Permit parking “proposal” as presented in a handout by the Township and the OGHOA on 11/27/17. Click on it to read it easier.
This is the original parking plan when the Camp Meeting ran the town. From the HSOG museum. Blogfinger photo
Paul Goldfinger, MD, Editor
At the November 27, 2017 “workshop” meeting of the Township Committee, Committeewoman Carol Rizzo was supposed to present a “plan” for permit parking that was advocated, but not released, by the OGHOA and the Committee. But many people thought that the plan to be presented was a completed formal plan even though it was to be tried out for awhile on the streets of Ocean Grove. A handout given at the meeting is titled, “Pilot for Parking Permits.”
As it turns out, this “proposal” is an old one, from 2012, presented to Carol Rizzo by the township Engineer LeAnn Hofmann. That was not made clear on the handout.
And it is the same one that was rejected in the past plus 18 new spaces, a fact confirmed by Ms. Rizzo. Former Committeeman Randy Bishop had said in the past that this idea had been presented five times over the years without success. You would think they would have come up with something new.
As you can see, there is not enough meat on the bones of this “plan.” There are uncertainties and many questions not addressed, and it is signed and sealed by nobody. How can they endorse the plan for a temporary trial when no engineer has certified the number of legal parking spaces in the Grove?
Instead of presenting a firm recommendation and a finalized agreement, signed, sealed and delivered, the handout contains statistics, questions, and “options” along with a discussion of “goals and measures.” (The entire handout is not shown above; only the “proposal” part)
If you want to read the decorations hanging from the tree, you should contact the HOA and read what they say on their site, OGHOA.org. But shouldn’t the crowd have received a final version to discuss rather than a preliminary plan? If you answer a question with a question, chaos will emerge, and success will be less likely.
Do you think that the Groaners, who promoted the heck out of this meeting, might have imagined that a large crowd would attend and maybe wondered where everyone would sit and, by the way, persuade the mayor to let the questions come out after the presentation instead of waiting for hours for the public portion of the regular meeting to follow?
And maybe it’s good that the meeting collapsed from the weight of over 200 Grovers because a Q and A during the public portion could have gone on all night. We understand that the mayor might allow questions when they re-do the workshop in December, but we need to see the public announcement and the agenda.
Also, you might want to review the report on the HOA plea to the Committee for a parking solution—in 2016. It is quite revealing.
June 2016 parking meeting: a dud!
MARSHALL CRENSHAW and VINCE GIORDANO AND THE NIGHTHAWKS from HBO’s Boardwalk Empire: “Out of Nowhere.”
Kate,
Most of our streets are twenty five feet wide, with no room for expansion.
The Township Committee cannot approve an “official plan” to provide parking spaces on two sides of a twenty five foot wide street. Not enough room for emergency equipment.
This is just one ‘fatal flaw’ in the HOA’s permit parking plan.
We need a plan that can get approved.
The plan as announced by the HOA/Neptune partnership has lots of unanswered details, and snow management is one. It is not a complete/finalized plan.
Jack: at this point, who cares who collects the profit from metered parking, as long as it gets the job done!
Jack Bredin: As far as metered parking altering the charm of OG, there would not be a meter at every parking space, but there would be a pay station in designated locations. I could think of much worse things in OG that are “ugly” and we learn to overlook it.
The thought of permits sounds nice, but it logically won’t work effectively as the only remedy. It needs to work hand in hand with metered parking.
If only permits are given, then we rarely will get the chance to park in front of our own home, as the free AP parkers will just park on one side, while leaving us with the same problem, not being able to park in front of our own home.
Would these permits/metered parking also be issued for the off-season? If only permits given and no metered parking, expect a real mess in the winter, when cars can only park on one side of the street. Winter parking is just as bad for me as the summer months.
Couple of comments. First, Kate is right about meters. The proposal seeks to address the supply of parking by dedicating some spots to residents. It does little to address demand other than put a time limit on Main Avenue parking.
Meters are needed to manage demand or it won’t work very well.
As for Jack’s comment, land ownership is not the only issue. The CMA may well resist even putting up signage to post the resident parking spaces. I don’t think they can use ownership to prevent the Township from performing a reasonable municipal function. Signage is already there for stop signs, etc., and this is not different. Same applies to parking meters. It’s an interesting case.
As for Rose Marie’s comment, I expected this objection. Want a second permit, use price to limit demand. Charge more, a lot more. I do support the plan because it gets the process started. But it is only a start.
Jack : We could have faux victorian meters just as we have faux victorian houses . Could design them & make them to look very nice . Maybe look like the Great Auditorium , a tent home , North End Hotel , Sampler Inn, horse hitching posts, etc.
Physical parking meters are so 20th century. Virtual parking meters is where the future is. In Asbury Park, you can pay for parking via a smartphone app. Just enter the spot number, amount of time, and payment info. That’s the method we should use too. Preserves the historic character of OG, and removes the need and costs of maintaining and repairing meters.
Virtual meters creates a lot of flexibility too. It potentially provides a way to even temporarily accommodate for complementary parking… Visiting grandma for Saturday night dinner who lives on Heck Ave? No problem, tell her your spot number. She can call it in for guest parking. Or if she’s a tech savvy grannie, log into her parking app to assign the spot as her guest…. Spent $100 at the local shop on Main St? Thanks for supporting OG business and remember to tell the cashier your parking spot number so they can assign it as customer parking and provide you a refund for one hour of parking as a token of appreciation…
Technology has come a long way. Let’s think outside the box. There’s a solution that can fit everyone’s needs…. residents, businesses, customers, guests, worshippers, beach goers, etc.
Kate: All the money collected from parking meters would go to the CMA as they own the land where the meters would be located.
Now, that is not a bad thing, but Ocean Grove would look like Hell, and we could lose our historic character and designation.
Might as well bring back the chains. I own a home in OG and, because of scheduling, I often drive separately from my husband when spending time there. One permit per household is a crazy idea.
This is all so ridiculous, and not at all surprising that the meeting had been cancelled.
Everyone has ideas of improving parking, which is good to discuss & try to make change…but parking permits won’t benefit any resident in town, unless there is meter parking (with pay stations), charging the same amount – if not more – than Asbury Park’s parking.
Of course, more parking spaces would be lovely at the North End, but that would again just be free parking for Asbury Park, so that parking would also need to be metered.
Why is the town against metered parking, when it will benefit everyone. Residents will get permits. Visitors of Ocean Grove will pay for parking.
And Asbury Park Free Parkers will no longer take up all of our spaces.
It all can be so simple!