ASBURY PARK DEVELOPERS 1,000 DAYS IN DEFAULT City Fails to Force Compliance; Gov. Corzine Asked To Step In
Preservation advocates today denounced Asbury Park developers for defaulting by 1,000 days on an agreement to care for protected wall murals, and urged New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine to step in and resolve the dispute.
In an April 26 letter, advocates said the care of three large protected wall murals, including one famous since 1973 for its association with Bruce Springsteen, has been "deliberately and maliciously" ignored despite pressure from both the State and the Asbury Park City Council. Efforts by municipal officials to compel compliance, they said, have failed.
"A one-day default is a day too long," said Bob Crane, president of the non-profit preservation group Save Tillie. "To default by one thousand days is a thousand times worse outrageous and deceitful and appalling."
The default, he said, "derives not through miscommunication or benign neglect, but instead from deliberate and malicious intent. After 1,000 days of trying, we no longer believe any resolution is possible within Asbury Park."
At issue is the fate of three protected murals. Negotiations during 2005 between the City of Asbury Park and its waterfront developers resulted in an agreement requiring the murals to be relocated into preservation sheds no later than Aug. 1, 2006. "That deadline arrived," Crane said, "and now, as of today, has been blatantly ignored for one thousand days."
Preservation and eventual reuse of the murals in a new waterfront building is explicitly required by the State of New Jersey under a waterfront redevelopment permit, issued by the State. The murals are part of a group of 34 protected artifacts removed from Palace Amusements, a National Register of Historic Places complex on the Asbury Park waterfront, prior to its demolition in 2004.
The Palace was a place frequently used by Bruce Springsteen as a lyrical reference point (4th of July Asbury Park (Sandy), Tunnel of Love, and Born To Run), as a photographic backdrop, and as a featured image on memorabilia and videos. Images of the Palace, including the murals, also appeared in numerous movies and were prominent featured in several episodes to the hit television series The Sopranos. In 1998, a group of concerned citizens formed Save Tillie, a non-profit organization and registered New Jersey charity, after an announcement that the Palace was to be demolished.
Two of the murals depict the historic amusement arcade's bumper cars. The third, known as Tillie, was background for the first nationally and internationally distributed publicity photo for Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, and rapidly became the most recognizable icon of Asbury Park to music fans around the world.
On March 26, 2004, the State of New Jersey directed officials and developers in Asbury Park to preserve Palace Amusements artifacts and incorporate them in a new building that will eventually be constructed on the Palace lots.
On April 5, 2006, following extensive negotiations between city officials and developers, the Asbury Park City Council passed a resolution requiring relocation of the murals into preservation sheds. Earlier, a nationally known conservator said previous preservation efforts left the murals in danger of decay. The Council resolution set a deadline of Aug. 1, 2006 for completion of the move.
Crane said "the deadline has not been fulfilled; instead, Asbury Partners has left the murals unmoved for 1,000 days beyond the deadline, and the City has been unable to compel developers" to live up to their agreements.
"If this situation is allowed to stand," Crane wrote, "what legal right or moral authority will the City of Asbury Park have to compel any other citizen to live up to a negotiated agreement with the City? What authority will the State of New Jersey have to enforce the conditions of future permits? And what does a 1,000 day default, left unresolved by a municipal government, say about respect for the law? What it seems to say is that if you are a developer operating in Asbury Park, you are immune from adherence to both the letter and the spirit of the law. Respect for the law means acting with deference and esteem, and a sense that the law has value over and above its immediate application. None of that is evident in the actions of the holders of the Asbury Park permit. There is, especially on the part of the developers, an intentional disregard for the law that spirals into a disrespect for the rights of others."
Save Tillie cited these steps taken by City officials during the 1,000 days of default: (1) The Asbury Park City Council approved an interim storage location for the murals.
(2) City of Asbury Park Planning Director Don Sammet repeatedly, but without success, pressured Asbury Partners to live up to the requirements of the City Council Resolution and the State permit by moving the murals to the interim storage location.
(2) City of Asbury Park City Manager Terance Reidy, in June 23, 2008 correspondence with Save Tillie, said that "Don (Sammet) and I reminded the (City C)ouncil that Asbury Partners are in default on this issue."
(4) City Councilmember Jim Keady openly pressured Asbury Partners at a Sept. 4, 2008 meeting of the Asbury Park City Council to complete the relocation of the murals.
"Yet despite these actions and others, it is plainly evident that the City of Asbury Park has failed in its efforts to require Asbury Partners to live up to its legal obligations," Crane said, noting that the City has both the legal authority and specific tools, including mediation, to compel compliance.
Save Tillie cited these steps taken by developers during the 1,000 days of default:
(1) Developers promised the State, the City Planning Director, the City Manager, the City Council, and others that the murals would be moved. Developers even prefabricated replacement sheds two years ago, but have not put them into use at the new storage site.
(2) In one instance, the developers sought bids on moving the murals. The bid document was written in such a way that had it been followed, the murals would have been destroyed during the move. When the winning bidder discovered the flaws, he withdrew his bid.
(3) In December 2007, developers offered Save Tillie a deal. Let them off the hook on the requirements of the State permit, developers said, and they'd build something Save Tillie would like "in the spirit" of the original murals. Save Tillie refused.
(4) In late October 2008, during a meeting called by City of Asbury Park Planning Director Don Sammet, Keith Ortner, representing the developers, promised to present to the City and to Save Tillie a plan for moving the murals "within two weeks." No plan has ever been received.
"When the holder of a State permit thumbs its nose at the State for 1,000 days, and when the holder of a State permit deliberately defaults on a legal obligation for 1,000 days, there can be no doubt that that entity has no respect for the operation of government, and intends to operate without respect for the requirements of law," Crane wrote in the letter.
Save Tillie also cited these steps taken by State officials during the 1,000 days of default:
(1) The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection blocked Asbury Partners from attempting to relocate the murals to a site DEP deemed "unacceptable." In plain language, DEP uncovered an attempt by developers to relocate the murals into a high velocity wave zone on the Asbury Park beach, where they would face destruction from a major ocean storm. "The Department's action was timely, and appropriate." Crane wrote.
(2) DEP also vowed by letter of Sept. 6, 2006 that it would "continue to ensure that the permit is complied with." Unfortunately, Crane said, "DEP's vow today rings hollow. At no point during the 1,000 days of default has the Department used its enforcement power to insist that the murals be moved to the new location. As a result, the Palace condition contained within the State permit remains violated."
By law, the State of New Jersey has the authority to take action against those who violate the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act by direct order, civil action, or civil administrative penalty of up to $25,000 for each violation, with each day during which a violation continues constituting an additional separate and distinct offense.
|