Dear Joe, while i am tempted to call you names, or mock your lack of investigative ability i will simply provide FACTS.
In regards to the first point. I was simply stating that the sidewalk was currently clear. While it can be inferred, by my statement 'is no longer blocked..', that i was implying that it was indeed blocked, my sole intention was to point out that it was currently clear. It was a response to the original post. If i would have realized it would have filled you with such anger, i would have made my sentiments more clear. Rest assured, I will take care in the future not to enrage you over petty semantics. Now for the fun part. first off the mystery post I was referring to about discussion on 6th ave and Dr Ahn's response can actually be found here, reprinted from asburypark.net, compliments of Skip (skippy, i owe you one for this, it was driving me f'ng nuts that i could no longer find it).. http://tinyurl.com/5k28k as i stated previously, it is dated 2002. So it MIGHT have been out of date in todays asbury reality if not for the FACTS (more on that later). for yucks, i am throwing in Kate's opinion piece where it is discussed building a safety net for Dr Ahn into the plan (compensated with reserved on-street parking).. http://tinyurl.com/4fmzs also dated 2002. I am unsure if this provision was tied into the agreement/proposal. But if i was a gambling man, I would say no. I know its been fun up to here, but here's where it gets exceptionally good. please refer to the 'official' city of Asbury Park's website for the following document: http://tinyurl.com/4w6xd (for those who dont want to wait for the pdf to load, i will cover the salient points right here before your very eyes..first let me say that i have nothing up my sleeves, well other than my arms).. this is section h (pages 82-88) of the waterfront redevelopment plan..its called the 'Implementation' section. It is also an 'amendment' to the original plan (their words not mine) {pay attention joe, this is where your investigative skills need work, but i will give you an A+ in Berating 101, and an 'O' for Outstanding under skill sets in regards to your ability to exhibit the fact that you are a total knob)..anyway back to the facts.. where was i, oh yeah..the really good part..section h, implementation, Part 4.1 - "Property Aquisition"..i can't take the suspense any more so i will skip past all of the other properties that are now considered fair game for eminnent domain..hey that rhymes, maybe i should take up poetry..anyway back to skipping right to the really really really good part..this is a verbatim paste from that document (drumroll please...cue the royal horns..) ================================= Berkeley Carteret Hotel (Block 192, Lot 1): The plan envisions re- opening Sixth Avenue (both sides) between Kingsley Street and Ocean Avenue to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It is not the intention of the Plan to acquire the Hotel property unless the cost of re- opening Sixth Avenue would necessitate it or if the Hotel falls into a state of disrepair. ================================== i hit the super tri-fecta..it not only mentions sixth ave and the Berkeley, but it also all comes uner the section that uses 'eminent domain' in the description. i know what your thinking..you were so damn sure it was Professor Plum with the candlestick in the kitchen..oh well better luck next time. word of the day hubris n : overbearing pride or presumption here is an example of it used in a sentence.. Joe, I hope you enjoyed this educational asbury moment brought to you as a sole byproduct of your hubris. Please, next time don't be a jackass, this time of the year i am busy with work and it's bad for me to be diverted to formulate such a response. A simple 'Tony, I don't think you have your facts straight, can you provide documentation that supports your crack pot statments?', would have done nicely and would have resulted in a much shorter response, directing you politely to the aforementioned websites. In your defense, maybe you were confused by my statement about the 'closing' of 6th ave. I should have been clearer in that i was talking about the closing of the 6th ave parking lot, which a former owner of the Berkeley purchased, resulting from the 'opening' up of 6th ave. In addition, as part of the coversation I have clearly labeled as RUMOR, there was something mentioned about zoning and required parking space as a way to enable shutting the berkeley down, paving the way for eminent domain takeover due to closure. Not that I am saying that Asbury would ever ever be embroiled in questionable zoning practices. That was my original point, I never mentioned the redevelopment deal. It wasnt until you insisted i was a liar and a inuendo-er that I took the 5 minutes it takes to actually read the redevlopment plan. Actually, I should thank you for that because your arrogance resulted in me actually being able to present the FACTS and point out (with much glee i might add) that it never pays to open your mouth without thinking. Regardless, I have just three things left to say (A) I stand by my promise, in an effort to prevent sending you into a state that promotes such acrid responses, to take care with semantics in the future. (B) as a consolation prize, I have peppered this response with questionable grammer and did no spell check. This at least gives you something to respond to me about and still save face. (C) Lastly, your debate fung-fu is very weak. awaiting your (no doubt) spirited response.. Tony P.s. Sorry about not being able to resist the temptation to call you names or question you investigative ability. but giving into temptation is the Asbury way. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Joe D'Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 2:18 AM +0000 3/31/05, Tony Tedesco wrote: > >I am usually prettygood about being able to back up what i say..for > >now though > > Re: Anybody's: The sidewalk was never blocked. The owner is complaining about the roadway not the sidewalk. The sign he refers to did/does indeed say sidewalk is closed but it is not referring to his sidewalk. > > Re: Berkeley: There is no mention of closing sixth avenue in the redevelopment plan or the redevelopers agreement. There is no mention of closing, taking over or acquiring by means of eminent domain the berkeley hotel due to street closure of sixth avenue or any other street. > > Re: "the sixth avenue option" ... never happened. > > This mailing list is filled with half-truths, incorrect assumptions, innuendo and outright lies. > > ~joe 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/
