Thursday, October 7, 2010

Clarification on Reporter's Notes for Oct. 6, 2010

There is a comment posted now to the council meeting report below, to clarify some passages in last night's council report. During the public portion, Rita Marano's statement regarding the loss of tax rateables, that there was "nothing wrong", referred to the state of the apartment building before it was torn down. The way I took down her words, it sounded like she thought it was a good idea to tear down the apartments. Not so.

During the council meeting last night, Asbury Radio asked the City's attorney for the waterfront redevelopment, Tom Hastie, for a figure on the amount of tax income the City has lost due to the number of lot improvements that have been removed by iStar Financial, since it repossessed the properties from Asbury Partners last November (2009).  However, Hastie said, "I don't track revenue, so I have no idea."
Asbury Radio is pursuing other avenues to obtain a reliable number for the amount of tax dollars Asbury Park will not be getting to meet the 2010 budget this year, due to these demolitions. The deadline for removing improvements from lots, which lowers the value of the property for tax purposes, was October 1, 2010, which might help to explain the flurry of demolition activity residents have observed.

Further down in my report, there is a reference to streets being vacated, removed. There was another location given for the section of St. James Place, which I didn't get down in my notes; and so it ends with the word and... The reference to Sewell was that Sewell Avenue is to be vacated in addition to St. James Place.

No comments: