Ocean Grove beach front. January, 2015. By Bob Bowné. © Special to Blogfinger
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger.net
Today a letter was posted in the Coaster (Nov. 22, 2017) from the new President of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, Michael Badger. He did not send it to Blogfinger, so I am going by the Coaster version. As you recall, the CMA recently threatened to sue the Township if the permit parking plan was implemented.
But this letter, which quarrels with the plan, assumes the details of the plan when it has not yet been shared with the public. His aggressive and totally negative stance, it seems to me, is premature since the Township won’t present the plan until Nov. 27.
At that Township meeting, at 6 pm, Committeeman Carol Rizzo will present the proposal at a workshop session, however if you want to speak, you have to wait for the public portion, perhaps hours later, although the agenda doesn’t seem very long.
But Badger’s letter is, in of itself, obnoxious because many of its assertions are not based on any data or facts, and the straw men that he brings up are designed to alarm and distract us all.
Below is a point by point discussion about most of what he says in the letter:
He opens with this message, “The plan will create more problems than existed originally.”
- The motives of the CMA, in objecting to the plan, are disingenuous, because Badger never mentions that the CMA is worried about parking for their religious programming which is becoming progressively more active including a year round presence.
- “The plan suffers from exclusivity.” He is upset that only OG residents could get a permit. Well, yes—that’s the point of it all.
- “Turning away our neighbors is not the solution” Fake news! No one would be turned away; but they may have to work a bit harder to find parking. And what “neighbors” is he referring to?
- He is worried about the “expense.” He thinks that “$60-$90 for the first year, with renewal fees annually is cause for concern.” Is he really worried about the “expense?” So far no one else has even mentioned a price tag.
- He is worried because some open permit spaces might sometimes result. He says that this is “inefficiency.” If the plan has been developed by experts, this should be a minimal issue.
- He says, “The plan creates an unsustainable burden for the lodging community.” He is referring to hotels. This assertion is based on what? It sounds like fake news.
- Policing this service is “a poor use of police time.” Since when is the CMA worried about that? If Neptune passes the plan they can figure how to enforce and finance the program just as they do for everything in Neptune.
- A “significant source of the OG parking problem is the result of neighboring municipalities.” He seems to think that talking to Asbury Park will get results. He is clueless. They already have rejected the idea of helping us.
- Here are some of the straw men: “The plan will hurt businesses; it will discourage visitors; it will be unsustainable for hotels; it will cost residents money; it will burden law enforcement; it will create more problems than existed originally; and the plan will be “bad for residents.” Yikes!!
- And, the ultimate straw man: “The CMA vision is for Ocean Grove to be the seaside community which welcomes all generations. The proposed pilot program clashes with our welcoming vision.” But what about the vision of those who actually live in this town—the real community of Ocean Grove?
- And another assertion that flies in the face of reality and gets the summer problem totally wrong: “Residents enjoy the shore 365 days a year. A year round parking restriction seeks to fix a problem which is acute only 10-12 weekends a year. Shouldn’t we share God’s beautiful ocean with others for at least the summer weekends? ” What????
We have covered what Badger said, including his bringing God into the discussion, but he forgot to notice that the residents/community of Ocean Grove, have a problem that needs fixing and that they deserve some help as well.
He has mentioned all the factions that might be affected by the plan except for those who actually live here, spend the most time here, pay taxes here, keep up our Victorian homes here (which the tourists love) and develop a life style here.
And he doesn’t accept any responsibility on the part of the CMA to do something themselves about parking for tourists.
KELLI O’HARA: Original Broadway cast of Nice Work If You Can Get It. “But Not For Me.”
A boycott is undeserved. The CMA is a private organization pursuing its “mission.” They founded the town and they are still, in many ways, an asset to the town and the people of Ocean Grove.
They have made it clear that they have little interest in the Ocean Grove “community” other than in relation to their mission. They do very little which might be considered to be secular and neighborly, although two striking contrary examples are the magnificent 4th of July Parade and some of the summer classical music programming. The loss of most of Saturday night secular shows is a public relations mistake.
Having said that, I do wish that they were more concerned with the community of Ocean Grove residents, and what makes them significantly different from other organizations in town is that they own the land, so that might be a unique reason why they should be more concerned.
The OGCMA has made its position clear:
We want to welcome visitors to our beach and to our secular and religious programs. We need their money. And, if we inconvenience residents of OG occasionally you should simply grin and bear it because you are so fortunate to reside in “God’s Square Mile at the Jersey Shore.”
If OGCMA does not support us, why should we support them?
BOYCOTT THE OGCMA !
Don’t buy beach badges! Go to the beach at 430 pm when badge checkers leave (and uv index lower).
Don’t give OGCMA any money for tickets to shows or donations/offerings for religious programs.
Don’t pay land rent!
Totally agree with RH . Neptune may complain about cost of meter system . However our high taxes in OG can pay for it . We should get something for our money . OGCMA & historical folx might object to aesthetics . Numbered spots and meter stations on every corner wouldn’t look so great . Maybe make the stations look like Great Auditorium or like Tent Homes .
