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 property," he read from the contract. That clause, counsel said, reduces the city's leverage compared with earlier agreements and complicates efforts to force broader rehabilitation.

Arziti described three concrete alternatives: condemnation, litigation, and state-sponsored funding. He summarized condemnation as a legal process in which the city must first negotiate in good faith, fund the anticipated acquisition (for example, by bond ordinance), obtain appraisals, and deposit funds into court; only then can title change hands. "You will not know how much the property is worth until you go through all of this process," he warned, noting the risk that commissioners or a jury could set a much higher award than the city's estimate.

On litigation, Arziti emphasized practical limits: discovery, motions, depositions and high expert costs. He warned that lawsuits can take many years and do not stop the physical deterioration of property while they proceed. "If you have on the other side a deep-pocketed defendant," he said, "you have the tendency — to wear out the other party."

State funding offers a different route. The council and city staff control a $13 million subgrant for limited repairs to the Paramount Theater that must be spent by Dec. 31 this year, Arziti said; the first phase (a structural investigation) is complete and construction (waterproofing and structural stabilization) could start if the city and M finalize an addendum. Separately, Madison Asbury Retail has pending applications with the New Jersey Economic Development Authority for preservation and cultural-arts tax credits (one application discussed as roughly $75 million under the CAF—9 program). Those programs require equity from recipients, multi-step approvals, and public-access commitments, but if approved they are the most immediate large-scale financing option.

Council next steps and uncertainty: The city attorney told the council it will press for schedules, project descriptions and exhibits from M and seek independent review of competing contract interpretations (some speakers, including a private attorney in the audience, contended the 2010 agreement may not cover the casino building). Arziti urged realism about costs and time: "These are the realities of condemnation" and litigation, he said, and noted that the EDA tax-credit route is "the clearest and most present opportunity" if the credits are awarded.

The presentation closed with questions and a public-comment period in which dozens of residents urged aggressive council action to preserve the city's historic facilities. The council later voted unanimously to endorse the tax-credit applications and to require M to provide repair plans and schedules (see "Council action" article for vote details). The city also promised an independent legal review of whether certain waterfront parcels remain governed by earlier agreements.

What's next: The city is pressing M for specific project documents (project description, schedule of values, and a construction schedule) that would be attached as exhibits to a subgrant addendum the council could vote on as soon as the next meeting if the documents are submitted and found satisfactory. If those items are not provided or work does not commence, the council said it would consider returning grant funds to the state and pursuing other remedies.