Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2013, front page of the Greater New York section. Photograph is misleading. *
A more accurate photo from the same location. Showing a human on the boardwalk, cars along Ocean Ave, a portion of surviving boards, and a big beautiful beach—a much more inviting place than depicted above in the WSJ. Blogfinger photo
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
In 2001, The National Geographic came to Ocean Grove as part of a series called, “ZipUSA.” They were going around the country focusing on different zip codes. I guess they decided that Ocean Grove would be interesting because of the religious component. So they called the article “God’s Square Mile” and they referred to the Grove as a “bible wielding beach town.” Although they did mention that other kinds of people were living in town, their theme was determined to be a religious town that hadn’t changed much over the years. The accuracy of the report was sacrificed to a predetermined narrative agenda.
I thought of that recently as one news outlet after another got the story of our post-Sandy struggles all wrong. We have reported on the recent inaccuracies found in the New York Times and the Asbury Park Sun as it relates to the FEMA denial. (The Times also described Ocean Grove as a Methodist town within the town of Neptune—another wrong fact.)
This item appeared in the NJ NewsCommons out of Montclair State University on March 22, 2013:
“Down in Asbury Park, we have one media outlet critiquing another. Blogfinger’s Paul Goldfinger references an Asbury Park Sun story on the Asbury Park Council’s decision not to support Ocean Grove’s FEMA request but says that “the reporter who wrote the piece got the last sentence totally wrong…. The FEMA denial had nothing to do with the fact that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is a private, nonprofit. It was about the FEMA definition of the boardwalk as a recreational venue.” NJTV went into the weeds on that distinction in its March 20 NJToday program.”
Here is that report from NJ Today (by Lauren Wanko) dated March 20. She was one of the few who got it right. NJ Today link At that time, many media outlets repeated that same inaccurate mantra without fact checking for themselves, despite an accurate press release issued by the OGCMA after the Feb. 6, 2013 FEMA denial.
Then there was the inaccurate use of a photograph of Ocean Grove on the front page of the Coaster, which suggested the wrong idea that we had failed to restore our town. Link to the BF article about the Coaster
An article in USA Today (Feb 7, 2013, by Bill Bowman of the Asbury Park Press) said, “In its decision, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the boardwalk, destroyed in superstorm Sandy, did not qualify for federal aid because the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, considered a private nonprofit organization, owns it.”
Last week, Mr. Ralph delCampo of the CMA told me that the Wall Street Journal had come to speak to him about the OG Sandy problems. So yesterday, on the front page of the Greater New York section*, was another photo (see above) of a devastated Ocean Grove which serves as the poster child for a town that has not recovered at all. The photo was composed in a way that would illustrate a pre-determined inaccurate news fact. It illustrates how corrupted news photography can distort the truth.
I went back to that spot on our boardwalk. It is in the “middle beach” area, about a block south of the Pavilion where the existing boardwalk ends. The WSJ photo shows no evidence of existing boardwalk or even of human life. It just shows sand and some cockeyed lamps which are temporarily askew like some drunken sailors. But unlike the Coaster, at least this story offered a caption that was helpful and one sentence on page two which said, “In Ocean Grove, most of the boardwalk is back , and the beach is open.” But how many just viewed the photo and how many turned the page to read the fine print?
What amazes me lately is that none of media have taken an interest in our very unique situation here in the Grove regarding the FEMA denial. There is a good chance that no other shore town was refused funding by FEMA to reconstruct a boardwalk. There has been so much press lately about how the Jersey Shore has rebuilt itself, that no one in the media wants to spoil that narrative and very few, including Blogfinger, have tried to get the FEMA facts straight.
Comments on Blogfinger reveal that even some Grovers don’t understand what has happened with respect to the FEMA situation. It is not an easy matter to understand. We’ve got people from OG trying to turn this thing into another gay-CMA war about the Pavilion. Others suggest that perhaps the CMA has been targeted by big government for political reasons. BF even got the facts wrong in our October 2012 article about hurricane Irene and our issues with FEMA at that time.
But this current situation is fascinating, complicated and quite unusual, yet where are the journalists who ought to be chasing this story around? I think they are not because they are too lazy and unprofessional to wonder about what the heck is going on here and they don’t want to disrupt the nice story line that we see and hear everywhere. Some journalist ought to be in Washington making some inquiries.
Why doesn’t the media wonder why we still have the middle of our oceanfront looking like the beach at Normandy after D-Day? Why don’t they investigate how FEMA decides who gets paid? This could prove to be an important national story played out in a small New Jersey shore town.
—Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
*Credit: Andy Levine of OG for alerting us to the WSJ photo.
