The state always has and always will own the sand up to the high water mark.
Reply
   Ash2010
I'm pretty sure it's the Lafourche Parish, on behalf of the South Lafourche Beachfront District that is purchasing the beach, not the Port Commission. All three are separate entities. It's pretty ignorant to think that the toll would increase b/c of the purchasing of the beach, after all it is the SLBD purchasing it not the LADOTD. For 100 years the beach has been publicly accessed, with no issues, but now that millions of YOUR tax dollars are fixing to be spent restoring the beach, the public can no longer access it. I think you have to ask yourself who here is the greedy one? I feel Mr. Cheramie made several attempts to explain the 'necessity' of purchasing the beach. What part of PUBLIC FACILITIES, don't you understand? I grew up here in lower Lafourche and the beach is our heritage, our culture, our way of life. Where else can you go and set crab lines out, trout fish, swim, bring your kids and wife and have a family day, all for the cost of gas it takes to ride to Fourchon? I for one want my kids, grandkids, great grand kids to see what life was like back when...

It saddens me to know that there are such close minded people in this world that refuse to listen to reason. I hope to see the beach reopen, so we can ALL enjoy it again.
Reply
   rhall301
Public Facilities does not equal public necessity. If the facility was sewer lines, water lines, power exchange stations, etc, then there is a public necessity. Enjoying beach for recreational purposes is not public necessity.

And no, Mr. Cheramie has yet to explain public necessity.

And no, there is no dispute the public owns up to high tide line, but that is not what tract is at issue here.
Reply
When the parish built the road to the seashore it went to the seashore and turned west, on the seashore toward Belle Pass to the bed of Old Pass Fourchon, this is now under water.
The road to the east was built to construct the geo tube project. Access was not even considered, because we had access, and nothing on the horizon indicated that the landowners would take it away from the people. This road to the east accessed not only the seashore, but also one mile of beach at Bay Champagne.
The road to the west goes to the Chevron facility and turns south to the sea shore. Built by the Port Commission, with again no indication that it would be privatized. There are padlocks on all three roads now. The port and parish didn't have to get access. They had access,when they spent the money. A mistake? Perhaps, but remember when the money was spent,access was not an issue.
Thanks for bringing back the memories of being able to drive to the rocks, in fact I remember sharing a small piece of beach with Mark Hilzim, one of your colleagues.
Catching and releasing bull reds till our arms fell off .(wont tell you the spot) maybe Mark will lol.
On the piling issue, many in the parish and state felt this fishing pier/duck blind was an attempt to block access to the seashore.
The Dept. of Natural Resources was required to issue this permit, because of the precedent of issuing thousands of permits to camp owners and homeowners. The pier was to be private 3ft wide with no railings and a duck blind on the end of it. The state issued the permit, but attached a special condition to the permit, it said that the landowners must place a gap in the pilings wide enough and high enough for emergency and recreational vehicles. The reason cited by state was the pier crossed the seashore and the public had traditionally driven on the seashore, and acknowledged their right to continue to do so. Mike any more questions please ask.
Reply
--
Thanks for the question. The Caillouet tract south of Fourchon bridge is on the north, the canal you fished on,the east near Bay Champagne , on the west to old bed of pass Fourchon, and on the south by our seashore. Oh by the way, people and the businesses of Leeville want this, and as you know they are hurting, because of La 1 bypassing them, because of new bridge. The bed of old pass Fourchon is claimed by the state and the Caillouets also the Wisners.(The most feasible spot to build an access road.)
In several meetings with division of state land. We were told that they owned the land, but would not assert claim because of the claims on it by the landowners to avoid litigation, very disappointing. Thanks again for the questions
Reply
The assessed value of the property is based on what is there at time of assessment. The litmus test for wetlands is the type of vegetation growing there(it is all spartina) saltwater grass. This property is the dune of the seashore. I don't think anyone would be permitted to build on the dune, because these dunes need constant maintenance (example Grand Isle)
You made the point that no utilities were run. Good point! Also no new building permits will be approved east of Fourchon road. Would anyone pay $100,000 for a lot 100ft wide if you cannot build on it, nor insure it? Mr. Wilson in the interest of not having to repeat myself please look at my comments to Mai's weh. On getting the state to assert their claim to Pass Fourchon for access. The commission is not seeking mineral rights (that could be put into the agreement. Thank you for the questions..
Reply
Great point , I also grew up near there, and have a deep and profound love for it. I also did all of the things you mentioned. My boot of choice are the white uniroyals. The state came very close to purchasing this property. When the state started negotiating for a right of passage to do the Caminada Headlands project.
They negotiated with the landowner for nearly a year.
To no avail, I was told the stumbling block was, the landowner wanted the state to put in writing that there would be no vehicular access to the seashore. The state would not do it. No agreement. The approaching date for begining construction nearing, the state asked the South Lafourche Levee District to expropriate the property. They voted to do so. This brought the landowner back to the table, and an access agreement for construction only was agreed to, but not for public access. What we would need to do is everyone demand the state acquire access to our seashore. As for the taking of the property there is no vote to do that yet. If it does resort to that, a judge would look at our appraisal then look at the landowners. He or she would then decide which is more accurate or a dollar amount somewhere in between, so I feel the landowner would get fair compensation. Thanks for your comments any more question call me nights @ 985 677 0309
Reply
The Beachfront Commission does not control what LAdotd does. I understand there is already a scheduled increase of the tolls, but it would be nice if tourism was increased the paying of tolls by tourist, would take some of the burden of paying for this bridge off the back of port workers, grand isle camp owners,and the residents of Grand Isle and Fourchon. The Beachfront Districts budget will pay for port o let's and Chevron has paid for dumpsters. Since our inception, our minutes will show no plans for charging fees. Thanks for the comments
Reply
What is so clear to me, and most of the people of Lafourche is not clear to you.
I have respectfully tried to answer all of your comments even when you were wrong.
For example, 'Lafourche was part of Elmers Island refuge.' No, that is incorrect. 'Lafourche didn't buy Elmers Island refuge, because they didn't like the price.' No, incorrect,
'The parish never showed interest or support in acquiring Fourchon beach access.' Wrong again. 'Spending public money on private land is illegal.' That too is false. Tax dollars is what built Port Fourchon, and will rebuild our wetlands. Even on private land. In a nutshell we don't agree on need, but almost everyone in Lafourche agrees we need this.
I would have continued our merry go round respectfully, however you have chosen to attack me personally in your comment. I will no longer dignify your comments with answers. Any one else I would welcome questions. Oh by the way, wrong again the Port Commission is not trying to gain access. The SL Beachfront Development District is. There is still time for compromise, but if we get no response to offers of compromise we will do what we are mandated to do by the state. We are created by the authority of the legislature and mandated to bring recreation to rocky or sandy shorelines in any parish that creates a commission. One more thing, if you have access to 'Gary' ask him 4 things:
Did tax dollars build the land that you have your businesses on?
Are you the biggest taxpayer in Lafourche?
How many jobs have you created?
Do you feel that this was a phenomenal deal for the parish?
Let us know what 'Gary' says.
Comparing the dunes of Fourchon Beach to the port is ridiculous. There is no sheltered deepwater access to the dunes. The port has spent tens of millions of dollars accessing and protecting this property not preparing it for construction.
And even the port would not be permitted for construction on the dunes.
(Unfair comparison)
Reply
   code red
We are behind you 100% mr rickey!and the work you are doing will benifit the whole comunity soon!people dont want to admit for some reason how great of a asset the beach is,but to anyone who ever had the pleasure of driving to belle pass,will have a special place in their heart for this place!the memories of all our cajun fun days could be many,but our youth is being robbed of this gem!!!i only dream of a day that the oposition in this war quits being selfish and lays down their arms to once again let fourchon beach be all it can be for everyone!instead of its current and previous state of a wasted place with noone using it for anything other then to create trasspassing charges!
Reply
   code red
The private land would not have to be seized if the owners would be reasonable!all is needed is a street!but they are pretty unreasonable!always looking for a reason why they shouldnt!i wish i could have my beach back!and people like nr rickey are few and far between!standing up for what is right!when people who roadblock the public are everywhere!BOTTOM LINE IS THEY ARE DOING NOTHING WITH THE BEACH BUT FIGHTING!!!We NEED OUR BEACH TO BE WHAT IT ONCE WAS FOR LOUISIANA,NOT WHAT IT IS NOW!!!
Reply
   Ash2010
It is interesting that your definition of public facility is different than the Supreme Court and all of the courts in the land. The legal definition of public facilities is as follows.
Any facility including but not limited to buildings,property,recreation areas, and roads.
Is this fair, when property is acquired for a park,playground,or any recreational facility. Public desire prompts city or parish officials
to present the publics desire to the judge, who
will make the decision as to need. Who am I to judge. Attorneys a lot smarter than you and I have made this determination.
I'm glad we agree on who owns the seashore.
No one that I can tell has said that the property in question IS the seashore. This property is the only access to the seashore.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one should be entitled to misstate facts, as you have done in several of your comments.
Reply
   rhall301
Mr. Cheramie--You failed again to tell me what is the public necessity. Recreation is not a public necessity in terms of seizure. Please compare apples to apples.

Ash2010...Your definition by the 'Supreme Court' was overturned as it pertains to emiment domain.

Ordinance 4039, with the approval of Mr. Cheramie, Lafourche Parish created the Lafourche Beachfront Development Commission. That Comm. is a subdivision of and controlled by Lafourche Parish Government. It is one and the same as the Parish Government. It's police force, by governing rules, is the Port Commission Police. Its information can be found on the Port Commission website.

Yes, Mr. Chermaie, your group did spend a large sum of money protecting private land, and failed to get a right of use agreement from the landowner. Maybe the Lafouirche taxpayers did to file a classa ction against the Parish for such illegal action. To cover your backside, now you intend to file a seizure claim, and cost the tax payors an additional $185,000.00 in court cost and attorney fees and have nothing to show far it.

Yes, Mr. Chermaie I can talk to Gary whenever I like, but that is not my job, it is yours, and apparently if you need to do so, you again failed at yours.

Mr. Cheramie, until Gary and Marco and Larry took a change, the C-Port was nothing more than sand dunes, now it is the country's largest energy port. My comparison is completely accurate.

