--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "maubddny" wrote:
>
> If you are forced to live next to an eyesore, it wouldn't make a
> difference to you if the perpetrator was a "big fish" or your beloved
> Werner. Both should punished to the fullest extent of the law and
> fined repeatedly until the sit
Oh lighten up. There is a major difference. Werner's property is in no means
the eyesore
that the Metro property is. And the Metro property is a wart on the
redevelopment. It
looks like shit and brings the whole area down.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "maubddny" wrote:
>
> If you are fo
If you are forced to live next to an eyesore, it wouldn't make a
difference to you if the perpetrator was a "big fish" or your beloved
Werner. Both should punished to the fullest extent of the law and
fined repeatedly until the situation is rectified.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Ja
So, if in fact they can be fined, why aren't they? Wasn't there talk a while
back about them
wrapping the site in something? Currently, it looks like crap. When is this
city going to
grow some balls and start coming down on the bigger players rather then going
after
people that obviously love
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Pitzer" wrote:
>
> Can Metro Homes be fined for leaving us an eyesore, even if it's considered
> temporary?
> It's been sitting there for a year, and despite improvements around it, it
> still makes the
whole
> area look like crap, and they aren't maint
