--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It was the deal and the courts upheld it.
>
What was the deal? The issue of whether C-8 can be rebuilt has not
been brought before the court.Neither has the issue of which is the
proper WRP - June 5, 2002 or March 15, 2002, or if either plan was
in fact lawfully adopted since the city apprently did not follow the
requisite statutes to adopt a WRP, which of course would then make
the 1991 the only valid WRP. If you are talking anout the recent
lawsuit decision that was a challenge to the WRP on the basis that
property owners are not afforded the rightto develp their own
properties. Bad decision, but what the court said was that their
cases were not ripe since they had not exhausted all alternatives,
i.e., apply to Asbury Partners to be subdevelopers of their own
properties. Nothing to do with what I am talking about, which is,
issuing a building permit that violates the WRP. I say the June 5
WRP is the valid one (if you pick the March WRP then there is no
valid WRP except 1991) but even the March Draft only allows a
developer to "finish" the C-8 project. No reasonable person can
interprete what is now going on to be "finishing." I'd like to see
the Esperanza built, but that doesn't change the facts.
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/