JUDY COLLINS. “Send in the Clowns” by Stephen Sondheim:
OGJamie: I don’t understand why Grovers like you are bending over backwards to defend the original decision by FEMA. Obviously, an appeal is possible and justified. How about rooting for the home team!
“All I am saying is what I believe was the justification for FEMA’s drawing the line at the combination of “private and recreational.”
This is exactly correct. For public-owned facilities, basically everything is eligible – the only rules are that it a) be public owned, b) be in active use and c) be located in a disaster area. That would cover all the other NJ boardwalks. Facilities owned by private non-profits can qualify for assistance, but the rules are more restrictive…and recreational facilities – ie, the boardwalk – are not eligible. The CMA can try to argue that the boardwalk fits under the definition of a PNP eligible facitliy, but having read the actual rules, it will be a tough argument to make.
I agree with TahTah. As a year round resident I have witnessed the work done on a daily basis. It has been amazing. Yes, we are lagging behind some of our neighbors that received aid. That is to be expected. I think the CMA has done an amazing job under very difficult circumstances. I am disappointed in those that have returned for the summer and been so quick to criticize the work that has been done. If you know anything about this town, you should understand the challenge we face. Volunteer to help or make a donation to the Together Fund. That is much more productive and positive than whining and comparing our progress to other towns. The work will get done if we work TOGETHER!
I’m not trying to stir things up, and I do know a lot of work has been done, but I do have to ask … Why haven’t benches been placed on the sections of boardwalk that remain? Why haven’t tipped and damaged street lights been taken down? Why is there still that ugly orange storm fence? Why haven’t the beach access points been ‘gussied up’? It would make the beach front a lot more inviting and ‘open for business’ and look less like a war zone.
Nice coverage of a very complicated story Finger!!
Paul,
All I am saying is what I believe was the justification for FEMA’s drawing the line at the combination of “private and recreational.” That line was established long before Sandy hit Ocean Grove. But having established that as the line, FEMA was only following its own regulations in denying funding for to the CMA.
Deirdre did a good job of explaining why it’s a defensible position for them to take and where the flaw in their logic lies.
Joe: I have to agree with you, having biked down to Sea Girt today and seen incredible progress in most of the towns. The Sea Girt boardwalk is also completely missing, though. But I don’t think that the CMA has a negative attitude; I think that the problem is that the CMA wants and has the responsibility of owning this town, but they cannot afford it.
The FEMA issue (that different standards apply to applications for funds from municipalities and from private not-for-profits) has been known to the CMA for decades; funding has been refused before.
The organization needs to find a way to make enough money to keep the parts of the town that it is responsible for functioning, or it makes no sense for the not-for-profit to own the town.
As a year round resident I can speak to the work that has been done repeatedly to our Boardwalk. Hundreds of volunteers have been down since Sandy hit helping our beloved town. Volunteers teamed up with Staff of OGCMA to save our benches and planters. They salvaged wood from the bent boardwalk and cut railings that could be saved. This wood has been used where ever possible on the repair of our boards and stairs.
These volunteers swept and shoveled our Boards..not once but after ever Nor’easter that blew through.
The loss of our dunes allows the beach sand to blow not only on the grass but onto our streets. OGCMA staff placed boards up on existing rails to hold the sand back (removed before the holiday).
The planters, maintained by a volunteer organization, worked with OGCMA staff to arrange placement on the boards before this Holiday. These volunteers placed drainage materials and soil in each. Volunteers have and will continue to plant all of the boardwalk urns as well as the other gardens they maintain in town.
We in OG need to realize how truly Blessed we are to have had such kindness bestowed upon us from so many over the months including members from Calvary Chapels around this Country.
Lets us not cast verbal stones….let us be thankful and grateful to those who came to our small town on the East Coast ( some who never saw an Ocean) to help. As I was told repeatedly by these Volunteers….we heard there was a need so we came to help!
Drive down Ocean Ave this weekend in Bradley, Avon and Belmar
What do you see? Business as usual. Bradley has rides, games and vendors; the mini golf looks new, benches, planters, gazebos, everything has a fresh coat of paint, the Shore Grill is open.
Avon is clean; the Columns are rocking; all debris is cleared.
Same in Belmar, where the destroyed pavilions are gone, replaced by temporary trailers and other portable structures. A new boardwalk with all the accessories. Sand is cleared from lawns and open areas, new grass seeded where needed. Where they couldn’t immediately replace structures, they removed any trace of them existing
And yet here is Ocean Grove, benches piled in broken heaps on the old CMA lot, construction debris everywhere, lamp posts askew, no planters, sand still stuck on the grass. Why couldn’t they pull the listing lamps, put the benches out, put the planters out, paint everything? At least that would say, “We aren’t 100% but we are working” this looks like a bomb went off, and the attitude seems to be, “We’ll get to it.”
