----------------------- Yahoo! Groups Survey ----------------------~--> Please help us to improve Yahoo! Groups. Take the survey now! http://v2.decipherinc.com/survey/yahoo/yah04021?list=2 --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
I certainly would think so if in fact the appraisals are charged with finding current market value. However, we don;t know what and as of when these appraisals are supposed to do. After hearing John last night my head is spinning. What sort of government do we have in AP? As I told you last night, are they afraid of not getting the $55 million in infrastructure improvements? They are nowhere to be seen. The City could have been the master developer and sold off the parcels and had multiples of that amount. It is a crime what is going on here. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
