NJEDA and Camden City Redevelopment Agency
Dear New Jersey Economic Development Authority,
This is a request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form. Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
Records requested:
All communications between the EDA and the City of Camden Redevelopment Agency or the attorneys or agents of either entity concerning sale or transfer of property, projects or development at or near the Camden City Waterfront
All internal EDA communications concerning the City of Camden Redevelopment Agency or any property owned or to be transferring by the City of Camden Redevelopment Agency.
Yours faithfully,
Anonymous
Greetings,
On behalf of Marcus Saldutti, EDA Records Custodian, this email is in
response to your OPRA requests of June 28, 2019 as follows:
• All communications between the EDA and the City of Camden
Redevelopment Agency or the attorneys or agents of either entity
concerning sale or transfer of property, projects or development at or
near the Camden City Waterfront
• All internal EDA communications concerning the City of Camden
Redevelopment Agency or any property owned or to be transferring by
the City of Camden Redevelopment Agency.
Please be advised that your request is overbroad and therefore invalid
under OPRA. OPRA does not allow a blanket request for every document a
public agency has on file or a wholesale request for general information.
Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. 205, 212
(App. Div. 2005); MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control,
375 N.J. Super. 534, 549 (App. Div. 2005); Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police
Dep’t, 381 N.J. Super. 30, 36-37 (App. Div. 2005); Spectraserv, Inc. v.
Middlesex Cnty. Utils. Auth., 416 N.J. Super. 565, 578 (App. Div. 2010);
N.J. Builders Ass’n v. N.J. Council on Affordable Hous., 390 N.J. Super.
166, 178-79 (App. Div. 2007). Requests for correspondence must identify
the individuals or accounts to be searched and be confined to a discrete
and limited subject matter. Burke v. Brandes, 429 N.J. Super. 169, 176–78
(App. Div. 2012); see also Elcavage v. West Milford Twp. (Passaic), GRC
Complaint No. 2009-08 (Apr. 8, 2010) (stating that a proper request for
email correspondence must contain “(1) the content and/or subject of the
e-mail, (2) the specific date or range of dates during which the e-mail
was transmitted or the emails were transmitted, and (3) a valid e-mail
request must identify the sender and/or the recipient thereof”).
If you would like us to search for correspondence, in a new OPRA request,
please identify the specific employees whose accounts you would like
searched, a specific subject matter, and a limited date range.
Your OPRA request is hereby denied and closed. This response does not
waive or limit any other rights afforded this Office under OPRA, which are
all expressly reserved.
Regards,
Kim Ehrlich