Asbury Park residents press council over casino redevelopment, say legal opinion leaves options open

Dozens of Asbury Park residents told the City Council that the city's public summary of retired Justice Lee A. Solomon's letters misstates his findings and obscures whether the city still has legal options to reclaim the historic casino property.

Resident Daniel Schanamayo read passages from council records and a 2004 Clark Caton Hentz report and said the master developer, Asbury Partners, "have defaulted" on required casino rehabilitation work under the 2002 redeveloper agreement. He and other speakers said the Clark Caton Hentz report (a roughly 300-page cost-and-scope document prepared in 2004) estimated about $33.6 million in casino renovation costs that they say were not performed.

The dispute centers on three letters and reports by retired New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Lee A. Solomon, which community advocates asked the city to release. According to multiple speakers, Solomon found that the 2002 redeveloper agreement, not later settlement documents, continues to govern certain casino obligations; he also said he was asked to assume that defaults occurred rather than to determine whether defaults in fact exist. "It is beyond the scope of this letter to evaluate whether such obligations remain," Joshua Oxman quoted from Solomon's report, and speakers said that leaves factual questions to be answered by the city or a court.

Resident Rebecca Rudolph criticized a city press release and an accompanying attorney summary for attributing conclusions to Justice Solomon that, she said, do not appear in his reports. "That's an entirely false attribution to Justice Solomon," Rudolph said, arguing the press release's claim that reclaiming the casino is "not a viable path under the existing agreements" is inconsistent with the text of Solomon's letters and with the Clark report's stated scope of remaining work.

Other commenters — including legal practitioners and longtime civic activists — urged the council to make the Clark Caton Hentz report and all communications transparent, and some pressed the council to request a clarifying opinion from Justice Solomon. One speaker noted a calendar consideration: the Waterfront Redevelopment Agreement (WRA) with Asbury Partners runs through 2032, and a speaker said waiting past that term could create procedural defenses (such as laches) to future litigation.

Council members acknowledged the complexity and history of the redevelopment documents and said they sought the Solomon opinion to clarify legal questions that predate the current council. Several councilors said lawyers and informed residents have read the documents differently and that the matter may ultimately require judicial fact-finding.

The public comment period closed after the extended exchange; no formal council action was taken on the point that night.

What happens next: residents requested a clarified public statement from the city and urged officials to re-examine the Clark Caton Hentz report in light of Justice Solomon's letters. The council indicated it would accept additional legal clarification if provided.