Home/New Jersey Superior Court App Division/B.P.U.M. Development & Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Camden

B.P.U.M. Development & Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Camden

11 N.J. Tax 95
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided May 1, 1989·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Substantially for the reasons expressed in his opinion reported at 9 N.J.Tax. 490 (1988), we conclude that Judge Lario correctly held (1) that both the Urban Renewal Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55C-40 et seq.) and the Tax Abatement Law (N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.95 et seq.) require “the acceptance and execution of appropriate agreements as a precondition for an eligible project to receive tax abatement” and (2) that “there exists no equitable reason to waive the statutory prerequisites.” B.P.U.M. Dev. & Urb. Renewal v. Camden, 9 N.J.Tax. at 502-503, 507.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

B.P.U.M. Development & Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Camden, 11 N.J. Tax 95 (N.J. Ct. App. 1989).

11 N.J. Tax 95 (B.P.U.M. Development & Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Camden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fifth Roc Jersey Associates, L.L.C. v. Town of Morristown
26 N.J. Tax 212 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2011)
Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. v. City of Millville
25 N.J. Tax 591 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2010)
Town of Secaucus v. City of Jersey City
20 N.J. Tax 384 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2002)
City of Asbury Park v. Castagno Tires
13 N.J. Tax 488 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1993)
In Re AWB Associates, G.P.
144 B.R. 270 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1992)
Tru Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Newark
11 N.J. Tax 63 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1990)