The city gives title to land surrounding the boardwalk to a developer who's never built anything anywhere, then agrees with this faux developer that the costs of development (landscaping, lights, benches etc.) are not part of the cost of doing business (i.e. development), but proceeds to the city for the sale of those lands. Must the city also cover this developer's entertainment expenses?
Why has Asbury been so generous with The Fishman? Clearly it's not for the money, there isn't any; well at least there's no money in this deal for the city. What there is plenty of, an ever growing list of costs to the city for having naively entered into this mess. For starters there's the cost to be born over the next 28 years, to all those who own property east of Main Street due to the city's reckless application of eminent domain in furthering the developer's land grab. This results in uncertainty and diminished economic activity, which simultaneously reduces ratables and employment. Were this developer to one day actually build something, the city would then incur the cost of tax abatements of 65% for 10 years, which will result in reduced revenue and the specter of a built-in price collapse for those units when the taxes triple. Then we have the piece de resistance of Mr. Loffredo's fevered mind; "…council also negotiated a commitment from the developer to rehabilitate these historic structures to New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office standards. The cost for renovation/rehabilitation is estimated at more than $33.6 million." Where, when and why? Our grand negotiators sold (aw, let's call it what it is; gave away) the Casino, Carousel and power plant for $1.4 million; does Loffredo want us to believe that the costs of restoring these jewels was not part of that negotiation? If so then I have some really bad news for the citizens of Asbury Park, you can expect The Fishman to return soon to negotiate compensation for the costs of construction, as Loffredo has it, further proceeds to the city of its sale of those lands; seems it open season on the waterfront! Skip Bernstein --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess Lofreddo is saying that we should give them additional property > because they have spent money here. Or else he is saying that the agreement > is completely open ended. Because, under Loffredo's logic the benefits > running to Asbury Partners under the agreement has no end. Apparently, the > entire rest of the town could be given to Asbury Partners at the price they > decide, because Asbury Partners built a meandering boardwalk. A boardwalk > that provides access to property they were given at an extremely low price > without an appraisal. How can John Loffredo say that the bargain is above > "market value" when there was never an independent appraisal to decide the > value of any portion of the properties given/sold to Asbury Partners on the > waterfront? Finally, the headline is misleading. Most of the Casino is > slated for demolition. A "similar" building will be put in its place. Only > the circular portion will be restored. He's right about only one thing. > It's an election year and we should look at the facts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: dfsavgny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 11:45 AM > To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Loffredo Speaks in APP (reprint of Coaster > Editorial) > > > > > Oy vey! > > I plan on responding in an op-ed of my own and I have already > contacted Terry Reidy since I am supposed to be provided with all of > the documents to straighten this out. I have been given bits of > documents by oters but I will await the offical ones before > responding. Absent responding to the "facts" raised in Loffredo' > letter, I will say what I have said to Terry Reidy. I find > Loffredo's letter troubling. While I suspect that some may have > agendas of their own, I was only propelled to speak out at the > council meeting because of what appeared to be a ridiculously low > price for the Triangle. Loffredo characterizes the concerns of AP > citizens to be politcally-motivated distortion of the facts. I find > that disingenuous at best since these "facts," if they are in fact > true, were not made available to the public. In fact, Loffredo chose > not only to remain silent about these "facts" at the council meeting > when the transaction was being questioned, but also intimated that > he thought the City's appraisal was too low. Obviously he was not on > top of the agreement, contrary to what he says in the press, or he > purposefully chose to remain silent. I donlt know if this is a > switch and bait game, but it is clearly counter productive and I > beleive, only breeds further mistrust between citizens and public > officials. If these "facts" were known to the City then I ask again, > why were they not presented when we questioned the transaction at > the council meeting. That is clearly when it should have been done. > To come out (twice) in the press afterwards does no one any good. If > the "facts" as Loffredo presents them are in fact conditions of the > sale codified in the agreement between the parties then lets have a > full airing of the issues. My only agneda is to see that justice is > done. It will come out where it comes out. > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > $400,000 land sale bringing much more to Asbury > > > > > > Published in the Asbury Park Press 1/04/05 > > The developer has committed to rehabilitate the Casino and power > plant to > > state historic preservation standards. > > By JOHN M. LOFFREDO > > On Dec. 15, after a four-hour public hearing, the Asbury Park City > Council > > passed an ordinance that sold the Casino, power plant and the > Triangle parcel > > (block 222, lot 1) to the city's beachfront developer, Asbury > Partners. During > > the public hearing, some residents raised concerns that we were > giving away our > > city's assets. > > I was part of the original redevelopment negotiations and I have > made it my > > business to stay on top of this agreement. While any negotiation > can be > > second-guessed, it is important to lay out all of the elements of > this agreement > > before rendering an opinion. > > For starters, the value of the transaction to Asbury Park was > about $36.5 > > million. The purchase price of $400,000 (actual amount to be > determined by a > > neutral appraiser) for the half-acre parcel of land (the Triangle) > was based on > > the valuation date of August 2001, the date of the original > Memorandum of > > Agreement that set the waterfront redevelopment into motion. That > number alone, > > however, does not reflect the total dollar value of this sale to > the city. > > As a condition of the sale, Asbury Partners must also supply and > install four > > 20-foot gazebos and approximately 60 benches on the boardwalk, add > decorative > > lighting fixtures at city-designated locations and expand the > width of the > > existing boardwalk from the northern edge of Sixth Avenue to the > northern edge > > of Seventh Avenue. > > In addition, as part of the Coastal Area Facility Review Act > agreement, > > development approval on the Triangle and portions of the > surrounding street-beds > > requires specific improvements by the developer. These include a > meandering > > boardwalk from Seventh Avenue to Deal Lake; a 113-space parking > lot for surfers, > > fishermen and the general public on block 221 (the former Marine > Grill site); > > fish-cleaning stations with running water; and the formation of > dunes and > > native plantings north of Seventh Avenue to Deal Lake. > > The approximate value of the land acquisition and additional work > is: > > $400,000 for the acquisition of the land; $80,000 to provide and > install the four new > > gazebos on the boardwalk; $30,000 to supply and install the 60 > benches on the > > boardwalk; $50,000 for the decorative lighting fixtures for the > area; > > $400,000 to expand the boardwalk width between Sixth and Seventh > avenues; $1.5 > > million to build the meandering boardwalk from Seventh Avenue to > Deal Lake; $220,000 > > to build the 113-car parking lot on block 221; $35,000 to create > the > > naturalistic dunes, and $200,000 to landscape the dunes, boardwalk > and parking lot. > > These costs bring the total value of the sale to $2.9 million. > This is the > > real value the city will receive through the sale of the Triangle > parcel to > > Asbury Partners. It also represents a value higher than all > estimates given at the > > council meeting by those who feel the city was shortchanged. This > council > > made certain that Asbury Park received tremendous value for vacant > property, > > while assuring the continued development of our city. > > Along with the sale of the Triangle and the purchase of the Casino > and the > > power plant, the council also negotiated a commitment from the > developer to > > rehabilitate these historic structures to New Jersey State > Historic Preservation > > Office standards. The cost for renovation/rehabilitation is > estimated at more > > than $33.6 million. It is by adding the above contractual > commitments to the > > sale price of these parcels that I arrive at the $36.5 million > value. > > Not only is Asbury Park not giving away our capital assets, we are > selling > > the property for values in excess of any fair market value > estimates. > > It is also important to remind readers of the real progress that > the city's > > waterfront redevelopment has made, progress that is evident in new > construction > > and renovations taking place on the beach, downtown and throughout > the city. > > We have a beautiful new boardwalk, funding from the master > redeveloper for > > low-income housing, participation by three well-qualified > developers, a new > > investment rating enabling the city to sell municipal bonds and > notes at > > competitive rates, two of the best summer seasons in more than a > decade, increased sales > > tax receipts and increased property values throughout the city. > > It is easy to second guess and to isolate one element of a complex > > negotiation. Over the next several months, city residents will be > hearing numerous > > distortions of this council's achievements. (It is an election > year.) They should > > look at the facts. They will not be disappointed in the integrity > of this > > council or the quality of work we have done on the residents' > behalf. > > John M. Loffredo is an Asbury Park city councilman. > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links 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/
