Ernest Burguieres - Mandeville Worth Saving

Ernest Burguieres - Mandeville Worth Saving Mandeville, Worth Saving

04/11/2025

Mandeville’s Future
April 9, 2025

Preserving those qualities that most everyone agrees on

Preserving that small town atmosphere and vibe.

Minimize large and/or intense public events

Be cognizant of stress on the lakefront so that the small town vibe is not erased.

Avoid high density developments

Incorporate definitions in City Planning of what success for a project might look like including any net effect of increased traffic.

Explore the possibility of evaluating potential success or failure of a project in the consideration of whether to allow it, e.g., articulate consequences and define what success is.

Things that should be pursued:

1. Improve the aesthetics of Four Corners shopping centers at Causeway Blvd. and La. Hwy. 22

a. Plant more trees in public and private areas (public and private efforts)
b. Implement or project to add indigenous trees (such as palmetto) every 30' on the medians of West Causeway Approach, Causeway and East Causeway Approach from the overpass at Causeway to the City limits.
c. To the extent necessary, connect all common parking lots and ensure uniform condition of surfaces
d. Sensitivity of lighting that can be toned down and more focused down to try and reinforce the ideals in a Dark Sky Community


2. Try to create an inventory of vacant land and buildings in the Planning Dept. that would be available to the public for sale, lease or re-use.

3. Try to create an inventory of real estate in the Planning Dept. that would be available to the public for consideration of the public purchase or privately removed from commercial or residential use. Note: Since the City can only pay appraised value for property knowledge of a target property for public use would not affect its appraised value.

3. Encourage neighborhood planting and maintenance of flowers, shrubs and other landscaping to augment efforts by the City or private businesses.

4. Encourage the burying of power lines by establishing a Memorandum of Understanding with Cleco, the City, citizens and HOA’s to try and capitalize on opportunities during road, sewerage or drainage construction or repairs that might make burying power lines more economical.

5. Encourage the City (Public Works), Cleco, Atmos and any other telephone, internet provider to minimize cutting or trimming trees so as to minimize adverse trimming effects.

a. Encourage Cleco to utilize armor coverings for overhead powerlines in heavily treed areas.

6. Implement a project to erect movable wooden walls, with hinged gates (for increased access when necessary), at least 6' tall and painted dark green around all sewer lift stations in the City of Mandeville.

7. Encourage use of lime stone (or equivalent aggregate) to be used in driveways and parking lots so that storm drainage will not be increasingly compromised by the proliferation of impervious or impermeable surfaces.

8. Encourage contractors to place aesthetic coverings (such as bamboo curtains, etc.) around outside portable toilets to try and conceal them.

9. Encourage sound barriers around air conditioning / HVAC and supplemental permanent electrical generators.


10. Conduct a review of sign proliferation in the City of Mandeville and seek to remove superfluous or unnecessary signs.

Things that should be monitored or avoided:

1. High density real estate developments

2. Large scale commercial developments

3. Large scale public events on Lakeshore Drive that result in heavy parking pressure on feeder north - south access that could adversely affect access by fire, police or EMS.

4. Activities that increase vehicular traffic, especially in areas already suffering compromised levels of service

5. Landscaping on the north and south side of Florida St. that interfere with the view of traffic from the feeder, north-south streets

6. Any general concern about unemployment in the City of Mandeville as long as the unemployment rate remains below the unemployment rate in the State of Louisiana.

a. The exception to this would be to be cognizance of the need for service employees in the City of Mandeville and affordable housing for these groups.

7. The closing or impeding of any open drainage ditches.

8. Greater scrutiny or sensitivity of any by City Planning of building project which seeks to add fill or impedance that interferes with the natural drainage that would pose a risk to adjoining properties.

02/02/2025

The Next Chapter in Sucette
February 2, 2025

In a bit of a surprise we were treated to the next chapter in the case of Sucette vs. City of Mandeville and Jason Zuckerman.

On this past Friday, January 31st, the court held what is called a status conference in the Sucette case.

Just to provide a little context, Sucette filed this suit on October 5, 2023. Within weeks the City and the attorney for Jason Zuckerman filed motions to dismiss the Sucette case. Normally motions in federal court are set for hearing and decided within 8-12 weeks. The Sucette case has been pending for over 14 months.

The status conference is where the attorneys congregate (used to be in person, but now may be by phone) to discuss the status of the case and the course of action that will be taken in the future. Discovery schedules and trial dates are often picked. The result of this January 31st status conference is that Judge Brandon Long ordered the parties to meet with Federal Magistrate Eva Dossier to discuss settlement.

