Illumination Night August 9, 2017. This town needs more of this lifestyle prototype. Paul Goldfinger @Blogfinger.net ©
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor@Blogfinger.
I have received some inquiries as to why Blogfinger failed to report about this news item. However, we did report on it, but it was buried in the Wassup section dated Jan. 10 (just scroll down to find it.) I also had something to say about the Warrington law suit.
This is what we said about the permit parking decision:
“At the January 8, 2018 Committee meeting, three Committeemen were present—Brantley, Lane and Williams. It was an icy evening, and some could not make it, including our reporter Jack Spratt (who eats no fat.)
“As we predicted, the Committee voted not to go forward with the permit parking proposal. It was a lose-lose proposition for them, and they are not afraid of OG voters and residents because we are sissies (defined in the world of political correctness as weak, ineffectual and even feckless.) But they do fear the CMA, the developers and the OGIC (OG Insiders Club.)
“Committeewoman Carol Rizzo plans to continue “fighting for permits.” She can’t see any other options, and we agree with her.
“We await the reaction of the Home Groaners. They nagged everyone to go to those meetings, but did they really expect approval? They, like the Cowardly Lion, need courage and better intelligence. (in the military sense of the word.) The Groaners must look behind the curtain and tell us what is actually happening behind the scenes at the Mother Ship.”
I guess I lost interest when the OGHOA failed to come up with an updated proposal written by a professional traffic/parking engineer. The Groaner’s proposal was a loser from the start, and you may recall that they refused to spell out the details in advance of the meeting where Carol Rizzo was to present the facts. As you know, her OGHOA presentation, while wearing the hat of Committeewoman, resulted in confusion on all sides of the debate.
A permit plan would be feasible, but it would have to be limited and moderate. I would support a plan that makes sense. And, as I have said many times, attention must be paid to the other side of the equation—the side where the volume of auto visitors keeps growing, where township organizations such as the Chamber, the CMA and the OGHOA fail to consider the needs of the residents who live in this town, and where state parking standards are ignored and where developers keep receiving absurd zoning support by the Township.
So that’s why the Blogfinger report was muted.
The lyrics below remind me of the changes needed in Ocean Grove’s lifestyles:
“Ride a Cock-horse to Banbury Cross to see a fine lady up on a white horse with rings on her fingers and bells on her toes, she shall have music wherever she goes.”
MARY ANN CAMPBELL:
Marc, you are correct.
But as most OG residents are not aware of what is going on, the train is about to leave the station.
The Township’s “conductor” has already punched the developer’s ticket to the future development of OG and Wesley Lake.
According to developers, historic preservation is “a detriment to development;”
as such, it does not have a ticket to ride on this train.
Ocean Grove is slowly evolving into Asbury Park South.
I also agree with Kevin Chambers’ point which he has been making for years to deaf ears. Though perhaps his delivery can be a bit harsh sometimes or even off setting (sorry), it is the right message and I applaud him for continuing to fight the good fight.
The powers that be in Neptune and whatever other authorities have an official say in zoning allowed and approved construction of condo’s and such in OG without provisions for parking. Enabling this non-compliant strategy has certainly been and continues to be a financial benefit to the Township and contractors.
Yes the growth of AP is also a major contributor to the parking issues especially in North End but for now that is out of our control (but agree needs a strategy).
What is in our control is that we address the zoning issues now so as not to further perpetuate the problem by allowing further expansion (eg condo, high density structures) within OG.
Let’s not let what happened to Ocean City (NJ) happen to us where small single floor, single family dwellings were virtually all replaced with condos and large multi-family homes which has created a disaster for parking and other density related issues.
From what I could tell, the proposed plan was going to allow residential permit parking in about 25% of Ocean Grove. (There were 2 plans proposed…..as a starting point….and Carol Rizzo suggested the smaller version)
No one was taking anything away. All it was doing, was trying to 1) reduce the number of people parking here and walking to Asbury Park, and 2) give a resident a ‘fighting chance’ to get parking if they have to move their car over a summer weekend.
In the past 8 years I have seen a significant increase in cars parked here over the summer. New homes are being built; modest or vacated homes are being gutted and turned into luxury homes that will bring more guests in the summer; and then there’s Asbury Park.
We need to do something for the residents, especially those who live in the North End which actually isn’t I.
We can still be welcoming and have a small residential permit parking program. And, I agree, that the zoning has not been followed which is terribly unfortunate. Hopefully we can work together and find a workable solution.
It is the Township (since 1879) and not the CMA who is responsible for providing adequate parking for everyone in Ocean Grove, and that includes beachgoers, store owners, homeowners, the CMA and visitors.
The Homeowner’s parking plan favored the homeowners and discriminated against the CMA.
The CMA was understandably less than happy with the plan.—-Jack Bredin
I agree with Kevin Chambers 100%.
LTOGL: Anyone who lives in OG pays local exorbitant taxes in one way or another. Thanks, Paul
@PG – I was referring to either summer renters or condo and home owners who come to OG infrequently, not full time “residents” who pay exhorbitant taxes. Hope that helps.
