--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... You also fail to
see that the city did not have to make a new plan since Partners
reserved its rights under the 1991 plan.
Dan, I do not fail to see anything, I've been here and participated
in civic affairs for over
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No Warner, the Trustee agrees to the sale with parties agreeing to
the MOU. It later went to the Planning Board and the Council, etc.,
and a new Redevelopment Agreement completely replaced the MOU, so
the integrity
Since I've been amrketing the Railroad Plaza at the opposite corner,
I've spoken to easily over 500 investors. Easily. Block of 902
Springwood as well.
You have 2 problems here - as is now.
Crime and Drugs.
There is no reason that section can not, and has not, been developed.
Time is
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All one needed to do was to get the waterfront out of
litgation. A master developer was not needed.
Carabetta owed the City over $12 million in taxes (about half of one
year's budget at the time). Carabetta's creditors
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Carabetta owed the City over $12 million in taxes (about half of
one
year's budget at the time). Carabetta's creditors were owed a
fortune.
If I recall correctly the price tag the Bankruptcy Judge put on it
to
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny dfsavgny@ wrote:
Don't forhet that it was a Conn. Judge not a NJ Judge. Which makes a
big difference. That would still be in court. Carabretta held all the
cards except
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Such luminaries as the State of New Jersey, Hovnanian, Westminster
Realty Corp., The Applied Cos.,Berman Development Co. and Kushner
Companies each looked into it and took a pass.
Can you be more specific about
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forhet that it was a Conn. Judge not a NJ Judge. Which makes a
big difference. That would still be in court. Carabretta held all the
cards except for the tax liens, that's the only card the city had and
they sold
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The ASSUMPTION that the development rights were properly
protected
under the bankruptcy is where the problem is. The City had always
maintained that Carrabetta had defaulted and thus no longer had
those
rights.
A
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, I am uncertain whether the city could have simply
condemned the development rights or was that trumped by the
Bankruptcy Court. I don't think it was tried.
The second part of your answer is correct. The
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... They don't have to make money. That's not their
purpose. We could have purely civic buildings that cost tens of
millions to rehabiliatate. That's the REAL purchase price Partners
was supposed to pay in order to have the
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The ASSUMPTION that the development rights were properly
protected under the bankruptcy is where the problem is. The City
had always
maintained that Carrabetta had defaulted and thus no longer had
those
rights.
A
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The City wasn't weak, it's argument was. Do your really think the
Bankruptcy Judge would let one creditor (Asbury Park) take back
the
whole asset without Carabetta's other creditors getting
something?
It doesn't
Werner the next time I'm involved in litigation with a Brnkruptcy
I'm going to use your laws. The laws the Bankruptcy Court makes me
use are much tougher. ;-)
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82
1. On the Cab deal, one may say there were some back room deals. Many
professionals walked out of various meetings, muttering to themselves
they couldn't beleive it or they would take what they were told to
their graves. End of an old story. Now what?
2. The city, over the years, had enough
Interesting to watch in Fed bankruptcy court in trenton, 2 bidders,
their 2 attorneys.
One attorney picks up his/her phone. The other attorney's phone rings.
There you sit, millions in real estate up for bid, 2 offers.
Any other offers?
Nope.
Then you leave wondering.
A wink, a blink.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 bluebishop82@
wrote:
This is incorrect. Not only does the Bankruptcy Judge have
jurisdiction, once the Petition in Bankruptcy is filed,
jurisdiction
is exclusive to
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, oakdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. Looking back, it all looks like a great deal - but at that point
in
time they did what they did.
I assume you meant to say DOESN'T look like a great deal or that it was
a great deal for Partners.
Yahoo! Groups
It was a deal for SASS.
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/
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On these two issues the following questions pop out. Why were the
taxes never requiered to be up to date by the trustee, Why did the
City never foreclosed for non-payment, Why was a paper contract for
which no money
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, oakdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was a deal for SASS.
So much so that Marty Sass couldn't beleive he got the entire
waterfront so cheap and said so in a magazine article. I loved giving
that article to the Council. Sass crows that even his own real estate
I Keep asserting that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction over
local land use and no one seems to be realizing the significance of
that. ???