RH hit the nail on the head. Permits plus meters. That’s a comprehensive solution.
The methods of metered parking and residential permits in high density areas are established and mature. It’s done everywhere. This should be simple for the experts. Why is the parking subject being turned into rocket science in the case of Ocean Grove?
Regarding the parking, I have the solution, and it is quite simple. Meter the entire town with pay stations. All residential units get the right to purchase up to 2 permits at a price. Permitted cars park for free and never have to pay meter, while visitors do. The rates can be adjusted to effectively to match supply/demand. This will keep the velocity of parking spaces up and make it easier for all to find a spot.
Additionally, have alternate side of the street parking for an hour on each street once a week for street cleaning. This will reduce “warehousing” and actually result in cleaner streets. All of this will then be paid by annual parking permit fees and ticketing. It would be cost neutral and everyone would be happy – residents, businesses, and visitors. It works elsewhere, why not here?
Editor’s note: Excellent plan by RH—-worth looking at.
Businesses will be affected by the permit parking because this year the businesses were largely negatively affected by the lack of parking. Annual summer customers did not make it into the shop until after Labor Day, because there is no parking available.
Permit parking is not the answer. I am a resident of the town also. Surely, the residents don’t want to see the businesses in town go under. That would be awful for our town.
The answer is the need in more parking. (North End).
P.S. The business person who left their initials is the name he goes by in town. That’s his actual name that people in town refer him by. He’s not being mysterious, nor does he work for CMA.
This is a sovereignty issue, in my estimation. Asbury park businesses are stealing Neptune land (spaces) at Neptune’s expense, at Neptune resident’s expense. Neptune has to protect Neptune, especially its most vulnerable, by protecting its resources — parking land.
Neptune has to protect property values in Ocean Grove. Making Ocean Grove a pleasing place to put roots helps property values and Township revenues, ratables and investment opportunity.
Camp Meeting Association religious zealotry is a negative force. Recent events have taught us to stay away from their preaching about morality. Real morality starts at home. And that reposit, is with my Ocean Grove neighbors, not some detached, illogical interloper.
I don’t understand why a businessman in town, an important citizen, who wants to express an opinion about a matter of public policy, would refuse to use his actual name when addressing thousands of people on this local blog, most of whom are from Ocean Grove.
Wouldn’t he use his real name if he were writing the Asbury Park Press or even the Coaster?
Why should anyone take him seriously when he wishes to hide behind anonymity? Is he misrepresenting who he is? Is he just some shill from the Chamber or the CMA?
This is why Blogfinger would be better off discarding its anonymous commenting policy. The comments would likely go down in number, but those who sign in with their real names would have more credibility. We are currently assessing this policy change.
Oh…………….it’s not too late yet. Happy Thanksgiving everyone! The greeting is not taxed, does not require dredging and best of all does not require a parking space.
To CJD: If this issue is so important, why hasn’t the Chamber spoken out as well? Or are they going to step to the microphone on Nov 27 and drop a strategic self-serving stink bomb onto the proceedings?
The cabana parking concern is nonsense because people can do that now; they don’t need a permit to make that happen. And, during peak summer months, there are already many beach people who take up spots in the business district and stay there all day. A permit plan will not hurt the business district.
And as for the canard that there only 12 weeks that are a problem for residents, that is not true. We have trouble from May through December. It is true that sometimes the issue is intermittent rather than constant, but do we have suffer saturation in order to get some relief?
And the now worsening year-round Asburian invasion and the CMA year-round ambitions will potentially give us trouble 12 months per year. And the local businesses continue to seek out more year-round customers (ie tourists) to crowd the town by events such as the Harvest Festival, the British Car Show, and the Chocolate Lovers weekend—all occurring in “off months.” And there are other congesting events year round (eg at least two 5K runs and the NJ Marathon.)
What the business community needs in terms of parking is not the subject on the table here. This is about relief for the community of residents in the Grove.
The Chamber can work on solving their parking issues. We will not be debating the needs of the business community on Blogfinger at this time because it is just another straw man distraction designed to bring down permit parking.
Here is an FYI for those who might be interested in knowing how Hoboken created a workable permit parking system. It was sent to us by an anonymous BF reader:
http://hobokennj.gov/departments/transportation-parking/parking/
Is this permit plan a booby trap, designed to fail?
Why are the details being kept secret until the last minute (except to the CMA and the HOA). Who exactly wrote this plan? Was it done professionally by a consultant or is it something that was obtained from the Internet or from a former failed plan?
The HOA keeps too many secrets from the citizens. What self-serving motives are at play here?
I think the Committee is putting this thing up while hoping it doesn’t stick. They see it as a no win situation for them. And since when does the Committee care about the people of Ocean Grove?
As a business owner and full-time resident of OG, I believe permit parking will be detrimental to the business community. In my opinion, it is not the answer. Residents on Main Ave. and the ‘back streets’ of our businesses, Olin and Heck, will take up spaces with their permitted 2nd cars as cabana spaces.
