To the Editor:
I was reading your post and thought I would give you a little history on the original use of ground rent. On a map of either 1871 or early 1872, it stated that the plan of leasing, instead of selling the lots, had been adopted to prevent any person from using his lot for purposes that would be an annoyance to other lot holders.
As far as the use of ground rent in the early days of Ocean Grove, during the Stokes era and beyond, the use of ground rent was for public services for the lot holders. In a book published in 1919, entitled “The Story of Ocean Grove 1869-1919” written by Morris S. Daniels… it states:
“If it is conceded, for the sake of argument, that the ground rental corresponds to a tax, it may also be said that it is expended by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association for the benefit of the leaseholders.
It is doubtful “if in all the land there is another place where the people receive so much attention at so little cost.” The Ocean Grove Association “lights the public streets and avenues the year round;” it polices the grounds, summer and winter; removes the garbage from the doors of the producers. It takes sanitary supervision of the entire place. It keeps the the streets in order, maintains the board walk and many of the sidewalks. It provides public pavilions and seats for the free use and accommodation of the masses. It sprinkles many of the streets during the dry and dusty days of summer. It provides parks, fountains, lakes, and flowers, and does a thousand other nameless things for which the leaseholders have contracted to pay a small ground rental, which thus far has never exceeded $10.50 per lot, which is the maximum ground rental which can be charged under the leases already made. The ground rentals amount to about $18,000; but much more than this sum is required for the purposes mentioned and is made up by the Association.”
Here are a few other interesting facts concerning ground rent beginnings. In the first 4 years of Ocean Grove’s existence the OGCMA didn’t require any ground rent from their lease holders. After this period they only required $2.50 from their lot holders. In 1880, they upped the ground rent to $5.00. In 1883, owing to the expense incurred in erecting a fire house on Olin Street, the ground rental was increased to $7.50. It was thought that the lot holders should share in the expense, since it was to their benefit.
In the early OGCMA annual reports the Camp Meeting Association was much more transparent and open about their ground rent and its uses. They would give an accounting of what they received and gave exact breakdowns of what it was used for. They were also more reluctant to raise it, even though for years the funds received through ground rents were insufficient to cover the expenses of the public services. They seemed to have more of a conscience about the burden that was placed upon the lot holder.
I have a great appreciation for the CMA and enjoy participating in their many programs. I also have a concern for their future and that more will be stripped away from them in coming years if they continue on the path they have been following… for “Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud.” Proverbs 16:18-19
Justin Truth is a blogger who writes about Ocean Grove history. His blog has a few entries and they are quite interesting, especially the one about President Grant visiting the town and also a piece from an Irish publication in 1874 about a “Sunday at an American Camp Meeting.”
http://thebookofhistoricalsecrets.blogspot.com/
Ocean Grove, New Jersey, February 22, 2017.
Editor’s Note:
Blogfinger would like to thank Justin Truth for sharing his information with our readers. We asked him for some information about himself. After all, he showed some courage and answered our call for information sharing in Ocean Grove. This is his response:
“Thank you, Paul, for taking notice and interest in my recent comment concerning the ground rent issue. I choose not to reveal my identity at this time, as to avoid being caught up into a fire storm of controversy. I am a lifelong resident of Ocean Grove, having been involved in all of the OGCMA programs growing up, as well as in the present time. I have roots which go very deep in Ocean Grove, as well as in the surrounding area.
I’m just an ordinary guy, who is interested in Ocean Grove history and began researching for accurate information. It is my desire for others to become more interested in our history and this is why I began my blog.
It is my hope for people to begin to research themselves, considering all the information we have at our fingertips today. I would rather give people the tools they need to find the actual historic records, than to have them look to me as the authority on the subject. I like for the historic records to speak for themselves. I have included a link to the map I referenced in my comment.”
Regarding the second sentence in Justin’s letter to the editor, the link below is for the 1870 map that he sent which proves that lots were leased from the very beginning and were not sold. You can enlarge the map and read the relevant section on the left side.
As for the fact that the citizens of OG early on were enjoying nearly-free services from the Camp Meeting Association, the CMA preferred to offer certain services such as police and the local court. The CMA wanted total control in the Grove including their wish to establish and enforce blue laws. Their motive was to perpetuate their “Christian sea-side community”
During those years, the citizens paid taxes to Neptune Township, and those taxes probably would have provided for those services had the CMA not insisted on doing it themselves.
However, the CMA did offer many nearly-free services enjoyed by Grovers which are listed in the Justin Truth letter, and many continue to this date. And Neptune likely offered services such as schools, utilities, sewage, and water during the years when the CMA ran the town but was part of Neptune Township. So the taxes did pay for Neptune services.
There were some protests and suits in the past over these Neptune tax issues, but the CMA always prevailed—until the NJ Supreme Court ruling in 1979.
Here is an item from the Blogfinger OG History Timeline. “1898: Ocean Grove’s “lessees,” who pay property taxes to Neptune Township, want the CMA to pay the taxes to Neptune. A suit is brought by the homeowners, but in 1900 the NJ Supreme Court sides with the CMA.”——PG
Below is a link to the Blogfinger Timeline:
OG Historic Timeline on Blogfinger
CAST OF DAMES AT SEA (Bernadette Peters’ career was launched in this role, 1969:)
Mac, you have an outstanding idea, and it may be tax deductible.
The current lawsuit has a lot of merit, and if successful could start a ‘domino effect’ leading to the end of our Historic District, and no one wants to see that happen.
