[AsburyPark] Re: esperanza
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True. Those were the only aboptable matters as they were the only matters reviewed by the Planning Board. The June draft wasn't. Clarification. Only the March 15 version was actually marked DRAFT. The later June 5 version was not. Perhaps the recordings of the meetings will tell if you are right or wrong about that. Jim Bruno said he heard Aaron say something to that effect on A tape. I also heard that Shields went and listened to the June 5 tape and also heard Aaron say that. So for the moment, assume Aaron said that they could not adopt the June 5 version. 1) Was he correct? and 2) Why was the June plan submitted to the state and touted as the PLAN for 3 years? To the first, it remains to be seen if Aaron is correct. For the second, I know, -- clerical error. Is that the pat excuse in this town? How about you as a defense attorney make such an error in filing the wrong brief for my stay of execution? Until proven otherwise, I don't have a reason to doubt what Mr. Aaron said. In my opinion the latest amendment to the plan is the March draft with the changes as outlined in the ordinance on June 5. Where is that version Tom? Do you have a copy? Your answer sounds like it came from official lips. Why do you exclude that the planning board changes, some of which were abopted in the ordinance, are the clarifications you speak of? Because what I am saying is that simple clarifications that are not substantive changes do not need go through further review. The acceptions/rejections of the planning board recommendations of course don't have to go back for review. It is also my belief that the June version (a Draft can't by definition be adopted) doesn't contain all of the changes accepted/rejected from the planning board review. None of it is the plan. Respectfully you are mixing up important words and that makes it confusing to talk about. There is only one plan and that is the 1984 plan. We are still using it. It was amended in 1989 and again in 1991. The latest amendment consists of the March draft and the June 5 ordinance, both of which now are properly referred to as the June 5 2005 amendment. For clarity we should call that other, unadopted document the June 5 draft. Tom, it is not me that is mixing up words. They are all called plans. I didn't start this and I think I have been extremely clear. And in fact, I have been using VERSION to identify which PLAN is supposed to be the official one. Yours is one interpretation. Another is that if the origninal plan says 10 and 16 stories and I later build 10 and 16 stories, I've finished it no matter if I had to take a step back first or not. Tom, the original plan, if you mean 1984, was amended, then most recently by the new controls put into the March or June plan, which ever you prefer.The controls for the waterfront blocks including C-8 are 3 stories on Ocean, 4 stories mid-block and 8 stories on Kingsley. That can only be overridden on C-8 if they are able to FINISH the project. Clearly, the clarification in the June version makes explicit what was implicit in March. Don't emulate Clinton. Youa re going argue what is means? It certainly could be your third yet unenumerated choice of a clerical error. The sanction you suggest may be excessive considering there seems to be no harm done as far as I can tell. Crooks? Idiots? I say they are neither. I hope you never prove me wrong. Tom, believe me, I have only begun to scratch the surface. Aaron is in deep. The city has been getting advice in the best interests of Azbury Partners. It was I'm not saying that you are wrong, I just didn't know that was the case. Seems odd that we only have NJ subdevelopers if it was truly shopped across the fruited plain. You may inadvertantly be giving credit to them that may not be due. You don't know people from around the country have either bought or considered buying condos here based upon the plan that was disavowed? I object to the limiting choices in the question, Your Honor! ;-) Your objection is overruled counselor. 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] New Yahoo AP Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/allthingsasbury 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] Digest Number 1505
I really do not understand the anguish over the C-8 building and the plan that was filed, albeit he wrong plan. At the last council meeting, there acrimony over tis situation was alarming. Anguished vows and the innate desire to lambaste the mayor. It sure seemed to boil down to 2 issues. 1, that the proper plan was reviewed, but someone attached thew wrong plan top the permit application, and, 2, that the mayor should be held accountable for not having properly qualified officials review the plan before he signed it. Isn't the fact of the matter that the mayor signed the correct plan, only to have someone file the incorrect one? There is a much larger and egregious mater to contend with in AP at this time. And that is the incompetence of the city zoning officer. Who was hired by Weldon without any qualifications or degrees, who has run roughshod over any and all developers that have put their hard earned monies and time into building, or is that re-building the city of Asbury Park. Along with the city engineer, the zoning officer has shut down two projects on 4th ave. Put over 20 men out of work, and these 2 have put a serious hurting one the people financing and re-building these 2 projects. Both buildings were smitten with gangsters, drug dealers, and at their own expense both buildings were cleaned out of the vermin that has destroyed the integrity of the city. The thanks they are getting from zoning and engineering in the city are stop work orders and being forced to deliver site plans and major zoning variances when neither are called for. Additionally, in the mother of all power plays the city engineer is trying to ramrod a amendment to an ordinance that will make it impossible to so much as plant flowers along the wide avenues that make AP such a special place. Their reasoning is the ability to move utilities along the front lawns of the avenues. Can anyone imagine what it will be like to have a sewer line located underground between their house and the sidewalk? In essence, the DEP is thankfully not only willing to work with the City and allow construction along the waterfront to continue WITHOUT A PROPER PERMIT, but the CITY of ASBURY PARK is not willing to allow construction to continue on the 300 block of 4th avenue because of landscaping. So, instead