In my last column, I wrote about the evolution of our 2002 beachfront redevelopment agreement with Asbury Partners and described some of the very real benefits that Asbury Park is already enjoying.

This week, I'll tackle the burning question that haunts me everywhere from Frank's Deli to Freehold: "Hey! So when are we going to see those new buildings going up?"

I'll also address the recent (and fortunately inaccurate) rumor that Asbury Partners is in default on its beachfront responsibilities.

As we discussed last time, the large-scale rebuilding of our decrepit boardwalk is already in full swing - as you undoubtedly know if you've been to the ocean lately - and the entire expanse from the Casino to Seventh Avenue is scheduled for ground-up completion in time for Deputy Mayor Bruno's planned Fourth of July parade.

So why aren't we seeing equal amounts of action on our boardwalk pavilions and the first new residential units?

Currently, the City and Asbury Partners are (semi-)patiently awaiting approval of our huge CAFRA (Coastal Area Facility Review Act) application that has been under state review since last spring.

CAFRA protects state coastal waters and adjacent lands, and a CAFRA permit is required before serious redevelopment can begin. By law, our joint application examines the potential effects of redevelopment on everything from sand dunes and herring migrations to storm water run-off and historic structures.

And, contrary to a claim that was recently printed in several news media, CAFRA approval is a definite prerequisite for both new residential construction and for the planned renovation of our boardwalk pavilions.

According to Kevin Broderick of the NJ Department of Environmental Protection, the state had 90 days to request and obtain additional material from Asbury Park following its public CAFRA hearing in late September.

With that completed, the state is now in the middle of its final, 90-day review, which means we should have a ruling by late March.

In anticipation of large-scale redevelopment, the City recently hired Donald Sammet as our new Redevelopment Director, and we've also struck a deal with the NJ Department of Community Affairs to grow our building inspection staff. (More on Don next time.)

And, as you probably read this week, plans for two large residential projects - one along Wesley Lake and one just north of the Berkeley Carteret Hotel, to be developed by Kushner Companies and Paramount Homes, respectively - have now reached the Planning Board, following reviews by the Technical Review Committee and the City Council.

The Planning Board is also reviewing Asbury Partners' detailed infrastructure and streetscape plans, and the next public meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. on February 24. (One of Don Sammet's first good suggestions, by the way, was to post key redevelopment documents and meeting schedules on our new city website, www.cityofasburypark.com, and the wheels are in motion to make this happen.)

Which brings us to those misleading default rumors. As you may remember, the Kushner and Paramount sites constitute two of the three "fast tract" properties which - along with the half-completed, "C-8 skeleton" on Ocean Avenue - are slated for the first new residential units.

According to our October, 2002 Beachfront Redeveloper's Agreement, Asbury Partners was required to identify subdevelopers to build out those three tracts within six months of our agreement.

Kushner and Paramount came to the table two months later and eventually signed subdeveloper agreements with the City and Asbury Partners. As you may remember, however, K. Hovnanian dropped out as a potential C-8 developer, and a new subdeveloper has not been presented (although I understand that a likely candidate is in the wings).

Doesn't that put Asbury Partners in default? No, and the reason lies in a very significant, but little-appreciated, aspect of the redevelopment process: the on-going plethora of court actions that have been filed in New Jersey Superior Court by challengers to the plan.

To date, the City and Asbury Partners have consistently won each of these challenges, whether they involved the basic constitutionality of the plan or the responsibility of individual developers (including some who bought their properties after the plan was actually approved) to contribute their fair share to the infrastructure costs.

And the agreement clearly states that the six-month requirement to identify "fast tract" subdevelopers is not binding if the plan comes under legal attack.

Why? Such challenges naturally make interested subdevelopers reluctant to commit to the plan, and financing is harder to obtain. Also, every penny spent on escalating legal bills is another penny that is not available for investment in the city.

It is a tribute to the faith and seriousness of Asbury Partners, Kushner Companies, and Paramount Homes that they have proceeded as far as they have, given that CAFRA approval is pending and that the legal challenges (including several anticipated appeals of earlier rulings) continue.

Having said that, am I optimistic that major beachfront redevelopment will start in 2004? Absolutely. Given our continuing progress with the CAFRA and Planning Board processes, and our on-going success in the courts (with considerable credit due to city Redevelopment Attorney James Aaron), I think we're bumping along quite nicely.

And, as my friend Mark Fleming of the Premier Theatre Company points out, "Just think about how long it takes to plan a wedding, and then multiply that complexity by about 1,000 times."

I'm looking forward to catching the first bouquet.

Next week: A few words from our new Redevelopment Director.