Asbury Park Deputy Mayor Says Key Question Is Whether Clarke Report Was Ever Formally Approved

(ASBURY PARK, N.J.) — Asbury Park Deputy Mayor Amy Quinn on June 24 publicly explained at the city council meeting why she believes the City cannot yet conclude that the 2004 Clarke Caton Hintz report created enforceable redevelopment obligations for the historic Casino, saying she has not seen evidence that the report's proposed construction program was ever formally agreed to by the parties.

The comments came after more than 40 minutes of coordinated public testimony from residents challenging the City's interpretation of retired New Jersey Supreme Court Judge Lee A. Solomon's recent legal opinions concerning the Casino redevelopment.

(Resident Bianca Bertoli speaking at the City Council Meeting. Credit: APTV YouTube video.)

During public comment, several residents argued that the Clarke Caton Hintz report—prepared pursuant to Section 3.5 of the City's 2002 Redeveloper Agreement with Asbury Partners—became part of the redevelopment agreement once it was submitted and that its proposed $33.6 million rehabilitation program remains an enforceable obligation.

They argued that the Clarke Caton Hintz report satisfied that contractual requirement and pointed to language in the report stating it had been prepared specifically in response to Section 3.5. Speakers also contended that the Casino property closed approximately two months after the report was submitted, arguing that sequence demonstrates the parties accepted the report as part of the redevelopment process.

Several residents further argued that retired Judge Solomon's opinions leave open the possibility that redevelopment obligations remaining under the 2002 agreement could still support legal remedies if a default exists.

The City's Position

Deputy Mayor Quinn acknowledged the issue has become the subject of extensive discussions among attorneys.

"We have one of the most complicated redevelopment plans in the state of New Jersey," Moor said, noting that multiple attorneys have reached different conclusions after reviewing retired Judge Solomon's three opinions. She added that she "could use an opinion on the opinion" because of the differing legal interpretations.

Quinn said at the council meeting she believes the 2002 Redeveloper Agreement required Asbury Partners to prepare the Clarke Caton Hintz report, and that requirement was fulfilled.

However, she questioned whether the parties ever took the additional step contemplated by Section 3.5 of the agreement.

"The waterfront agreement says you've got to do this report," Quinn said. "What it doesn't say is you have to do the obligations in this report." She added that he has not seen evidence demonstrating that the report itself wasn’t ever formally agreed upon by the City and the developer.

Quinn said that before the City undertakes what she described as potentially costly litigation against Madison Marquette or related entities, she wants documentation establishing that the obligations contained in the Clarke report became binding.

A Missing Piece

The exchange highlighted what may now be the central factual question in the ongoing dispute.

Section 3.5 of the 2002 Redeveloper Agreement provides that within 120 days after receipt of the Clarke report—and before closing—the parties were to agree upon a schedule of renovations to be undertaken after closing.

Whether that schedule was ever negotiated, approved or memorialized in writing has become a key point of disagreement.

Quinn indicated she has not seen evidence that such approval occurred, while residents argued the subsequent property closing itself demonstrates acceptance of the report's recommendations.

During public comment, a resident asked whether the City Council would support a request by Tom DeSeno for retired Judge Solomon to clarify his recent legal opinion regarding the Casino redevelopment dispute.

"Tom DeSeno has formally requested Justice Solomon to issue a clarification on the City's position regarding what we've been discussing tonight," Resident Asbury Park Michael Labrum said, adding "Will the City Council support that, or will you request that the justice not respond?"

Mayor John Moor responded: "If (retired) Judge Solomon issues a report, I'd love it. I mean, why would I disagree with it?"

The City had previously signaled that a broader public discussion was forthcoming. In a June 18 announcement, officials said they had received numerous comments and questions regarding retired Judge Solomon's report on the Casino redevelopment agreements and properties.

Continuing Investigation

OpGov.news is seeking additional public records related to the implementation of Section 3.5 of the 2002 Redeveloper Agreement, including records that may show whether the renovation schedule contemplated by the agreement was ever negotiated or approved.

Those records could help clarify one of the central unresolved questions now dividing City officials, residents and legal observers: whether the Clarke Caton Hintz report remained a planning document or became part of the enforceable redevelopment obligations governing the Casino.

(Image Credit: City of Asbury Park.)

Note to readers: The City announced that the Mayor and Council would dedicate the July 8, 2026, Council meeting to listening to and responding to public comments and questions about the Solomon report. Officials also explained that the City's redevelopment attorney, Joseph Maraziti, would be unable to attend the June 24 meeting because he was away on a long-planned family vacation. The announcement stated that the Mayor and Council looked forward to a comprehensive discussion once Maraziti was available. The June 24 meeting nevertheless provided an early indication of the governing body's willingness to continue the conversation.

If you’d like to add or correct anything in this report, feel free to reach out to me or leave a comment below. If you have any Asbury Park story tips or ideas, please reach out to Sarah Denos at sarahkdenos@gmail.com.