I do not believe that the referral of this matter to the Magistrate for settlement discussions, 14 months after the litigation started, was expected. Will the City be expected to concede issues that go against the CLURO and against the desires of the Mandeville citizens? If the City does not entertain concessions acceptable to Sucette, would the Magistrate report to the Judge that the City is being uncooperative? I don’t know the answers.

It’s interesting that at about the same time that Sucette sued the City of Mandeville there was a suit filed on December 18, 2023 in Federal Court in New Orleans against Plaquemines Parish over the failure of the Plaquemines Parish Council to vote on an application for the development of an RV park. (Plaquemines Parish Ventures, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Council, United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana Case No. 23-7337, Judge Jay Zainey) Just like in Sucette, the plaintiff made claims of Constitutional violations. Motions to dismiss were filed by Plaquemines Parish Council and submitted for consideration on March 27, 2024. By Order dated April 3, 2024 the court dismissed the claims made by Plaquemines Parish Ventures, LLC. Pretty quick. Game, set and match.

It remains to be seen what sort of result comes from any settlement meetings with the Magistrate in Sucette. If there is a possibility that any of the more offensive aspects of the Sucette project become an order of the court then, just like in the Port Marigny case, the City might be pressured to make a decision that would go against the citizens, the council and the City.

If you have an opinion about Sucette you should make sure that you make that opinion known to the council and the mayor. If they do not hear from you they will assume that you accede to this.


Clay Madden - Mayor
[email protected]
(985) 630-8578

Scott Discon - Council at Large
[email protected]
(985) 353 - 2929

Jason Zuckerman - Council at Large
[email protected]
(504) 881-6920

Cynthia Thompson - Council District 1
[email protected]
(985) 205 - 8039

Kevin Vogeltanz - Council District 2
[email protected]
(985) 353 2975

Jill McGuire - Council District 3
[email protected]
(985) 778-8671

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

https://mandevilledaily.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/minute.entry_.settlement.conference.01312025.pdf

https://mandevilledaily.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/plaq.par_.ventures.v.plaq_.par_.dismissal.04042024.pdf

12/19/2024

As many of you may recall I am a candidate for the appointment to the Mandeville Planning and Zoning Commission along with two other people. This selection process has been going on since this past September. It has gotten nasty.

Be that as it may, there appears to be a good chance that a decision will be made at tonight’s Council Meeting. The applicant preferred by Councilman at Large Scott Discon and Councilwoman Cynthia Thompson is Shawn Potter from the Sanctuary. Some people believe that it is important to have a Planning and Zoning member from a certain Council District, although that requirement is not contained in the City Charter.

There appears to be dissension among Council members such that Mr. Potter may not be assured of the three votes necessary for the appointment. In that event the Council would then turn to me or Pat Rosenow.

It has been suggested to me that I inform anyone who supports me that it would be helpful if they showed up at the Council meeting tonight to show that support. I request that if you feel strongly about my application, and appreciate my work on the Sucette development and related matters over the past few years, that you show up tonight at 6:00pm and the City Council chambers to show that support.

Thank you.

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

12/07/2024

The Mandeville community in the 20th century and beyond; an overview

The Mandeville community has evolved from a small coastal fishing village with a tourist component in the first half of the 20th century to a quiet, mature, affluent, bedroom community of New Orleans. After World War 2 the population stabilized around 1400 residents. The main industry was pine trees and creosote.

By 1960 the Causeway was in operation and the city population started to swell with suburban migration from the southshore. There was no longer a need for ferries from New Orleans.

The population was just under 1700 residents. Any hotels left over from before World War 2 were slowly disappearing and replaced by new permanent residents who sought a quiet, safe, small town respite from the City of New Orleans.

By 1970 the population had grown to about 2500 residents. There were no longer any vestiges of a resort atmosphere like there was before World War 2.

By 1980 the population had tripled to about 6,000 residents. New schools were built. Subdivisions were popping up. The city had been relegated to the eastern side of Causeway Blvd. and the southside of Highway 22. The City commenced annexation of subdivisions mostly on the west side of Causeway Blvd.

By 1990 the population had grown to about 9,000 residents.

By 2000 the population had grown to over 10,000 residents.

By 2010 the population had grown to over 11,500 residents.

By 2020 the population had grown to about 12,500 residents.

The population of St. Tammany Parish had swollen to almost 300,000.

