Asbury Park residents press council to sue over waterfront casino; city lawyers urge caution

Dozens of residents at Asbury Parks council meeting urged elected officials to pursue litigation or other aggressive steps to force repairs or reclaim the long-neglected waterfront casino and other historic buildings, while the citys legal advisers said the contractual path is narrow and risky.

"We have an anonymous donor who pledged $100,000," said Charles Latta, who identified himself as a former resident and organizer of a nonprofit fundraising effort. Latta urged the council to accept outside help and consider a buyback if the city could marshal funds.

Mister Marazzini, the attorney representing the city on redevelopment matters, told the assembled crowd that the specific contractual remedy residents referenced — buying back the casino under the 2002 agreement — is not available in the way many speakers described. "My answer to that question is no," he said when asked whether the contracts allow the city to file a complaint to take back the casino for $1,500,000 plus hard costs.

Kevin Stark, the city attorney, described why Justice Solomon issued a follow-up letter after his initial report and said the justices engagement had focused on what remedies would be available if a qualifying obligation could be shown. Stark said Solomon was asked to evaluate available remedies in the event of a default, not to determine whether a default had occurred.

Residents repeatedly pushed back. "Nothing is going to happen if we don't sue," one resident said, arguing the city has been sidelined by developers for years. Others called the 2007 estoppel certificate and the Clark, Kate & Hintz report evidence that the city accepted obligations at closing; the citys counsel responded that the agreements and a later deed must be read together and that the 2002 contract requires a separate agreement on a construction schedule to create the extraordinary buyback remedy.

Speakers offered practical alternatives to immediate litigation. Some urged the council to issue default notices, press state historic-preservation authorities to enforce preservation easements, or pursue tax-credit grants and preservation funding to stabilize Convention Hall and other endangered properties. Helen Vicarra and others said they had private funding pledges and asked whether the city could formally support community-led fundraising or accept letters of credit.

Council members said they were weighing options and pursuing confidential discussions and other measures behind the scenes. Several members said they could support legal action only if they were convinced the city had a viable case and could avoid crippling financial exposure for residents.

The meeting ended with residents asking for more public briefings and a special session to discuss strategy; council members promised to continue exploring both legal and nonlitigation options and to follow up with additional public information as permitted.