What we need to realize is this situation is acute 12 weeks of the year. Those are the same 12-16 weeks that make or break a downtown business, and carry them through the ‘lean’ months, when a large percentage of residents have left OG for warmer climes. If anything should be implemented, it should be a fixed time parking in the downtown area from Memorial Day to Labor Day. This would give visitors a chance to park and spend the necessary $$ to help OG businesses survive.
Some of these comments are too long, but it’s time to allow Grovers to speak out on the details of a plan.
Please try to stick to opinions that have not already been shared. The editing light is on.
This is a forum for ideas, not a referendum.
Thank you, The management.
My observations are that the parking situation has gotten much worse over the past 3-5 years as AP has metered much of its parking, built many more housing units within 500 yards of the the oceanfront, and as Asbury Park’s popularity as a weekend and vacation destination has soared. Additionally, I observe there are two components to the parking issue- a seasonal component largely from July 01 to September 15 and a year round component.
The year round component is nearly 100% due to employees and patrons of businesses in Asbury Park and, to a far lesser extent, Bradley Beach, who park in Ocean Grove and then walk over to those communities for their employment or leisure activities. I am largely indifferent to the need to provide parking for this category of visitors when doing do reduces parking available to anyone residing in Ocean Grove, attending religious services here, attending Great Auditorium events, patronizing OG businesses including OG beaches.
So the seasonal parking component comes right down to whose interests should be paramount. The choices are homeowners, religious service/event attendees, seasonal tent renters, attendees of non-Religious presentations at the Great Auditorium, daytime visitors, and overnight patrons of Ocean Grove B&Bs/AirBnB.
I think that to reserve one side of the street for homeowners with 1 or 2 parking permits per tax paying unit is equitable. I would have no objection to the restriction being lifted between 8-12 on Sunday mornings so religious service attendees could be accommodated. There will be start up costs of installing signage and issuing the permits. There will be incremental police enforcement costs which may be absorbed by the additional parking citation revenue.
I think we have nothing to lose by initiating a pilot program for 2 years and re-evaluating the situation at that time.
I don’t understand. How does free parking improve the CMA’s ability to message their mission? If they are concerned about less parking leading to less visitors, let’s do some math. Hypothetically, assume OG has a parking capacity of 2000 cars and there are 1200 cars that belong to OG residents. That means there are 800 spots available to visitors. After permits, there will still be 1200 resident cars occupying 2000 available spots. This means that there will still be 800 remaining for visitors of CMA events (and AP and BB). Permit parking has no affect on availability of free visitor parking. If the concern is proximity of parking to the venue or beach, there’s an easy fix… come to OG earlier.
The inefficiency argument (point #5) will be no worse than today. The over congested parking created by the current free-for-all system in OG is the purest definition of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Walk around town at the peak of summer and count how many parking spaces are lost due to creative do-it-yourself reserved parking spot; not to mention the amount of unfortunate aggravation it can cause between neighbors—- all well documented on previous Blogfinger articles and in the comment sections. I hope the permit process will mitigate this behavior. It should not be necessary to hold parking spots since open spots should be more available.
In the big picture, an efficient process would be one where parking spots turn over more frequently so residents and other visitors have more parking opportunities. Theoretically, parking turnover is also good for retail and restaurant businesses as well since it pushes various customers into their areas throughout a day. Ideally, metered parking should be applied around the business sections of OG Main St but I’m digressing. That’s an argument for another day.
In the end, permit parking will pave the way to an improved quality of life for those of us that come home to OG everyday. As a land tenant of the CMA, I hope these improvements will become apparent to them and an eventual part of their mission as well.
I pay extraordinarily high taxes to live in Ocean Grove 52 weeks of the year, dead of winter not excluded. Am I being not “Christian” enough to want to enjoy those best 10 or 12 weeks of the year myself? Cut my taxes in half and I will gladly continue to look for parking and be less selfish.
Radar: My opinion: The term “tourists” would encompass all the categories which you mention except tenters, and they should fall under the heading of “residents.” —Paul
In the same edition of the Coaster is a letter from Joyce Klein, Chair, OGHOA Parking Committee entitled “Give Permits a Chance.” It is a forceful and excellent letter, and here are just a few of her cogent quotes:
1. “Why does the Camp Meeting favor visitors over residents?”
2. “This is our town and our problem. It is not Asbury Park’s problem.”
3. Regarding the CMA’s goal of a “welcoming vision”, Ms. Klein says, “The current situation which forces residents and visitors alike to engage in inefficient, time consuming and often futile hunts for parking is the opposite of “welcoming.”
4. She also stated that the permit plan would cause fewer spaces to be available for visitors, however we are not sure that she is correct. We need data to know that her analysis is true. A well designed permit plan should not result in less spaces for visitors.
You can read her entire statement in the Coaster, 11/22/17, page 10.
As usual Blogfinger is right.
But it is not only tourist parking, but it is daily beach-goers, Sunday morning service attendants, Saturday night entertainment seekers, tenters and their guests, plus other program events.
What is the Camp Meeting Association’s solution to help their own religious, educational, and recreational efforts?