RE: [AsburyPark] Jersey Decision

[Tyler, Mark]

It's true that the Urban Renewal decision is not a model of clarity.  The Decision doesn't really make clear what factors moved the judges and apparently the Decision misstates or omitted important facts.  If NJ allows for reargument at the appellate level, this should be requested.      Having been a litigating, government attorney for about 10 years, I am continually amazed at the inaccuracies and biased tone when the news reports on decisions.  I admit that reporters freguently get a good overview of the issues, but if things turn on specific details they often stray in their reporting.  In Asbury, over the last 4 years, the devil has really been in the details.   -----Original Message----- From: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 4:06 PM To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [AsburyPark] Jersey Decision Hi gang - Rich DePetro is pretty frustrated with how poorly the local media reports on his court battles with Asbury Partners. I'd be ranting and raving by now. (Personally, my pet peeve is with the way the news reports always reference the infrastructure fees property owners would have to pay Asbury Partners in order to develop their own property according to the redevelopment plan. What's the infrastructure contribution? $10,000? $20,000 per unit? The redevelopment rights to Asbury Partners is the real expense - they can range from $75,000 to $100,000 a unit. Why don't they ever mention that?) Anyway, here's Rich's message: Dear Maureen- I ask your assistance in providing the following information to the participants on the Yahoo Asbury Park site. First and foremost I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for their interest in my fight to save the Jersey apartments. In the recent opinion that ruled in favor of Asbury Partners, the judges state that I must seek approval from the TRC (Technical Review Committee) and Asbury Park Planning Board. I did apply and was refused the opportunity to be heard. The judges also said I had to be appointed as a redeveloper. This goes against the judges in the opinion favoring the Britwood. Page 19 of the Britwood decision states:             See N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3. Rather, plaintiff is a property owner seeking municipal approval to renovate its building which is located within the redevelopment zone. See N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8j.  As to plaintiff, the Local Redevelopment & Housing Law (LRHL) authorizes âplans for carrying out a program of voluntary repair and rehabilitation of buildings and improvements,â which are consistent with the redevelopment plan. See N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8j(1).  There is, however, no authority in the LRHL for municipalities like the City, or their designated redevelopment entities, like Asbury Partners, to collect revenue from owners, like plaintiff, who voluntarily repair or rehabilitate their buildings.           Page 21 of the Britwood Decision continues:           Second, we disagree both with the Law Division judgeâs view that the LRHL supersedes the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) and with his holding that the MLUL independently authorized the City to impose off-site infrastructure costs on plaintiff.  As to the former, the language of the LRHL itself instructs us.  The LRHL specifically incorporates the applicable provisions of the MLUL as follows:      All applications for development or redevelopment of a â portion of a redevelopment area shall be submitted to the municipal planning board for its review and approval of subdivisions and site plans as set forth by ordinance adopted pursuant to the [MLUL]. N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-13.   This provision of the LRHL makes plain that the MLUL is not superseded by the LRHL but that the MLUL independently governs review and approval of site plan applications.           What I find most troubling about the judges on the the Jersey decision is that unlike the Britwood judges, these judges refused to hear oral argument. Additionally, the judges on the Jersey case gave their decision in 12 business days.  The Britwood judges spent four months pondering their decision, which favored the rights of property owners over land speculators.           I have provided proof of my good faith application by forwarding copies of same, as well as acknowledgement of their receipt by Asbury Park.           As you may assume, I will carry this fight to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. My decision to fight the City and Asbury Partners to save the Jersey Apartments was, initially, just to save this historic landmark building. It is now clear to me that my success will impact all property owners â not just in Asbury Park â but throughout New Jersey.           Say a prayer for me, because your property could be next.  After all, the City could âblightâ your neighborhood if Asbury Partners decides they want it.           Since my documentation is voluminous, it is not practical to post it on the Yahoo group. I will seek a way to make it available without the distortions of the AP Press, Coaster, or Tri-City News. Thanks for your time and consideration, Rich DePetro         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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.