[AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - website storage needed
Yahoo group apthehardtalk is another Asbury group. It was started a few months ago but doesn't have any activity. I think you can put it in that groups file. Membership is instant yahoo has everyones info so its just a couple of clicks. ]:~) --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the waterfront redevelopment plan is no longer available on the City's website, I wanted to upload the (9) files comprising the waterfront redevelopment plan to the Files section of the forum, however, there is a size limitation (5mb per file 20mb for group) which precludes this. Anyone know where I can upload these files to be available for viewing by the public? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Back on topic
In the words of that great poet, Rage Against the Machine: They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan, I was attempting to clarify the height issue for you by looking up the relevent parts of the plan on the City website. !!The plan is no longer available from the City's website!! I hope it's a temporary server error, but I don't think so as the rest of the page is still there. I'll have to dig up my paper copy purchased from the City. I have it saved from the website as pdf and I can send it to you if you wish. I noticed that the plan is missing from the website too, along with the redevelopment agreement itself. Perhaps it is a technical issue, but it seems strangely coincidental to me. I just asked yesterday for an official clarification of what the Plan says with regard to development on the C-8 site if the structure is demolished. I pointed out where I thought there were contradictions in the plan (by page numbers). I have not received a response back. I hope my response is not the actual yanking of the Plan from public purview. What a place!. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Picked up his toys and left (albeit from the extreme right)
Geez, was the BlindBishop serious; I already miss his old time religion. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - New Home
Gary (Lightly) was kind enough to offer space on Asburymusic.com to host the waterfront redevelopment plan. Here is the link. I suggest those interested download the files just in case they put out a hit squad on them. http://www.asburymusic.com/plan/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - New Home
Gary (Lightly) was kind enough to offer space on Asburymusic.com to host the waterfront redevelopment plan. Here is the link. I suggest those interested download the files just in case they put out a hit squad on them. http://www.asburymusic.com/plan/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - website storage needed
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yahoo group apthehardtalk is another Asbury group. It was started a few months ago but doesn't have any activity. I think you can put it in that groups file. Membership is instant yahoo has everyones info so its just a couple of clicks. ]:~) --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the waterfront redevelopment plan is no longer available on the City's website, I wanted to upload the (9) files comprising the waterfront redevelopment plan to the Files section of the forum, however, there is a size limitation (5mb per file 20mb for group) which precludes this. Anyone know where I can upload these files to be available for viewing by the public? Hi kids! So glad to see you all getting along, without me! Skip, hope to see you Saturday at the Katrina benefit! Hope to meet more of you there! Loved meeting Tommy and Skip! Know what? The in-fighting, the off topic remarks, the bit**in' that constantly go on here, was not what I expected! I thought this was a group about everything Asbury Park, not Immenent Domain, per se. If this is what it's all about, why do we have Maureen posting her broadcast, agenda? That off topic, too? Free speech suspended here? Also been told that the Council reads this groups comments, so I guess I'm at the top of the list, huh? You know which list, I'm talking about. Okay, I apologize, already! I am in no way, the person who will effect change here. Thought this was a free country. Guess, not! No, I am NOT in lock-step, with anyone; just don't grin and be a hypocrite, for NO-ONE! I made a comment about someone I love and dearly respect, supported to the Nth degree, but I forgot He is human, with human frailites and I guess I lost it. For that I humbly apologize! I take it all back, because I didn't mean it and will do all in my power, to repair, the damage, I've done. To Mayor Sanders, I humbly apologize and hope you can forgive my rabid comments! To everybody else, go straight to H*LL! You know who I mean! Are the surveillence cameras in place, in our fair city, as D. Jacobsen calls it? Just WHO is this city geared, to? Not me! I am one of those people this City, puts up with, cause they don't know what else to do with me! Werner, you can have your website back, brother, since you own it! Stat, that! JEEZ! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
Re: [AsburyPark] Another AP Icon Demolished
