SUPERBLOCK Strikes Back (Again)

Update 4/26/2012: My more than capable readers have pointed out that I’ve confused the various multi-million dollar cases that the City is on the hook for.  It turns out this is yet another lawsuit that the Habermans have against the City.  This one for $50 million.  My mistake for mixing it up with another real estate boondoggle the City has on the SUPERBLOCK leaving the City on the hook for $26 million.

Back in October I warned that the City may be on the hook for more than $26 million because of years of SUPERBLOCK mismanagement.  I then received a scathing letter from our zany then-City Manager Charles Theofan basically claiming I was wrong on all counts.  He said I “didn’t get the story right,” even though he did not point out a single area where I was factually incorrect.

I guess I’ll have to apologize now, because it turns out I was wrong.  The City is not liable for $26 million, but instead a recent appeals court decision says the City is liable for $50 million.  It appears the former administration was not “successfully resolving serious problems,” but has left yet another turd for this beleaguered City to deal with.

Read the whole Long Island Business News story here

Read my initial post here which outlines the whole story

And you can take a look at Theofan’s response

As long as 1,000,000 people attend the beach and we raise the price of beach passes by 316% we can pay this off in just one summer!

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

17 thoughts on “SUPERBLOCK Strikes Back (Again)”

  1. I wonder if the city can start charging people to park in that lot during the busy summer weekends. Charge $5 a car – I bet a lot of people will bite and the city would make a ton of money.

  2. I don’t think the article refers to the superblock. It is referring to the empty space (what looks like a large paved parking lot) along the boardwalk between Monroe and Lincoln. The article states that one 10 story building is already up. There are no buildings on the superblock.

  3. Leave the Super Block as it is. We need some open space in Long Beach, we do NOT need to have Condos, Apt buildings all over our water front. It’s nice to have some open space to see the Ocean and the beach.
    So why not stop whining about this all the time?

  4. This case has nothing to do with condemnation and eminent domain process, it is about the ZBA and how they thwarted the Habermans plans to build a building, I’m not sure where.
    It gives them the right to sue because of an alleged conflict of interest after a variance was given and then revoked. Originally a lower court said they had no right to sue. It is separate
    from the other $ 26 mil we may be on the hook for. We should sit down with the Habermans and discuss giving them their land back and letting them build.

  5. Shaun, your blog is completely wrong.
    The article is about the Haberman plan to add more towers to the Seapointe towers property. The case overturned on appeal has NOTHING to do with the Superblock.

  6. Regarding the Update: Well, now I am reading this as the following:

    “Development” Lawsuits against the city which I previously thought were for just $26 million just jumped up to a total of $76 million!!!!

    Any other numbers we can add to that total?

  7. Is that the same MG who I so adamantly admired when she railed against the old Demo Clubhouse at CC meetings, I used to love when you’d run up and change the “tape”, who became a councilwoman and then just rolled over, lost her voice, to “coalition”. Disappointed me big time me lady.
    Where you been?

  8. The facts are the ZBA gave this guy a variance in 1985, he then sat on it for 16 years and expected to just start building. The landscape of a city changes a lot in 16 years and when he came back before the ZBA in 2004 they denied him. Why? Because the landscape of the city had changed. Simple. This is yet another meritless lawsuit against the city. Tort Reform for all!!!

Comments are closed.