Re: [AsburyPark] Digest Number 1395

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:23:23 -0700

Just a few observations from Asbury Radio's table -
After two days in the blistering heat at the Clearwater Festival, perhaps not the best environment for obtaining positive feedback, I perceived a decidedly sober tone among visitors. This is in contrast to past years when they were almost giddy in their expectations for the "redevelopment," when it was hard to get them to focus on the details of the CAFRA application we'd layed out on the table before them, which called for densities of 3166 condos, parking lot on the dunes and minimum parking.
 
The euphoria over the reopened Casino passage to Ocean Grove, with the possible exception of an always exuberant Stan (Rock'n Roll Tour) Goldstein, seems to have abated already for most visitors.
They like the bustle on the boardwalk, but complain about the parking. And they were skeptical about the deserted boardwalk north of Convention Hall.
Why the cooldown? Most who stopped to chat seemed concerned about the lack of rehab overall, in particular the murky state of Wesley Lake, the obvious lack of concern for the protection of that waterway, the loss of the trees, and the unsightly state of the land bordering its north side that seems to be dragging out beyond reason. They asked how much longer Lake Ave would have to be closed. They questioned the lingering piles of dirt and crap that replaced the Palace and 1888 carousel house. Most acknowledged that the sacrifice of the old was a price they were willing to make for moving forward, but felt they're not seeing enough progress to balance the bargain.
And, they expressed suspicion about the city's dedication to restore the landmarks, because of the current appearance and the time that's gone by since the City started its comeback.
One couple asked how the condos could be selling as well as reported, preconstruction, when the surrounding area still looked so bad.
The attitude overall: far more rational exhuberance.
 
Maureen
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2005 7:56:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com writes:
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:39:13 -0000
   From: "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Blast from the Past

--- 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
 
Speak up - It's America!!
Maureen Nevin
Asbury Radio -"The Radio Voice of Asbury Park"
88.1FM - "5" Years on the Air!!
Asbury'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



Reply via email to