--- 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 int
--- 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 fo
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
--- 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 dict
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, "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
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 he
--- 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
--- 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
> pointe
--- 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
--- 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:
> >
> 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:
http
--- 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
> mun
--- 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 t
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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,
--- 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.
>
> Fi
"Whether or not money was paid for the development rights, they, and
Carabetta's interest in the contract was an ASSET of the debtor and
thus, protected by the Court. The Court administers the sale of the
assets out which the City's liens would have been satisfied, either in
whole or in part."
I d
--- 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
bankrupt
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
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> When the new council was sworn in 2001, one of the first things
they
> did was put the Carabetta tax liens up for sale. I know that
folks on
> this board don't like to give this council credit and I don't mean
to
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As usual, the city just waited too
> long until Carabetta claimed bankruptcy. That is why you, Tom,
> myself and others suggest to the current council that they shoudl
> have claimed default already. Fool me once, shame
--- 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, unl
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[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. ???
> Werner
Werner,
Look up the pre-emption doctrine. As long as th
--- 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 20
--- 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
>>>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, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether or not money was paid for the development rights, they, and
> Carabetta's interest in the contract was an ASSET of the debtor and
> thus, protected by the Court. I don't whether taxes must be up to
date,
> but i
--- 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 rea
--- 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
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/
--- 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! G
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82"
> wrote:
> > This is incorrect. Not only does the Bankruptcy Judge have
> > jurisdiction, once the Petition in Bankruptcy is filed,
> jurisdiction
> > is exclusive
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.
Ne
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 of
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"
> w
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
> ri
--- 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 ha
--- 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. T
--- 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
> ri
--- 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, "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
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "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:
>
> 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
--- 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 credito
48 matches
Mail list logo