Finally, since you have yet to answer my question about necessity, I will ask another. If the Parish really beleives there is a necessity, why has your group waited so long to file a seizure claim?
Reply
actually Ricky, now that I'm not an official resident DTB, I got some Lacrosse Alpha Burly sports. Wish someone besides a private owner would have that property. I'd run my jeep from the rocks to the cut at Elmer's lookin for birds.
Reply
I can remember when the only po po down there was T-Clair Cheramie (ma padna) and Dean (ma other padna). Now I wouldn't sneeze down there.
Reply
   sportla
Does anyone in this thread know anything about Caillouet land other than the fact that they own the beach? Everyone on here wants to talk about tax dollars being spent to protect 'private land'. Mr cheramie, please be so kind as to tell the people on this forum what private land owner donated hundreds of acres of land to the port to help the port grow. How many tax dollars have been collected off of businesses that now lease this donated land to the port. Mr cheramie, please tell the people on this forum the answer to this question....if the private landowner were to offer the parish a right of way to build a road behind the sand dunes, would that be an acceptable compromise?
Someone in another post asked for a road. That seems reasonable. Why can't the parish just build a road behind the dunes and have walkways to the beach....kind of like every other beach in America.
I happen to know some members of the Caillouet family. They are not some big rich family that is screwing with the people of lafourche parish. The people on this forum have demonized these people for taking steps to protect their land. How many people on this forum would just give their property away? Caillouet land has always allowed people on the beach and it is my appreciation that they intend to continue to let people use the beach, without allowing vehicles on it (for safety reasons).
By the way mr cheramie, doesnt your family own an rv park at fourchon? Isn't your family's property being protected by these'hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars?'. When exactly are you planning on giving your family's land to the public for free?
Reply
   e-man (R)
I don't know about Mr. cheramie owning a RV park ? but what difference does that make?
I do know that mr cheramie owns land in a different part of the parish and does let some of the public access his land for fishing.
I have fished his property at times.
If the beach could be accessed by a road behind the dunes that would be great .BUT the area behind the dunes is so soft in many areas that the cost of hauling in rip rap and sand would not be worth the effort.
The dunes were a big sticking point when the beach was posted. There were 4WD trucks and jeeps riding the dunes and tearing them up The best way to preserve the dunes is to keep the access to the beach where it is and let folks drive on the beach as we did for many years
Reply
   code red
Fourchon Beach is a vital asset to my community. We are being denied access to the beach. This place has been and still is public. The entire Gulf Coast is open for business but Fourchon Beach is still inaccessible. In the heart if Cajun country, we are losing the battle of keeping our kids interested in our Cajun ways! Fourchon Beach is our best asset for showing them our way of life without actually putting them on a boat. This makes for the earliest interactions that last a life time. This land is undeveloped and eroded shoreline that our tax dollars are going to rebuild it again!!!There are so many reasons why people need this and it is the right thing to do. As a taxpayer in Lafourche Parish, I am part of the engine that runs Port Fourchon. What we are asking for is to be able to drive too Belle Pass once again. We do not want to drive on dunes, but only the waters edge. We are backed by all our local government which includes the harbor police which patrols the beach 24 hours a day. We have all of our bases covered. Our childhood held many special memories there and our children are being starved of our true Cajun culture. The local trawlers are dwindling in numbers and French is not being passed on. We need to act! In South Padre Island alone, 64 miles of beach is accessible to vehicles and is encouraged. All state beaches in Texas are considered state highways. It is also encouraged in places like Long Beach, New Jersey, Alabama, Florida, South & North Carolina, and even Elmers Island which is managed by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Their job is to protect wildlife and they have no problems with it. This place was only separated from Fourchon Beach by Bayou Thunder in the 1980s. All I’m interested in is beach access. Our Parish Council passed a resolution to aquire public access in the name of the state and Army Corps of Engineers with no opposition! My community is on its knees begging. We all feel this is the right thing to do . Our people stepped up in a big way for last years oil spill. I worked it over a year and hauled over 5000 cubic yards out of Plaquimines Marsh myself. I stood with all my family and friends and cleaned the worst environmental disaster ever so please don’t think for a second that we would ever allow our beach to be ruined.you know that a bunch of people lost their land to the bridge to port fourchon without any choice?people's houses was taken to supply the port with a better road.do you know how many people lost their land to levees in sl?even worthless ones like the one south of the brittain canal wich is now surrounded by a bigger one!the drainage ditches require 15 feet to maintain them,yet the rest was not returned to the owners.why not?i dont see the need to take soneones house for a road when a road already existed,but they did and took several!well this is freakn marsh!take the dam land!because it will better the whole comunity just like the road kinda does.as for safety,there is no reason why it is allowed everywhere else and cant be allowed in fourchon.and im sure the calluettes are good people!,like the good people who had to pack up and move elsewhere for the roads and levees!it is what it is!and the seashore is ours!the land that will be created is ours!so get ready!cuz if we cant have our beach,i dont see why we should pay lafourche taxes to maintain a bridge and road to the beach or even fourchon for that matter!if the public is out,and the oilfield is all that can enjoy the perks of fourchon,let them take care of everything!and maybe this parrish wouldnt be so dam broke all the time!!!
Reply
   code red
One more thing for all yall fact checkers,i know when the spill was,it was a typo!haha why you ask im so desperate?because i just like to fish,hunt,surf,crab,trawl,camp,build sand castles,jam music in the sand by a fire,play volleyball,frisbee,horseshoes,football on a beach is cool too,gig flounders,cast net,and whatever else my coonass heart desires!and these are all the things we are being robbed of everyday the beach is closed!but if it has to be about money,guess im not buying so much bait,castnets,food and drinks down there,or even footballs,and freakn frisbees fron wallmart!and i am not paying the toll as much either!
Reply
   code red
I would like to add one more thing,as if i havent said enough!grand isle survives all year on the money made in the summer months by using and maintaining their beaches to the fullest potential.the entire state of florida is fed by the beaches.the coast is an asset that is running most of the states that have them.the industry that is built by having public beaches is a huge one!we have an outstanding oil field industry that has benifitted many families greatly!but as times change rapidly in the great population explosion that has occured in the last decade,an industry can be built to also benifit new businesses.if our beach is used to its fullest potential,people will be drawn to a true sportsmans paridise!a land that is private for the public because of the spacious access!a place where hundreds can visit daily and still be alone in their group!to catch massive trout,redfish,crabs,flounder,and surf,skimboard,baske in the sun and do all the beach activities they love to do! The activities they travel to other places to do can ONCE AGAIN BE OFFERED RIGHT HERE IN FOURCHON!!!IM PRAYING AS IS IM SURE A BUNCH OF BAIT SHOPS,RESTAURANTS,HOTELS,STORES,CAR DEALERSHIPS,MECHANICS,AND PARTS AND ACCESSORY STORES,CLOTHING STORES,AND EVEN OUR VERY FIRST SUP SHOP!these places all would have an entirely new class of activities to supply the needs of!and an entire new thribing industry could coexist with the oilfield to create a place like no other!all we need is a chance!with the population louisiana now,make the beach all it can be,and watch what will happen!
Reply
...it's funny how the 'paper tigers' always has big ideas with 'collective money'...almost like a 15 y/o telling Grandpa he 'needs' and 'gott'a have' a new Cadillac...(when the screen door broken)...most Grandpa's know before they know...think a unrelated CPA would call it 'diminishing returns'...cheers
Reply
   code red
Lol,cheers!love the villian role some people feel they have to play.seems as if gloom and doom is all some know.
Reply
   rhall301
Code....you are correct and I have those same feelings about Fourchon Beach that you have. However, it does not get pass the necessity factor. I too would like to see the entire beach a public asset, but it is own by private entities. As such, until Lafourche Parish can prove a public necessity, then acquire the property for just compensation, the tract in question will not be public. Lafourch Parish failed to get a right of use agreement from the private landowners when it illegally used public funds to enhance this tract. It is not the private owners to be blamed but the failures of government officials.

Sport...Thanks for bringing Mr. Cheramie's land ownership into question. For various reasons I could not mention that obvious conflict, but his family's business has a lot to do with his desire to acquire this tract.

The Parish will not be able to prove a public necessity, especially if it's owner reason for seizure is recretional purposes. Remember there is a state park less than 15 miles away. Even if it meets the first legal threshold, Lafourche Parish cannot afford to pay the 'real' value of this property. That true value will be set by the courts not Mr. Cheramie.
Reply
Caillouet land has an agreement with the port and the port pays them handsomely for rentals on this property. Is it a donation when you receive rent on property? No, that is an investment .
Tax dollars collected are a return on the investment the Port and parish made. After all the port and parish paid for developing this property not the landowner.
I can't comment on the road behind the dunes without asking my board,just as you cant answer as to the land owner being open to this. Come to our next meeting and ask that the board consider it. The notice is in the comet, of time and place. I can tell you that was part of the negotiations to the east, and it was turned down by the landowner. That negotiation took place in the DA office,with the da present. Al Bievenue was negotiator for the landowner. When an ADA took over as negotiator, the DA could no longer mediate negotiations. Repeated calls to attempt to negotiate went unanswered. I'm glad you mentioned all other beaches in America, google beach driving in America you will find that all coastal states allow beach driving except Mississippi, and they have a four lane rd on the dune the length of their beach. All beaches in Texas are state highways. If you want to see beach driving go to Elmers Island,they like us must represent all of the people; elderly, handicapped, and ill. Generally anyone who can't carry an ice chest,tackle box, fishing rods, and a live bait bucket a couple hundred yards. The commision realizes that we would have to carry liability insurance, indemnifying the landowner.

Yes my son and daughter in law own a rv park at Fourchon, but they don't own the land. They lease it from Conoco Phillips. Conoco Phillips land is being protected. All rvs must be removed whenever there is a storm threat. The rv park opened 3yrs ago, and has operated at full capacity with mainly port workers only staying there. There is no room to grow,since the park opened. The beach has not been open since the park was open.
My family does not own property at the port, but I own 33 acres of land that is protected by my dollars. Let me tell you how I run my property I allow the public to fish with the signing of a hold harmless(waiver of liability)document, and the agreement that they would carry a membership card. Cost to the public? Not one red cent. I pay my own liability ins. 31 acres of this property is water, and was decided to be private, along with the adjacent landowners. I will go on record now, that if the state offered to fill my property for half, I would do it, because 50% of something is better than 100% of a nothing. Hope this answers your question. Because of your friendship with the land owners, I understand your position, but remember if you are from Lafourche many of your other friends are for access. Your comment seems to imply that I have something to hide, I am not hiding behind a user name, because I have nothing to hide. I have no ulterior motives, only a desire to have my grand children and friends enjoy their seashore.
Thanks for your questions my answers may clear some of the confusion that some of the readers may have.
Reply
Didn't think it was possible to not own a pair of Cajun reeboks, once you have owned one lol.
If we get it open please don't drive on the dunes, against our rules. Stay on the rack area of the surf(area impacted by tides daily).
I promise you when we get it open I will ride with you in your jeep, to the most beautiful wading bird rookery, that has vehicular access in the state. The beach front's master plan calls for pedestrian traffic only from Bay Champagne to bayou Fer Blanc, so birders and ecotourist can experience what a pristine natural beach is like. Thanks for the comments. By the way, Dean Savioe and his wife, (Mary Lou Lanes daughter)and I spent many a night filling our freezer with shrimp, a la cast net. Yes we had our white boots on. T Clair's daddy and my grandma, were brothers and sisters, yes they were on top of their game.
Reply
   BuddyT
I worked on the engineering of the LOOP job in Houston back in 79 & 80. Because I was raised in Louisiana they sent me down for the construction phase of Fourchon Booster Station. I had never really fished saltwater before and it was the best place to learn on the planet. No one kept anyone from driving to Bayou Lafourche jetties. The fishing was so good I drove from Houston with my children and wife to fish there. On numerous occasions I brought friends and their sons. I remember poor folks that came from up the bayou to vacation there along with couples on their honeymoon. On one trip we had several ice chests of sand trout that we gave away. One man with 5 kids and a rusted out station wagon was brought to tears when we gave him a chest of fish saying 'God Bless you mister'. I told him he has as we had reds, specs, flounder & mackerel. Any person or group that would want to keep people from fishing this area is committing a crime again mankind. Louisiana has only 2 places to drive to the coast...Holly Beach and Grand Isle. I now live in Corpus Christi, TX and with hundreds of miles of beach I would make the drive again if there was access to that area. Having been on 4 continents I know what good fishing is. I would hate to stand before the All Mighty being responsible for blocking access to the beach anywhere in Louisiana.
Reply
   code red
Rest asured,just as some people are dedicated to creating problems,there is a group of people set to create answers!if the good people that own the land are so good,why are they not solving problems?not even their own like installing bodin bags,breakwaters,or having dredged material pumped in?i bet they voted for obama the way they operate!and on another matter of value,nothing has been done in the many years that they owned the beach by them that i saw other then driving a few pilings!and if they were smart,they would have put them parallel with the beach to block the surf.all they are concerned about it seems is how big of a problem they could be.worried about posted signs,and for decades doing nothing but letting the land erode!its a godsend that we have people who will fight for our access since we as a public taxpayer payed for every upgrade!and will continue to do so!
Reply
   code red
KEEP FIGHTING!!!!WE ARE BEHIND YOU AS A COMUNITY!!!!!!
Reply
   code red
You got enemies?good!that means you actually stood up for something in life.you dont get another chance,life is no nintindo game!
Reply
sounds like that quote is more fitting for the landowner than the ones that want to steal his property. It blows me away that there are so many people that would support simply taking this man's private property. sad world we live in.
Reply
   code red
To me,is how a comunity for many generations was allowed to make many memories on this beach!for many decades,the people of lafourche and louisiana,and many parts of the usa. For that matter was able to drive on the public seashore all the way to belle pass up until some serrious pms kicked in in the middle 90's.memories like my own when i was 4yrs old catching my first redfish off the catwalk in about 1982!or the one where me and my late best friend killed the battery of the truck atthe rox about 96 and encountered a pack of coyotees to make our nite intresting.it is so mindblowing that our comunity no longer has access to our public seashore and it has come to this!if i was the landowner,i would no doubt lease the land for a thousand years for the street for 1dollar!its not like they are doing anything with it.i dont think i would even take the dollar,but instead,i would just donate the land to the parrish so that the people of today could enjoy a place like this as i had the luxary of growing up!it is mindblowing that some people would fight the public's access to the beach!it is mindblowing that the public pays the taxes to maintain the road and bridge to their lease costomers that bring them an income and cant even access their seashore!it is also mindblowing that the public pays to protect the land and restore it and the certain few vow to fight to the death for the land thatthey let get eroded!it is also mindblowing that they drove pilings to block access for vehicles and claimed that they would build a fishing pier!it is absalutely mindblowing that the attorney general hasnt stepped in and demanded this be resolved for the public's access years ago!it is also mindblowing that all my friends and family,especially my daughter will not have all of what south lafourche has to offer because of this land dispute!and also,that with 12 miles of public seashore,a thousand feet or so is supposed to be just compensation and we are supposed to pack in that tiny spot and be happy when we already had a taste of all it once was!IT IS ABSALUTELY POSITIVELY WITHOUT A DOUBT MINDBLOWING THAT $275000 isnt enough money to buy the 44acres that would resolve this mess!knowing that 40achres of land cost me $25000 only a decade ago inside the sl levees!and to know what kind of house 275000 would buy and still vow to fight!
Reply
   code red
Here is how i see it!when i was a child,i had access to the beach by vehicle from bayou thunder to the belle pass!the east was stolen first!then in the middle 90's,the west got stolen passed them dam pilings!then eventually the beach before the pilings got stolen too!now,cant even walk on the sand most days without someone yelling trasspasser!now knowing that less then 10yrs ago,i paid $25000 for 40acres inside of sl levees and that 44acres of beach that is unprotected is running the parrish a pricetag of $275000 and they say that is not enough?get real bro!that money is the tax dollars that are used to protect the dam leases they make their millions on!wich will still be spentto protect the rest of the land!not like allthe calluetteproperty is at stake,just that small chunk of sand!i can garanteethat the theives inthis equation is defenately not the public or government!especially since we as taxpayers spoon feed these people with restoration and now outrageous money!the parrishes money!stealing this land from them my rear end!more liketaking what we deserve finally!!!! This has to go back to what it was in the 80's,OR THE PUBLIC IS BEING ROBBED BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
   code red
At well over $6000 AN ACRE,WITH ABSALUTELY NO BUILDINGS OR ANYTHING ON IT,THAT IS JUST NUTS!!!!how about you take a minute to geaux onthe clasified section and see what kind of land will fetch a pricetag like that!!!!!we are talking fourchon beach,not beverly hills!!!!i am sure you will havetrouble finding to many people asking that kind of crazy price!what a generous apraisal!and they still want to fight it!they want more!the action of putting that money aside from our parrish gov alone shows a deep love for our people and beach!to deny that amount is crazy!!!just shows that all negotiations are usually shot dead before they start!i think getting everybody on the same page is more dificult then getting north korea and iran to end their nuclear ambitions instantly on the same day!
Reply
   code red
But to say that after my shoreline got robbed from me little by little and now have nothing,defenately struck a nerve!
Reply
please post a map of your forty acres, I and many others would love a place to 'recreate'. After all, tax dollars were spent on that levee that protects your property. The entitlement crowd is something else.
Reply
   code red
Never had a problem with people using my property as long as they respected my rules!but really,we both know this is to access public land.since it is my property and it leads to nothing but a levee,where would you be going?i have given 3people right of ways through my property to access their land and get utillities!all at no cost to them other then a little paperwork.if you and ur buddies need a place to recreate,maybe you should try backing the public beach!!!theres plenty enough beach for everybody that is public and the camanada headlands will make more!if we could just get access to what is ours!not like doing this will have rv's camping in the loading zone atvthe cheveron dock!there is a word i was taught early in life,its tett dur!could be me,could be others.prolly me and others!lol
Reply
   rhall301
Code Red---You and Mr. Cheramie's history lessons are great, but does not meet the standard imposed by the court system to steal someone's property.

