--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> The ASSUMPTION that the "development rights" were properly
protected
> under the bankruptcy is where the problem is. The City had always
> maintained that Carrabetta had defaulted and thus no longer had
those
> rights.
>
> A challange to the issue was made but the City was weak and non-
> performing in litigating. The reason was, that Carrabetta always
held
> out the "carrot" that a settlement and transfer was eminent. Thus
> stalling the City's will to expend legal fees, on a tight budget,
to
> litigate.
You provided the specifics but it is exactly what I meant. The
council is now in a tough bargaining position IF they do not take my
advice to admit that the city does not have a lawfully adopted WRP
EXCEPT for the 1991 WRP. What is the city going to do, take back the
waterfront buildings? That would probably make Partners happy (I
heard they offered them back to the city) especially since the RA
requires the city to refund what Partners paid for them.
All this talk about waiting to develop the pavillions and what
financially justifiable uses can the waterfront buildings be put to
is nonsense. They don't have to make money. That's not their
purpose. We could have purely civic buildings that cost tens of
millions to rehabiliatate. That's the REAL purchase price Partners
was supposed to pay in order to have the ability to flip the
development parcels.
The line in the sand so to speak should be no development parcels
without rehabiliation of the waterfront. They are not severable (but
they are in the RA). How the city does that WITHOUT disavowing the
2002 WRP is a tough one.
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/