Was that property taken by ED or did partners buy it? And I may be wrong but I thought I read that any property taken by ED must be developed within 1 year according to the agreement. Is this true?wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today the demolition of the former Ambassador Hotel was started. About half the building is a pile of rubble. The building was formerly known as the Palace Hotel.That makes two "Palaces" razed in the name of redevelopment.Werner (I'm not in control) Baumgartner Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. SPONSORED LINKS Asbury park home Asbury park nj Asbury park hotel Asbury park foreclosure Asbury park real estate Asbury park YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "AsburyPark" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [AsburyPark] Another AP Icon Demolished
Who's gonna make the developer honor their agreement? - Original Message - From: Allan Peterson To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [AsburyPark] Another AP Icon Demolished Was that property taken by ED or did partners buy it? And I may be wrong but I thought I read that any property taken by ED must be developed within 1 year according to the agreement. Is this true?wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today the demolition of the former Ambassador Hotel was started. About half the building is a pile of rubble. The building was formerly known as the Palace Hotel.That makes two "Palaces" razed in the name of redevelopment.Werner (I'm not in control) Baumgartner Yahoo! for GoodClick here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "AsburyPark" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[AsburyPark] Waterfront Redevelopment Plan Removal
I asked the city why the Plan was removed from its website. The answer I received raises more questions in my mind (which I posed to them), as I am sure it will in yours. It appears that when I cited pages from the Plan (which I obtained from the city website) relating to the C-8 site, the city could not find the same references in its official copy of the Adopted Plan. The cover page of the Plan from its website, and I believe the one from which reference, is dated June 5, 2002 (Amended), which coincides with the official date of adoption by the City. The City now maintains that that copy of the Plan is not that which was adopted by the Council, and thus, had it removed from its website. I might also add that it is my understanding that this is the same version which has been supplied to the public in hardcopy and for intents and purposes, has been portrayed as the Adopted Plan. Pursuant to the City, the plan that was officially adopted by the Mayor and Council on 6/5/02 has a cover page with a date of DRAFT, March 15,2002 and a latest amended date of to be determined, whatever that is supposed to mean. That is almost the same language used for the purchase price of the Triangle which was actually conveyed almost 3 years ago with the price to the City still yet to be determined. The City also maintains that the Official Adopted Plan will also contain all of the amendments adopted to the plan by Mayor and Council by ordinance numbers 2607 and 2729, and that WHEN it finds a copy of the Official Adopted Plan, it will be posted to its website. Now before I, or anyone, jumps to conclusions of malfeasance, let me say this: Even if the Official Adopted Plan (when found) is identical to the Adopted Plan which we all thought was official, the City, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, has some splainin to do. I would like to know who prepared the Amended June 5, 2002 Plan and for what purpose? This is the version of the Plan we were told represented what the City adopted as a result of the input, suggestions and testimony of the Planning Board and the public by means of a series of meetings. This is the version of the Adopted Plan that the public was given in both electronic and hardcopy format. I have heard suggestions that it was commissioned by Asbury Partners in response to the changes that were were supposed to be adopted as a result of the public meetings and Planning Board input. In fact, it is the same version which the city clerk has and until recently, assumed was the Adopted Plan as amended by ordinances enacted subsequent to 6/5/02. No one can own up to creating this document. Now if it turns out that in fact Asbury Partners created it and it is touted as being an official document, but now IS NOT, I think that proves what many of us have been saying, that is, that Asbury Partners is the preverbial tail wagging the dog. If the actual official Official Adopted Plan (whatever that is and if ever it is found) differs drastically from what was represented as being the Adopte Plan, then there are more serious questions about what is actually going on in this city with regard to the waterfront development. Far be it from me to unnecessarily cast suspicion, however, this entire process was hatched badly (Weldon) and has done nothing but raise further questions along the way. The most simplest part should be to say WHAT THE PLAN IS. We can't even say that. I am not making this stuff up. I couldn't. Watch the road. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan Removal
