"There is no discussion that it was amended from some date before 1/16/2002 (given to PB) to 3/15/2002. That's it. The only dates are 1/16/2002 and 4/26/2002. Where did this 3/15/2002 plan come from? That is not what the ordinance adopted. It adopted whatever plan was given to the PB on 1/16/2002, which certainly could not have been dated 3/15/2002, 2 months later. At best it is gross ineptitude, at worse, its criminal."
I'm more familiar with Canadian law than US, but they both derive from English common law, so the following may be irrelevant. Error or fraud in contracts is unenforceable, the act of signing an agreement does not bind either party unless they subsequently agree to accept the oversight; fraud simply negates the deal. Even should this country's law not function in this manner, can there now be any question that Aaron, Fishman and the then council must be investigated by an independent authority; who in this corrupt state meets a test of independence? --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > There certainly is an "adopted plan". The process was followed > > (assuming for the moment it was the correct process) and resolutiond > > were passed. > > > > The Offical Adopted Plan is the one on file at the City Clerks > > Office. > > > > The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City > Record. > > One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get > a > > copy of the Adopted Plan which was offically logged and filed. > > > > Lets see where this goes. > > Werner, remember, this is Asbury Park. I would not count on it. Sorry > you missed the council meeting tonight. They TRIED to defuse the > situation by repeating the lame stories. Aaron actually tried to make > people believe that Asbury Partners did the unofficial official plan > (June 2002) and tried to make that the plan. Keady saw through this in > that there was no incentive for Asbury Partners trying to add language > that was more adverse to them with regard to C-8. I beleive they are > stupid, but not that stupid. Keady was blown off by the cast of usual > suspects. However, I was especially dismayed by Ed Johnson reaction > who took Keady to task and told him to move on. Ed said the June 2002 > plan was just a mistake. A bigger mistake is him being a > councilmember. I guess he took DJ's article in TCN to heart and is now > going to play ball with his team cohorts. > > Back to the city clerk. As I said earlier, Kay told me that the plan > he considered the official adopted plan was the June 2002 version at > issue. That is he said, until Don Sammet told him it wasn't. He called > me later in the day to say he had a copy of the ordinance (2607) that > adopted the plan attached to the March 15, 2002 plan. Don Sammet told > him was the one adopted. That is the integrity of our public record > keeping. I assure you, if anyone actually knew what is the adopted > plan, they ain't telling. > > At the meeting I pointed out another detail which shows that they are > blowing smoke up our asses. The ordinance adopting the plan says it > gave the plan to the Planning board for review on 1/16/2002 (meaning > the plan had to be created before this date). The PB gave its > recommendations to the council on 4/26/2002, and the ordinance dated > 6/5/2002, adopted the plan in gave the PB (on 1/16/2002) except for > its acceptions and objections to the recommendations of the PB, which > werre further enumerated. Now pertaining to the plan, that is it. > There is no discussion that it was amended from some date before > 1/16/2002 (given to PB)to 3/15/2002. That's it. The only dates are > 1/16/2002 and 4/26/2002. Where did this 3/15/2002 plan come from? That > is not what the ordinace adopted. It adopted whatever plan was given > to the PB on 16/2002, which certainly could not have been dated > 3/15/2002, 2 months later. > > Finally, Aaron stated that C-8 must come down and new footings > installed. This is total new construction. He lied by only telling > half of the truth. Aaron stated that the only conditions placed on C-8 > development in the 3/15/2002 plan was to remove the garage and redo > the facade. He failed to say that the 3/15/2002 contains a section > identical to the 6/5/2002 plan which says that if the developer > can "finish" the project it can be built to the existing height. The > operative word is "finish." Finish does not mean demolishing the > structure, excavating and redoing the footings. That's a total new > development. > > They are trying to pull a fast one here. It's time to wake up and > smell whatever it is they're cooking. Look at the timing. Last week > its confirmed C-8 must come down (which I predicted). I and others > point out that if demolished they can rebuild to existing height, and > thus, would want an amendment for which we could and should get money. > I ask for clarification of what could be done on C-8 site if > demolished and all of a sudden the city this ain't the plan. At best > it is gross ineptitude, at worse, its criminal. > > Like it or not, the council, with the exception of Keady, won't do a > damn thing about this. Apparently, Johnson is included with the > majority. These council members are not even familar with these > documents. Time for a recall. ------------------------ 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/