of 90 or so nice families being able to move into ostensibly brand new apartments this spring, 90 families who will help support all the great efforts of the downtown merchants and those brave and hearty souls who invested in Boardwalk business this past summer, the buildings will remain vacant and the drug dealers, prostitutes, and now the gang bangers will continue to have free reign over the street of Asbury. The City of Asbury Park CAN'T stop the drug dealers, but the City CAN stop construction and progress. AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com wrote: There are 5 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. esperanza From: charlie leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. Re: esperanza From: bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. esperanza = C8 = scrape iron From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. Re: esperanza From: dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. Re: esperanza From: bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message: 1 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:05:24 -0800 (PST) From: charlie leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: esperanza what does everyone think about the esperanza news? so the redevelopemtn is being run using an older plan, not the one that was sopose to be used. and the one thats being used today, is missing the information regarding c8? where if it should come down, only an 8 story building could be built in its place? is that accruate, or no? if no, can someone post a short simple reply explaining. i think the esperanza will be built the way it was intended to be. but if there going to paly by the rules, the i think an 8 story building should be bult there, to match the height of the berkely, which is also 8? or close to it. - Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. [This message contained attachments] Message: 2 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:23:06 - From: bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: esperanza It is simply a clerical error. The Planning Board reviewed an amendment to the plan dated March 2002. That is the official amendment that the Council voted on in June 2002. There is a separate document dated June 2002. It was not looked at by the planning board, nor did the City council ever vote on it. After the city got done
[AsburyPark] The Plan
To make it easier to discuss the C8 problem, some terms need to be clarified to make it easier to talk about: THE PLAN: There is only one plan. Always has been just one. It has been amended 3 times, but that does not make for a new plan. It is the same plan, but amended. The Plan is the 1984 plan and it is still in effect today. 1989 Amendment: The 1984 Plan was amended in 1989. It is properly called The 1984 plan amended in 1989. Or simply, The Plan because there is still only one. 1991 Amendment: The Plan was amended again. It is properly called the 1984 plan amended in 1989 and 1991. Or simply The Plan because there is still only one. 2002 Amendment: The Plan was amdended again in 2002. It is propertly called The 1984 plan amended in 1989, 1991 and 2002. Or simply The Plan because there is still only one. This is where we are today: One plan, amended 3 times. The current dispute centers on there being 2 different proposals that were drafted for the 2002 amendment. One proposal is dated March 15, 2002, the other June 5, 2002. The dispute is: Which proposal did the council vote on? Make no mistake that before they are adopted by council vote, they are both nothing more than proposals whether they say draft or anything else on them. Accordingly, to discuss what the amendment was in 2002, they must be referred to as the March Proposal or the June Proposal. Recap: 1 Plan (1984); 3 Amendments (1989, 1991, 2002). Regarding the above 2002 amendment, 2 Proposals - March and June. If anyone is not using these terms, that person is using the wrong terms and making the matter too confusing to talk about. 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] The Plan
bluebiship, that makes it pretty easy to understand. i knew all this stuff at one time, but the last year, i havnt been following things as closley as i use to. and forgot most of the things, but i do remember that now. was there something somewhere that talked about the c8, if it should come down? i thought thats what all the talk was about. the fact that, now that the c8 has to come down, that only a 8 sotry building could be built. is that true? if that is true, how can the the plan for c8 still be built out?bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To make it easier to discuss the C8 problem, some terms need to be clarified to make it easier to talk about:THE PLAN: There is only one plan. Always has been just one. It has been amended 3 times, but that does not make for a new plan. It is the same plan, but amended. "The Plan" is the 1984 plan and it is still in effect today.1989 Amendment: "The 1984 Plan" was amended in 1989. It is properly called "The 1984 plan amended in 1989." Or simply, "The Plan" because there is still only one.1991 Amendment: "The Plan" was amended again. It is properly called "the 1984 plan amended in 1989 and 1991." Or simply "The Plan" because there is still only one.2002 Amendment: "The Plan" was amdended again in 2002. It is propertly called "The 1984 plan amended in 1989, 1991 and 2002." Or simply "The Plan" because there is still only one. This is where we are today: One plan, amended 3 times.The current dispute centers on there being 2 different "proposals" that were drafted for the 2002 amendment. One "proposal" is dated March 15, 2002, the other June 5, 2002. The dispute is: Which proposal did the council vote on?"Make no mistake that before they are adopted by council vote, they are both nothing more than "proposals" whether they say "draft" or anything else on them. Accordingly, to discuss what the amendment was in 2002, they must be referred to as the "March Proposal" or the "June Proposal."Recap: 1 Plan (1984); 3 Amendments (1989, 1991, 2002). Regarding the above 2002 amendment, 2 "Proposals" - March and June.If anyone is not using these terms, that person is using the wrong terms and making the matter too confusing to talk about. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 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] Re: The Plan