If the actual official Official Adopted Plan (whatever that is and if ever it is found) differs drastically from what was represented as being the Adopted Plan, then there are more serious questions about what is actually going on in this city with regard to the waterfront development. It is widely known that New Jersey is the most corrupt state in the Union; that said who would be surprised that official government documents at any level, remain official only until their currency becomes dated and their subsequent currency is determined to be insufficient to compensate those who paid, in good faith, to acquire whatever they may have wished from whichever governments that were then peddling public wares. I'm breathless. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I asked the city why the Plan was removed from its website. The answer I received raises more questions in my mind (which I posed to them), as I am sure it will in yours. It appears that when I cited pages from the Plan (which I obtained from the city website) relating to the C-8 site, the city could not find the same references in its official copy of the Adopted Plan. The cover page of the Plan from its website, and I believe the one from which reference, is dated June 5, 2002 (Amended), which coincides with the official date of adoption by the City. The City now maintains that that copy of the Plan is not that which was adopted by the Council, and thus, had it removed from its website. I might also add that it is my understanding that this is the same version which has been supplied to the public in hardcopy and for intents and purposes, has been portrayed as the Adopted Plan. Pursuant to the City, the plan that was officially adopted by the Mayor and Council on 6/5/02 has a cover page with a date of DRAFT, March 15,2002 and a latest amended date of to be determined, whatever that is supposed to mean. That is almost the same language used for the purchase price of the Triangle which was actually conveyed almost 3 years ago with the price to the City still yet to be determined. The City also maintains that the Official Adopted Plan will also contain all of the amendments adopted to the plan by Mayor and Council by ordinance numbers 2607 and 2729, and that WHEN it finds a copy of the Official Adopted Plan, it will be posted to its website. Now before I, or anyone, jumps to conclusions of malfeasance, let me say this: Even if the Official Adopted Plan (when found) is identical to the Adopted Plan which we all thought was official, the City, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, has some splainin to do. I would like to know who prepared the Amended June 5, 2002 Plan and for what purpose? This is the version of the Plan we were told represented what the City adopted as a result of the input, suggestions and testimony of the Planning Board and the public by means of a series of meetings. This is the version of the Adopted Plan that the public was given in both electronic and hardcopy format. I have heard suggestions that it was commissioned by Asbury Partners in response to the changes that were were supposed to be adopted as a result of the public meetings and Planning Board input. In fact, it is the same version which the city clerk has and until recently, assumed was the Adopted Plan as amended by ordinances enacted subsequent to 6/5/02. No one can own up to creating this document. Now if it turns out that in fact Asbury Partners created it and it is touted as being an official document, but now IS NOT, I think that proves what many of us have been saying, that is, that Asbury Partners is the preverbial tail wagging the dog. If the actual official Official Adopted Plan (whatever that is and if ever it is found) differs drastically from what was represented as being the Adopte Plan, then there are more serious questions about what is actually going on in this city with regard to the waterfront development. Far be it from me to unnecessarily cast suspicion, however, this entire process was hatched badly (Weldon) and has done nothing but raise further questions along the way. The most simplest part should be to say WHAT THE PLAN IS. We can't even say that. I am not making this stuff up. I couldn't. Watch the road. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - website storage needed
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Sharon G. Boone [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...Just WHO is this city geared, to? Not me! I am one of those people this City, puts up with, cause they don't know what else to do with me! Werner, you can have your website back, brother, since you own it! Stat, that! JEEZ! JEEZ! back to you. You are now the third person to claim that this is my yahoo group. Please don't fall into the easy path of just repeating false information so popular around here. I know you are above that. Now if saying I own it is a compliment due to my insights, Thank You very much. For the record, for the third time, I am not the owner, moderator, controller, filter. etc of this group. So do not use me as a scape-goat! I'm entitled to express my opinion about off-topic debates just as folks are entitled to have them. Werner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Allan Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was that property taken by ED or did partners buy it? ED was excercised but the Partners may have purchased it privately. Still gathering info on the ownership. Another silly loss for the City. This building could have been rehabed into the condos that everyone seems to want. It would have been a higher density than permitted under the adopted plan. But that's OK it would have pulled density out of the beachfront area which is a good thing. Complete lack of vision in this City. Werner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished - no adopted or Official Plan plan