Please do not complain when the Parish spends several hundred thousand dollars on this losing cause with nothing to show for it.

As to your comment about $6,000.00, you just proved you have no idea what property development can do for this property tract. Especially since the land's neighbors are making 2.5 Million per month in taxes for the Parish/State.

Finally, the community, as you say, is not behind the Commission, several polls, done by different individual groups have proven such.

If those memories mean such much to you, drive another 15 miles and go to the Grand Isle State Park.
Reply
   code red
I guess you drive on private roads only and all your family goes to private schools only.im sure you live in an area only protected by personal levees.this is the land of the free and the home of the brave!america!and im sure you will have a smart remark about our country's motto because you are just that type of person!dont forget that we became our great nation by staking a claim on indian land!the same indiansthat inhabbited fourchon beach!!!the ones who didnt get their artifacts returned because of the tribe they are in isnt recognized!that land was theirs,as was the artifacts!why is it alright to use the public's system and infastructure that benifits you,then cry that the seashore needs to stay blocked because you evidently already haveyour pass!lets not forget that around 50yrs of calluette ownership has brought this place not much of developing!so lets be honest and let the people get back to what is theirs!!!
Reply
   rhall301
Code Red....Where I live and where I drive and where my kids go to school are not important to this thread.

That is my exact point and why the Parish will lose this seizure claim.

Lets only talk about the facts. The judge(s) that will hear this case, if Mr. Chermaie's group every brings one, does not care about what you and Mr. Chermaie did on this property as kids or what Indian tribe frst settled in South Louisiana.

Only two things matter; (1) Public Necessity (2) Just Compensation.

As to public necessity, tourism/recreational will not meet the legal sdtandard, especially since there is a State Park, less than 15 miles away.

As to just compensation, even Mr. Chermaie, in an earlier post stated how thriving the Port Fourchon region is. Also, the ocurt will look at comparable sales, and after doing so will access just comepensation at a figure the Parish cannot afford.

So I ask, why spend tax payer dollars chasing a dog it cannot catch.

You and Mr. Cheramie continue to site Consitituional rights in support of your arguments, yet that very same Constitution gives private landowners those same rights.
Reply
   code red
Its ultimately in the judges hands!im hoping hr sees this as much as a neccessaty as is having multiple bridges on the bayou!its just as important!im sure the people of golden neadow dont want to drive to larose to cross just as i dont want to drive the extra miles to geaux to my beach!what we need is a fair judge!and a few letters in wich i will write personally to a few officialls like the attorney general who's job it is to create tourism in this great state.sinceyou are not the judge and im not,all we are doing here is going back and forth which is awesome!!!giving people a great thing read!
Reply
   code red
Its ultimately in the judges hands!im hoping hr sees this as much as a neccessaty as is having multiple bridges on the bayou!its just as important!im sure the people of golden neadow dont want to drive to larose to cross just as i dont want to drive the extra miles to geaux to my beach!what we need is a fair judge!and a few letters in wich i will write personally to a few officialls like the attorney general who's job it is to create tourism in this great state.sinceyou are not the judge and im not,all we are doing here is going back and forth which is awesome!!!giving people a great thing read!
Reply
   rhall301
Code Red...We are not going back and forth, you are simply getting your facts correct.

When the bridges across the bayou were built the land was not taken illegally.

The attorney general has nothing to do with tourism, it is the Louisiana Lt. Governor.

Any finally, this issue is not in the judge's hands, because the Parish Government, mysteriously, has not filed a suit for possession, yet claiming for three years it is a necessity.

You and Mr. Cheramie continue to argue many immaterial things, when all you have to prove is necessity (not convenience, not desire) and compensation-something neither of you can address.
Reply
   code red
Im no political guru and iwas about to write to the wrong dude!lol all i care about is getting back to my public beach!i know of an organization called surfrider and i believe they specialize in things like this.so i will contact them and see what we can do to prove that our beach is a necessit. They are based in cali and deal with federal cases like these all the time.i was told they can help inform me better!since they are pros in this,im sure they will better be able to define necessary
Reply
...now'ya see what the Indians had to put up with ???...(never thought we would have a Home Owners Assoc. standing in 'certified sugar sand and tar balls '...we gonn'a to be the envie of Texas...Mississippi...Alabama and Florida !!!...cheers
Reply
   code red
Time to make some noise!!!!the more letters i write,and the more people that are informed on this fight that are already involved in this kind of thing!,the better!i have spoken to surfrider and now it is time to write the leutinant gov!we will have the backing of the new orleans chapter in not long,and i think it is time to create a south lafourche chapter!!!!this peeing contest between u and i is over!time for the the fishing and surfing comunity to unite!peace!!!wish me luck!!!
Reply
You allowed three people to access your property!!! WOW!!!! Kind of different when its yours isn't it? Big difference between three peoples utilities the general public. Did you ever have to do a little paperwork at your expense to access the beach? A simple 'thank you' to the owners for letting you have access for the past hundred years would seem more appropriate than cursing them for the past ten years without access. handouts and gimmies.

Didn't you guys say you had plans for a pavilion, rv park, fishing pier and what not? all of that is going to be built on the beach from the high water mark down? Yet Ricky said the owners couldn't develop it because they probably won't get permits. So its OK for the state to take someones land, and build things on it for the hand out crowd, but they would stop the private owner from building for his own personal use. Huge double standard there.
Reply
   code red
You sir are now proving that you cant even remember what was said this morning.you must be someone that only heres what u wanna here.im going to thank you in my last time im adressing you because i have now a lot of fight in me because of you.i nay not be a pollitition,but im still american and i now feel a great urgency to act on this issue with all i can!i will find someway to help out and i think i know how i can make a differance. What i said this morning was 3 have written right of ways and others use my property as long as they follow my rules. No way would i deny my neighbors access to their property,and all who asks,hunts,fish's,mudrides,crawfish's,etc. With my blessings and if im bored,company!.peace be with you,and god bless!
Reply
   sportla
I have been reading this ridiculous thread to entertain myself, but I feel like its about time to chime in to point out a few things that code res has addresses in his many volatile and somewhat irate comments. First off, you certainly seem like a politician. Like many politicians I see I tv today you do little more than make incorrect statements of fact regarding issues you know nothing about. Such as....1) you let whoever wants to go on your property do whatever they want as long as they follow your rules. How many times have you been sued by one of these people? I am positive the answer I zero times because had one of them sued you for an accident that took place while they were freely going about your property then you would have been just as mad as you appear to be in your messages. Landowners assume liability when they allow others on their property and when those people are drinking and driving up and down a beach full of pedestrians and distracted children playing in the surf, the chances of an accident are imminent. Why would these landowners subject themselves to the possibility of a child dying on their land? So code res can fish and crab and listen to marshal mathers without having to walk over a sand dune? 2) it's not YOUR beach code red....it belongs to the people who actually purchased the land, and don't come back at me with 'I pay taxes so I am paying for it now'. That is ridiculous and I assure you that parish taxes are not going to be what keeps the coast from eroding. 3) the landowners voted for Obama because they just want to take all they can. You sir, are ridiculous. First of all, I would be willing to bet you every grain of sand on that beach that the Caillouet family does not vote for Obama, and secondly, there is only one person here that wants to take from the 'rich' and redistribute the wealth, and that is you code red. Your entire argument is based on giving the land to those who can't afford their own beach. Sound familiar?
3) what do you suppose is going to happen after you and your army of people steal this land? You are going to jump in what in your truck and drive up and down the beach rocking out to eminen and just slaughtering the fish from the tailgate of your truck?? Nope. Wrong again. You will also have to get permission from the wisner trust (who is not about to let vehicles back on the beach), then you have to convince the federal government that their billion dollar project is no reason to keep you off the beach, then there is that pesky state law that prohibits vehicles from riding on beaches, then get the state to agree to let you destroy the beach w enthough it is spending millions to restore our coast. Have you thought about this at all??? Of course not, you are too busy being mad at the mean rich landowners to think rationally about obvious hurdles that stand in your way. 4) how dare those landowners collect rent from tenants when it's code red and his tax paying friends paying to keep up that bridge and road?? They don't dare. The only tenants passed the bridge pay money to the wisner trust....and by the way, can you guess who gave the pariah the land to build that road on so you could spend your childhood on the beach? Yep, that mean landowner.
Lastly, 'hear' is what you do with your ears....'here' is a command given to a dog.
Reply
   code red
Wait till i completely shut out the other dude to comment?and i see ur an eminem fan too!lol you are too funny!keep on rockin in the free world!im out to all yall or youre negitivity!i have my suspicions!i might just have to run for office!
Reply
   code red
The whisner trust is a 100yr trust expiring in 2014.and you sir have a lot of faith in our harbor police!do you really think that because the beach is open,they will quit enforcingthe laws.and the seashore is public.what happens on public land wont have anything to do with the neighbors.the whisners dont own the seashore either so they should not have any concerns.but this is a fight for the courts!im not going to get into it with every person out there.just know where i stand!and i stand for public access!lata sportla,this is a battle that will end in a courtroom and bickering on here isnt worth it.i need to direct my attention to solving problems and not just talking about them
Reply
   SLsweetie
I am also a SL local and I voted for my councilmman so he can vote for me.if I'm not mistaken,didn't they all vote yes for public access to fourchon beach?these people were voted in by the people to represent the people of thir district.this passed with no oposition!they represented all the people of the parrish and not one objected!that is one pollthat states the people want access!!!thats a poll that means something to me!
Reply
Of course there is a public 'interest'. Everyone wants access to the beach, thats not the point. The point is you guys are willing to steal it and others are honest enough to see that it is wrong to just take this guys property for your own entertainment. Rhall's first sentence on this post was 'I too would love to have access to the Fourchon Beach'. He's not arguing the fact that it would be nice to have access to it. He's arguing the route that you guys are taking. And doing a hell of a good job at it too. Politicians can vote all they want, that doesn't mean its the right thing to do. Some of you guys should be in politics, you've skated around answering his questions from the start of this post, and the more you say, the more he makes you look foolish. Some people have values and aren't willing to sell-out their neighbors.
Reply
To think all we need is a street to get to our beach!im all for what ever it takes!
Reply
   code red
That is all we want!i remember the parrish tried negotiating for it and they would not here it.so if we ever want to access our beach,this is the only option!just like the new fourchonroad didnt geaux arround every house that stood in the way,some things just have to be done!
Reply
I am new to this website, and I try to keep my answers informative and compare penguins to pineapples. The failure of the Peruvian sardine crop caused the sharp increase in
The price of bio fuels. This caused a sharp increase in the use of fossil fuels, causing a sharp increase in green house gases. This will cause a melting of the Andean ice packs. The runoff from this will go to the bottom of the pacific causing the warm water to rise to the top causing the melting of the polar ice caps. The penguins will migrate north looking for colder water leaving a path of destruction in its wake. Killing tortoises on Galapagos and totally wiping
out the pineapple and macadamia nut crops.

Mr. Rabbit, you are probably the only one who knows where I am going with this, everyone else can google it. lol! Hope you have a sense of humor. I really wish you would not be so cynical about the intentions of the commission, we are merely fighting for what a majority of the people
in lafourche wants. Thanks for the comments.
Reply
Let me give y'all a brief history of myself, and Port Fourchon/Fourchon beach. I was raised in that area, my father had 5,500 acres under lease for trapping, hunting, and commercial fishing. As the port expanded he gave up property for the public good.
Now 70% of what is the port today was his leases.
Though it was required in the lease he never prosecuted or told anyone to leave. Fourchon road was actually a canal that was dug from Hwy 1, to beach bridge. It was back filled with borrow levees and several borrow pits east of La Butte levee .
I have actually trawled down what is now Fourchon road, great shrimping.
First building to go up at the port was called the Banana Dock. This warehouse and the port was the brainchild of senator A.O. Rappelet. He applied for a grant to build this warehouse to unload bananas off of small ships.
He was told that he couldn't get the grant because there was no railroad track leading to port. It didn't say that you had to have railroad service, so he laid 2 sections of track to the construction site, and got the grant. Tracks are still there today at end of Nolty Theriot road. Oilfield was not on horizon at this time. When drilling increased they dug the Flotation Canal to where Morans marina is. Purpose of canal, to create a 1700 acre freshwater impoundment so barges could access freshwater for the drilling process. The people of the 10th ward passed a millage tax and created the Greater Lafourche Port Commission
This gave the commision the money to go out and get grants. When the port was built Gary, Marco, and Larry were not players at the time. To say that the port was built on a sand dune I think I would have noticed if I was trawling.
Trapping or fishing on a sand dune. What I put in this comment, I was not told, read about, or learned in school I lived it. I think user names are cute, but not when they are used to state false facts as some have done repeatedly in comments. I did thorough research on the definition of bravery, and nowhere did I find user name.
Reply
I have been very respectful in answering legitimate questions about Fourchon Beach. I can't believe that I was called a hypocrite, without having a chance to explain my comments.
The beach front district will build the facilities on state land, where there are NO marsh creation projects behind the dunes(Bay Champagne and bed of old pass Fourchon). The rest of the parish has a master plan marsh creation project behind the 9 miles of dunes in Lafourche .
I do allow public access to my property without a penny of tax dollars having been spent on it. Spoke to a C.P.R.A. Board member today, he said that the dunes and the marsh creation would need constant maintenance, so he couldn't see where any permits would be issued on those dunes, or marsh behind it.
Mr. Switzer if you don't believe my facts get on your computer and check out my facts. I have nothing to hide, my true name
and contact info is on my post. Unlike some people who issue threats and insults behind a user name.
I think it's really neat that we have 'psychics' among us, that can predict the future outcome of something that hasn't been voted on yet.
Rickey
Reply
   code red
Thats what you are mr ricky!someone who is willing to stand up for their community in the face of great oposition to get done what his community. Needs is rare!someone who will stand out as himself and say enough is enough!believe me,and you already know that a big majority of the people of lafourche are behind you!!!slsweetie made a great point and that is a testimant to your hard work and dedication to the awesome cause we together are fighting for!
Reply
...some guys sure can throw roses at their mirrors...references should come from others not cohorts...cheers
Reply
   rhall301
Code Red...Two things you should know. When the Wisner Trust expires, the Parish will have to deal with the heirs of that trust. The number of heirs right now is 172, located in 20 different states, and three countries. In addition, two separate but independent polls were taken and the clear majority of Lafourche Paish residents do not want the Parish to take such action fearing a substantial legal bill for a posing effort.