This growth in Mandeville did not include any hotels or resorts, it was primarily single family homes. It was a classic southern, small coastal town. It did not grow into Seaside or Destin.

It is in this current context that the residents of the City of Mandeville will decide what kind of atmosphere will identify the community they live in by the development that can still be done in the undeveloped areas.

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

Mandeville is having an open house tonight on their re-write of the Comprehensive Plan that will guide the City's buildi...
10/29/2024

Mandeville is having an open house tonight on their re-write of the Comprehensive Plan that will guide the City's building and zoning regulations in the coming years. Tonight at 5pm at the Spitzfaden Center.

10/23/2024

Planning and Zoning Commission

As you may be aware, I have applied for the open position on the Mandeville Planning and Zoning Commission. The appointment may be made at tomorrow night’s (Thursday) council meeting.

If you have supported me in the past and would like to see me on the Planning and Zoning Commission I request that you contact your councilperson and let them know that you support my appointment. It is the Council that makes the decision

Mandeville Mayor and City Council
2024

Clay Madden - Mayor
[email protected]
(985) 630-8578

Scott Discon - Council at Large
[email protected]
(985) 353 - 2929

Jason Zuckerman - Council at Large
[email protected]
(504) 881-6920

Cynthia Thompson - Council District 1
[email protected]
(985) 205 - 8039

Kevin Vogeltanz - Council District 2
[email protected]
(985) 353 2975

Jill McGuire - Council District 3
[email protected]
(985) 778-8671



Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

09/14/2024

Port Marigny / Pre Stressed Site, The Next Chapter

The next chapter of the Port Marigny saga is about to be written. On August 14, 2024, after several prior efforts at a sheriff sale, the 74-77 acres of property at the Port Marigny / Pre Stressed site on Monroe St. was finally sold at auction.

There was prior talk on the Pittman side that the property was worth $20,000,000 - $25,000,000. When the hammer fell at the auction the winning bid was $5,300,000. This is a 15-20 million dollar difference.

How can this be explained and what does it mean?

In a sheriff sale situation there are usually two choices for the seizing creditor; 1) sell the property without an appraisal; or, 2) sell with an appraisal.

When a seized property is sold without an appraisal the opening bid is generally the sheriff’s costs amounting to a few thousand dollars. If someone, the creditor or a third party, bids the opening bid it can go for that amount if nobody else bids. So theoretically, Port Marigny / Pre Stressed site could have been purchased for a few thousand dollars. Or, if third parties are present, and want a deal, they can bid it up as high as they choose.

- Why would a creditor want a property sold without appraisal? Usually they just want the property back.

- Is there any downside to this? The case is over and the debtor, in this case the Pittman’s, are relieved of any further obligation in connection with the unpaid loan that formed the basis of the creditor’s foreclosure. Their nightmare is over.

Why would any creditor want the property sold with appraisal?

- This preserves the right of the creditor to pursue the Pittman’s for any shortfall (deficiency judgment) in connection with the underlying debt.

- Preserving the right to seek a deficiency judgment means that the creditor can pursue Pittman’s other properties in order to satisfy the debt. This could put all of Pittman’s other properties and personal assets at risk of seizure.

When a creditor chooses to have the property sold with an appraisal the sheriff will contract with an appraiser. This appraisal is generally not as thorough as a private appraisal, nevertheless, it is a benchmark.

Prior court records reveal that the Pittman’s debt level back around 2012 was around $10-$12 million dollars. Since that time FNBC bank took over the loan until it (FNBC bank) went broke around 2017. When a Federally insured bank goes broke the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) liquidates all of the bank’s assets. A bank’s assets are generally its loans. That is how a bank makes money. In this case, the assets (loans) were sold to Hancock Whitney. The Pittman loans were not purchased by Hancock Whitney. An explanation for that would be that it was a non-performing loan, in other words, it was in default. The Pittman debt could be many millions higher that the original $10-$12 million dollars. My guess is that by 2024 that debt may have been $20,000,000.+ which might explain the amount that the Pittman’s were seeking for the property. This would have wiped out their debt so they could go on with their lives. This apparently was not to be.

The Pittman loan was basically auctioned off to investors around the country at maybe nickels on the dollar. The unknown environmental issues plus market and neighborhood issues made it not attractive as say, 75 acres on Causeway and Veterans. By the time the dust settled the loan was purchased by Capital Crossing out of Massachusetts.

