This building at 17 Spray Avenue had been cited as unsafe as far back as the 1980s. On September 2, 2008, it burned. Coaster photo
By Charles Layton
We’ve had some lively conversation on this website in recent days about the need (or lack of need) to take action when properties in Ocean Grove are abandoned or neglected by their owners and fall into disrepair.
Some people think it’s our duty as citizens to call attention to such problem properties. Others disagree; that kind of vigilance, they say, amounts to harassment of those who can’t always afford to keep their homes in pristine condition.
However, the fact is that an empty building in disrepair is more than just an eyesore or a drag on local property values. In Ocean Grove, especially, it can be an urgent danger.
Let’s look at some history. In 2008, a spectacular fire destroyed an old storage building at 17 Spray Avenue. That fire severely scorched and peeled the siding on a home directly across the street and also did minor damage to another nearby home. The Coaster quoted Mayor Randy Bishop, who lives nearby, as saying that the fire “could have been a tremendous disaster.” Other neighbors agreed. It was lucky, they said, that the wind blew the flames and embers back toward Wesley Lake instead of the other way, toward the town.
That fire shouldn’t have happened. The public record shows that Neptune Township tolerated what it knew to be dangerous conditions at 17 Spray for many years before the building finally went up in flames.
A Township inspection in 1988 found “a large pile of lumber and other combustible debris” on the grounds. The owner, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, was cited, and the dangerous condition was abated. However, the abatement was temporary. The building continued to deteriorate. In 1999 a Township inspection found, among other problems, cracked masonry walls, roof tiles falling onto the sidewalk and trash and debris all over the yard.
In the ensuing years numerous summonses were issued. Fines were threatened but not imposed. In fact, the Township backed off. At one point the Township had threatened to take the owner to court, but in 2005 all summonses were dismissed, and all fines were forgiven.
In February of 2008, the Township inspected the building again, found it to be “unsound” and “unsafe” and ordered the CMA to either demolish it or correct the unsafe conditions. Parts of the roof were collapsing and parts of the building were open to the weather, according to a Township citation, “causing interior deterioration of structural elements.”
But negotiations resulted in further delays until finally, on the night of September 2, 2008, fire destroyed the whole thing.
To some Ocean Grovers, the lesson was that tolerating a persisting dangerous condition is not a virtue.
Here is another piece of history. When The Sampler Inn at 28 Main Avenue, closed and neglected, fell into serious disrepair, neighbors on Heck Avenue took action. They organized and fought to have the problems corrected. Township inspections showed that the building was in terrible condition and could easily catch fire. Bill Doolittle, Neptune’s director of code and construction, said his greatest fear was a “fire storming” effect, in which “fire jumps from one building to the next to the next” across Ocean Grove.
And so, in 2009, despite strenuous resistance by the owners, the Township had the building demolished.
If the Spray Avenue fire taught us the danger of complacency, the Sampler experience proved that if citizens and neighbors organize and fight –and if they persist — it’s possible to resolve such problems. (A corollary lesson is that the government acts more forcefully if it is prodded and pushed by citizens.)
The above examples, along with others, have led many Ocean Grovers — and some Township officials — to the firm belief that citizens must act as watchmen. When a problem arises, they must make it known. And when an owner tries to minimize the problem, it’s unwise just to take him at his word. (The lawyer for The Sample Inn, at a public hearing, characterized the problems there as “aesthetic” in nature.)
The issue is not harassment of well-meaning owners who can’t afford to paint their homes as often as we might like. And a group of citizens petitioning for redress of a problem is not akin to a “lynch mob,” as some have suggested. Portraying it as such evades the point, which is that a derelict building is better dealt with before the problem becomes truly dire.
There is a sweet spot between petty harassment of our neighbors and the kind of indulgence that led to the Spray Avenue fire. As we argue individual cases, let’s do so in that reasonable context.
As you stated, the heart of the issue truly is that “derelict building[s are] better dealt with before the problem becomes truly dire.”
It is the manner in which these buildings are dealt with that I believe deserves a redress. This article, well-informed and well-written, has brought to light the inherent moral issue at hand– but it does not offer a practical solution, as journalism is categorically wanting of. Articles of sound journalism such as these inform the reader by citing relevant past events and the range of consequent solutions taken, but informing is only half of the battle: the responsibility now lies on us to take action and find a better means of organizing and fighting for more humanistic solutions to potentially hazardous houses.
All parties involved in issues of derelict housing are inevitably (and very reasonably) motivated out of self-interest– owners have large investments in property at stake; concerned neighbors have the welfare of their loved ones and their own properties on their minds. A practical solution is not something that can be proposed by one person in a comment on a blog post, but I sincerely hope that the “sweet spot” you allude to is one that can be found when dealing with problems like these in the future, wherein community leaders can reach out to all of O.G. to gain ideas from and support for positive, creative, benevolent, progressive, and ultimately human solutions. At the end of the day, we’re all Grovers. It’s profoundly important to keep this in mind.
My offer is still on the table. I will swim naked in the ocean in January if the Park View ever gets a significant rehabilitation such that it can become functional again. At this point, I hope it gets torn down and some nice victorian houses get built in its place.
The Park View ‘s rehab application to the HPC was approved at a public agenda meeting recently.
You forgot to mention who owned and subsequently allowed the Sampler Inn to fall into such a sad state of disrepair. Isn’t it the same people who own the Park View, now deteriorated beyond repair?
I think we can safely say that an empty versus an occupied building isn’t more likely to catch fire….however I think it is equally true that a fire is going to be detected much sooner in an occupied building and therefore less apt to get out of control and spread to neighbors.
I believe that’s right. In the case of the 2011 fire there was some suspicion about a heater left on overnight at the work site, but the only definitive finding was that there was no evidence of the fire being deliberately set. That’s about as definitive as the Fire Marshall got in any of those cases. As for buildings that are empty and untended, such as at 17 Spray, it’s generally true that those are more likely to catch fire than are occupied buildings.
Not sure if my memory is correct, but I recall reading somewhere (perhaps The Coaster or the Asbury Park Press) that what sparked the fire in the derelict Spray Avenue building wasn’t identified. I also recall that there hasn’t been much accountability for the March 2011 and 2010 fires. Am I wrong?
“FIRE” is the go to cry of the Ocean Grove resident whenever a building isn’t kept in “ideal” Victorian condition. I fully understand that fire is a dangerous reality in Ocean Grove and citizens are concerned, however fire needs certain things to form. An abandoned building, or an unkempt building will not spontaneously explode into flames. As we saw with the Manchester and the Surf Ave fire, both had ignition sources that were the result of careless or inattentive persons.
I wonder how much the CMA influenced the actions regarding Spray Ave…? Considering they own 99% of the land in OG it would seem that they hold a greater liability in the OG district. Knowing the CMAs attitude regarding their “status” as a governing entity is it too much to speculate they may have told the Twp they would handle issues and did not follow through?
Your editorial was very pleasant. You took the nastiness out of this issue with your last paragraph, and hopefully have made an impression on the future contributors. What’s special about your blog is that you do research and get all the facts. This venue you have provided is the best OG informant we have ever had… maybe the only one so complete? Thank you for your hard work.