Asbury Park redevelopment counsel outlines limited remedies: condemnation, costly litigation, and state funding as primary paths

Redevelopment counsel to Asbury Park laid out the legal framework the city faces in restoring its deteriorating waterfront buildings and said the most immediate avenues for repairs are limited: condemnation (eminent domain), litigation, or winning state funding through grants and tax credits.

"My name is Joe Arziti," the city's special redevelopment counsel told the council and a packed public meeting, then reviewed key documents that together shape rights and obligations for the waterfront: the 2002 waterfront redevelopment plan, a 2002 Asbury Partners land-disposition agreement, a 2004 SHPO historic-preservation easement, and a 2010 redeveloper agreement with Madison Asbury Retail (M). The 2011 arbitration decision was also cited as part of the legal history.

Why it matters: The 2010 agreement, Arziti said, narrowed M's obligations by tying most required work to limited lists in exhibits (referred to in the presentation as "O" and "P"). After those limited improvements are completed, "M shall have no obligation to perform any further construction or renovation work in or to the convention hall…