It would have been a higher density than permitted under the adopted plan. But that's OK it would have pulled density out of the beachfront area which is a good thing. Not so fast re pulled density out of the beachfront, now that we know that there is no adopted or `Official Plan' plan, there would have been no necessity to pull or reduce anything; the Fish may have inadvertently missed squeezing a few more big bucks from Asbury. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Allan Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was that property taken by ED or did partners buy it? ED was excercised but the Partners may have purchased it privately. Still gathering info on the ownership. Another silly loss for the City. This building could have been rehabed into the condos that everyone seems to want. It would have been a higher density than permitted under the adopted plan. But that's OK it would have pulled density out of the beachfront area which is a good thing. Complete lack of vision in this City. Werner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ED was excercised but the Partners may have purchased it privately. Still gathering info on the ownership. OOps, Should read : ED was NOT exercised... Werner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished - no adopted or Official Plan plan
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Skip Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: now that we know that there is no adopted or `Official Plan' plan, there would have been no necessity to pull or reduce anything; the Fish may have inadvertently missed squeezing a few more big bucks from Asbury. There certainly is an adopted plan. The process was followed (assuming for the moment it was the correct process) and resolutiond were passed. The Offical Adopted Plan is the one on file at the City Clerks Office. The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City Record. One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get a copy of the Adopted Plan which was offically logged and filed. Lets see where this goes. Werner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished - no adopted or Official Plan plan
The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City Record. One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get a copy of the Adopted Plan which was officially logged and filed. where this goes. Where we go is to `never never land'; that official anythings remain so is a function of rules society adopts and agrees to function by; when you have the `tail' of one level of government, The Fishman, directing its head, and this government in turn directing its superior level of government, and so on and so on till we get to Trenton, which shall always be thought of by me as the `supreme never never', all bets are off. In many places on this planet, when government begins to act thusly, the revolution is often not far behind. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Skip Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: now that we know that there is no adopted or `Official Plan' plan, there would have been no necessity to pull or reduce anything; the Fish may have inadvertently missed squeezing a few more big bucks from Asbury. There certainly is an adopted plan. The process was followed (assuming for the moment it was the correct process) and resolutiond were passed. The Offical Adopted Plan is the one on file at the City Clerks Office. The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City Record. One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get a copy of the Adopted Plan which was offically logged and filed. Lets see where this goes. Werner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished - no adopted or Official Plan plan
The Asbury Park city clerk is a man who is unsure of what he is doing. It took me over a week to get info from him that should have taken only a day. Don't get me wrong, he is a nice guy but he is a couple of Buds short of a six-pack. He is definately not controlling the strings in that office. ];~) --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Skip Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City Record. One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get a copy of the Adopted Plan which was officially logged and filed. where this goes. Where we go is to `never never land'; that official anythings remain so is a function of rules society adopts and agrees to function by; when you have the `tail' of one level of government, The Fishman, directing its head, and this government in turn directing its superior level of government, and so on and so on till we get to Trenton, which shall always be thought of by me as the `supreme never never', all bets are off. In many places on this planet, when government begins to act thusly, the revolution is often not far behind. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Skip Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: now that we know that there is no adopted or `Official Plan' plan, there would have been no necessity to pull or reduce anything; the Fish may have inadvertently missed squeezing a few more big bucks from Asbury. There certainly is an adopted plan. The process was followed (assuming for the moment it was the correct process) and resolutiond were passed. The Offical Adopted Plan is the one on file at the City Clerks Office. The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City Record. One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get a copy of the Adopted Plan which was offically logged and filed. Lets see where this goes. Werner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Electric News For Thursday Eve.
