I asked the city why the Plan was removed from its website. The 
answer I received raises more questions in my mind (which I posed to 
them), as I am sure it will in yours. It appears that when I cited 
pages from the Plan (which I obtained from the city website) 
relating to the C-8 site, the city could not find the same 
references in its "official" copy of the Adopted Plan. The cover 
page of the Plan from its website, and I believe the one from which 
reference, is dated June 5, 2002 (Amended), which coincides with the 
official date of adoption by the City.

The City now maintains that that copy of the Plan is not that which 
was adopted by the Council, and thus, had it removed from its 
website. I might also add that it is my understanding that this is 
the same version which has been supplied to the public in hardcopy 
and for intents and purposes, has been portrayed as the Adopted Plan.

Pursuant to the City, the plan that was "officially" adopted by the 
Mayor and Council on 6/5/02 has a cover page with a date of DRAFT, 
March 15,2002 and a latest amended date of "to be determined," 
whatever that is supposed to mean. That is almost the same language 
used for the purchase price of the Triangle which was actually 
conveyed almost 3 years ago with the price to the City still yet to 
be determined.

The City also maintains that the Official Adopted Plan will also 
contain all of the amendments adopted to the plan by Mayor and 
Council by ordinance numbers 2607 and 2729, and that WHEN it finds a 
copy of the Official Adopted Plan, it will be posted to its website.

Now before I, or anyone, jumps to conclusions of malfeasance, let me 
say this: Even if the Official Adopted Plan (when found) is 
identical to the Adopted Plan which we all thought was "official", 
the City, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, "has some splainin to do."

I would like to know who prepared the Amended June 5, 2002 Plan and 
for what purpose? This is the version of the Plan we were told 
represented what the City adopted as a result of the input, 
suggestions and testimony of the Planning Board and the public by 
means of a series of meetings. This is the version of the Adopted 
Plan that the public was given in both electronic and hardcopy 
format.

I have heard suggestions that it was commissioned by Asbury Partners 
in response to the changes that were were supposed to be adopted as 
a result of the public meetings and Planning Board input. In fact, 
it is the same version which the city clerk has and until recently, 
assumed was the Adopted Plan as amended by ordinances enacted 
subsequent to 6/5/02. No one can own up to creating this document. 
Now if it turns out that in fact Asbury Partners created it and it 
is touted as being an "official" document, but now IS NOT, I think 
that proves what many of us have been saying, that is, that Asbury 
Partners is the preverbial tail wagging the dog.

If the actual official Official Adopted Plan (whatever that is and 
if ever it is found) differs drastically from what was represented 
as being the Adopte Plan, then there are more serious questions 
about what is actually going on in this city with regard to the 
waterfront development.

Far be it from me to unnecessarily cast suspicion, however, this 
entire process was hatched badly (Weldon) and has done nothing but 
raise further questions along the way. The most simplest part should 
be to say WHAT THE PLAN IS. We can't even say that. I am not making 
this stuff up. I couldn't. Watch the road.






------------------------ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
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/
 




Reply via email to