The opening / minimum bid established by the sheriff was $2,733,333.34. This means that the appraisal valued the property at about $4,100,000.

So, who purchased this property and for how much?

The property was purchased by Girod REO, L.L.C. for $5,300,000. The published writ amount (the amount owed to the creditor) was $10,626,177. although this may not have included accrued interest, costs and attorney fees. The result is that there may be a shortfall of $5,326,177 ++. Enough to warrant pursuit of other Pittman assets.

Who is Girod REO, L.L.C.?

Records suggest that it is an affiliate of Capital Crossing out of Massachusetts. They may have a buyer or they may try to market it privately. If the City of Mandeville had an interest it would certainly be worth a phone call. Anything close to $4M - $5M ought to be within reach for the City and it would give them control of a substantial chunk of property.

We all await the next step.

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

08/25/2024

In the aftermath of Sucette and Port Marigny,.... Fontainebleau?
August 25, 2024

Two hard fought cases involving high density, large scale development; Sucette and Port Marigny, both resulted in litigation. Port Marigny has been resolved by the expiration of time on the Consent Judgment plus the property was just sold at Sheriff’s sale. The Pittman’s are out. The new buyer is at this time, unknown. At this point the City has dodged a bullet. Sucette is awaiting a decision on a motion to dismiss the Sucette complaint. The City is optimistic about a favorable result. If the City wants to try and inoculate itself from this situation it should revoke its rules on Planned Development like Abita Springs just did (ASAP). See attached article.

Over the past seven years the City of Mandeville has battled two large scale, high density developments that have resulted in litigation. So far it has dodged a bullet, but both promise to be a source for consternation in the future.

As if this wasn’t enough, there are whispers on both sides of the Lake about a grand new development / resort at Fontainebleau State Park immediately east of the City of Mandeville.

By way of background, this issue was last visited with a meeting at the Spitzfaden Center in May, 2020 with Lt. Governor Billy Nungesser. One of his duties as Lt. Governor is to manage Louisiana State Parks. In any event, the place was packed and a large crowd was stuck outside of the building (because of Fire Marshall rules about number of people in the building) often banging on the glass and yelling. To say it was unpleasant would be an understatement. The citizens were very much opposed to the idea of a resort / hotel / casino in Fontainebleau State Park. Reports at the time suggested that Lt. Governor Billy Nungesser “got the message”.

I don’t know yet what would be different, if anything. I do know that based on the May, 2020 meeting which included a study, most of the Louisiana State Parks do not generate enough money to pay for their operating costs. (I didn’t know that state parks were expected to generate revenue to pay for their operating costs.) In any event there is apparently one glaring exception: Fontainebleau State Park. The argument in favor of some sort of development at Fontainebleau State Park would be to generate funds to help pay for parks in other parts of the state. Lost in all of this development zeal would be the possible 1000+ cars that might be added to our mix on Florida St. / Hwy. 190 and the City of Mandeville. This does not include any other peripheral, collateral effects. What could possibly go wrong?

I guess it might be easy to support something like this if you don’t live nearby and less likely to be affected. Be that as it may, I would request that if anybody hears information about this that you let me know. If we are going to be adversely affected we need to get information as soon as possible to determine what the effect on the community in the Old City of Mandeville might be.

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

Latest from Mandeville Daily News.
07/25/2024

Latest from Mandeville Daily News.

The City Council settled for a less-intrusive version of its council rules as opposed to a bulky five-page rules ordinance that was up for adoption at the July 11th meeting…

07/18/2024

THE LAKE LOT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Office of Coastal Management Hearing
St. Tammany Parish Council Chambers
July 16, 2024

Well, a very interesting meeting that played to a packed house. There must have been over 100 people in attendance, even lined up against the walls. The issue was whether a coastal permit should be issued by the State to allow Lake Lot Development to bring in almost 20,000 cubic yards of fill in large dump trucks down Copal St. in Lewisburg and install a bulkhead to reclaim land lost to erosion. The ultimate goal was to build several large, expensive lakefront homes. This effort might require as much as 1,700+ dump truck loads. A PowerPoint presentation estimated 1500 dump truck loads creating 3000 trips (in and out) over a period of several years, plus concrete, etc. through an established residential neighborhood and negatively affecting identified wetlands.

As a point of law, the 1921 constitution does allow for reclamation projects. However, as was pointed out, that provision was made 100 years ago and we know much, much, more about the negative effects of destroying wetlands and changing the natural order of the lakefront. Plus, thousands of people and houses are now sitting to the north which could be affected by this project.