Greetings: I am looking for up to 4 individuals who would be interested in doing commentary on the live broadcast tomorrow night. The Electric News will tune in the debate of the Assembly Candidates which will be aired on radio. We will video cast the table of guests commentators. When a Candidate answers a question we will get to comment on it live of the Electric News. The show will go from 8 - 10 PM, right along side the restore show. This will be an interesting web cast,thats if the internet sound is up from restore. Hoping that it will be crystal, than we will comment and video cast the commentators on http://www.electricnews.com If you are interested in being on the commentators team please call me in the morning at 732.822.7161 or 732.222.6224 or email your number at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks KEVIN BROWN THE ELECTRIC NEWS LIVE WEEKNIGHTS 8 - 9 pm - RERUNS 10 11 PM We spin a dvd at Midnight. http://www.electricnews.com Sponsored by the Lighthouse Mission's Production Co. The Long Branch Network http://www.lbnj.com The live broadcast is also available on www.asburyparkvideo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - website storage needed
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the waterfront redevelopment plan is no longer available on the City's website, I wanted to upload the (9) files comprising the waterfront redevelopment plan to the Files section of the forum, however, there is a size limitation (5mb per file 20mb for group) which precludes this. Anyone know where I can upload these files to be available for viewing by the public? send them to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll set up a web page and place for your material to be stored and made available. If you want I will even password protect them for you. You could even leave them open to the public. Kevin Brown Once I have them I will send you the url where they will be located. If they are asburyparl relevent than most likely they will be at http://www.asburyparkcity.com/dan/ - just send them to me I'll take care of it. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
Re: [AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - website storage needed
On 10/5/05 9:48 PM, noblarneyzone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the waterfront redevelopment plan is no longer available on the City's website, I wanted to upload the (9) files comprising the waterfront redevelopment plan to the Files section of the forum, however, there is a size limitation (5mb per file 20mb for group) which precludes this. Anyone know where I can upload these files to be available for viewing by the public? All of the files are already online. Anyone can view or download them at: http://www.asburymusic.com/plan Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - website storage needed
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Lighty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of the files are already online. Anyone can view or download them at: http://www.asburymusic.com/plan Gary, There's a broken link on the page and the formating is screwy, the first column wraps lines. Werner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
Re: [AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - website storage needed
On 10/5/05 10:19 PM, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Lighty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of the files are already online. Anyone can view or download them at: http://www.asburymusic.com/plan Gary, There's a broken link on the page and the formating is screwy, the first column wraps lines. Werner Sorry, that link was a late addition to the list. Everything's fixed now. Just tested all of the links and it's good to go. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished - no adopted or Official Plan plan
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There certainly is an adopted plan. The process was followed (assuming for the moment it was the correct process) and resolutiond were passed. The Offical Adopted Plan is the one on file at the City Clerks Office. The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City Record. One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get a copy of the Adopted Plan which was offically logged and filed. Lets see where this goes. Werner, remember, this is Asbury Park. I would not count on it. Sorry you missed the council meeting tonight. They TRIED to defuse the situation by repeating the lame stories. Aaron actually tried to make people believe that Asbury Partners did the unofficial official plan (June 2002) and tried to make that the plan. Keady saw through this in that there was no incentive for Asbury Partners trying to add language that was more adverse to them with regard to C-8. I beleive they are stupid, but not that stupid. Keady was blown off by the cast of usual suspects. However, I was especially dismayed by Ed Johnson reaction who took Keady to task and told him to move on. Ed said the June 2002 plan was just a mistake. A bigger mistake is him being a councilmember. I guess he took DJ's article in TCN to heart and is now going to play ball with his team cohorts. Back to the city clerk. As I said earlier, Kay told me that the plan he considered the official adopted plan was the June 2002 version at issue. That is he said, until Don Sammet told him it wasn't. He called me later in the day to say he had a copy of