Mr. Cheramie....I too think you were hypocritical in your answers, and tried to confuse the real issues with your continue reference to what you and your family have done at the Fourchon. So there is no dispute, please answer these questions, not with a history lesson, but facts. (1) Is your commission claiming a public necessity to this property; (2) Is your commission claiming that the public necessity is tourism/recreation; (3) Do you agree your family RV's park will benefit from a seizure of the Fourchon property in question; (4) Do you agree that a State Park, created for tourism/recreation is located in Grand Isle; (5) Does your commission believe comparable land sales will show that the value of the land in question is less that $300,000.00; (6) Did your Commission/Parish spend public money on the tract in question within a reimbursment agreeement and within assuring a public right of use?

I phrased all these questions in a 'yes or no' manner, so please answer as such. Then if you would like to explain your answer please feel free to do so. I was forced to do this because each time a questioned is asked of you, you never have answered directly.

Fianlly, Mr. Cheramie, please explain why your commission has waited 6 years to bring such a seizure claim?
Reply
   code red
So you seem to have some answers to go with your questions,waiting like a cat to pounce.how about taking a lil time to answer a couple of my questions.after the trust expires,will the parrish finally be able to collect taxes on the funds that the land creates?since their status lets them be tax free while the citizens keep footing the bill to create the infastructure that makes their business thribe?really,300000?i cant imagine what the land brings with the improvements on the docks for the parrish!they have some serrious improvements from the sea marsh you are claiming is worth this much!and one more thing,if you know the owners peosonally,can you please let them know that an entire community is begging for a street to the seashore so we can once again drive to belle pass!
Reply
I am behind you as is my entire family rickey and code!!!!
Reply
   rhall301
Code...I posed the questions to Ricky, because he is the Chairman of the Commission. I will await his long overdue answers.

Since your rants are never fact, I see no need to respond.
Reply
...I think Mr Hall is right...'go-betweens' only distract and insulate...but I gott'a say one thing 'they got Obammo style'...cheers
Reply
   code red
Didnt realize on your questions deserve answers!
Reply
   code red
Run from that question!and just so you know,it is funny how calm i am posting.rattling the cages and really enjoying this!i have been wanting to beat on the closed door to fourchon beach for a long time.now,i get my chance.i am really humored by all of this.if this is a rant,you would love my anger!
Reply
   code red
If my questions dont deserve answers because i am not on the commission,what makes you think nr hall and mr rabbit that you deserve answers?but im sure my beach front commissioner is working on a good answer to your question then you will say like a parrot,but that dont prove necessaty.
Reply
I can tell you this much, Rickey- admiral rabbit and rhall301 r not from LAF. Parish. BUT if we [ BILD IT THEY WILL COME]
Reply
   SLsweetie
Makes me feel like we have an excellent chance at reclaiming our beach!and i hope it goes that way in favor of the community
Reply
   sportla
Code, you consistently claim you want a road to the beach. I have news for you....you are beating on the wrong door. The landowner has offered several times to provide land for that road you want..... all the way to where the wisner property starts to the East. Your friend Mr. Cheramie and the BDD have consistently denied the offer because they don't want a road to he beach. They want the beach to be the road, and they want an additional 40+ acres of land for the public's amusement. Now instead of having the road you want so much at little to no cost to the taxpayers, the BDD is going to get embroiled in a losing battle that will cost the parish a boat load of money for no reason.
I realize that many people in Lafourche Parish want access to the beach because it is in their back yard. I also want people to be able to enjoy the beach, but you cannot lead a campaign to reclaim a beach that was not yours to begin with. The people of Lafourche parish were allowed on the property for many decades and now they have been asked to step away for a while... not forever. And how do they repay the people who let them use the beach for so many years? With a public campaign of put downs, accusations and name calling. However, what those people leading the charge fail to realize is that lafourche is a big parish. There are a lot of people who do not live next to the beach and have their own opinions on what should be done with taxpayer dollars. What good does a beach serve to a family in choctaw if the road to their house is in such bad condition they can barely leave the driveway. What good is a beach to a bunch of unfortunate children who cannot even stay in this parish because the juvenile facilities are so far behind the times? What good is a beach to someone who cant afford to go there because they spent all of their money remodeling their home after it flooded because the Parish has drainage problems? What good is a beach to the parish's pocket book when they are paying to house prisoners in other parishes every day because we have no room in our own jail? What good is a beach to the hundreds of thousands of citizens of Lafourche Parish who do not fish or enjoy sitting on the beach?? There is more to this situation than just the people of South lafourche who grew up by Fourchon.
Lafourche Parish tax dollars are for the entire Parish, not just those people who grew up close to Fourchon.
Also, if there is such a public necessity for people to drive on the beach so they can catch fish, then please explain to me why there are thousands and thousands of pictures of people holding fish they caught in public louisiana waters on this very website.
Reply
   rhall301
Sport...That is a very good post, and I think that alone disputes the necessity theory Code and others do not want to talk about. Get ready for another history lesson.

Mr. Cheramie...I eagerly await your answers.
Reply
   TBOY
This thread gives me a great idea for a new drinking game. Go back and re-read it, every time rhall says 'necessity', drink a shot. Shouldn't be long, you won't remember where Fourchon is.
Reply
   granny47
Admirial Rabbit, I am of Houma descent. During the oil spill an ancient Houma archeological site on east Fourchon beach was discovered. The landowner to this day continues to deny the tribe access to this site.
Employees of this landowner posed for pictures in the paper with our people's artifacts(hard to swallow).
A rep. of the tribe attended a commission meeting and made them aware of the problem. We were told the SLB commission changed their master plan to put these sites off limits to the public, and accessible to the tribe. Sir, if you are not Native American, I do not appreciate you using the great Navajo tribe in your quest to block a deal that might give us access to our ancient burial grounds.
Reply
Granny...we may use a tribes name off and on but never in disrespect...by the way we have a small amount of Indian in us also...the tribe streached from Mobile to Baton Rouge...can't recall the tribes name...we would appreciate if you could help us with it...also I'am well aware how quick our 'double talking' politicians digs into Indian Mounds in the name of 'archaeology'...also there is still not many Indians tdy that get a fair trial...do I say all this in disrespect ?...it was 'us' Indians that said 'they speak with twisted tongues' and also it was 'pale face' that started 'scalping' not the Indians...you may do better addressing the local 'pale face commission groups' that turned their heads on this digging and not a individual...lets not forget 'their' employee's of our laxed State and Federal system that handle Indian affairs...If we can help in any way let us know...cheers
Reply
   code red
To the parrish being offered a street and the houma indians cant get to there ancestors burial grounds!that is just wrong to do this to people!
Reply
code pink...Rickey impressed me with more gravity and polish in his comments than you...but,I will start ignoring his trainee go-between that refuses too interpret right or wrong'...you try to provide insulation but you hinder more than help him...cheers
Reply
   code red
For the thought of someone being denied access to a burial ground and their artifacts being returned to a different tribe is an insult!!!.i remember the newspaper artical personally when an employee of the land owner was posing with these artifacts!it is obvious that this woman knows what happened!and to say what you say after an insult like that is just plain evil!it should have never been a question of where to send these accept back to the houma tribe!leave her alone!!!!you all are sick individuals!
Reply
Mr. Hall,
I will answer your respectful questions, even though I said I would not, because they are respectful.
I merely was letting people know about my life at Fourchon, because I wanted to let the people know that I comment on facts not alleged facts that are proven to be wrong.
1. Yes, we are going to claim necessity if we can't work out access with the land owner. Still hoping to do so, but still no response from landowner.
2. Yes, we would. If the landowner doesn't come to the table for negotiation. This claim has been successful many times in the country(google denying access to public beaches)you will see public desire, when dealing with public access to public property is public necessity. We are still waiting for the phone to ring.
3. No, my sons park is on 3 acres of land. Part of that land is Chevron pipeline right of way, that doesn't allow construction. The rest of his property can only be permitted for 22 spots, because of space restrictions. It's business plan was for long term stay, by port workers. A successful plan, I might add, because its been open for nearly 3 yrs and has operated at full capacity(with the beach closed)the entire time. If you are insinuating that is my motive for wanting the people to have access to the beach you are wrong again. Why would I have sponsored the building of a public rv park on state land behind beach in our master plan?
4. Yes, there is but that is not Lafourche parish as you stated earlier in your comments.
We are mandated by the state and Parish to bring
recreation to Lafourches beaches .
5. Yes, I do. Any land that supports spartina will have difficulty being permitted for construction. The fact that it sits on a state and federal restoration project that needs constant maintenance, and is uninsurable. It cannot be compared to Pointe Fourchon, when a property is appraised it is appraised at what is there at the time. As I have said before. A certified master appraiser appraised this property I would trust his findings after all, he's from Thibodeaux and a friend of the landowners. I would trust his estimation before mine and your opinions.
Mr. Hall thanks for the respectful questions. The commission was involved in heavy negotiations with the land owner, we viewed expropriation only as a last resort. Thus we negotiated all of this time in hopes of working it out with the landowners. When your charge is bringing recreation to Fourchon beach and the only access is blocked by private land sometimes drastic measures need to be taken. Please believe me I pray at night that isn't the case in this matter. Hope I've answered your questions the posts and comments on this site is a wonderful thing, but that is not always a good way to communicate so still looking forward to meeting you. History lesson are usually more accurate than speculation.
Thanks
Reply
Hundreds of people have told me that I have answered the questions and comments adequately and accurately, and proved many of the facts presented by your group to be wrong. Oh by the way, are you a principal or a subordinate?
I need to know so I can just address the leader, and your comment that some people are not willing to sell out there neighbors makes you look foolish. For it is not the public keeping the landowner from the seashore, but the landowner keeping the public from it. So who's selling out their neighbors?
Reply
Once again I am answering comments instead of questions. I can tell you the commission was never offered the road to the east, that sir is a lie.
Did you hear one word of objection from the people of South Lafourche when the council voted to fund Laurel Road or Mocking Bird lane in that area? Did you hear anything when the parish used a million dollars to build a farmers market in Raceland, or a million dollars for a sediment pipeline in Jefferson parish, or to give a million dollars to Charity Hospital, or if you have a business or camp at Fourchon or Grand Isle, we voted to give 6 million dollars to a state hwy that would allow enhancement of a tax base that benefits all of Lafourche? We collect more taxes than any other district, but
we sir, are not selfish. As for the flooding issue, the small millage proposed recently for flood protection was voted down by the voters outside of the tenth ward.
We pay the millage, because flooding is a major concern in the tenth ward. Quit trying to turn this into a turf war, for two reasons much of the taxes collected in SL is spent all over the parish. Basically we tax ourselves to build a tax base that benefits the entire parish, do we mind? No, because we know our brothers to the north need it for their people. The other reason is it would create a new economic engine for the parish, bringing more money to the parish . Why do I say that? The parishes master plan suggest the parish develope tourism and ecotourism in the future.
How sad is it that the tourist commission can't even put Fourchon beach on their brochure, neither can Dig in Lafourche. The promise of this being temporary denial of access is very optimistic. Don't you think that it would have been put in writing if it would be true? A plan for a jail was prepared by someone from Thibodeaux and it was shot down by the council.
Perhaps we wouldn't need a juvenile justice center or more jail space, if the kids could recreate on Fourchon Beach instead of somebody's shed, where the only cool thing to do is drugs. One thing I agree with you on is La. is a fishing paradise and many beautiful pictures are taken, but mostly by people with boats, or on guided trips. We represent all of them, and all of the people that can't afford a boat or a guide. Maybe you can't understand a person not being able to afford a boat or a guide, but the commission does. Again, I understand your position, because of your friendship with the landowner, but remember the man who did the appraisal was from Thibodeaux and a friend of the landowner. If this was a court of law and you represented the land owner you would have to recuse yourself, because of personal involvement.
Reply
Absalutely outstanding
Reply
   code red
I bet there are allott of people thinking it is defenately time to go to the beach!
Reply
Ricky, you're a horrible judge of character. You would assume that I'm part of some organization. I couldn't possibly be just an average guy that sees you coming a mile away. Well, I am not in an organization, I have no group. I can think on my own, unlike your mind numbed followers. Lennon's theory of useful idoits comes to mind here. I have never been to fourchon beach, and probably never will. What you do out there doesn't matter to me, other than the fact that you are willing to take someone else's private property. If you can do it to them, than you can do it to me, and thats not something I am comfortable with. I own waterfront property, and theoretically the public has access to the bank of my property just like the beach, but does that mean I have to give them access from the nearest road to the bank? Hell no it doesn't. We just went through this with the historic and scenic rivers program. They wanted to take 100 ft. of everyones property along the bayou teche, 135 miles, and tell you what you could and couldn't do with your own property, all for someone that wants to canoe down the bayou and see a natural river. Basically adding another layer of bureaucratic red tape and hoops to jump through. It was defeated in two parishes, with the help of perfect strangers who don't own waterfront property, but who saw the wrong in it, and was willing to stand up for their neighbor's rights. Now I feel the need to return the favor, to a landowner I have never met, have no association with, and stand to gain nothing from. A few thoughts that I suggest you ponder. People like me, you rarely ever hear from, because you have nothing to offer me and I have nothing to offer you. If you weren't so busy trying to bolster support for an obligation you made, that you ethically can't live up to, you would see there are tons of us out there. If you really wanted peoples opinions, you would have started this post with a map of the property in question, drawings of 'the master plan', and perhaps a copy of the appraisal. Not, sugar sand beaches and economic engines.
Reply
   code red
Lafourche parrish set a goal to promote recreational access to the beach and gulf of mex.the state of la defines the seashore as the grassline and acknowledges that with our eroding shoreline,the state boundary changes frequantly.this alone insures that the calluete property is on state land.the wisners dedicated its land holdings to the recreational use of la citizens.the findings on the pilings driven by the calluetes was that they must be driven far enough apart and no structure on top low enough to prevent vehicular access.this alone proves the state's position on the vehicular matter.also it was stated by tulane environmentel law wich is in a nutshell,a benificiary of the wisner trust that given the scarecity of beaches in la,the public using the sand road was ok so as not to deny the public access to their seashore.their is also a statement extending public access to municipally and privately owned dry sand areas and the foreshore.guess why?public recreation again.i can geaux on and on about public recreation,just cause,rights of passages and many other issues that in a fair trial,will prove neccessaty for starters.as the calluettes try to impose private rules on a public beach,i once again will say it is as lawful as telling your neighbor where he can park in his own yard.i think it is past time louisiana citizens are returned to their beach!!!
Reply
   code red
It is what it is!you are no federal judge and i believe that you have insulted my community enough!all who favors the expropriation are in favor of this community being all it is legally capable of being.all OPOSED SURE SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE BACKING A CAUSE THAT IS DEDICATED TO FIGHT TO KEEP PEOPLE OFF OFTHE BEACH.THIS FIGHT MAY BE MASKED AS EXPROPRIATION BATTLES,BUT IT IS A FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTFUL RETURN OF ALL OF FOURCHON BEACH TO THE CITIZENS OF MY GREAT STATE OF LOUISIANA!!!!!!
Reply
   sportla
If kids have a beach to play on they will not do drugs or commit crimes.....ah yes, that is obviously the reason that there are no criminals from grand isle and/or south Lafourche. Ha. Also, FYI, juvenile facilities are not just for delinquents, they also house unfortunate children whose parents have abandoned them or cannot properly care for them.
It does seem however that most people posting here agree on one thing and that is there should be a road to access the beach. Although I was previously called a liar by mr cheramie for suggesting that the landowner had offered this very road, it seems that it might solve the problem. (by the way mr cheramie is wrong. There were proposals made by the landowner hat were immediatley denied by the parish). Mr cheramie, you are in a big powerful position....why don't you simply ask for a right of way for that road? If they say yes, accept it. Deal done. Everyone is happy. Seems like it would solve the problem. Then everyone will be able to get to the beach....at least up to the wisner line.
Code, a much as you would apparently like for this to be a federal court case, it will be held in Lafourche parish before one of five district judges if we would all be so unfortunate to have it come to that. It will cost a lot of money, the parish will lose, and it will probably just piss off the landowners.
Mr cheramie, if this ends up in court I can assure you that I do not have a conflict. I live hundreds of miles from the coast and I have nothing to do with this. You sir are the only person here with a conflict of interest. Yes.....the fact that your family stands to benefit from this project is absolutely a conflict of interest. There is no reason to deny that because whatever you say will be wrong.
Reply
   code red
Has been adressed in federal court already and the same interpritation as what the other bodies of government concluded.i believe that letters to everyone's state senetors should be written also.a constitutional amendment isnt going to leave this unresolved.a people's vote for a state election is something i am comfi with!that very thing passed in texas and wasnt even close with 70%of the votes.i do believeve that our parrish court system is not a corrupt one and even if it is tried in our courts.,they will not denywhat has been written in black and white!you sir keep arracking mr ricky personally trying to hurt his charector,but with his responces to your stopidoty,the only character you are attacking is your own.are you insinuating in your last post directed to me that there is some kind of problen in enforcing state law in our parrish court system?mr weber,wich is our great sherrif recognized nationally by the country for his outstanding performance at his job and he stated just yesterday on public radio that he wants the beach back open!i am not concerned wich court this ends up in.as an american,im comfortable in our constitutional laws!and our judges are sworn to uphold them!
Reply
   rhall301
Mr. Cheramie..I want to thank you very much for your answers, you have been very helpful, much more than you can even imagine.

Code...You again talk in circles. You now citing laws, but remember those very same laws mandate that Mr. Cheramie prove certain elements in his case. By the very nature of his post on this site, he loses. But now the taxpayers have a major legal bill and court costs, and nothing in return but a very angry landowner.
Reply
   code red
Noone is above and the parrish goal and the states refusal to allow vehicular access must mean one thing!AndTHATS THE COMUNITY,GOVERNMENT AND ALL CITIZENS ARE INTITLED TO DRIVE ON THE BEACH!I HAVE FOUGHT STOPIDOTY WITH STOPIDOTY!I HAVE PLAYED YALL GAME!LETS PLAY IT ON ANOTHER LEVEL NOW
Reply
It is the caillouets against all the citizens!mr rhall,you are acting very decietful in your comments almost as if you were some snake in the grass.mr cheramie has answered every one of his questions without any disrespect unlike your self.you sir are fighting public acces from all the citizens and not just a personal battle with the sbc.and with the backing of our local pollititions and sherrif,this battle is against the entire community!100%of all my family and friends are all for public beach access for recreation with absalutely noone for leaving it closed!
Reply
NECESSITY n.

requirement,need,requisite, to circumvent poverty and or convience,require,personal want,needful thing,make necessary...last but not least cheers...
Reply
   code red
Mr rabbit,you have now found the place on the web to say the same thing in a different way!what kills ne is you was so excited,you posted it! Thesauras,im guessing dats how its spelled!was taught this in like second grade!and the meaning was a book of places to search for other words that mean the same thing!sothis is your only defense!please dont tell me its not a necessaty to give the public access to the seashore in wich they paid 500million in one shot and they have been restoring it for years.but let ne guess,no it is not!i can show you the laws that reclaimed land should be used for public recreation.after all,it is the gov. Taxes paid for the restoration!just dont even answer,because i think we already know!
Reply
   code red
The state doesnt allowthe calluettes to block vehicular access with pilings.
Reply
...now I'am lost for words,but found two...'certified necessity'...cheers
Reply
   code red
Hint,geaux back and read your coms,if finding that word excites you!
Reply
   code red
Wow!!!
Reply
   code red
Food!and fourchon is a great place for many families that dont have boats or the extra cash to spend on the extra 30 mile trip.so mr hall,or you going to say food is not a necessaty?well try living without it!
Reply
Everyone who brings a child or grand child fishing or hunting knows that it might strike a spark in that child, that he or she might
carry into adulthood. If you show them there is something beside drugs and juvenile delinquency they may take that road. Take inner city kids, for example, I would guarantee that if you polled the ones that fished there be would be less children in trouble that fished then those that did not. That's why so many groups promote bringing kids fishing or hunting. It is recognized that it works. Sadly not everyone can afford a boat, but most can pay the toll and a tank of gas. After all they may leave with shrimp, fish, or crabs and a kid that sees 2 roads ahead of him instead of one. I apologize for calling you a liar, I have a bad habit of doing that untill I can convince my self that they are only misinformed. You sir, are misinformed. Unless you were a party to the negotiations you are spouting here say. I am spouting facts about negotiations I sat in on. Ask former chairman Al Danos, an honorable man, that testified on camera that we negotiated for access to no avail. Mr. Danos has given millions of dollars to Nicholls State University, because he loves kids. If you don't know him ask Cam Morvant, who also sat in on one session. You sir, are misinformed. I've already addressed the possibility of my son benefitting from the beach being open in my answers to Mr. Hall. If you don't believe my answer contact Picciola and Angelette in Larose and Laf parish govt. in Matthews, you will see I answered Mr. Halls question truthfully. The rv park has no room to grow. He doesn't have a marina there or store that would produce revenue if the beach was suddenly opened. You are again misinformed. I am truly sorry that what you thought was gonna be your gotcha moment, turned into more misinformation. What I can't figure out is what your vitriolic hatred of South Lafourche is. Oh, I think I got it, you must have gotten a ticket in Golden Meadow. Oh,by the way you must know Madame Cleo or the amazing Kreskin, that you can predict the outcome of something that hasn't been voted on yet. I'm sure the judges would be thrilled to meet someone who can predict their decision before anything is filed or not filed. I must have answered your false allegations, because you went from trying to start a turf war to now trying to start class warfare. We represent all people rich or poor. Mr sportla, sounds to me you've fired all of your blank ammunition. Shame on whoever sent you to war with false information.
Reply
I only asked in humor, because it was mentioned in a negative comment that I'm the only one to comment on the issue. My name is on my post, and it would only be fair that the opposition elect a representative, so I could answer to him only, but I can't help answering respectful questions. I see where you are coming from let me pose this scenario to you. If you had to cross private land to get to your property and the land owner blocked your access to your property, and most of the time when you went by boat them and their friends were fishing on the shoreline and your grandkids would be begging you to take them fishing. Would you fight for their rights?
I really don't like someone who insults ones intelligence. I felt a little insulted by your comments. I will not return the insult, but I will give you a tip, when you quote Lennon to make fun of someone try to spell it right so you don't appear to be one.
Reply
Thanks for your comments. I really really do appreciate your comments. In an earlier comment you stated that an honest answer I gave to one of your questions would be copied and used against me. I hope this is not the case this time(hope it wasn't a veiled threat), I really do. If honesty means anything to you(and I think it does)I can tell you that I will continue to answer questions truthfully, and if it can be used against me so be it. After all GOD and my father said, thou shalt not lie. Thanks for the comments.
Just looked up the synonyms for necessity and they are as follows need,want,requirement. They all fit regarding our endeavors thanks
Reply
Mr. Rabbit
I would prefer answering questions, rather than negative comments.
Is it fair that only people in opposition to this subject could comment on this site. My question is who is the principal and who are the surrogates in the opposition. Call me old fashioned, but I was raised to stand behind what my convictions are, with my name attached to it. I will not become a computer sniper, firing pot shots from a distance, with my identity hidden. That is not what a real man does. You refer to Obama, you must support him. You choose to ignore the fifth amendment to the constitution dealing with eminent domain, that's been held up in court several hundred times. Perhaps if you were president, you could do away with it by executive order. That would allow people to block public access to public land. We have, thus far thrown roses at padlocks, and today your grand son would say I want a pickup truck to ride on Fourchon, but he wouldn't hit a screen door. He would hit a locked gate and you would, know he needed that truck and you needed to fight to remove that gate. I respect everyone's opinion whether I agree with you or not, because I agree with the people's right to disagree, and I also respect you sir.
But I have some bad news for you . You are probably a descendant of the Biloxi or Charenton branch of the Chitamacha tribe. I'm sorry to tell you they didn't get their land taken by the white man they sold it to white settlers. Was it fair? I don't think it was. because they didn't have a certified master appraiser value their property or have a judge decide its value.
Reply
   SLsweetie
You have done a wonderful job supplying answers!my family is behind the beachfront com!!!110%!!!
Reply
Mr.Ricky...It sure sound good if the legal owners agree to a second opinion from a certified appraiser along w/a Federal District judge that hails out of state...by the way, they could attach a certified rider to go with these documents on water bottoms,gates and cables blocking recreation for our beloved children...once again where is the 'certified necessity' too wrestle a individuals' or a corporations' property away ?...cheers
Reply
   code red
Why does it matter wich court its tried in?really?or you insinuating an unfair trial in our own parrish court?well maybe someone else does need to hear this case!
Reply
   code red
Your gibberish is getting worse!bottom line is we both know what the people want!even if you could produce the polls yall dreamed up,even yall couldnt deny if anyone oposed the expropriation,it was only because of the price of the fight!and as for as improvements geaux,gotta love the pace of the awesome fishing pier they are constructing.and.why would it be a problem if an out of state judge sees this case?really!
Reply
Get rid of the geauxpass crap first.
Got a notice in the mail today for when my son used my boat last year. They want to add $5 for a delinquent fee for a 13 month old violation. And they're just getting around to sending it to me. Of course the receipt is gone if he ever got one.
WHAT A SCAM!!!!!!!!!

People will never return when stupidity like this occurs on a daily basis. Why didn't this violation get sent to me 12 months ago??

