--- 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
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
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,
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
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
--- 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
--- 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
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
--- 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
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
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
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:
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
