By Sue Gioulis, Blogfinger staff based on a BF photograph from July, 2016.
By Jack Bredin, researcher and reporter @Blogfinger and Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
At the Township Committee meeting of May 22, 2017, the Township Attorney Gene Anthony finally stopped making excuses for the stalled North End project with an announcement saying, “Mr. Gannon has an agreement with the new redeveloper and WAVE.”
William Gannon III is the spokesman, the leader, and the lawyer for WAVE, the mysterious group behind the North End Redevelopment Project (NERP) which has been languishing since 2008.
Jack Bredin went to the microphone to ask Anthony, “How can WAVE select a new redeveloper? You become a redeveloper when you sign a Redeveloper’s Agreement with the Township, and WAVE has never signed its own contract with Neptune Township.”
Anthony replied, “That may be true, but the Township Committee designated WAVE as a redeveloper.”
Yikes, talk about evading a question!
Let’s take a look at some background information regarding the term “redeveloper” as it pertains to the North End project. And let’s also pay close attention to the words “Committee,” “WAVE,” “Association” (i.e. OGCMA,) “Redeveloper’s Agreement,” and “developer.” And let’s look for misuse of the English language that would distract from the truth.
On June 9, 2008, the Township Committee adopted Resolution #292 designating Wesley Atlantic Village Enterprises LLC (WAVE) and the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA or Association) as Co-Redevelopers of the NERP.
Resolution # 292 said “Whereas the Association conducted an extensive process to seek and interview potential developers for the property, and….
“Whereas, the Association selected Wesley Atlantic Village Enterprises, LLC as the developer of the property.” (Note that the word “redeveloper” is not used in these two quotes)*
We believe that illegal procedures were used to get this project going in a direction that suited the developers and not the people of Ocean Grove.
To begin with, the selection process should have been conducted by the Township, not the Association, including advertising a request for proposals followed by a public bidding process as required by law.
The Township Committee allowed the Association to usurp the Committee’s legal authority to select a redeveloper. In a redevelopment project, the Township is in charge and should be the entity that selects a redeveloper.
In addition, the resolution confuses the issue (? intentionally) by twice referring to “developers” instead of “redevelopers.” These words are not synonymous.
So, from the beginning, the whole process has been tainted, and now, at the May 22, 2017 meeting, it was reported that the Committee is currently permitting WAVE to do the same thing, i.e. to usurp its authority to select a redeveloper. In other words, the first illegal redeveloper is now choosing another illegal redeveloper. And the Committee, the citizens’ elected representative, remains silent on this shell game.
It also must be noted that no entity can be officially named as “Redeveloper” without signing a Redevelopers Agreement, and neither WAVE, the Association, or the new kid on the block (currently not identified by Anthony) have ever signed such a contract with the Township.
When will our elected officials take the side of the citizens, follow the laws, and favor the Master Plan as they deal with North End redevelopment ?
So here’s a metaphor. Consider that the Town Committee are a bunch of teddy bears having a grand old time at their regular picnic, aka the Committee meetings. They love to dance and prance and act innocent, but they are blind to the forest rangers who are watching them very carefully.
ANNE MURRAY
Joe Thank you for this information. I made some comments about this, based partly on what you said, in the BF article today about the Warrington fire.
https://blogfinger.net/2017/05/30/warrington-fire-report-3/
They are “selling” the leasehold, ie the right to occupy the property/building for a specific period of time. Leaseholds are sort of treated like fee simple sales, but with greater restrictions in the leasehold agreement. Fee simple sales allow the grantee(buyer) the rights to occupy the land indefinitely.
If you go down to the County record room in Freehold, you’ll find that the leasehold agreements from OG are filled in the same books with the deeds from all the other fee simple sales across the County.
In the case of the Seabreeze development, OGCMA could have sold the leasehold to Green Co, who then redeveloped these new houses and then sold them though Green Realty to the current tenants. Or they could have sold it back to OGCMA who then sold it to the current tenant.
Ultimately it would require looking at the records in Freehold. That would give you a definitive chain of title. If my computer would load the County website I could look at the file maps and pull the lot and blocks and just look at one of the leaseholds on the internet but that seems to not be in the cards.
Twist to this : What exactly is a private(non OGCMA) seller who owns(?) a lot in OG “selling” when they “sell” a lot to a buyer ?? If OGCMA owns all land/lots in OG then how does one explain a private party seller > buyer dealing ?? Any realtors or lawyers welcome to please comment on this .
While no application may have been made to Township about Epworth > Seabreeze OGCMA used the excuse that this property was in need of redevelopement to explain their actions to those in that neighborhood .
Seabreeze homeowners do pay ground rents to OGCMA . Which brings me to what I questioned . If OGCMA owns land then just what did they sell to Jack Green? The rights to build on it? Seems nothing actually tangibly physical was sold.