the ordinance (2607) that adopted the plan attached to the March 15, 2002 plan. Don Sammet told him was the one adopted. That is the integrity of our public record keeping. I assure you, if anyone actually knew what is the adopted plan, they ain't telling. At the meeting I pointed out another detail which shows that they are blowing smoke up our asses. The ordinance adopting the plan says it gave the plan to the Planning board for review on 1/16/2002 (meaning the plan had to be created before this date). The PB gave its recommendations to the council on 4/26/2002, and the ordinance dated 6/5/2002, adopted the plan in gave the PB (on 1/16/2002) except for its acceptions and objections to the recommendations of the PB, which werre further enumerated. Now pertaining to the plan, that is it. There is no discussion that it was amended from some date before 1/16/2002 (given to PB)to 3/15/2002. That's it. The only dates are 1/16/2002 and 4/26/2002. Where did this 3/15/2002 plan come from? That is not what the ordinace adopted. It adopted whatever plan was given to the PB on 16/2002, which certainly could not have been dated 3/15/2002, 2 months later. Finally, Aaron stated that C-8 must come down and new footings installed. This is total new construction. He lied by only telling half of the truth. Aaron stated that the only conditions placed on C-8 development in the 3/15/2002 plan was to remove the garage and redo the facade. He failed to say that the 3/15/2002 contains a section identical to the 6/5/2002 plan which says that if the developer can finish the project it can be built to the existing height. The operative word is finish. Finish does not mean demolishing the structure, excavating and redoing the footings. That's a total new development. They are trying to pull a fast one here. It's time to wake up and smell whatever it is they're cooking. Look at the timing. Last week its confirmed C-8 must come down (which I predicted). I and others point out that if demolished they can rebuild to existing height, and thus, would want an amendment for which we could and should get money. I ask for clarification of what could be done on C-8 site if demolished and all of a sudden the city this ain't the plan. At best it is gross ineptitude, at worse, its criminal. Like it or not, the council, with the exception of Keady, won't do a damn thing about this. Apparently, Johnson is included with the majority. These council members are not even familar with these documents. Time for a recall. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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/
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished - no adopted or Official Plan plan
There is no discussion that it was amended from some date before 1/16/2002 (given to PB) to 3/15/2002. That's it. The only dates are 1/16/2002 and 4/26/2002. Where did this 3/15/2002 plan come from? That is not what the ordinance adopted. It adopted whatever plan was given to the PB on 1/16/2002, which certainly could not have been dated 3/15/2002, 2 months later. At best it is gross ineptitude, at worse, its criminal. I'm more familiar with Canadian law than US, but they both derive from English common law, so the following may be irrelevant. Error or fraud in contracts is unenforceable, the act of signing an agreement does not bind either party unless they subsequently agree to accept the oversight; fraud simply negates the deal. Even should this country's law not function in this manner, can there now be any question that Aaron, Fishman and the then council must be investigated by an independent authority; who in this corrupt state meets a test of independence? --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There certainly is an adopted plan. The process was followed (assuming for the moment it was the correct process) and resolutiond were passed. The Offical Adopted Plan is the one on file at the City Clerks Office. The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City Record. One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get a copy of the Adopted Plan which was offically logged and filed. Lets see where this goes. Werner, remember, this is Asbury Park. I would not count on it. Sorry you missed the council meeting tonight. They TRIED to defuse the situation by repeating the lame stories. Aaron actually tried to make people believe that Asbury Partners did the unofficial official plan (June 2002) and tried to make that the plan. Keady saw through this in that there was no incentive for Asbury Partners trying to add language that was more adverse to them with regard to C-8. I beleive they are stupid, but not that stupid. Keady was blown off by the cast of usual suspects. However, I was especially dismayed by Ed Johnson reaction who took Keady to task and told him to move on. Ed said the June 2002 plan was just a mistake. A bigger mistake is him being a councilmember. I guess he took DJ's article in TCN to heart and is now going to play ball with his team cohorts. Back to the city clerk. As I said earlier, Kay told me that the plan he considered the official adopted plan was the June 2002 version at issue. That is he said, until Don Sammet told him it wasn't. He called me later in the day to say he had a copy of the ordinance (2607) that adopted the plan attached to the March 15, 2002 plan. Don Sammet told him was the one adopted. That is the integrity of our public record keeping. I assure