The issue here is that OG residents should expect legal zoning and legal representation from the three Attorney’s and the Planner that our taxes pay for. We are not getting that.
Through a Court case that the League of Municipalities lost in court, which included Neptune, Neptune was required to establish a legal lot size definition. That minimum lot size definition required parking. The township has refused to do this. Instead it continues using the OGCMA non-conforming and under-sized lot for its definition within Neptune’s zoning. This is what has been permitting the over-density and the perpetuation of what should be non-permitted uses, “Condos”.
This not only violates the MLUL but it also violates your right to the 14th amendment to equal protection under the law.The township knows that the HD-R-1,HD-O, the HD-R-2 and the HD-B-1 zones within Neptune were all created in violation of law and in contempt of a court order.
The Township has been using your OG tax dollars not to protect OG but to rape it for the high taxes using illegal zoning. That is the real issue.
Kevin Chambers
Blogfinger – I’ve been in OG for 62 years, some part time, some full time. As a child, there were parking issues due to “Tourists” coming to the beach. They still do. That it sits on the Atlantic Ocean defines it as tourist area. Yes, we are a community, but the powers that be are the ones who created condos from hotels. More people used trains to come visit, so not as many parking spaces were used. Maybe we should lock the gates to out-of-towners (sarcasm). What a welcoming community we would be then. It is not the governments job to keep people from parking and walking to another town. My objective is to make people understand there have been parking issues except Sundays (til 1980) for a long time. Most homes currently have 2 cars and 1.5 parking spaces.
Kevin and Doug MacMorris, what surprises me is that nobody is in jail after all the illegal condo and subdivision approvals in OG.
If the CMA owns all the land in OG, then we can make OG a “gated community;” if not, we should secede from Neptune Township.
Long Time OG Lady: I wish you were a bit clearer in your statement.
Evidently you think that if a resident expects to be able to park in town that we should consider him to be a “complainer.” If that is what you are saying, then I disagree.
All residents should expect to find parking and not be totally gridlocked by visitors. And, although it is true that there are limited spaces in the Grove, those of us who live here should expect that the Township would make every effort to make conditions better for them, for example with a workable permit plan. Instead, the Committee did what they planned to do all along—they rejected the idea without offering a different approach.
And, I’m not sure why you seem to make a distinction between full time and part time residents. Please explain.
—-Paul @Blogfinger
How many of the “complainers” are full-time residents and how many are part-time residents who feel they are “entitled” to parking?
Kevin – So well stated. You are so right. Sad……..
We all knew the issues when buying in OG, but the purpose of a legal Master Plan and a legal zoning ordinance is to correct the problems and issues that a community has over a long term, not make it worse as Neptune is doing.
Neptune, instead of creating legal ordinances, has perpetuated policies and procedures within its illegal zoning to usurp the laws of the state. Neptune is in violation of the Municipal Land Use Laws and RSIS found within the MLUL along with Federal ADA parking regulations required for all new hotels and new commercial uses.
The Township has refused to include these requirements within the zoning for OG. Neptune continues to be in contempt of a court order and because of this, Neptune is directly harming the residents of OG. The Township has been granting use variances for greater density than is permitted by law for the non-conforming single family lots that exist in OG.
These are some of the issues that continues to plague this community. The fact is, that Neptune holds the people in OG in contempt. Neptune believes they are above the law and therefore believe that they have the right to violate the law when it comes to zoning for OG residents.
Until that changes, Neptune will continue to rape Ocean Grove for the taxes it will gain with high density created through the granting of illegal use variances.
Kevin Chambers
So, part of the CMA’s mission is to provide free parking for the patrons and staff of the bars, restaurants, boardwalk attractions. and beaches of Asbury Park. Do any of the CMA Board members actually live in the area north of Main Avenue?
Grover 13, your kind of right. When we bought our place 12 years ago, Ocean Grove was crowded, but the Township allowed hundreds more housing units (mostly condos) without requiring them to provide parking, which means hundreds and hundreds of more cars fit into a limited number of already overcrowded spaces.
Add to that the overwhelming success of the redevelopment of Asbury Park and the hundreds of cars using the North End for free parking, we have a disaster on the North End!
I live across from the tents and the Auditorium, mostly frequented by seniors, and they are not good at parking 4-5 blocks away for shows and services. I predict a further erosion of attendance at services and Saturday night shows because of this.
Something needs to be done, if the CMA opened up their deserted, trash covered North End for parking, that could help a little.
Since when is Ocean Grove defined as a tourist town? The Master Plan sees it as a residential town. How the town defines itself can lead to a solution to parking.–Paul @Blogfinger
Does no one understand there is NO space to expand parking. It was that way when most people bought in town. Unless we start tearing down buildings, there are about 1.5 parking spots per lot. Did no one notice this before they bought? It’s just a fact of living in a tightly packed tourist town.
The HOA’s proposed permit parking plan was not prepared using State standards for on-street parking, and could never be implemented.
Also, there was no review by, or reports from the Township’s Planner, Engineer, or Planning Board.
The Township Committee was correct in rejecting this improperly prepared plan.