--- In [email protected], "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/