you, if anyone actually knew what is the adopted plan, they ain't telling. At the meeting I pointed out another detail which shows that they are blowing smoke up our asses. The ordinance adopting the plan says it gave the plan to the Planning board for review on 1/16/2002 (meaning the plan had to be created before this date). The PB gave its recommendations to the council on 4/26/2002, and the ordinance dated 6/5/2002, adopted the plan in gave the PB (on 1/16/2002) except for its acceptions and objections to the recommendations of the PB, which werre further enumerated. Now pertaining to the plan, that is it. There is no discussion that it was amended from some date before 1/16/2002 (given to PB)to 3/15/2002. That's it. The only dates are 1/16/2002 and 4/26/2002. Where did this 3/15/2002 plan come from? That is not what the ordinace adopted. It adopted whatever plan was given to the PB on 16/2002, which certainly could not have been dated 3/15/2002, 2 months later. Finally, Aaron stated that C-8 must come down and new footings installed. This is total new construction. He lied by only telling half of the truth. Aaron stated that the only conditions placed on C-8 development in the 3/15/2002 plan was to remove the garage and redo the facade. He failed to say that the 3/15/2002 contains a section identical to the 6/5/2002 plan which says that if the developer can finish the project it can be built to the existing height. The operative word is finish. Finish does not mean demolishing the structure, excavating and redoing the footings. That's a total new development. They are trying to pull a fast one here. It's time to wake up and smell whatever it is they're cooking. Look at the timing. Last week its confirmed C-8 must come down (which I predicted). I and others point out that if demolished they can rebuild to existing height, and thus, would want an amendment for which we could and should get money. I ask for clarification of what could be done on
Re: [AsburyPark] Re: Waterfront Redevelopment Plan Removal
This is why Jime Keady was voted in. Where are his comments?Skip Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "If the actual official "Official Adopted Plan" (whatever that is andif ever it is found) differs drastically from what was represented asbeing the Adopted Plan, then there are more serious questions aboutwhat is actually going on in this city with regard to the waterfrontdevelopment."It is widely known that New Jersey is the most corrupt state in theUnion; that said who would be surprised that official governmentdocuments at any level, remain official only until their currencybecomes dated and their subsequent currency is determined to beinsufficient to compensate those who paid, in good faith, to acquirewhatever they may have wished from whichever governments that werethen peddling public wares. I'm breathless.--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I asked the city why the Plan was removed from its website. The answer I received raises more questions in my mind (which I posed to them), as I am sure it will in yours. It appears that when I cited pages from the Plan (which I obtained from the city website) relating to the C-8 site, the city could not find the same references in its "official" copy of the Adopted Plan. The cover page of the Plan from its website, and I believe the one from which reference, is dated June 5, 2002 (Amended), which coincides with the official date of adoption by the City. The City now maintains that that copy of the Plan is not that which was adopted by the Council, and thus, had it removed from its website. I might also add that it is my understanding that this is the same version which has been supplied to the public in hardcopy and for intents and purposes, has been portrayed as the Adopted Plan. Pursuant to the City, the plan that was "officially" adopted by the Mayor and Council on 6/5/02 has a cover page with a date of DRAFT, March 15,2002 and a latest amended date of "to be determined," whatever that is supposed to mean. That is almost the same language used for the purchase price of the Triangle which was actually conveyed almost 3 years ago with the price to the City still yet to be determined. The City also maintains that the Official Adopted Plan will also contain all of the amendments adopted to the plan by Mayor and Council by ordinance numbers 2607 and 2729, and that WHEN it finds a copy of the Official Adopted Plan, it will be posted to its website. Now before I, or anyone, jumps to conclusions of malfeasance, let me say this: Even if the Official Adopted Plan (when found) is identical to the Adopted Plan which we all thought was "official", the City, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, "has some splainin to do." I would like to know who prepared the Amended June 5, 2002 Plan and for what purpose? This is the version of the Plan we were told represented what the City adopted as a result of the input, suggestions and testimony of the Planning Board and the public by means of a series of meetings. This is the version of the Adopted Plan that the public was given in both electronic and hardcopy format. I have heard suggestions that it was commissioned by Asbury Partners in response to the changes that were were supposed to be adopted as a result of the public meetings and Planning Board input. In fact, it is the same version which the city clerk has and until recently, assumed was the Adopted Plan