There were old people, young people, professional people who all provided comments. The Chair, a Mr. Laughlin (or Lofflin? Lovell?) from the State Office of Coastal Management and a court reporter took down comments. The rules were 3 minute time limit per person.

Mandeville Mayor Clay Madden along with Councilmen Jason Zuckerman, Scott Discon and Keven Vogeltanz were all present and made comments opposed to the project. Odd that Councilwoman Cynthia Thompson was not present despite the fact that the project affected her constituents, some of whom from The Sanctuary who were present.

Parish Councilwoman Maureen O’Brien, State Representative Kim Carver and State Senator Bill Wheat were all present and made comments opposed to the project. Additionally, there was a letter from former Parish President Kevin Davis opposing the project that was read into the record.

The only person that spoke in favor of the project was James Bradford who is the owner Lake Lot Development.

The meeting started around 5pm and ended around 8:30pm. Almost everyone spoke. There were mothers and grandmothers who spoke of unspoiled nature and children riding bicycles along narrow roads. There were residents who appeared to be professionals who also prepared written letters / reports / PowerPoint that depicted historical images and technical issues all disputing conclusions offered by the developer. It was readily evident that this group of residents spent much time, effort, and funds to articulate their opposition, including hiring their own experts to rebut the applicant's assertions. There was a charming incident where a mother brought up her 7 year old daughter and placed her on a chair so she could reach the microphone to talk about her special neighborhood. After almost every speaker the crowd cheered and clapped. Surprisingly, the Chair gave no admonishments to anyone. I wonder if citizens in Mandeville would be allowed to do that? It was certainly discouraged by the prior City Council. Likewise, the three minute speaking rule was never really mentioned. Many comments were repetitious, would that be tolerated under the new proposed Mandeville City Council Rules? The Chair of this meeting was very laid back and while he had not a cross word to say to anybody, he was always in control.

We learned a lot. Copal St. is between 18' and 20' wide with ditches on both sides. There is a large mature oak tree that is beside the street. There was a large 16 acre parcel west of Lewisburg Estates and east of the Lake Lot project that is owned by Crosby Development (although someone stated that this property was in fact owned by Mr. Bradford, the Applicant). Interestingly, the Crosby Development property had been filled previously and someone pointed out that there was an angled berm on the westside of the property that was supposed be dedicated to conservation to help prevent to prevent erosion but that this property was now part of the Lake Lot project and would go away. By incorporating this conservation lot, it appears that the conservation property may not have actually been dedicated by title.

Bayou Chinchuba starts near I-12 and Hwy. 59 and proceeds in a southwesterly direction all the way to Lake Pontchartrain just west of the Lake Lot area. There were fears that any changes or disruptions near the Lake by bringing in 20,000 cubic yards of fill would have a ripple effect upstream to increase the risk of flooding. There was also concern that this new activity could have an adverse impact on the large water / sewage treatment area purchased by the City that goes pretty much to the Tchefuncte River. A very risky and complicated project making it a very controversial project. Someone from the Lake Pontchartrain Conservancy spoke and I believe she said that this project had been applied before a number of years ago and resoundingly denied for apparently many of the reasons brought forth tonight. What would justify going through this process a second time? What has materially changed that would now warrant approval?

At the end of the evening the overriding sentiment was that everyone was polite, even to Mr. Bradford. If you want to make a comment on this project you need to get it to the Louisiana Office of Coastal Management P.O. Box 94396, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9396 by I believe Friday, July 26th.

Ernest A. Burguières
Attorney at Law
829 Baronne St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
[email protected]
Tel. (504) 523-3456
Cell (504) 352-5270

Interesting opinion piece on the Mandeville Daily News regarding last Thursday's Council meeting and the new Council Rul...
07/14/2024

Interesting opinion piece on the Mandeville Daily News regarding last Thursday's Council meeting and the new Council Rules.

A set of proposed rules to be considered by the City Council tonight (July 11th) contains a number of troubling items, especially for those who stood in opposition to Sucette Harbor last year& #8230…

Address

Mandeville, LA
70470

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 4pm
Tuesday 8am - 4pm
Wednesday 8am - 4pm
Thursday 8am - 4pm
Friday 8am - 4pm
Saturday 12pm - 8pm
Sunday 7am - 6pm

Telephone

+15043525270

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Ernest Burguieres - Mandeville Worth Saving posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Ernest Burguieres - Mandeville Worth Saving:

Share