Today, after all is said on done, it doesn't matter. That is, unless
there were some other law that enabled this to get done.
Yahoo! Groups
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's only an asset if it's in force, which goes back to the
dysfunction
of the City not forcing the claim of default. (which was pretty
obvious
when reading the contract). There were no rights to be held in
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On these two issues the following questions pop out.
Why were the taxes never requiered to be up to date by the trustee,
Why did the City never foreclosed for non-payment,
Werner,
When the new council was sworn in 2001, one
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, oakdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I Keep asserting that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction over
local land use and no one seems to be realizing the significance of
that. ???
Today, after all is said on done, it doesn't matter. That is, unless
there
what matters now is to get this headache moving or out - not
renegotiating at the 23rd hour.
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
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that is a separate issue and I don't think that anyone,
including the Bankruptcy Court, suggests that it could dictate local
land use.
But that's exactly what happened. Fishman walked away from the
bankruptcy
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that's exactly what happened. Fishman walked away from the
bankruptcy with the right to build condos in places where, by zoning,
Carrabetta only had the right to build
commercial/retail/entertainment.
Fishman
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, oakdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting to watch in Fed bankruptcy court in trenton, 2
bidders,
their 2 attorneys.
One attorney picks up his/her phone. The other attorney's phone
rings.
There you sit, millions in real estate up for bid, 2 offers.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Skip Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if a promise to perform, in this case reneged on, satisfies
consideration, my understanding is that unpaid taxes, trump all other
claims; if these points weren't made I can't help wonder what fishy
lawyer acted
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Bankruptcy Turstee, with the approval of
the Judge, gets to dispose of the contract. Local land use law is
irrelevant.
What do you think, a Federal Judge as to appear before the Asbury
Park
Planning Board
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, oakdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what matters now is to get this headache moving or out - not
renegotiating at the 23rd hour.
Exactly. What are they negotiating? What you want is restoration fo the
waterfront (they way you want it) within a certain time
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Woah, now there's a stretch, that local land use law is irrelevent.
Local land use law and zoning are the defacto regulations for land
development and cannot be changed except by appropriate process of
the
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing trumps federal jurisdiction.
Land use is a unique situation and set of laws the reserve those rights
to the local units.
Werner
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Land use is a unique situation and set of laws the reserve those
rights
to the local units.
You're missing the big picture here. The Court did not intrude on the
city's right to set its own land use.
Yahoo!
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are failing to see the essence here. Local land use is
irrelevant in that it is immaterial to the Court. It does not and
will not try to affect local land use.
Dan, The MOU dictating land use in Asbury Park came
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan, The MOU dictating land use in Asbury Park came directly from the
bankrupcty proceedings and rubber stamped by the Conn Judge.
Yes, in the end run the City is responsible, but the City has always
pointed back to
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is what the City agreed to, not what the Court dictated. See,
the
Court allowed the City to determine what the land use should be.
Of course the court did not dictate the land use, but the City used
the cover of the
That's absolutely expected Werner. Dan is right about this. The
Trustee is trying to sell off an asset for the benefit of the
creditors. Remember - the Trustee OWNS the redevelopment rights at
the point in time you are referencing, not Carabetta or the City.
If the MOU induces the sale so
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Would of, could of, should of didn't, so what's your advice now? We
know Dans.
That's absolutely expected Werner. Dan is right about this. The
Trustee is trying to sell off an asset for the benefit of the
I thinks it's you guys that are not understanding this, and keep
lumping the CONRACT (redevelopers agreement) together with the PLAN
(zoning).
I understand and agree that the trustee can hold/sell the CONTRACT
and get the best price.
The trustee has no juresdiction over the PLAN (zoning), nor
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, wernerapnj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The trustee has no juresdiction over the PLAN (zoning), nor can the
trustee modify the cintract in violation of the PLAN (zoning).
Agreed. It was the city that allegedly acted illegal by letting land
use be dictated by
No Warner, the Trustee agrees to the sale with parties agreeing to
the MOU. It later went to the Planning Board and the Council, etc.,
and a new Redevelopment Agreement completely replaced the MOU, so
the integrity of Land Use Law was protected. If the Developer and
the City never agreed to a
43 matches
Mail list logo