as amended by ordinances enacted subsequent to 6/5/02. No one can own up to creating this document. Now if it turns out that in fact Asbury Partners created it and it is touted as being an "official" document, but now IS NOT, I think that proves what many of us have been saying, that is, that Asbury Partners is the preverbial tail wagging the dog. If the actual official Official Adopted Plan (whatever that is and if ever it is found) differs drastically from what was represented as being the Adopte Plan, then there are more serious questions about what is actually going on in this city with regard to the waterfront development. Far be it from me to unnecessarily cast suspicion, however, this entire process was hatched badly (Weldon) and has done nothing but raise further questions along the way. The most simplest part should be to say WHAT THE PLAN IS. We can't even say that. I am not making this stuff up. I couldn't. Watch the road. Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. SPONSORED LINKS Asbury park home Asbury park nj Asbury park hotel Asbury park foreclosure Asbury park real estate Asbury park
[AsburyPark] Re: Another AP Icon Demolished - no adopted or Official Plan plan
-Sign me up for the recall petition! ]:~) -- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There certainly is an adopted plan. The process was followed (assuming for the moment it was the correct process) and resolutiond were passed. The Offical Adopted Plan is the one on file at the City Clerks Office. The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City Record. One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get a copy of the Adopted Plan which was offically logged and filed. Lets see where this goes. Werner, remember, this is Asbury Park. I would not count on it. Sorry you missed the council meeting tonight. They TRIED to defuse the situation by repeating the lame stories. Aaron actually tried to make people believe that Asbury Partners did the unofficial official plan (June 2002) and tried to make that the plan. Keady saw through this in that there was no incentive for Asbury Partners trying to add language that was more adverse to them with regard to C-8. I beleive they are stupid, but not that stupid. Keady was blown off by the cast of usual suspects. However, I was especially dismayed by Ed Johnson reaction who took Keady to task and told him to move on. Ed said the June 2002 plan was just a mistake. A bigger mistake is him being a councilmember. I guess he took DJ's article in TCN to heart and is now going to play ball with his team cohorts. Back to the city clerk. As I said earlier, Kay told me that the plan he considered the official adopted plan was the June 2002 version at issue. That is he said, until Don Sammet told him it wasn't. He called me later in the day to say he had a copy of the ordinance (2607) that adopted the plan attached to the March 15, 2002 plan. Don Sammet told him was the one adopted. That is the integrity of our public record keeping. I assure you, if anyone actually knew what is the adopted plan, they ain't telling. At the meeting I pointed out another detail which shows that they are blowing smoke up our asses. The ordinance adopting the plan says it gave the plan to the Planning board for review on 1/16/2002 (meaning the plan had to be created before this date). The PB gave its recommendations to the council on 4/26/2002, and the ordinance dated 6/5/2002, adopted the plan in gave the PB (on 1/16/2002) except for its acceptions and objections to the recommendations of the PB, which werre further enumerated. Now pertaining to the plan, that is it. There is no discussion that it was amended from some date before 1/16/2002 (given to PB)to 3/15/2002. That's it. The only dates are 1/16/2002 and 4/26/2002. Where did this 3/15/2002 plan come from? That is not what the ordinace adopted. It adopted whatever plan was given to the PB on 16/2002, which certainly could not have been dated 3/15/2002, 2 months later. Finally, Aaron stated that C-8 must come down and new footings installed. This is total new construction. He lied by only telling half of the truth. Aaron stated that the only conditions placed on C-8 development in the 3/15/2002 plan was to remove the garage and redo the facade. He failed to say that the 3/15/2002 contains a section identical to the 6/5/2002 plan which says that if the developer can finish the project it can be built to the existing height. The operative word is finish. Finish does not mean demolishing the structure, excavating and redoing the footings. That's a total new development. They are trying to pull a fast one here. It's time to wake up and smell whatever it is they're cooking. Look at the timing. Last week its confirmed C-8 must come down (which I predicted). I and others point out that if demolished they can rebuild to existing height, and thus, would want an amendment for which we could and should get money. I ask for clarification of what could be done on C-8 site if demolished and all of a sudden the city this ain't the plan. At best it is gross ineptitude, at worse, its criminal. Like it or not, the council, with the exception of Keady, won't do a damn thing about this. Apparently, Johnson is included with the majority. These council members are not even familar with these documents. Time for a recall. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM ~- 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:
