Werner asks: "What's your legal opinion on this?"
It's about time I told you, friend. The parties to a contract are free to amend it once, twice or a million times if they bilaterally agree to do so. They can throw the whole thing out and start over if they bilaterally agree to do so. You premise many of your arguments by stating that the MOU "violated" the 1991 agreement. You seem frustrated that no one joins you in your outrage over that. The truth is there is no "violation." If there were such a thing, you could stop the redevelopment now. Sorry to break this to you, but one of your main objections is legally incognizable. You have to let that one go. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Talk about your strawmen - no one said that. The point is from the > > plan, the MOU, Duany's comments,etc. we do know EXACTLY WHAT THE > > PLAN IS!!! > > The assumption is that the 'Plan/Deal' that we have on the table was > arrived at through a proper, above board, legal process. > > I submit to you that it was not, and that's what should have a lot > of people up in arms. Put on your attorney hat and ponder the > following: > > Held up at the bankruptcy were the "redevelopment rights". That right > by law was to implement the adopted plan in effect at the time, the > 1991 redevelopment plan. That plan specified land uses, zoning, > densities, eminent domain issues, etc. > > A party comes to the bankruptcy and purchases those redevelopment > rights. He is buying the rights and obligation spelled > out in the adopted 1991 plan. > > Also drafted is a contract, the MOU, which violates the 1991 > redevelopment plan in effect at the time. This is where things went > wrong. One example of many - The blocks along Wesley Lake were zoned > for corporate conference/exhibition space. The MOU says those blocks > will be condos. > > This is a basic violation of land use law. A redevelopment contract > must be consistant with and impliment the adopted plan. In > purchaseing the redevopment rights one was purchasing the right to > build conference/exhibition space in conformance with the plan. Not > condos. > > A contract can not modify a land use plan, the plan is the governing > instrument. Unless or until the plan is modified it is the law. One > can not then point to the MOU and say to hell with the zoning in > place and use it to justify a land use change. > > Doing so violates the public trust and land use law. The plan comes > first then the contract to impliment the plan. In our case a contract > was entered into first and a plan built around it. > > Fishman walked away from the bankruptcy table with more than what was > up for consideration. Just compare the MOU with the 1991 plan. That's > not to say the plan could not have been changed later, but is was > changed to conform to a pre-arranged contract. BIG RED FLAGS should > have gone up at the time. > > What's your legal opinion on this? > > Werner ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
