Case Name: B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT; CITY OF CAMDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1989-05-01
Citations: 11 N.J. Tax 95
Docket Number: 
Parties: B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. CITY OF CAMDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Tax Court Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. CITY OF CAMDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted April 12, 1989
Decided May 1, 1989.
Before Judges GAULKIN and ARNOLD M. STEIN.
Harvey C. Johnson, attorney for appellant B.P.U.M. Development and Urban Renewal Corporation (David E. Mapp, on the brief).
Patricia A. Darden, attorney for appellant City of Camden (Marcia R. Steinbock, on the brief).
Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Harry Haushalter, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Wiley, Malehom and Sirota, attorneys for Town of Morris-town, amicus curiae (Robert Goldsmith and Robert G. Lavitt, on the brief; Robert Goldsmith, of counsel).

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.