PUT MY NAME DOWN TOO!! -al mc daniel
--- sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Sign me up for the recall petition! <]:~)
>
> -- 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! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------ 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/
