--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly it was a fine candidate for a turn of the century BB.
This sentence that you wrote - is why people around here can't see
eye to eye, because there is a refusal to concede what the plan is,
and what it isn't.
The
Or, maybe they were there because the fire was on a Sunday and those
folks were covering?
Nay, let's go with your theory. It's more fun.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like Asbury Park Press may have 2 new reporters for Asbury
Park. _MATT
PORIO_
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, bluebishop82 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Redevelopment Plan made a conscious effort to be year-round
and
not seasonal. Daily visitors, not overnight visistors. In fact
the
parking plan was intentionally drawn to discourage the old
fashioned
Title: [AsburyPark] Re: Sale of Belmont and
Atlantic
Tom,
Most people do not have a clue about the specifics of the plan
and will be shocked by the following:
Full property line buildout with 8 story buildings creating
Kingsley Alley.
Miniature sidewalks - for a new Urbanism plan
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Joe D'Andrea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A friend of mine said it best when the plan was being voted on. If
any member of the City Council had property east of Heck/Bergh/Grand
they would not have voted to condemn all by eminent domain.
And there is
Title: Re: [AsburyPark] Re: Sale of Belmont and Atlantic
On 2/27/06 1:58 PM, Joe D'Andrea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom,
Most people do not have a clue about the specifics of the plan and will be shocked by the following:
I think most people would be shocked to discover that they voted
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, dfsavgny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mean that mean-spirited Tom.
I think you and I have evolved a friendship on this board where you
don't have to remind me about stuff like that anymore. You've treated
me very well here for a good long time and I
Tom,
If the plan is not to have BBs in the WRZ, then how come there's no fewer
than four BBs that are either under development or about to open -- including
one who will have the resolution approving their site plan memorialized at
tonight's Planning Board meeting. They are all in the WRZ.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Joe D'Andrea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---
If the plan is not to have BBs in the WRZ, then how come there's no
fewer than four BBs that are either under development or about to
open -- including one who will have the resolution approving their site
At 9:21 PM + 2/27/06, wernerapnj wrote:
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Joe D'Andrea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---
If the plan is not to have BBs in the WRZ, then how come there's no
fewer than four BBs that are either under development or about to
open -- including one who
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Joe D'Andrea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check the map Werner... you of all people know that the WRZ is
divided into two areas. The new BBs are definitely in the WRZ.
~Joe
Thanks Joe, I know it well and the map have been a problem for a long
time for people
But even if the major focus is for year-round living, are you
suggesting that BB's and tourism have no place in AP? I think that is
a mistake, a big one, and it will lead to a never-ending cycle of one
revenue source - residential real estate taxes. And what may I ask has
Partners, the council or
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Skip Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, your absolutism is the primary cause of my referencing you
blind.
You possess a weakness for the least or simplest bit of
justification
for whatever position or argument you deem worthy, meritorious or
13 matches
Mail list logo