Editor’s note: This is a fascinating question by Frank S. regarding the money trail when an empty lot in the Grove is sold. The COO (“Rev. John”) of the CMA said recently* that the CMA owns all the land in town, so evidently no land is actually sold by the CMA.
Maybe the “right to build” on an empty lot, such as those which Green Co. acquired for Seabreeze houses, is like the condo situation where an agreement is reached between the CMA and the developer to insist by contract that the eventual building/condo owner will pay ground rents in perpetuity according to the guidelines of the CMA.
Whether the CMA also receives a payment beyond ground rents after a new house or building is sold is unknown to BF. In a redevelopment situation, financials are public record, but not when the project is private. –Paul
* In a press release dated May 1, 2017, the CMA COO said, “..Given that all property in Ocean Grove is subject to land lease agreements….” This press release was posted on BF earlier this month–it was about the CMA’s law suit against the Jersey Shore Arts Center.
Frank S: To our knowledge, unlike the North End, no application was made to the Township to formally declare that property “in need of redevelopment.”
We also know of no formal accusations made against the Camp Meeting Association regarding their real estate dealings.
In fact, the courts rejected a recent lawsuit against the CMA regarding their ground rent policies towards condominium owners. We know of no pending appeal in that case.
In addition, it is our understanding that those Jack Green houses were built on CMA land and are subject to ground rents.
Kevin Chambers is right. He has always been right about the North End.
Saturday the “new” executive officer of the CMA is speaking at the OGHOA. Who will ask, “Why doesn’t the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association respect our Master Plan?”
“Sea Breeze Village” project is a good example of OGCMA involvement with developers. They (OGCMA) demolished Epworth Manor which was an old historic building.
I wonder why this demolition was allowed. If I recall, the OGCMA said Epworth was a derelict building in need of demolition and an area in need of redevelopment. I disagree.
After the demolition the OGCMA posted signs saying area would be a park. Then they changed their mind, and soon Jack Green (a former OGCMA president) was building new homes at that location. As OGCMA owns all the land in OG, did they sell him the land or lease the land?
I believe that the OGCMA has been involved with questionable real estate development for some time.
If anyone knows more about the Epworth – Seabreeze Village deal I would love to hear it.
Oh.. thanks JW. In that instance of the Jack Green houses (Cookman and Clark,) it would have been a private development (not an area in need of re-development where redevelopers would be required and chosen by the Township.)
Unlike the North End (NERP,) Jack Green was entitled to do whatever he wished vis a vis choice of developers.
Of course, he would be subject to normal zoning restrictions/variances as needed. —Paul
Believe Frank S is referring to the block of houses that were built along the east end of Cookman and Clark Avenues hear “Poopy Park.” This development was advertised as “Sea Breeze Village,” and Jack Green was the developer.
Since the property is solely owned by the OGCMA, do they even need to involve the Municipal government in the redevelopment? Beyond the permits and zoning obviously.
Editor’s note: Once the CMA asked the Township to designate the North End as an “area in need of redevelopment” (which they did to eliminate the zoning restrictions) then it became a public project–no longer private—and the Township was theoretically in control.
Unfortunately, the Township has abdicated its obligations to the people and turned the project over to the private developers, as if it were a private development, as opposed to a public redevelopment.
This illegal flim-flam shtick is a deceptive political ploy–as Jack says, “a shell game.”
~ 10 years ago OGCMA sold land to Jack Green, a former OGCMA President,) to develop – build new homes on the south side of town where Epworth Manor used to be; in which case they designated their own developer .
Editor’s note: Maybe you are referring to the South End plan which went down to defeat in 1986. We wrote about that on Blogfinger in a series of articles in May and June of 2016. Here is the main post on this—We highly recommend that you all read it now:
https://blogfinger.net/2016/06/05/can-the-1986-ocean-grove-victory-over-south-end-beachfront-condominiums-be-duplicated-in-2016-at-the-north-end/
The OGCMA just entered into two recent lawsuits establishing that they are the single land owner and therefore the single developer of the development of Ocean Grove.
From the beginning, this North End Redevelopment Plan (NERP) has been a total scam by the Township of Neptune. For the OGCMA to claim that they cannot find a developer for their own land when they have proven in court that they are in fact the developer is disturbing at the least.
The purpose has been to permit the OGCMA to develop this last piece of open buildable land in Ocean Grove at a density far greater than what is permitted in Neptune’s zoning by circumventing the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL).
This is the height of corruption by the officials in Neptune and a travesty of the law.
Kevin Chambers
Is the OGHOA going to wait until the first shovel is shoved into the ground at the North End before they stand tall and demand that the NERP be rejected. Enough funny business! This is not good for our town.
Follow the Master Plan and demand all single family houses.