Re: [AsburyPark] Digest Number 1081

Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:31:18 -0800

Dan - Thanks for your comments and calling into the show last night. I'm sorry if some people found it difficult or impossible to get through on the phone. The regular sound engineer was not on and we would probably have been better off working the board ourselves. My apologies.
However, one big point in these appraisals: shouldn't the amounts paid by Kushner Companies (for Wesley Lake property) and Paramount Homes (for the North End beachfront including old Net Lanes site) be used as comps?
On the units for Lot 222, the first version of the plan in 2002 called for 93 units. But it must have been increased since then because references for that site more recently have been for 136 units. I'm trying to get you the back up on that.
There are also volunteers comparing the ordinance amendments with the plan, to decipher the meaning of each one. So far it's yielded some good news. It looks like the Bradley statue will NOT be moved and the park will NOT be used for parking. It would have been nice if the rest of the council had called in last night to clarify that point. Some tree heights will be raised. This is only a few twigs in a forest of amendments. The work continues...
Will try to post the comps today.
Maureen
 
In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:30:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Message: 5        
   Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:39:17 -0000
   From: "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1080


Maureen

I got your fax of pages from both appraisals. I would like to see
the complete appraisals. Again, being subject to appraisal
standards, I have to be careful of what I say that it could be
construed as a "review" without me completing the necessary
requirements. All I can say is that I am sick to my stomach from
what I see thus far. While I am a "legend in my own mind" this is
exactly my specialty, reviewing and critiquing appraisals for
litigation. The city's appraisal is as of June 2003, the developer's
as of November 2004. The city's appraiser said there are no
approvals in place on the subject land but since you did not send me
thier zoning pages, I don't know what zoning they used. The
developer's appraiser used the zoning in place prior to to the
redevelopment zoning of WRA. He did this saying that under
condemnation law you cannot use the new zoning. What he is
incorrectly referring to is the concept of "project enhancement"
which is the opposite of the concept of "condemnation blight" which
I brought up in an earlier post. Project enhancement means that in a
taking, one cannot consider in the increment in value that accrues
to the property by virtue of the project for which it is being
taken. I think it is misapplied here since this is not in the
context of a taking or am I incorrect? Project enhancement would be
corretly used n the case of determining what the city should pay for
the parcel in a condemnation for the project. In any event, I see
multiple flaws in both appraisals, less in the city's but still I
believe flaws which make them undervalue the property unless I have
the wrong set of facts. If we are talking about valuing a piece of
waterfront land that can be developed to approximately 136 units, we
are talking about much more value than these reports indicate. I
will give what assistance you need if you want to put a group
together to contest these valuations. Remember, watch the NYC
evening news, I have a press conference on the steps of City Hall at
12:30 PM on the Jets Stadium site.
 
Speak up - It's America!!
Maureen Nevin
Restore Radio 88.1FM - 4 Years on the Radio!!
Asbury Park's Own Live Talk Show
601 Bangs Avenue
Listen 8 - 10 PM Thursdays on 88.1FM or
Listen Live or Later on the Web http://www.restoreradio.com/
Call the show 732-775-0821
Call me 732-774-0779 fax 502-0463

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada

Yahoo! Groups Links

Reply via email to