"I have never in my experience seen such a one-sided agreement. This city did not get the best advice when this was negotiated."
In the real world (outside of Asbury) real estate deals result from compromise, you give some to get some; only under duress does one party give away everything for nothing. Unless of course you fall under the influence of a Terry Weldon, champion of all that is good and righteous, according to the present Asbury council and in particular Kate Melina. As to the city not getting good advice; how could they once they agreed, at who's urging, to let The Fishman pay for James Aaron's expertise. --- In [email protected], "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, this is why the deal AP stinks, because it has few teeth and > relies on laizze faire. Ordinarily, a developer would want, when > conditions are good, to get into the ground as fast as possible and > sell units. Typically, because they have a substantial investment > already in the ground, they do not want to trust future cycles, > However, what you have here is relatively little investment of only > several million dollars on a huge swath of beachfront property. > While it is not a paltry sum, it is relatively minor in comparison > to its actual value. Thus, there is no rush to build, especially > when the developer is not a developer at al but merely a middleman > who flips parcels. In the best of worlds, the deal would have been > constructed with timetables for construction and with a real > powerhouse developer who actually builds and not sells. There would > have been benchmarks for performance, for instance, rehabilitaion of > certain facilities (pavillions, Casino, etc.) prior to various > parcels being turned over for development. In essence, the city gave > APartners a long-term option on our waterfront, an option however, > with no real purchase price.I suspect that a real developer who > could control the entire project, even under the same deal, except > that it had to do the building, would have moved much faster to > realize a return. Remember, they only get a return on selling units > that they can complete. APartners only has to flip the parcels to > realize a return on a relatively small investment. The subdevelopers > are powerless in AP because they can't move it further or faster and > are subject to the whims and desires of the master developer. This > is a real bad deal but I am afraid we are stuck with it. Most in AP > are so desparate for some action that they are afraid to speak out > against this since they think it will stop any development. I > suspect that APartners would like to get a return sooner rather than > later and there are things that the city could do to play hard ball > if they wanted to. I do nothing but read sophisticated documents for > real estate transactions that are the result of negotiations between > two parties each trying to get the best deal. That is apparent in > most documents, which in the end is a compromise. I have never in my > experience seen such a one-sided agreement. This city did not get > the best advice when this was negotiated. > > --- In [email protected], "SkipDragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Someone please tell me just how in hell how government could decide > > whether a replacement use will be a successful venture. > > > > Asbury Partners has no incentive to do anything for another 20+ > years. > > If you give someone a deal for .8% of its development value in > > today's dollars, provide that they need not develop for 30 years; > > you've issued a license for the master thief or developer (you > choose) > > to sit and wait for inflation to further fatten his take. > > > > Additionally should the area to stay "blighted" they have an > > additional sweetener an insurance policy to grab ever more property > > through eminent domain. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Tyler, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Dave: O'Connor also asked whether the government should be > making > > decisions > > > about whether the replacement use will be a successful venture > when the > > > private property is working out for the existing owners. That > > combined with > > > the opportunities for graft and abuse really sway me on the > issue. Like > > > Skip said it may be the Asbury Partners doesn't do anything > because they > > > want the area to stay "blighted" so they will be assured of > obtaining > > > properties by eminent domain and at a better price. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: oakdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:10 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Supreme Court struggles with eminent > domain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this about sums it up: > > > > > > If a city wanted to seize property in order to turn a "Motel 6 > into a > > > Ritz-Carlton, that would be OK?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor > asked. > > > > > > For that matter, you might as well blow down every oceanfront > > > property and put up condos, amusements etc up and down the > entire > > > coast. You could pack more people vertically. Or you could go > along > > > the Navesink and blow down some multizillon $ homes because they > > > should all be marinas and little fishing villages.... > > > > > > There's a real fine line. The big question is how do you replace > > > someones HOME when they are quite content with where they live- > and > > > sometimes the blight is contributed to not by the act of the > owner - > > > rather then the town/city or changing times? > > > > > > Lastly, what will stop cities or towns from "creating" blight. > As we > > > have seen, it's not real hard to get what you want done or to be > > > done. > > > > > > You just need a paper bag. > > > ): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links 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/
