This just tells you how much the current council does not have the
experience or savvy to be putting contracts like this together. Even their
attorneys are to be inept.
I am no attorney, but I see that the "agreements" are so lopsided, they give
all of the power to the "developer" and leave the city powerless; the
timetables are so loosely written that they have no clear beginning or end
and the payment schedules are the same way.
This agreement needs to be re-examined (this time with the city's interests
in mind).
The people of this town deserve and should expect an elected body that is
professional. Not a bunch of nice people they know, that a doing the best
they can, when that is clearly not good enough.
It is time to get some people in place that are going to stand up for this
city.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Jersey Urban Renewal, LLC v. City of Asbury Park,
2005 N.J. Super . LEXIS 143
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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/