I have never passed over that bridge and never will !!! For damn sure now. Sadly I have no leg to stand on and will pay the fine minus the $5 late fee. Probably end up going to jail for $5. lol

On a positive note I just spent 10 days and many, many tourist dollars in New Mexico and just returned home, tanned and happy!!
Reply
...Vic,did 'ya get to shake hands w/the Indians you mentioned...also did you get a chance to ride in those hot air balloons you spoke about...bet you a bunch that gas was bought 1100% over cost not too far from that bridge, what's ironic is that hot air gas is abundant over there...hope you had a good trip...cheers
Reply
Honorable Robert...I did get a 'certified' e/m that the 'Indian Lady' was the only one not 'streaching facts' and there is certified proof of certified artifacts,pottery and human bones on Fouchon...but the the certified island could not be developed and could fall into the certified hands of Federal Indian Affairs...(I don't think they would want a certified playground on it)...but the 'need of certified necessity' still comes into certified play...Edwin'ya got a extra certified license ???...cheers

Google: fouchonlaindianburialgrounds
Reply
   code red
Does this letter certify the houma indians?or is it just going to put the artifacts in the hands to best help your case
Reply
   code red
Check out this fishing mag report!and how they feel that the public is being treated in this matter!complete with pics and facts!
Reply
   code red
Im sure the houma indians are not wanting to wait for access as is everyone else.
Reply
   code red
Nationally recognized as the best surfing beach in louisiana!my favorite reason for heading down to the fourchon!
Reply
   code red
Of news articles aboutthis battle wich has been going on for years.the actions of a private corp trying to make rules on a public beach is what has gotn us to this point.expropriation is necessary to end this war and to allow the parrish to be the ones with the final word as to what is allowed on their own public seashore!!!
Reply
   code red
In this matter is denying the public access to the seashore but using the public roads to access the private property in wich they lease to their costomers.why is it that only the land owners themselves can benifit from their land on fourchon but not the people of louisiana?.that is in my eyes,very hipocritical!
Reply
   code red
The seashore is as public as the fourchon bridge
Reply
...seems after six exhaustive comments you need to grab a chair, sit down and take a aspirin...if you don't keep your kool is shows weakness in your desparate over-worked agenda and you will bore your own base...these short-cuts may help you, try to Google:

earl long quotes

...cheers
Reply
   code red
Just have so much info on the webb about how the land co is always fighting the parrish.and how they are always trying to make rules on public property.google it!i think the fishing mag report about sums it up pretty good.how about you?
Reply
   code red
Wasnt it moved to its current location for public vehicular access?i do believe it was!
Reply
It was good for jumping off of too, back in the day of course. Get arrested for that now.
Reply
   code red
The bridge rules cant be any more important then the beach rules and they state on the sign to drive carefully!lol
Reply
   code red
Proves that the truth lies within the report!
Reply
   code red
One more time incase you lost it in the other reports i posted
Reply
   code red
You make no since mr rabbit,google cant even make since of you anymore!
Reply
   code red
Is that you can call me names and you sir have absalutely no clue who code red is.you have no clue how long my hour has been going on.i hope you are not honestly thinking with the knowledge i have on this matter,that i have only been involved this week?its quite funny how you think.lmao an hour!wow!
Reply
   code red
I am smiling like the chesire cat!knowing that the reports of the beach for decades have proven that the parrish has much more intrest then you will ever admit!i am and always be for our great parrish returning to belle pass by vehicle!and you will never be!history shows that there are many thinking like me,and few thinking like you!in the end,it isnt your decision.i do believe i will take my boat out to the beach tomorrow for giggles,a few waves and fish.really,i have and always had access!but this is about more then me!can you say that your fight is to benifit many?or just a very small few?
Reply
   code red
In the 4th verse,doesnt it say the dragon lives for ever,but not so little boys?so if i was a senile old man,i would be preparing to meet my maker!i do spend time in my cave,but i also come out to feed!lol
Reply
I'm sure that 99 percent of the people of Lafourche and Grand Isle including myself agree with you on the tolls. In my position being openly against the tolls was probably not the politically correct thing to do, but I speak my mind always have and always will. All of the people of Grand Isle had to pay tolls just to get home. Port workers have to do the same to go to work. It's the only toll road or bridge I know of in this country that does not have an alternate route. The state required this so everyone had to pay, thus paying the state their money back sooner. After much protest they exempted residents of Grand Isle. The reason they gave was the old bridge was no longer good. I question that. All they had to do was put the toll booth south of the down ramp south of the bridge where you could have the option of traveling down old La. 1. We would hope you would consider coming down here, we are building a million dollar plus boat launch in leeville before the toll booth there are motels bait houses and great places to eat .
Scam I agree.
Reply
It was also a great place to hang a Coleman lantern and figure 8 a boones shad rig that you purchased at Schwegmanns at a reasonable price. It was also my secret spot to tie my boat and drop my butterfly nets caught thousand of pounds of shrimp and flounder. The new po po has
Put an end to all of that.
Reply
A synonym for necessity is desire. This has been upheld in court countless times. The public expresses desire. Govt that is elected to serve the people brings the request to a court of law. Judge decides what is just compensation, and if there is need. Not me you or anybody else. I've beat that horse to death, and don't know how to explain it any other way.
As for gates on state water bottoms and navigable waterways, I stated in an earlier comment how wrong that was. Why is it wrong? They are putting cables and gates at ingress and egress points(to public waters)that run through their property(illegally), thus privatizing what belongs to me and you and us all. In your way of thinking we wouldnt have a chance Of getting a judge to force removal of the gates, because we cant prove that we have a need to fish that property(that we legally fished on all of our lives )after all we could fish in the gulf couldnt we? Would the landowners say we couldntprove certified neccesity and to enjoy what is rightfully ours what would a judge do no one knows. If we stop our effort on Fourchon we might as well stop the effort to remove the gates not fighting it would encourage greedy landowners to take whats left of the public trust.
Thanks admiral. Oh by the way I wish I could have have been with you at Woodstock, then I wouldn't have to get my hallucinogenic friends to interpret your comments. Or is it that you found your wild rabbit in the bottom of a bottle of Hennessy. You do remember the song I don't know why I love you ,but i do? In addition that is why the Beachfront commision at the request of the Houma nation placed the identified archaeological sites in our jurisdiction off limits to everyone but certified tribal members. I'm glad we agree that Fourchon can not be developed, that is why the only thing we will try to get permitted in our jurisdiction are the pilings for the fishing pier, after an archaeological search of the impacted area of course. In our master plan 99.9% of our jurisdiction would remain in its natural state.
So another reason comes to play along with state and federal projects that need constant maintenance. That one day this property could be a multi million dollar condo development is ludicrous,thanks for bringing it up. I have a quote similar to uncle earls's that goes, don't put anything on the Internet that you can't put your name to, don't say anything on the phone that you can't say in person, don't phone anything you can talk about in person. That's why my name and contact info is on this site. I guess I'm the uncle earl of fourchon . But one thing I admire about the kingfish, he broke a private monopoly(standard oil pipeline)and made it open to all of the public. I guess a chicken in every pot from the publicly owned chicken farm. If my comments seem confusing I am addressing several comments with one response.
Reply
I like many of your positive comments on the beach fronts endeavors. I however disagree with you that expropriation is necessary. There is still time for the landowner and their new negotiator to respond to our attempts to negotiate access. Thanks for your bringing my attention to the article in La.fishmag. I hate to tell you that the 2 miles that you see in the photograph with so many people(was open for 3 months) you won't see that kind of crowds at Elmers. The neighboring landowner seeing that the Caillouets were getting away with blocking public access decided to do the same and padlocked their gate. People believe me it's an epidemic in Lafourche ,the Gheens boat launch, Clovelly boat launch,Tidewater Canal,30,000plus acres of Wisner public shooting and fishing grounds. On the west side of bayou Lafourche 80% of the land from north of Leeville to the Pointe Aux Cheine mgmt. area is now gated or posted. All of these areas are influenced by the ebb and flow of the Gulf of Mexico. That is the definition of state navigable waters. You are being blocked from using these waters it's an epidemic and highly contagious it's coming to all coastal parishes.
Reply
... Mr.Fishes (you nemesis rascal) I understood you were talk'n about post-toll collective billing tricks not about tolls in general which he used as a side step...cheers

P/S in all his crawfish dancing a bald-headed stranger said: 'He's trying to build his profile too quick he's got the gumption but not the clout'(If he only knew)...cheers
Reply
   sportla
I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Cheramie, but according to Thesaurus.com and common sense, desire and want are actually listed as antonyms of the word necessity. An antonym actually means a word that is the opposite of another word, which basically proves the point that Rhall has been trying to make. Just because people want or desire something does not make it a necessity.
Reply
Sport...once upon a time I wanted and desired a red Corvette wanting to be 1957 Billy'da Kid at the Crowley Drag Strip ...after I got it I found my real 'necessity' was a four-door olive green station wagon with notes I could afford...think I must have had those 'strutting peacock aspirations'...cheers

p/s Ricky...Geronimo said: 'hang in there sometimes winners lose a lot of feathers...it builds character'...cheers
Reply
It'd be a darn shame if I couldn't go to the grand canyon, because some fellow owned a strip of land beside it. Drag racing in Crowley rabbit? Now you talkin. I might not get in trouble there.
Reply
Boots...how far do you go back...all I could get out that stock Vette was 92 mph in 8.9 sec. in the quarter and that was w/sandbags in the trunk...we took the bags out and it only fishtailed and burned rubber...good old days I think even Edwin was there...if you know any old folks they might remember one Sunday it was closed down because of a dragster going into the crowd near the finish line...it was a sad day...no cheers
Reply
   rhall301
I was finished with this thread once Code Red unsuccessfully attempted to insult the great Adm Rabbit using a combination of the Bible, The U.S. Constitution and a song from Peter, Paul and Mary.

Mr. Cheramie, you have caused me great concern. If you believe in the legal sense that desire equals necessity, my prediction is correct, the tax payers of this great Parish will have a huge legal bill and nothing to show for it.

In addition, 'just compensation' is defined as monetary value. I and about six others I personally know would give the land owners three times the amount your commission is offering.

Please stop this battle before the Parish is embarrassed in court and sets a really bad precedent for other cases involving 'real' public property issues.
Reply
   code red
I had very little money and all i could afford was bait shrimp.it was a cold winter and the tide was really low.i wasted some of my bait shrimp trying to catch some food on the side of the road.but with the low tide,the water was to muddy.so i drove to fourchon beach.where the food was plentiful and my family ate great for weeks because i returned everyday for a week!didnt have enough gas money to geaux any further!but,that place supplied me and my family with food!a necessity! One noone can live without!this place turned 2pounds of bait into countless pounds of fish meat!is food not a necessity? Not everyone can afford steak dinners and hybrid cars!for these people,in hard times,the public seashore is a godsend!it is necessary.That our parrish not create a hardship on its citizens any longer by denying access to fourchon!
Reply
I bet Jack Haynes was out there Rabbit.....wasn't a bassmaster pro yet.....
Reply
...I got a few pics if I can dig them up had a bunch w/some #10's in 'short shorts'...they gott'a be Grandma's tdy !!! I would rather find that Vette than the 'shorts'...anyway heard the Vette ended up restored in Walnut Creek,Ca...I don't think the 'shorts' can be restored ???...cheers
Reply
   code red
I see ur dead horse,and raise u another dead horse
Reply
Mr Hall is right...you all only going to cause attention to a great parish history and people like Zurik or Letten could get involved...no one needs all that...let it go until public attitude changes and politicial images are improved...cheers
Reply
   code red
Yes!!!i think that in all the reports done about fourchon beach access on the daily com,lafourche gazzette,usa today,triparrish times and others clearly shows the parrish as good guys in this fight!we have nothing to hide i believe!in fact,that as many people who are involved,like every public citizen,this needs to be put out there!on another note,maybe tou might want to join an organization that is looking at starting a local chapter down here!its all about oreserving the world's oceans!
Reply
Boots...if we find the old pics will try to see if you knew anyone...will send to your e/m address...cheer
Reply
   code red
Why didnt i think of that!!!
Reply
You must be running out of gas what a weak argument that was. I expected more out of you. Do you think that I don't know what an antonym is. Look up synonym for necessity it will say (need),(want),(desire). If access isn't agreed to, and it goes to court the judge will judge the definition not me not you. I guess your bubble is a hot air balloon and you're supplying the hot air.
Reply
I'm disappointed in you. I bought an old rusty station wagon(something I could haul my shrimp, fish, crabs, and nutria). I never took a job I couldn't do or an obligation I couldn't pay.
I don't think I have strutting peacock syndrome, I don't have any tail feathers left.
I guess I would compare more to a buzzard, sitting here waiting for something to die or get run over then I feed heavily and fly back to my tree, plenty, plenty, plenty, patience. I agree with the great chief and always tell my boys the same thing. In the words of Aaron Tippin you got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. I'm not falling for there's no way to get my people on the beach.
Reply
OK, I did a little digging around and I finally found my opinion on this subject. Fourchon beach should be bought and used by the Port Commision, not Lafourche Parish. There is absolutely no benifit for the Parish to buy it. If the Port Commision buys it, then it will be put to very good economic use that will benifit everyone in the parish. There is a levee project that is about to start along the beach, that will leave the area not really looking the way we are used to seeing it. It's called 'The Caminada Headlands Project'. It will be a levee from Fourchon Pass to Caminada Pass, aproximately 8 feet high. You will need to walk over that levee to access the beach. So it won't look like what we grew up seeing it like. There will be a road behind that levee, and I'd bet that the Port Commission will probably allow us fisherman to use it. If they don't no big deal. We got Elmer's Island, and the State paid for it. To think that Lafourche Parish could buy and maintain Fourchon Beach is pure foolishness. There's no way that the cost to buy and maintain it could benefit the parish to the amount of the cost. If the Port Commision buys it, that will provide that much more indirect income to Lafourche Parish without having to spend a dime. Mr. Cheramie, you had me fooled about the subject until I researched it a little more with people that actually know what the real story really is.
Reply
   code red
The dunes arw going to be for nothing more then restoration.there is a federal fund to maintain the beach.the levee you are thinking of is not what it will be,but the elevation of the beach will be raised to 8feet.and the most important thing of all is noone will ever be able to secure a vessel to the gulf's beach over a sand bar without risking busting the hull clean open when so much as a crewboat's wave from miles away reaches it!to risk the chance of spilling many thousand gallons of fuel and hazzourdass materials into the gulf is not likely.the sheer weight of 100 ton to 30000ton vessels dropping as little as one foot onto its keel is enough to bust the hull open and sink a vessel.and i really dont believe the army corps are creating a beach to only allow someone to dredge the coast.digging it deeper would create larger waves that would then erode the land many times faster then previously.if this was an option,i would really think that the government would not waste millions of dollars pumping the sand from neerly 15miles away when they can do it from 500feet away to create a channel.it is a far fetched idea that would be to risky.simply to dangerous for the vessel crews,vessels,environment,and the beach itself.i have worked vessels in sand bottom beaches,and it would be rendered useless probably 11months out of rhe year for the oil field.especially when there is so much already existing to supply the oilfield,and so much room to grow south of leville
Reply
Tie a boat to the beach? What the heck are you talking about? Dude, I'm from South Lafourche. Graduated SLHS in 1984. I love fourchon just as much as you. Maybe even more. Bottom line is, Lafourche Parish can't afford to take on such a big elephant. A pier? Cabins? A campground? Don't we have that in Grand Isle? Beach access? Don't we have that in Elmer's Isle? Alll that and the parish didn't have to spend a dime. They couldn't even maintain Cloverly Road. I really do understand you wanting to go on Fourchon Beach. I want to also. It's just not economically feasable for Lafourche Parish to foot the bill. Maybe the Port Commision could foot the bill, build more facilities that pay rent (I'm talking the back side of the beach) and make access for us to get to the beach. We all win like that. I think that anyone who looks at it like that and disagrees with that has something personally to gain (and I'm not mentioning any names)
Reply
Boots...somebody putting dillusions in his head and useing him for insulation...would be best to just go around him...the best route is the one they dodge...'Certified Necessity' like 'Obammo Birth Certificate'...nobody can come up w/either one ???...cheers
Reply
   code red
We will see how the courts see this
Reply
You know rabbit, it's a shame how they can use the emotions of the people of an area to disguise a stupid idea. They try to make it sound like it's the only way we will ever get to go to Fourchon again. There is another way for us to get to the beach. And it won't cost us a thing. And we can build more commerce for the Port. Heck if it weren't for the Port, we would have been forgotten about a long time ago. Let them pay for our access, and we can go to Fourchon again. For free!
Reply
It's like arguing with JLS. But at least you can spell. I will not respond to this thread anymore. I have said my peice. People here know me. I didn't sign up to LASM to come and spread my ridiculous political views or try to confuse people on what the issues are. I've never been run out of DosGris . I am a Louisiana Sportsman. I come here to share stories and help other sportsman. Stir the pot all you want cracker. I'm not eatin anymore.
Reply
   code red
It will all be left in the hands of a judge to decide.i have spent the day today fishing fourchon beach.limited out of course.but i needed to get there to see for myself what is happening.the reflector poles mark the grass line.the seashore is public and the land created by the 500mill project will also be public.if you would like to research something,try the louisiana public trust doctrine.access will be granted im sure because it is the law.this project has a 2billion dollar fund to maintain so cost is not a lafourche problem.i always have enjoyed the beach and am excited that probably once again,everyone will be able to enjoy it again.today was a serrious relax day i needed and i saw once more that no matter what the outcome is,i will always be welcome by my parrish on its coast as is every one else.all this is for beach access,and it isnt a problem with a boat and a long board.later. mr white boots.hope to see you at the beach one day and we can both understand the change that took place on our coast a little better.
Reply
   code red
No,i did not pay the toll.i always am comfi giving bobby lynns the launch fee and cruise my boat from leville.it is a nice scenic route that i always enjoy.lol
Reply
Boots...the last 15 or 20 canards code pink made I just skipped over...he must really believe he'a asset to RC...cheers

