Just a few posts ago Werner you made the point (once again, as you have to me many times) that I shouldn't disagree with you on land use issues because you are well studied in it and I am not (at least according to you I'm not).
I posted that that was an egotistical standard. I would never pull rank based upon who I am or what I've read - I'm either right or wrong regardless of my studies. You countered that it wasn't egotistical, and even said of me and a legal opinion I might give (apparently to clarify the rule on challenging another's expertise): "Tom, If I were discussing a legal issue with you, and I came to some conclusions or opinion without knowing all the relevant information I would welcome you pointing me in the right direction. You are an attorney and know more about the law than I do. I accept that." Well I gave you a legal opinion, and look below at the post you left in response. You completely disagree with my legal analysis, even though I pointed you in the right direction. So I'm trying to get a handle on this rule of yours. Are we not allowed to come to a different conclusion than any person with expertise in an area, or are we just not allowed to come to a different conclusion when dealing with your expertise? Please advise. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Werner asks: > > > > "What's your legal opinion on this?" > > > > It's about time I told you, friend. The parties to a contract are > > free to amend it once, twice or a million times if they bilaterally > > agree to do so. They can throw the whole thing out and start over > if > > they bilaterally agree to do so. > > > > Not so in our case, the taxpayers are a party to the plan and the > contract. > > Standard contract law does not apply, this is a public body engaged > in a redevelopment project. Municipal Land Use Law, and NJ > Redevelopment Law are the governing statutes. > > A redevelopment contract must follow and implement the adopted > redevelopment plan. If a change is desired, the plan has to be > amended first. That is done through a standard process of public > hearings. Then the contract is amended. > > It's done this way so that the interests of the third party, the > taxpayers, are protected. In our case, a contact (the MOU) was > negotiated absent any public scrutiny or input. The terms of which > violated the existing plan in force. > > Thanks for your opinion above. > > Werner ------------------------ 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/
