No Warner, the Trustee agrees to the sale with parties agreeing to
the MOU. It later went to the Planning Board and the Council, etc.,
and a new Redevelopment Agreement completely replaced the MOU, so
the integrity of Land Use Law was protected. If the Developer and
the City never agreed to a contract it isn't like the Developer can
give it all back to the Trustee. Once the contract was sold by the
Trustee to Fishman, the Trustee was out with no change to the Plan
at all (the MOU is not a contract, it is just a memorialization that
the parties will later negotiate with certain goals in mind).
Nothing was changed until the Redevelopers Agreement and that was
way after the Trustee was gone.
The problem you are having is that a long held belief of yours is
being challanged, and you don't want to change that view. I
completely understand that - it isn't like that hasn't happened to
all of us at one point or another, particularly when it comes to the
redevelopment of AP.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I thinks it's you guys that are not understanding this, and keep
> lumping the CONRACT (redevelopers agreement) together with the
PLAN
> (zoning).
>
> I understand and agree that the trustee can hold/sell the CONTRACT
> and get the best price.
>
> The trustee has no juresdiction over the PLAN (zoning), nor can
the
> trustee modify the cintract in violation of the PLAN (zoning).
>
> By your (logic/conlusions/interpretation) there would kaos around
the
> country as trustees with no city planning credentials, went around
> changing zoning just to get a better price for a CONTRACT. No
> planning board review, no public input, no ordinance changing the
> zoning.
>
> Bang, you wake up on day and a strip mall is built next to your
home
> where your neighbor's home was. No notice, no process, Oh, thats
OK a
> bankrupcty trustee got a better price by selling the property as
> commercial.
>
> Come on, think this through, I gave you a hog farm scenerio. Can
the
> trustee dictate that I be allowed to operate a hog farm in
violation
> if local zoning that says only residential is permitted just
because
> I have a contract to purchase your property and that's what I want
to
> do.
>
> Seperate the CONTRACT from the PLAN (zoning) in your mind, they
are
> seperate entities.
>
> Werner
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" <bluebishop82@>
> wrote:
> >
> > That's absolutely expected Werner. Dan is right about this. The
> > Trustee is trying to sell off an asset for the benefit of the
> > creditors. Remember - the Trustee OWNS the redevelopment rights
at
> > the point in time you are referencing, not Carabetta or the
City.
> > If the MOU induces the sale so he can get Millions for his asset
> and
> > wrap up a 10 year old case, he has the power to do it, because
he
> is
> > operating under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, which pre-
> > empts the state laws to the contray (this is the part you just
> don't
> > want to accept).
> >
> > I encourage you to go read up on the pre-emption doctrine. Post
> > again after you are familiar with it, because I don't think you
are
> > going to understand what Dan is saying until you do.
>
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/