P/S...bet he grabbed his dictionary ??? cheers
Reply
   code red
Im always winging it.spell check is off because i dont need it.i am not perfect,in WHICH i dont claim to be.if you think your necessity stance trumps the louisiana public trust doctrine,in WHICH it states clearly,that the state must gain access for public land for the public,please geaux ahead and think that.because i think the law trumps all of our opinions.lets just see what happens in court.the bottom lineis this fight concerns all of lafourche parrish and no matter how much we bitch about it,you and i are only 2opinions.it will be decided soon enough im sure.it looks like mr rickey is giving them time so as we journey into the fight of spending tax dollars,i guess the parrish needs to lean onto the assessors of lafourche to make sure everyone is taxed fairly and have enough to do what the parrish needs to do in all afairs.
Reply
...'Certified Necessity'
Reply
   rhall301
Boots...Great research and thoughts. There is a lot more out there that will surface. For example, how did Ricky's family get a lease for an RV park and permitting for such. Maybe I am a comspirist, but would not a full beach of tourist benefit the revenue of a nearby camper park, esp. if that beach will be closed at night.

Code...You will never 'see what a judge says' because the Commission will never bring this flawed claim. It has had a chance for years and has never done so. And please do not insult my intelligence by sayiong that the delay has been for a chance to resolve this matter with the landowners. There was never a chance to make such a resolution and Ricky and others have always known that.
Reply
   sportla
I have known members of the family that owns the land for many years and there is more than likely a chance that there can be an amicable resolution to all of this. However, contrary to what Mr. Cheramie says, that is not what the BDD wants. Plain and simple....they want the caillouet's land. They are not interested in negotiating a deal for a right of passage or a road behind the dunes. Now he will come back on here saying 'talk to al danos or cam morvant!!! they were there and the landowners never come to the table to negotiate.' That is not true. And now they want to take over the Tidewater canal too. Exactly at what point in this parish are people allowed to start owning private land Mr. Cheramie?? I know the answer....it's at the point when the landowner is one of his friends. Because he certainly didnt mention anything about a bunch of people from down the bayou who have gated off land. But then again, those people are real rich and he doesnt want to offend them.
Reply
I'm impressed that you and your friends have that much money. I guess you could afford to buy a lot and build a big condo and stop the people from being on the seashore, but if you and your friends have that kind of money I would imagine that your group would be cautious with your investments. Call the c.o.e,
The c.p.r.a. And parish c.z.m. ask them if you could get a permit to develop or build anything on footprint of Caminada headlands and related marsh enhancement projects. Call FEMA and ask if they would approve any development on the dunes in that general area. All land east of Fourchon will not be insured. If you do this research and you find what I say is true, would you still buy it? If you did I'm certain you would allow the people access to the seashore. By the way our attorney is a Harvard graduate. I hope they come back to the table so it doesn't come down to that.
Reply
I respect all of the people who comment on this post a lot. Whether you are for or against. Sincerely.
I've gained a lot of insight as to what the opposition might say. This has allowed me to prepare my answers for the future.(great scrimmage I am ready for the game) Lets all hope the game is called, because of settlement.
Lets put things into perspective, this would not be the simple taking of a property to build a baseball field(if it resorts to that).
I agree there would be an extreme burden of proof as to need. I agree to that(even though that has been done a thousand times). This is a different situation. Mr. Hall you may not be for the taking of your neighbors property for a baseball field, but if that neighbor was blocking access to your property you may see it differently. You may want to bring legal action against your neighbor, after all you could hunt a mgmt. area, but you sir would win access to your property as thousands of others have. You would not be asked by a judge to forget you owned the property. So you needed to move on. I can't see why that's not perfectly clear to everyone. We all have a need for access to what is ours. This is necessity! Please google the louisiana public trust doctrine regarding seashores and navigable waters. Please look at all of it, let me know what you find! Also visit the louisiana law review(I'm sure we are all Lsu fans ) look at their interpretation of the public trust doctrine, you will see that the case may not hinge on public need, but the right of the people to enjoy the public trust, that it has owned since Louisiana was admitted to the union by the nature of its sovereignty. It is the legal duty of all state agencies dealing with public trust lands, and the state attorney general to protect the publics right to enjoy public trust land.
It's not the beachfront that's not doing their job. Please everyone read Lsu law review re. Public trust doctrine then decide if the commision has a leg to stand on. If we god forbid have to go to court. You will see that govt. has the right and an obligation to spend govt money on public trust land. As you will find we are fighting for the rights that the people have had since this state was admitted into the union. Remember the state must assure that all residents have access the sick, elderly, and handicapped to all areas of the seashore.

Expropriation is part b of plans a .b .c .d . The legislature gives the commission the power to expropriate, zone,(control development in our jurisdiction) and to tax.(The cleanest process is negotiation and resolution.) Still hoping !
Admiral , I worry about you and I. I think we enjoy this way too much lol! Carry on sir. Boots anybody that's lived down here is considered a brother,an anybody that's lived down here and has evolved into a birder, wow I admire that. Boots, speckle chaser, code red ,granny, ash, Ceb99, shad rig, Mai's weh,sl sweetie, lady tarpon,buddy t ,and e man. We feed off of your passion to return to your beach.
Dear sport la, you claim to care about laf. Parish . However you want to deny the people of Lafourche what they want. To prove to you that the people of Lafourche want this, when the council voted to put up the money to offer the landowners(the appraised value of the property), there was a standing room only crowd there from all walks of life in the parish, even a large group of ladies from Thibodeaux. When I state facts from now on I will give you a way to verify them. Call the council clerk ,find when this measure passed then call vision communications and request a video of that meeting you will find poor, middle class, and wealthy people applauding the passing of this measure. So much for your class war. Now for your turf war. The people of the tenth ward tax themselves to build infrastructure to broaden our tax base, much of this tax revenue is spent parish wide. So we are not selfish like you are. We do not regret the taxes we collect going to any part of the parish that request it. Keep your balloons flying high. With your hot air.
Mr. Switzer, I hope you understand that if it resorts to that we would only be seeking access to the only ingress and egress site to the seashore(a small part of the hundreds of acres they own. This is an issue that we have negotiated for nearly 6yrs. I think you would agree that we need access to the seashore. You tell me how do we achieve that(open for suggestions.)
Mr. Wilson, I really want to thank you for very intelligent questions and points, unfortunately I can't speak for the state and have the same question as you do for the state. It came close to expropriation, but Caminada headlands had a deadline to begin this process, they began the process through the South Lafourche levee district doing it for the state. It was voted on and passed. At the last minute the landowners dropped the requirementhat the state ban beach driving it was dropped at that time, and the easement for construction workers was signed. It's ironic that the only people with access to the beach are construction workers building up the landowners property, with your tax dollars. It is rumored that the state will revisit this after project is complete. Mr.Wilson, How's Dennis? Has he been behaving?
Mike Guerin, I miss your input. Did Mark Hilzim give up the secret beach? All commenters have been extremely important to our efforts, and believe it or not, I would be proud to call you friends. All of you, but please google Louisiana public trust doctrine (this was used in the ban on gillnets).
Sincerely Rickey
Reply
In a special condition to the Caillouet permit, the Dept of Natural Resources, acknowledged the right to drive on Fourchon beach. When we met with cpra they told us that they would consider driving on the beach from surf line to vegetation line after they finished the project, but we needed to come up with a tight set of rules. We told them we had that addressed in our master plan under rules and regulations. They reviewed them in front of us and said the rules were very tight. Because of this they would not ban beach driving as the landowners wanted. I have the letter asking for an opinion from cpra and their response was; they would not ban beach driving after the project was complete, but there would be only one crossing over the dune, and they would have to approve the plan. The road you are talking about would be way into the future. IF the port could secure a lease with the Wisners and that road would be at least a quarter mile behind the dunes going west from 3090 to near the rocks, not to them. The state has no plans for a road and even the port could not be permitted to build a road on the marsh creation area(no road behind dune). Maybe way behind it. How many people who own the public trust can carry an ice chest, fishing rods, tackle boxes,surfboards,and carry children a quarter mile. There would be no rd to the east of3090. The port would maintain the area in front of this 44 acres. The state would continue to maintain the rest of the seashore. After all the state and attorney general are mandated by the public trust doctrine (look at louisiana law review public trust doctrine) to protect and provide access to all public trust land. Many, many, many, people prefer going to Fourchon beach than going to Jefferson parish. Remember the state is mandated to provide access and protection to every inch of the public trust (that the public desires to go on)and the beachfront development commision is created by an act of the legislature (research louisiana law regarding beach front development districts). The Port Commission, because of a prior settlement, cannot have anything to do with gaining access through this property. Remember boots we are only trying to get access, we are not looking to take over the responsibility of the state on the entire beach, and all of the amenities you mentioned at grand isle were built by federal and state grants not parish money. As would ours. Your information comes from someone who isn't privy to all of what's going on or maybe he or she has a stake in keeping the public off of the beach. In any case I would love to debate whoever your source of information is in this forum,but let me guess hey want to remain anonymous. Boots you are an intelligent articulate person and a fellow alumni of s.l. Myself 1971 state champs won best personality and wittiest check out 1971 yearbook. Remember there has been no vote to expropriate this property, and as a brother I want you to google la. Public trust doctrine you will find what the state and attorney generals obligations are to the public in this doctrine I stand behind my facts and attach my name to them. I don't think you were taking a pot shot at me, but if you were you were right. I do have a personal interest in Fourchon beach being open. I would love to see my grandchildren and the rest of the public enjoying Fourchon beach as I did, doesn't take much to make an old man happy. lol Thanks boots,and don't expect to get kicked out of Dos Gris if you a sign a waiver of liability and agree on carrying a membership card. (No personal agenda here)total cost to public not a red cent and I paid for all the protection and restoration my self, but please don't go on the neighboring Wisner property they will cite you. Yes, the same Wisners that own 7 miles of Fourchon beach and just took tens of thousands of acres away from the public north of la 1. If I were opportunistic I would charge people to fish my property, or wish the beach never opened so that my son would get more charters, or if I was trying to help my family I would not have put public rv park in the master plan. I would have done this even if my sons rv park had not stayed at full capacity, it opened a week before oil spill and has been at full occupancy since then even with the beach closed. Please research these facts I have presented and let us know what you find.
thanks
Reply
Why, brother boots plan for access can not and will not work!
1. The state can not sell public trust land(read la.law review on la.s public trust doctrine).
2. In the negotiations between the port and the Wisners for Fourchon island the port wanted to lease everything from the seashore north to old Fourchon excluding the Chevron lease, the Wisners said they were open to negotiations, but leasing the beach and the dunes were not an option. Also when the question of purchasing Fourchon island and the beach, the Wisners pointed out according to their trust their lands cannot be sold.(see wisners response to mayors state of trust letter or call Amanda Phillips , sec. Of Wisner committee.
3. The port because of a prior settlement with the caillouets cannot force the sale of their property, and they like the Wisners don't want to sell. (Check out port minutes and settlement document between caillouet land trust vs.greater lafourche port commission.
So that plan cannot and will not work. Your expert should have known that (if he was an expert). I have presented my facts on this proposal along with the way to check them out. If you want to know anything about Fourchon island do what the port does call me, their last request of me was to identify the wading bird rookery on Fourchon island. Brother boots, I still feed off of your passion for the beach. Thanks.
Reply
   rhall301
Mr. Cheramie...You actually are delusional. You state I and my rich friends cannot build on the back side of Port Fourchon. Then how are you and the Parish going to build all this recreational projects you mentioned earlier. Instead of looking at the profit loss statement of your trailer park, look at the post you made in this thread. You will see that on at least four separate occasion you contradicted yourself. That is not even including the numerous history lessons that had no relevancy. Please, again, please, quit embarassing this Parish. Your commission has NO power to claim land. The Parish may, if requisites are met, but your commission does not.

