--- In [email protected], "Tyler, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Without the
> unreasonable clause the developer is well positioned to hold the City
> hostage under a scenario such as the one Warner just brought up.
It's one
> of a million examples where the agreement does not come up to even the
> lowest standards of legal protection
Exactly the point of my prior posts. I was not trying to be a devil's
advocate, but am continually involved in cases like this where the
meaning is unclear. In fact, I see tons of litgation where it is clear,
but that still doesn;t stop the litigation. I reiterate my much ealrier
posts that this is one of the most, if the pinnacle, poorly worded
agreements I have seen. Boy do we need a redevelopment authority.
Partners could tie this city up in its own intenstines with this
agreement. I for one would not be proud of approving this agreement and
bringing it to fruition. I certainly would not my involvement in it one
of my campaign platforms. The people who endorse the incumbents and who
plan to vote for them should not do so blindly and really look at the
issues brought up here. I find it hard to fathom what they have done to
balance the scales in their favor in these peoples' minds. They owe it
to themselves and this city to focus on the issues we raise in earnest
before May 10. My absentee ballot is in already. Good luck all.
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/
