--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> In retrospect, I don't know if it is an issue of being denied
> approvals as we laid out. It appears to be that the issue is simply
> the court deciding that the Jersey Apts are not exempted from the
> redevelopment plan as was the Britwood.
This goes to the initial flaw in the process that settled the
banckruptcy case. The rights and plan on the table were the 1991
adopted version.
That's what Fishman was buying into by taking over Carabetta's rights
and obligations. All three buildings, Britwood, Jersey and Virginia,
were designated for rehabilitation.
By way of the MOU (a contract) a deal was made to allow condemnation
in the entire redevelopment area in violation of the lagally adopted
plan at the time, the 1991 plan.
It was (improper, illegal, inept) to enter into a contract that
violates your own land use plan. For example: If I contract to sell
my home and agree to allow the buyer to raze the building and build a
pig farm, can he do it?. Of course not, it violates local zoning.
The 1991 redevelopment plan was the governing document and the
City/Attorneys/Speculators entered into an agreement that violated
that zoning plan. They then duped the public into beleiving that
a "New Plan" had been created and vetted that through the public
processes.
The side effects of this have been enourmous, eminent domain, loss of
historic sites, sale of public property, massive condos, loss of
employment potential etc. etc.
Werner
-Getting more p-ssed off every day-
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/
