--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Fred" <asburydogma@> wrote:
> >
> >
OK I got it.
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/
