Good points bluebiship82. I was going to respond with many of the same facts. In the end we do not need to town in court. It will only cost money and time. I believe that Dan would rather the buildings restored first. I too would like to see new and restored building along the boardwalk, but the new boardwalk, lights and temporary use of the buildings means we are not loosing the summer of 2005. When the sales offices open, new people will be in the town. This allows the local business to survive.
bluebishop82 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
bluebishop82 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To respond to Dan, who said:
> This council had nothing to do with getting the development rights
> out of us bankruptcy court. In fact, that were not even elected
when
> that occurred, but only later approved the plan to do so which was
> negotiated by a convicted and confessed felon.
You are wrong about that. It was this council that sold the
Carabetta tax liens to Asbury Partners for $6.5 million (and if you
think that price too low, anyone could have offered $7 million, but
no one did). The Bankruptcy Court stopped that sale and brought all
parties up to Connecticut insisting that the Carabetta Redevelopment
Rights be purchased too, which Asbury Partners did (again anyone
could have offered a higher price, but no one did). Therefore, it
certainly was this council that brought us out of the Carabetta
bankruptcy case.
> The point no one disagrees with is that the development rights
> should have been freed from the court and being so, is what
enabled
> AP to take advantage of ordinary market forces.
"Ordinary Market Forces" had forseken Asbury Park for 20 years
before Carabetta. This is the main thing folks new to the area can't
grasp - that Asbury Park became one of those unusual places that no
investor wanted to touch, for many percieved reasons. The blighting
of the Beachfront and creating a Public/Private partnership was the
only solution, and that is exactly what we have now.
>The questions we
> pose are:
>
> Is the deal we have the one we should have?
Certainly. Monmouth County is no longer a tourist destination. Towns
that were (Sea Bright, Long Branch, Belmar) have all gone to year-
round residential at thier beachfront. Asbury is correct to do so
as well. Monmouth is no longer for tourism. Ocean, Atlantic and
Cape May is where people vacation now; Monmouth is for living.
> Should we have sold all of our public assets with nary a thought
(or
> appraisal) of what they were worth?
We didn't. Much thought was put into the sale of those buildings.
Everyone wishes we didn't have to, but the City, as you know quite
well now, is broke and has been so for years. We couldn't pay for
the repairs, so these buildings would have simply deteriorated
further. Selling them was the only way a financially broke City
could save them.
> Why, having the deal we have, does our CURRENT council refuse to
> enforce the provisions of the deal, for instance, rehabiliation of
> our waterfront structures?
You have to point out for me the specific deadline that has been
missed for me to respond to this.
> Why was it necessary to violate the plan previously in place which
> allowed property owners to develop their own properties in return
> for a plan which condemns some but not others?
Property owners for 20 years before Carabetta, and including the
years of Carabetta until the bankruptcy in 1991, didn't renovate
thier properties (again ordinary market forces were not here). The
formal blighting and the public/private partnership was needed to
start redevelopment. Folks who have come here after all of this
took place, who see that Asbury is a great place to redevelop "now,"
fail to see that it is only great to redevelop "now" because of this
public/private partnership that we have. Why are you so intent on
ousting the folks that fixed it?
> Those of your mindset want to make this an issue of proceeding or
> stopping the redevlopment. That is not the issue and no one on
this
> forum, or any of the candidates, has expressed that motive.
Perhaps you missed Ernie Cote's campaign. He explicitly states that
he will hire "Harvard Lawyers" to break the contract. It seems
clear that Jim, Stuart and Ben will make a court battle to change
the plan. Sorry if I disagree with your thinking that what Asbury
Park needs is litiagion. What it needs is for the building which
has started to continue, not to be stopped.
> We
> simply believe that the facts support that the current council
does
> not have the experience or abilities to run a $1.25 billion
> redevelopment.
There are no such facts against them. The fact that they are the
first in 30 years to get redevelopment moving belies your conclusion
that they can't get it done. In that same time period, your
candidate Stuart failed miserably running the Chamber of Commerce
until it ran out of funds to pay his salary.
>It is 4 years since the MOU and 3 years since the
> plan was approved. Not one stone of the waterfront structures have
> been restored.
It has been 2.5 years since the signing of the contract, but what's
6 months between friends :) I agree it is moving too slowly, but
you have to remember nothing was going to go forward without CAFRA
approval of the plan, which cost about another year. So if
everything is moving slowly, the answer is to speed it up, not stop
it. Ending the lawsuits would help.
>What future can this city have when 3,164 condo units
> will not pay one cent towards the schools for 10 years? You are
> deluding yourself if you believe that Asbury partners will restore
> our buildings without prodding. You are deluding yourself if you
> believe that the state will continue to subsidize our schools
> forever.
Asbury Park ranks 1st in the State of New Jersey for per capita
spending per student, approximately $18,000.00 annually for
education and administratin costs per student. I believe the yearly
budget is in the $70-90 million range. The test scores are still
some the worst in the state. Do you honestly believe that throwing
more money at the schools will help? It already spends the most!
And yes, the State will continue to give us the money, because the
Supreme Court in the Abbott case made the funding a constitutional
issue, so they have to.
>Lastly, this council has recently admitted that we ae
> running another $3.5 million deficit and need money for 4 more
years
> because there will be further deficits. What progress I ask you?
As you can see from Terry Reidy's recitation on AsburyPark.net,
these were problems left over from mistakes made by previous
council - John Hamilton's council. That was the "Asbury United"
council who messed things up. I believe it has been shown on this
forum or elsewhere that the financial backers of Asbury United are
now the backers of Jim, Stuart and Ben. Talk about status quo!
Remember our current council is fixing the problem.
>When you've had nothing for decades, very little seems like
something.
> You obviously do not set the stick very high off the ground.
That's ad hominem. However, my measuring stick is currently being
borrowed by Asbury property owners measuring the enourmous equity
gains they made thanks to the current city council.
Your candidates have worked very hard this season. There are many
new voters in AP that we have never seen vote before, so this
election is too tough to call. Good luck to you and yours.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
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.
