--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello, Wake Up Call.....
>
> The City is not obligated to watch over private property.
> It WAS a City asset, It was sold by those in charge.
>
> Yes, culturally and identity wise its still a 'City Asset'
> but make no mistake, it is now private property
>
> :-(
>
> Werner
>===============================================
Even if 'temporary' for a movie it is completely inapproprate for that
to have been allowed.
I can almost guarantee that it is NOT water removable paint. I was a
consultant for the filming of 'City by the Sea' when similar treatments
were applied to the Casino and Pavilions.
The issue was, and is now, how does that portray the City of Asbury
Park? Certainly not in a positive light. People will see that movie
long after the crew leaves here.
And how long will that 'treatment' be allowed to remain?
This is also a violation of the Historic Preservation standards that
govern the site. Painting brick is a definate violation.
Unless it is Chaulk or truely water removable paint they are in real
trouble when they try to remove it.
Werner
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
