This story, if true, makes my stomach churn. Where is the
constitutional principle of "just compensation" that the pro-ED
people seem to focus on? These people are being bankrupted by the
redeveloper.
This story needs bigger national attention. At the very least, the
mortgage company, or even the Mortgage Bankers Association, should
be made aware that their investment in Asbury Park is being
threatened. Imagine the loss to all residents and to the new units
if major banks refuse to lend in Asbury because of the predatory
practices of the developer. Although, that would be an interesting
battle to have a major corporation with deep pockets fighting this.
Does anyone have any markers to call in at 60 Minutes?
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I found this column about an Asbury family on an eminant domain
> website.
>
> Does anyone know the Orlando family and know if these numbers are
> correct?
>
> The guy who wrote the column is a land use lawyer who represents
> condemnees.
>
> Here is his column:
>
>
> Eminent Domain in Asbury Park: An offer you can refuse
>
>
> The dictionary defines goniff as a Yiddish word for a ¡§thief.¡¨
> Having received an offer for their property from Asbury Partners
> LLC, the designated developer for the Asbury Park beachfront,
Thomas
> and Donna Orlando now know the meaning of that term.
>
> The Orlandos purchased a fully renovated three-family house
located
> two blocks from the beach for $575,000 in September 2004. In
> December 2005, the Orlandos received the offer and appraisal from
> Asbury Partners in the amount of $330,000, premised on the
appraisal
> of Donald Moliver. This offer is significantly less than the first
> mortgage on the property.
>
> Under normal circumstances, we would expect Mr. Moliver and Asbury
> Partners would consider the sale of the subject property and the
> fact that the beachfront real estate has increased since 2004, not
> only in Asbury Park but in New Jersey in general. Therefore, a
> reasonable starting point would be at least ten percent over the
> purchase price or approximately $630,000.
>
> Under normal circumstances, a homeowner would not need a lawyer in
> an eminent domain action of this sort, because a recent arms-
length
> sale of the subject property is the best evidence of value. But
this
> transaction, like others we¡¦ve seen in Long Branch and Asbury
Park,
> is driven by greed. The developers are dictating the terms, and
> their objective is to buy the property as cheaply as possible. The
> municipality is complicit in this arrangement as they will
institute
> eminent domain proceedings to acquire the owner¡¦s site, absent an
> agreement with the owner. This scenario, while outrageous, is by
no
> means unusual where the unholy alliance is at work., i.e.
developers
> and compliant politicians.
>
> The settled rule in New Jersey and other states is that any
increase
> or decrease of the market value of the property acquired or caused
> by the project of the condemning authority should be factored out
of
> the market value determination. See the following cases:
> X Jersey City Redevlopment Agency v. Kugler, 58 N.J. 374, 379
(1971);
> X Housing Authority, Atlantic City v. Atlantic City Expo., 62
N.J.
> 322 (1973)
> X Jersey City Redevlopment Agency v. Mack Properties Co. No. 3,
280
> N.J. Super. 553, 568-69 (App. Div. 1995);
> X State, Dept. of Environmental Protection v. S. Nalbone Trucking
> Co., Inc., 128 N.J. Super. 370, 377 (App. Div. 1974);
> X United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 375, 87 L.Ed. 251, 63 S.
> Ct. 276 (1943).
>
> The Moliver appraisal perverts this rule by claiming that all
market
> increases are attributable to projects of the City of Asbury Park
> and Asbury Partners LLC. This position is unsupported by the
reality
> of prior abortive redevelopment efforts undertaken by Asbury Park.
> The entire beachfront has been blighted since January 1984. The
> initial redevelopment efforts by Carabetta and Vaccaro were
stopped
> as a result of Carabetta¡¦s bankruptcy in 1992.
>
> Asbury Partners LLC, using money from M.D. Sass Company, purchased
> Carabetta¡¦s rights in the bankruptcy proceeding and paid the City
of
> Asbury Park $6.5M for tax liens on the properties. These funds
were
> desperately needed by the City of Asbury Park to stave off its own
> pending insolvency. For these payments Asbury Partners took over
> Carabetta¡¦s project and developed a new plan. Carabetta, it
should
> be noted, never completed anything. He left a rusting structural
> steel monument at Ocean Avenue and Second Street for the last
> fifteen years. Asbury Partners LLC also have not completed
anything,
> although they have grandiose plans. Where then is the enhancement
to
> the real estate market which they claim in Moliver¡¦s appraisal to
be
> attributed to their project?
>
> It¡¦s not there. Rather, value in the market in Monmouth County in
> general and in beachfront properties in particular have
dramatically
> increased in the last ten years. Properties like Mr. Orlando¡¦s ¡V
two
> to three blocks from the beach - are difficult to find. The
> Orlando¡¦s property is in a quiet residential area, adjoining
second
> Avenue and the lake. This property is valuable because of its
> location. Asbury Partners LLC, and their ¡§project¡¨ such as it
is,
> have had little impact, yet they use the ¡§scope of the project"
rule
> to argue Orlando¡¦s property is worth $330,000 as of December
2005.
> This is $245,000 less than the Orlandos paid for the property in
> 2004.
>
> Last week, the Appellate Division in the case of DM Asbury Realty
> LLC et al v. The City of Asbury Park and Asbury Partners LLC
> unanimously, in a 65-page opinion issued by Judges Conley,
> Weissbard, and Winkelstein, decided that the property owners
> numerous issues raised on appeal were without merit. The opinion
> affirms an earlier unreported opinion by Judge Lawson, A.J.S.C.
> Monmouth County, who similarly dismissed all of the arguments
raised
> by the property owners. The appellate panel concluded that the law
> division judge properly granted summary judgment on each of the
> plaintiff¡¦s claims. Download the opinion.
>
> The issues raised included:
> 1. Whether the plan¡¦s failure to permit property owners to
develop
> their own properties, except with the approval of the designated
> developer constituted a taking
> 2. Whether the City improperly ceded its legislative authority to
> the designated developer, a private entity;
> 3. Whether the plan placed an illegal 30-year moratorium on
private
> development within the redevelopment area
> 4. Whether the manner in which the properties were chosen for
> redevelopment violated plaintiffs equal protection rights
> 5. Whether the City had improper motives for including certain
> properties in the plan
> 6. Whether the City¡¦s reliance on an unlicensed planner rendered
the
> passage of the ordinance invalid and
> 7. Whether plaintiffs were denied adequate discovery.
>
> Unless this case is granted certification by the New Jersey
Supreme
> Court, which is unlikely, the municipality and the developer are
now
> free to prepare their appraisals and make acquisition offers to
the
> affected property owners. In all likelihood, if Moliver has been
> hired to do all the appraisals for the Asbury Park beachfront
> project, a skewed approach to market value will be evident to all
> property owners once they receive their offers. But unlike an
offer
> from the Godfather, this is an offer you can refuse.
>
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/