If every homeowner (single family/condo owner, etc.) were to pay a one time fee of ~$2,500 to obtain the lease to their property and own the land the Camp Meeting would end up with about $6M to invest for the future and eliminate this ridiculous situation.
Paul, when it speaks of “price of lots,” it would most likely mean the sale of leaseholds. If you look at the first 10 annual reports of the OGCMA, you will see the same language throughout talking about the sale of lots. This in actuality would most likely refer to the sale of leaseholds. I think that the following sentences, which are contained in the 6th annual report, would give a good indication of what they meant by the sale of lots. This is how it reads… “Our rules, which have been the subject of much comment, especially by those who never read them, we have published, and ask all to study. They are simply a mutual protection – not more for us than for you, IF WE SOLD OUR LOTS IN FEE SIMPLE RATHER THAN BY LEASE, you might have something offensive next to your cottage, which you have built for a pleasant Summer retreat.” So this would show that they are using the same language throughout. In the first 10 annual reports they speak of the “selling of lots.” At the same time in their historical documents they refer to it as “the selling of leaseholds,” so the terms are interchangeable and refer to the same thing. As far as Bradley “buying his lots,” I believe he was just using the same language and referring to it in the same way it was referred to in that time period.
I would go into further detail and make a better case, but at the present time I’m researching and working on my next blog post on, Rev. Joseph Thornley, one of Ocean Grove’s founding fathers. I hope to get it done in the next several weeks or sooner. I’m including a link to a historical book from 1879, which contains the first 10 annual reports and other historical documents. This way others can look into it themselves if they so wish, or perhaps find something that I might have missed.
https://archive.org/stream/oceangroveitsori00ocea#page/n179/mode/2up
Paul, you are correct, there is a presumption of validity to all Municipal decisions, until overturned.
However, in 1910 the CMA was only ‘acting as a Municipality’ when instead they were a corporation, the purpose of a corporation is to make money.
And as I have tried to point out, Neptune Township is the Municipality and they have all of us listed as the property owners.
My opinion, ‘that I own my property’ is consistent with Neptune Township’s tax book.
Whatever happened in Ocean Grove in 1869 or 1910 is simply part of It’s colorful history.
Justin: In your latest comment you refer to a CMA document that speaks of “price of lots.” How can we know if that refers to the sale of lots or the sale of leaseholds for the lots?
Dr. Carol. You may be the next Jessica Fletcher. The narrative part on the map says 1870, but Justin thought it was 1871 or 1872.
In view of this uncertainty, I have to retract my premature assessment that the mystery of the lease history has been definitively solved. If the date is later than 1870, then maybe the writing about the leases is fake news also. Maybe some sort of hocus pocus/3-card-monty did occur between 1869 and 1871-1872 (?) when a sale of lots was later somehow turned into sale of leases.
James Bradley said that he was “sold” a lot in 1870. A “leasehold” on my property was sold in 1873 according to the records in Freehold.
I had originally said that the lots were first “sold” and then “somehow” were turned into lease documents. I said that the history of all this was “murky,” and now I am back to square one.
But, unless a judge wants to reverse the CMA ownership claims, we have to continue the conversation with the idea that the CMA owns the land and that we homeowners are “lessees.”
This suit will be fascinating to watch.
Yes, the map is later than 1870, as indicated by:
1. The superintendent is listed as Rev. H.B. Beegle on the map and he became superintendent after Rev. W.B. Osborn resigned in the Spring of 1871.
2. On the map you will see a rectangle (where the Tabernacle now stands) and the words…”Association Post Office” penciled in beside it. This was the first Association building which also contained the post office. The Association office was moved to Main Avenue in the Spring of 1873. Therefore, the map would have had to have been made between 1871 and early 1873. I personally think that it was made sometime between 1871 and 1872.
Just now, as I’m typing this out, with the 2nd annual report of the OGCMA (1871) beside me, I glanced over and saw… “The Executive Committee felt impelled by a sense of duty to the Association, and also to lot-holders already located, to advance the price of lots from $100 to $150, and then to $250.” On the map it says, “The price of lots for the present is $100.” This would indicate that this map was probably made sometime in 1871.
North Ender, you are correct, I was adding a little levity to a serious matter.
But the question is, what happens if the CMA loses the current lawsuit?
In 1910, the CMA was acting as a municipality, when they were not.
A decision in the current lawsuit could be much different than the one in 1910.
You never know what a judge will decide.
The map you link to is really fascinating. I do think the estimated date on it (1870) is not right; my lot is listed as sold, but the first owner purchased the leasehold in 1871. Also, his purchase price was $75, not the $100 listed on the map. So it must be no earlier than 1871, and likely a few years later. We could probably pinpoint the date more accurately by figuring out when the open lots listed there were actually sold.
Sorry, Jack but you will lose that battle, The Supreme court ruled in 1910 that lessees are responsible for the taxes and “should be considered as owners rather than as tenants for years” even though the OGCMA still owns the land because “The title under the instrument now before the court is even more subject to such a characterization than a lease for 999 years, for it is in perpetuity, and passes to the heirs and assigns of the so-called lessees”
I purchased my lot in 2001 from the previous owners who were not the CMA. The Neptune tax book shows I own my lot. That is why I pay my taxes to Neptune.
If the court rules that the CMA owns my lot, then I would like a refund of all the taxes I have paid to Neptune.
I love that name “Truth.” Following his letter and Blogfinger’s input, one would assume eventually Neptune Twp. is providing all public services. So, why a ground rental to the Camp Meeting Association?