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, charlie leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that makes it pretty easy to understand. That's why I term them versions of the PLAN. Both the March 15 and June 5 versions have the earlier dates on them, so we are not confusing. What is confusing is how a version of THE PLAN that was on the city website, sold to hundreds and submitted to two or more agencies of the state for permits and grants is suddenly disavowed. Moreover, we are now being told that three years ago everyone was told that the June version coud not be the plan. While I am still searching for what is exactly the truth (and I assume that that will not be found until there are supeonas) what I do know is that if ALL that the city (through Aaron) says is true, we have a huge amount of incompetence, starting with the redevelopment attorney. You simply cannot color it any other way. And Tom, as you said to me personally, all of this found at the exact moment someone (me) says that you may be able to get a few bucks to allow them to build C-8 up again. It is simply not clear WHAT the city's position is regarding the rebuilding of C-8 now that it has to be demolished even in light of (if) the March 15 version (with amendments) is the official plan. That is why I have sent a letter to Reidy and councilmembers that the city and the council individually go on the record with their position(s). I have also asked that Aaron go on the record in explaining this morass. I will also submit that and other requests on the record at tomorrow's council meeting. What I am trying to do is build a record for investigation. We'll get it clear once and for all with no wriggle room. As far as I am concerned those days are over in AP. If you think all I am doing is posting here and speaking at council meetings, you don't know me. 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: The Plan
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There will be a public input period. Then the DEP will rule, and I'm predicting they rule in favor of the 10 and 16 story C8 building. I doubt there will be public hearings or input again. It will all be smoothed over without the public. But there will be a record. Everyone is responsible for their actions. No passes. 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] New Yahoo Group
Tom, You are bing referred to on the new group. I don't look forward to being a referee, but I also don't like someone not having their say. 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: The Plan
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there is very little difference between the March and June proposals, this will all be over quickly. The DEP will re-review the portions of the March proposal that are different than the June proposal. There will be a public input period. Then the DEP will rule, and I'm predicting they rule in favor of the 10 and 16 story C8 building. That's really all there is to it. Doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Not the point and you know it. The point is assuming that the plan does not allow rebuilding if demolished, then an amendment would be needed. Something (whether tangible or intangible) could be received in return. But what did occur is that Aaron says that the June version, which is explicit, is not what was adopted and the one that was, March version, doesn't say that. Of course it also says that. Aaron is a cheerleader for the developer. You cannot admit that publically Tom, I understand that. I will not judge you for it as long as you do not defend what was done. But if you defned it, then I have to criticize you for knowing what side yur bread is buttered on. 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: The Plan
Since there is very little difference between the March and June proposals, this will all be over quickly. The DEP will re-review the portions of the March proposal that are different than the June proposal. There will be a public input period. Then the DEP will rule, and I'm predicting they rule in favor of the 10 and 16 story C8 building. That's really all there is to it. Doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans in the long run. 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: The Plan
I believe there has to be a public input period by law. There never was any on the March proposal (at least on the terms that are different than the June proposal). It may not necessarily be a public hearing with a microphone (although it may be) but there will certainly be a public input period, even if it is one whereby people are given the opportunity to write to the DEP. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There will be a public input period. Then the DEP will rule, and I'm predicting they rule in favor of the 10 and 16 story C8 building. I doubt there will be public hearings or input again. It will all be smoothed over without the public. But there will be a record. Everyone is responsible for their actions. No passes. 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: New Yahoo Group
I saw that already. Two posts with insults about me from him and I'm not even on the group. I'm not going to put your new group through that. No one wants to read it, particularly me. Thanks for the heads up though. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, You are bing referred to on the new group. I don't look forward to being a referee, but I also don't like someone not having their say. 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: Digest Number 1505
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, traderdube [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really do not understand the anguish over the C-8 building and the plan that was filed, albeit he wrong plan. There is no anquish over the building or the site itself. What the anguish is about is either the criminality or incompetence of some in, or representing, the city as illustrated by this latest episode. Where there's smoke, there's typically fire. 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: The Plan
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to criticize you for knowing what side yur bread is buttered on. Puhlze! It isn't exactly a blockbuster appointment like Ansell or the Board of Ed attorney has. It's comparatively small. I didn't miss a meal before I was hired 2 years ago, and I won't miss a meal if I don't have it later. 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: The Plan