Very disappointing
I think Blind Pursuit has it almost right, but not quite. Even if the private non-profit recreational use is open to the public as the boardwalk is, that alone does not make it eligible for FEMA aid, nor should it – in these tough economic times, it is a question of prioritizing what you spend taxpayer money on.
If you have a town operated recreational facility, say a children’s playground, then taxpayer money built and maintained it, and using taxpayer money to repair it makes some sense. One way or another, taxpayers are going to pay for it anyway. But say the CMA operated a small mini-golf course on the boardwalk completely open to the public, but built and maintained not with taxpayer money, but with private donations. Would it make sense to ask taxpayers who never agreed to that expense, as nice as it might be, to pay for its repair?
Given the enormous pressure that we the voters have put on government to cut, cut, cut spending this should not surprise anyone.
That said, the rules also recognize that some privately owned non-profit facilities serve essential public services (hospitals, e.g.) and therefore need to be helped for the sake of the larger community. And that is where I part company with FEMA – the boardwalk is not recreational, it is an essential pedestrian link, serving not only Ocean Grove, but Bradley Beach and Asbury as well. As someone said earlier on this blog, it is recreational only if you consider sidewalks recreational. This is the argument that I believe the CMA has made in its appeal – hopefully, FEMA will listen.
Paul: I totally agree with the picture that is in the Wall Street Journal. You are kidding yourself to think otherwise.
Walking the partial OG boardwalk today was depressing to say the least. The town should be embarrassed! It looks like there wasn’t any pride taken in getting ready for this Memorial Day weekend. Surley OG has some money to beautify the existing boardwalk until a reply is gotten from FEMA. Why aren’t the flower pots filled,benches placed on the pier,near and around the beach office? What about putting a coat of paint on the existing lampposts,
beach office building and restrooms? What about some shrubbery around the bathrooms? What about blowing the sand off the grassy area? What’s up with brand new lampposts just rolling around on the boardwalk?
The town does not look like it is ready to welcome visitors. My husband and I have been here for three years as part time residents and we wanted to flee the area today. We bought into OG because of its charm and the boardwalk being like no other. It went from the best to the worst.
Joe: Do you think that FEMA thought that the Ocean Grove boardwalk was for the private recreational use of its owners?
I thought it was pretty evident that FEMA’s standards, though arguable, are at least clear: “No public money for private recreation.” So if it’s recreational but not private (e.g., like every other boardwalk in the state), then ok. And if it’s private but not recreational (i.e., serves some public use) then ok. It’s the combination of private and recreational that seems to be off limits.
To be eligible for funding, you would have to argue that the boardwalk, while certainly privately owned, is not purely for the private recreational use of its owners. That is exactly what the CMA needs to prove in its appeal.
Do I have any of that wrong?
Pam. You said, “Saying it’s just recreational doesn’t cut it for me. Other towns have been funded even though their boardwalk is there for similar purposes.”
I agree with you, but we don’t know how they classified the publicly owned boardwalks—were they classified as recreational or not? Probably there was no standard like this for them, because we have heard of no publicly owned boardwalk that was denied aid because it was recreational—in fact, most of them are with rides, shops, miniature golf, etc.
So it seems as if there are double standards for the privately owned boardwalk in Ocean Grove. If a private non-profit organization like the CMA is eligible for aid, as it apparently is, then why does FEMA require the additional burden of being classified as recreational or not? As you said, this makes no sense, so perhaps there is a different, unspoken reason why the OG boardwalk was denied.
The Wall Street Journal’s Greater New York Section has an audience of 670,000 readers with an average household income $277,534 per year. This group is a prime audience for summer visitors as well as future homeowners.
The publication’s decision to publish a photo that reflects negatively on Ocean Grove’s preparedness for the summer season is clearly a black eye. Most unfortunate.
Pam: Inaccurate reporting has the potential to do harm in our town, for example by giving potential visitors the wrong idea about our preparedness. And the same is true when the FEMA story is reported wrong, because if the FEMA facts are reported wrong, then our citizens lose the empowerment that comes from knowledge.
As for the arithmetic of the situation (i.e. “…it doesn’t add any more light”) my article may not add anything new to the true facts about the FEMA denial, but at least it tries to take care of the knowledge subtraction that results from inaccurate journalism plus it adds knowledge to those who don’t know the facts or who have the wrong facts. I believe that our piece provides a net plus—don’t you?
I guess I don’t understand why they’re not funding. Saying it’s just recreational doesn’t cut it for me. Other towns have been funded even though their boardwalk is there for similar purposes.
This article is great but also doesn’t add any more light to the situation.
Right on,Blogfinger.