The Full Redevelopment Plan is Available on the and at city hall, however there are many amendments to it. For some reason most of the requests made by citizens never become  amendments to the plan. We're hoping to see this change. For example, the show, partially transcribed below, revealed that A.P.'s plan lacks an important, commonly used clause.

Partial Transcript of July 17, 2003 show on Eminent Domain


The principals on this tape: Attorney Ed McKirdy of the firm

*McKirdy Riskin, in Morristown, Paul Fernicola, Esq of *Bowe & Fernicola LLC, Red Bank, John J Curley, Esq LLC, of Hoboken, Dorothy Argyros, a retired attorney and activist, whose own Neptune, NJ home is currently subject to eminent domain, host Maureen Nevin and guest co-host Frank DíAlessandro, all of NJ.


This excerpt begins when the discussion has turned to valuing condemned property fairly. Ed McKirdy makes the point that property owners usually receive a price based on an appraisal that uses sales from at least six months ago in estimating the compensation the municipality should pay the property owner.


Host, Maureen Nevin, notes that in Asbury Park the development rights holder is not subject to the same fate as the common home owner. In this case the development rights holder in selling parcels of the waterfront to developers does not use that formula, but rather one that anticipates the future value of the property.


Fernicola:  What I think Maureen is referring to is that here in Asbury Park, where the designated redeveloper is admittedly is not going to develop a single unit, but is entering into contracts with traditional developers and classifying them as sub-developers. (The sub-developers) are required to pay the designated redeveloper a per unit value plus the infrastructure costs for those units.


For example, the current designated redeveloper, the propertyís going to be condemned; theyíre going to use the current zoning thatís in place. But then heís turning around and using the current density under the redevelopment plan to then flip that property to the sub-developer and charging a $75,000 per dwelling unit basis, plus $15,000 per for infrastructure costs and in some cases he wants to buy back at below cost the commercial space thatís going to occupy the first floor.


McKirdy: And thereís no mechanism for the original owner of the property to share in any of that potential. So if the redevelopment process had not taken place youíd get 100%. Obviously there are some benefits to having a redeveloper develop an entire area. But the present system does not adequately compensate the people whose property is being taken.


Nevin: I just canít see the gain in this. Jack (Curley), give us the other perspective.


Curley: Well, Iím going to give you a different perspective. Like I said I donít know anything about Asbury Park. But the agreement that was just described is unlike any redevelopment agreement Iíve ever seen.  Most redevelopment agreements have provisions that prevent the redeveloper from transferring the interest that the developer acquires to the property until heís completed the project. In other words, most agreements have an anti-land speculation provision in them. And, in those instances the redeveloper is actually doing the work on the ground. And what was described to me just now, is that the redeveloper is almost acting as a broker, which is quite different than anything Iíve ever seen in this field.