--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "apoojo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Fred" <asburydogma@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "oakdorf" <oakdorf@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > Plus you must use August 2001 apraisals and anyone who knew
Asbury
> Park
> > back then and before know it's not with the millions they say.
> Probaly
> > more like $600,000 if that.
> >
> > Question to fred, why do you have to use 2001 appraisals? I
admit i
> do not know the plan as well as many, but that sounds assinine.
Any
> one else please enlighten me of this, is it correct? I truly hope
not,
> if so which idiot made it so.
> >
>
I assume Fred is talking about the Triangle. The sales agreement for
that parcel provides for this. In other words, the city agreed that
even though they were not going to get the money for a while (they
still haven't), the valuations were to be as of August 2001. BTW,
which is also the point that the viel of litigation was lifted. You
will hear some talk that this same date has to be used for the
appraisal of properties to be condemned. That is bs. The law in all
50 states requires the valuation to be as of the date of title
vesting. However, the law also requires that no increase/decrease in
value from the purpose for which the property is be taken be
attributable to the property itself. In other words, value the
property as if the project didn't and never existed. Easier said
than done. Some try to pin the value to a specific point in time
when they surmise the project started to affect values. It still
does not change the fact that the property must be valued as of the
date of the taking (vesting of title).
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/