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe there has to be a public input period by law. There never was any on the March proposal (at least on the terms that are different than the June proposal). But there was public hearings and planning board review which were submitted to he city on April 26 and which ultimately led to the adoption. Unless you meant to say it the other way around (differences between June and March), but that would assume that DEP keeps the June and the city adopts it. No, I assume that that what the city contends is the plan will be substituted for what DEP has. Since the city contends that already went for review, none else may be needed. That is why I assume Aaron contends the June version could not be the 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: The Plan - buttering bread
Aaron is a cheerleader for the developer. You cannot admit that publicly Tom, I understand that. I will not judge you for it as long as you do not defend what was done. But if you defend it, then I have to criticize you for knowing what side your bread is buttered on. Hold on there Dan, judging the purported Tom is my territory and when it comes to buttering bread both PT and Aaron are in danger of drowning in the stuff. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there is very little difference between the March and June proposals, this will all be over quickly. The DEP will re-review the portions of the March proposal that are different than the June proposal. There will be a public input period. Then the DEP will rule, and I'm predicting they rule in favor of the 10 and 16 story C8 building. That's really all there is to it. Doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Not the point and you know it. The point is assuming that the plan does not allow rebuilding if demolished, then an amendment would be needed. Something (whether tangible or intangible) could be received in return. But what did occur is that Aaron says that the June version, which is explicit, is not what was adopted and the one that was, March version, doesn't say that. Of course it also says that. Aaron is a cheerleader for the developer. You cannot admit that publically Tom, I understand that. I will not judge you for it as long as you do not defend what was done. But if you defned it, then I have to criticize you for knowing what side yur bread is buttered on. 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] Tomorrow's City Council
If you can make it, try to attend tomorrow's city council meeting. I will be calling on the council to fire the city's redevelopment attorney, Jim Aaron. Of course I will be polite enough to ask him to resign first. I will be presenting evidence to show a clear case of conflict of interest, and incompetence at best. 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: The Plan
I'm not talking about planning board public hearing - we both agree that did happen. I'm talking about DEP public hearing. That will have to be re-done when they consider for the first time the March proposal (instead of the June proposal). However, it will likely be limited to just the portion where the 2 proposals differ. Once the City re-submits (they probably already have) the DEP will announce the public input. They will consider the matter and approve or disapprove. If they approve, nothing really has changed. That's why I assert this whole thing won't amount to a hill of beans, except for some lost time to build the Esperanza while we deal with this clerical error. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe there has to be a public input period by law. There never was any on the March proposal (at least on the terms that are different than the June proposal). But there was public hearings and planning board review which were submitted to he city on April 26 and which ultimately led to the adoption. Unless you meant to say it the other way around (differences between June and March), but that would assume that DEP keeps the June and the city adopts it. No, I assume that that what the city contends is the plan will be substituted for what DEP has. Since the city contends that already went for review, none else may be needed. That is why I assume Aaron contends the June version could not be the 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/
Re: [AsburyPark] Re: The Plan
1984 plan doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans in the long run? 22 years, so what is your definition of the long run Tommy? - Original Message - From: bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:14 PM Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: The Plan Since there is very little difference between the March and June proposals, this will all be over quickly. The DEP will re-review the portions of the March proposal that are different than the June proposal. There will be a public input period. Then the DEP will rule, and I'm predicting they rule in favor of the 10 and 16 story C8 building. That's really all there is to it. Doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Yahoo! Groups Links 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: The Plan
I wasn't referring to the plan there. What won't amount to a hill of beans is the current hand-wringing over the mix up between the March and June proposals. Nothing is going to come of it but the Esperanza construction being put on hold for a few weeks. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, David J. Mieras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1984 plan doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans in the long run? 22 years, so what is your definition of the long run Tommy? - Original Message - From: bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:14 PM Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: The Plan Since there is very little difference between the March and June proposals, this will all be over quickly. The DEP will re-review the portions of the March proposal that are different than the June proposal. There will be a public input period. Then the DEP will rule, and I'm predicting they rule in favor of the 10 and 16 story C8 building. That's really all there is to it. Doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Yahoo! Groups Links 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] City Council Regular Meeting 11-2-05
04:00 pm City Council Executive Session 06:00 pm City Council Work Session 07:00 pm City Council Regular Meeting file cannot be opened at this time. Are you interested if C-8 if rebuilt or should that block follow the rest of the redevelopment plan. Meetings:11-16-05 Wed. Mon, Nov 14 Tomorrow: . City Council Mon, Nov 14 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.