I can also assure you that 'me and my rich friends' as you call us, will certainly offer the landowners, in mulitple offers, in excess of three times what your commission will. Whether you think we are making a good or bad business move is no concern to us, but rest assure we are all prepared to do so. Thus, your earlier 'just compensation' argument just dissolved.

Again, this thread and your post herein proves you have no necessity and have no idea what just compensation will be. Please quit embarrasing the Parish for your own gain.
Reply
...take a second and look up the true definition of 'FILIBUSTER'...one of many old tricks they played on your Grandpa was to throw plenty words at him to wear his thought's out, so he would walk away and lose interest...but,I gott'a say the peacock is strutt'n...cheers
Reply
   code red
Theirs your facts!!!!thanx bdc!and the only embarrassment i see is the fact that someone is sneakilly bocking public access!!!!the public trust doctrine says exactly as you stated,so the state has an obligation to obide by the law.but as they call you names,im reminded of a certain bird that could maybe represent them.you see,the ostrich may run fast,(especially fron the truth)and when its in a predicament, it will stick its head in the sand therefore blocking off all logical communication! Lol it is obvius the fab 4will never see things as the councilmen see it.so i am going to let this soak in some more for them and check back later on how its going!
Reply
   rhall301
Mr. Cheramie...I realized I failed to address one of your earlier statements.

Your comment about your attorney being a Harvard graduate really shows how weak your legal argument really is. First, the case will be decided on Louisiana civil law, not Massachusetts state common law. Second, your Harvard graduate did not even pass the Louisiana bar exam the first time he toook it. And third, just remember Pres. Obama is a Harvard graduate, as well as Jeff Skilling (former President of Enron), Ted Kaczynski (unabomber) and Alberto Gonzales (disgraced former U.S. Attonery General).
Reply
   slickhead
rhall I agree with everything you have been saying, thanks for keeping a straight head during this 'debate'. I would have given up a long time ago!

Rickey C - you really should try and go over to rodnreel.com and plead your case. Over there you will not have to deal with anyone that differs with your opinion, because the owner will delete anyones' opinion that actually contains facts and differs from yours!
Reply
General Hall...looks like 'ya got a whole herd of'em...seems your library in bigger than mine...by the way, Mr. Winkee Leeks and Mr.PoPoo Leaks said there is a lot of Navajo chatter down there also...and Tarzan said the natives are gett'n restless...cheers

Slick you right...any plan should be flexable...but low and behold if the fanatics get in...(it's something like the power trips in a Home Owners Assoc)
Reply
if every land ower or land Lease, would stop Fisherman from pasting on ther Land. Then some of you on this Post could not Fish in the Marsh, all the marsh in LAF. Parish is owned or Lease. I my slef have a hunting Lease. So if some of you come down hear to Fish and you go in the Marsh you or on Private Property. Get my point?
Reply
   code red
Because it seams to be as entertaining as the ones we have now!but i personally would rather be longboarding a nice waste high wave down the belle pass jetties again!js been only a few days and i do believe its time for another boat ride!wouldnt believe how fun the crewboat waves are in at the rox!ttyl!i know yall miss me,ill be back!
Reply
In my comment to code when I explained it was not time to consider expropriationt. I referred to the gates and posted signs in Lafourche as a highly contagious epidemic. Please explain to me how is that not mentioning it. Anybody wants to catch this man in a lie, look at my only comment to code red. Wow! In mentioning Cam Morvant and Al Danos. I was giving you names of respectable people that could verify my facts. Give me the names of your sources. 0h, let me guess they also want to remain anoymous. Call Al and Cam up and when they verify my facts, then feel free to call them liars also. The beachfront district is trying to take the Tidewater canal? Wow, get your source to check and he will find that it is NOT in our jurisdiction. Since when in this parish can the public own private land? I'll answer that question with a question.
Since when in this state can a landowner own or block access to public trust lands? Feel free to look it up. Or call the attorney generals office. You say you know, it's obvious by these erroneous comments that you sir know nothing, you did not get one of your 'facts' correct. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to state false facts, but I guess if you hide behind a user name you can.
Reply
My brother boots had less than accurate information on Fourchon beach, and an impossible solution to our problem. All of the facts I have presented to brother boots on this subject are accompanied by directions to verify with my name attached to them. You insinuate I have skeletons in my closet and that it will come out later. I can tell you one thing that will not come out(the source of your false information). I am certain of that because people are reluctant to put their names on false information or lies.
How did I Get get a lease at Fourchon? Like everyone else negotiated the lease and it was reduced to writing and I signed it. Didn't even know what I was going to do with it. After all, the negotiations were before the beachfront
Was even formed. They put it out to bid two times and they turned down all bids I bid each time and when I was called the third time I bid significantly less than the first two times and was shocked to get it. It sat there for yrs. my nephew and son approached me wanting to build an rv park and I ended up letting them take over the lease. Why did Burlington resources give me a shot at it? Maybe because my father was their caretaker for 30 yrs, after he passed I was their caretaker for 10yrs. Our pay? A fur trapping lease on their property. Lets talk permits there were 5 hurdles then parish permitting office, parish health dept, state dept of health and hospitals, fire Marshall, and south central planning ,if you're suggesting I bought all of them off you must think I have a lot more money than I have. Oh how did Chris Morans rv park get a permit? Just like my son did he complied. Will my son benefit from a beach full of people? There is a space requirement between campers. That is all that will ever be put there I challenge you to call your friend Larry Picciola to find out if this is true. The rv park is at full capacity since it opened with the beach being closed. I have explained this to you several times perhaps your sources are not liars, because you do not seem to have a capacity to understand anything. Intelligence cannot be insulted if it doesn't exist sir. That a delay in a vote to expropriate seems to you a sign of weakness is absurd there are 4 plans. Tune in.
Reply
Haven't shot one of you in 38 yrs, know I should, just can't do it anymore(I save them for my grand kids).
At one point Wisner let us have access to two miles of beach. We had a tight set of rules regarding littering, and driving on the dunes. We had inmates come in on Mondays and sweep seashores and landowners property. We had only one incident with dune driving, the harbor police cited him, the d.a. prosecuted him, and he was banned from driving on Fourchon beach for life. The hard heads and gaff tops if you don't load up like I usually do, the day shift gulls and the night shift coyotes will take care of the rest. A little surf and turf dish with baby birds in the nest providing the turf. You have made light of a sad situation, but our rules and regulations kept a handle on it. Thanks for the humor. Between the two landowners they have billions of dollars of lawsuits against b.p. Thousands of people enjoying themselves on the beach would not look good for their claim of damages. Elmers have no trash pick up or patrol. Made me laugh. The facts I present are accompanied by directions on how to verify. Is Mr. Hall doing that? How can you say (after reading the la. Public trust doctrine ) that my facts are debatable?
Reply
I'm glad someone else notices in Lafourche that paradise La. Is quickly becoming paradise lost. There are some landowners and lease holders still allowing public access, my hats off to them.
But there is a light at the end of the tunnel one of the major landowners is considering allowing fishing by boat only outside of hunting season.
Reply
Why would I want to charge a fee on your beach when I don't charge a fee on my private property? I guess we have all become suspicious of politicians, but unpaid public servants should be given the benefit of the doubt. You are right it's all about the grand kids 4boys, 3 girls all sportsmen.
Reply
I knew Huey's son Palmer and his son Palmer jr, spent many a day hunting with them on their ranch in Mansfield and eating drinking, and being merry at Tahiti east on grand isle. Did I learn to filibuster from them? Who knows. If I put everyone else to sleep you'll hang in there with me. lol. The beach being open would be almost as good as a Mowata store Tasso burger, with a little boudin on the side on the tailgate of your pickup while on a goose hunt. I don't agree with professional services contracts for engineers and architects either. It does go on in this parish, but it won't go on in our committee. In fact we are allowed 20 bucks per meeting per diem in 6 yrs. NO member has ever filed for it. My board consist of dedicated individuals. No fees ever discussed, and none will with this board.
Reply
Mr. Ten feet tall and bullet proof behind a user name(Mr. Hall),

Quit embarrassing yourself by continuing to misspell cite. Site is where something will be built(such as a pavilion,fishing pier,rv park, etc). I'm glad you're getting used to that word. Name the four times you say I contradicted myself. If you had any sense you would google beachfront development districts 33:7572 revised statute you will find that we have the power to zone, expropriate, and tax and we are charged with building and maintaining recreational facilities. (We are a subdivision of the state) we are charged with bringing and developing recreation to and for the parish, read it yourself and admit you are wrong. It doesn't mean a private developer could be permitted! Don't like the law? Then ask your politicians to change it. While you're at it change the public trust doctrine. I know you can't stand that every man, woman, and child owns the seashore, and has the right to access it. This has been LA. Law since 1812, and has been law since Justinian times. Prove me wrong on that! Mr. Hall you have been wrong so many times in your comments, I feel sorry for you. If you want I will go back to the beginning and make a list of how many times you were wrong,(but that would just further embarrass you). If you and your group are so interested in buying this property, sounds like you might have an ulterior motive, but beware you would be buying a piece of property that is within the jurisdiction of a subdivision of the state, that is charged with bringing recreation to this jurisdiction. Being zoned recreational would throw a wrench in the plans for a condo development wouldn't it? Why dont you guys buy it and when you find out you cant develop it, you would sell it to the parish for pennies or maybe get an umbrella and a chaise lounger and watch the people on the seashore enjoying what is rightfully theirs. Was it Jim Mora that said you think you know? You think you know? But you don't know. Check your facts before you attach your fictitious name to it.
Our attorney is also from Cut Off La. (A south Lafourche boy getting a scholarship to Harvard). You want to take away from that? And as a former state rep. for Lafourche and Grand Isle, he spent many years making laws, not just interpreting them. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard law school, and gave the commencement address,taught at Tulane law school. In 1987 gov. Jindal named him chairman of his transition team for coastal restoration and environment. He is also recognized by the LA. Supreme Court as an expert on environmental issues. Loulan also co authored the bill that authorized the states 30 yr master plan.
Not bad for a South Lafourche boy, but the only reason I referred to him was, you said my opinion meant nothing. I assure you that I consult with him on a regular basis. After all he's been on retainer since 1997.
I guess you failed to recognize that. Google biography of Loulan Pitre Jr. you keep going off on tangents the subject is Fourchon beach. Not the port, not an rv park, not Elmers,and not your ability to predict the future. I don't guess they could diagnose attention deficit disorder when you were a child. Boy, if you would have gotten adderall back then, you might be taken seriously today,but that didn't happen! Remember I didn't start the insults you did.
Reply
Wanna go to da beach for good!
Reply
'Mike Guerin, I miss your input.'

I am still here. Trying to keep up with the goings on. Glad to read if I understand correctly that expropriation will not be required.
Reply
Bump..

It's now 2016 mr Cheramie... Fourchon open yet? :/
Reply
   rocknet
I do not know about the state or parish obtaining the land along the Fourchon beach.... but I have a feeling things may change in this state.... as far as owners of coastal marsh treating it like it is dry land. We do not have a Sportsmen's paradise.... but a Posted Paradise. We now have outfits blocking off natural bayous, bays and lakes, and getting the permits to do such. The people.... are waking up.....
Reply
To --licensedtokill--- Mr. Cheramie had past away last year, he was a very good man that was trying to help with the right of way to our beach , he was a good friend of mine and will be miss.
Reply
...wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee...here we go again !!!...cheers
Reply
   rocknet
I am sure the final judge will be fair, and good to Mr. Cheramie. They will be plenty others.... who will not fare so well with the judge who cannot be bought or swayed......
Reply
As we read through these comments again, you'll notice where rhall301 takes the legal issues to the place where people should understand why we will never see any real coastal reconstruction.
rhall301:

You also continue to discuss the tax dollars spent on the Fourchon Beach. That was done at the request of the Port Commission and not the private landowners. It is the Port Commission who illegally spent taxpayers dollars to preserve a private landowner's property. Maybe, before the Port Commission spent tax dollars on a private tract of land, it should have gotten an agreement from the landowners for public access.

The Port Commission failed miserably and now seek to deprive private landowners of their property, illegally, to cover a major mistake by the Commission. A mistake that also happens to be illegal.
- See more at: http://www.louisianasportsman.com/lpca/index.php?section=reports&event=view&action=full_report&id=172210#sthash.8yTcBuKq.dpuf

Mike Guerin also states that Louisiana owns beachfront up to the high water mark. True and untrue.
In certain places it is true, but where erosion occurs, the state does not automatically take ownership of private property. If that were the case then all land under the water belongs to the state and property lines would have to be constantly redrawn for tax assessment purposes.
Coastal restoration is a dead issue. Only the maggots are getting fed off of it.
Reply
Now that you mention it I do remember hearing about that speck.. I really don't see how beachfront can be private property but can certainly understand the rights of private landowners. If you pull up the lafourche parish tax assessor website and go to the map you can see the beach marked as owned by the state. I'd just like them to open it back up again, it was a great place to fish the surf. Even if we have to pay for daily access. Last summer I browsed through the minutes of the port commissions monthly meetings looking for any info or discussion about the beach but could only find one instance where it was discussed.
Reply
Valuable post which is all about Fourchon Beach. Thanks for sharing with us. - https://resumefolks.com/
Reply