B.P.U.M. Development & Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Camden
This text of 11 N.J. Tax 95 (B.P.U.M. Development & Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Camden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 N.J. Tax 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bpum-development-urban-renewal-corp-v-city-of-camden-njsuperctappdiv-1989.