Caption: “It’s easier to fly here than park here.” By Sue Gioulis. Blogfinger.net
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor Blogfinger.net
According to the Better Parking Alliance you can click on a link from their email or go to the Neptune site to read the Kimley-Horn Parking Plan–paid for by the CMA.
We do not have any desire to read this complex plan in detail because it is mostly conjecture juggling multiple balls in the air. There are no final conclusions, only balls in the air.
You can wrestle with it if you wish and you can go to the May 3 meeting, but I believe it will be a case of herding cats. Your family may have to put you in a home afterwards.
I did, however, find out a few things: There are “challenges (8), methodology (10), study goals (15), recommendations (12), and study findings. (8). Also, their PDF comes up sideways, so you may have to stand on your head to read it.
Their study goals are impressive, but they are just goals. Here are quotes:
–The “parking management program” must be at least financially self-sufficient
–Township services must be compensated
–Maintain access to public beaches as implied by the Public Trust Doctrine (WOW!—Does the Township Comedy know what that doctrine means?)
—Improve the possibility of parking access for OG residents. (YES! But it’s only a “possibility”)
–Enhance access to Ocean Grove’s events and its character as a National Historic District. (Does any one in this town know what “character” means in this context? And what is meant by “events?”)
–Promote tourism and commerce in Ocean Grove’s commercially zoned areas. (But what is meant by tourism?)
–Avoid becoming an unwelcoming closed community. (What do they mean by a “closed community?”)
BUT: If you read their 2021 “Challenges” you will find that. “Parking solutions to meet the needs of one user group is almost impossible without impact to another user group”. That is the crux of the problem. Insoluble!
AND : if you think that they are saying a “mouthful,” try reading all of it.
For example, when discussing “issues” they devote one sentence: “How to handle church service and special church event period demand for parking”. That one sentence is just one of many that is “loaded.”
Here are some words that you can find in this analysis. (quotes): ” resident only permit, fluctuation in demand posed by beach demand, parking meters, assess additional spaces which could be added to current parking inventory, residential district, angle parking, free parkers from Asbury and Bradley, phased approach, shuttles pay by cell parking, enforcement, parking structure, and pilot program” among others.
Oh: And guess what? No mention of swarming masses of tourists clogging our town and how about reducing the amount and quantity of giant events in season. Who benefits from them?
But the one which will knock your socks off is the suggestion that “reduction of Asbury Park employees and visitors parking in residential areas of Ocean Grove might be accomplished by immediately revising the closing time of pedestrian gates on bridges to Asbury Park.”
Using those bridges to control flow of Asburians into the Grove means that the consultants must refund their fee to the CMA immediately and ride out of town.
I do believe that it would be a riot to witness the Neptune Comedy in action trying to understand this document on May 3.
THE GALLAHADS. “Gone.” Now here’s a problem worth mulling over.
Thanks David Fox. I appreciate the help. Paul @ Blogfinger.net
I watched the meeting last night and came away with some points. A parking garage would likely not pay for itself given the seasonality of OG. A remote parking lot with a shuttle bus was stated to have been tried by the OGCMA and usage found disappointing.
The only feasible proposal seemed to have been that for resident parking permits within “zones.” I can foresee great debate over the boundaries of these zones, and, of course, the cost of the permits. Another question of parking for hotels would have to be resolved as well. One suggestion was closing the Wesley Lake bridges early to discourage parking in OG. These bridges are deteriorating and may have to be demolished in the not distant future.
This whole thing is just a mess. A while back an unnamed Committee person said: “…..nothing will ever be done. There IS NO solution. Deal with it or move.” And that is a true statement from a Twp. Committee member, corroborated by a Neptune Police Dep’t. ranked officer who said the same words.
Jack and Kevin – Please know that your efforts are appreciated. We just wish some enforcement related to your laws would take place.
Do you get the feeling that the Mother Ship sees us as “annoying;” “a pain in the a_ _.” “complainers?” Maybe if one of them lived in OG they would have more respect, interest, and energy. It’s sad.
I would like to add extortion to Kevin Chamber’s list of illegal activities.
Ocean Grove is mostly a residential zone where renting an apartment is permitted.
A mercantile system must operate within a commercial zone.
If a property owner rents an apartment in a residential zone, they are not a merchant, they are a landlord. And, should not be charged a yearly Mercantile fee.
Make no mistake, Neptune is violating the 14th amendment that states in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Neptune and it’s attorneys have refused to enforce state mandated laws in order to violate the rights of OG residents by writing illegal ordinances, by holding illegal hearings knowing their testimony is false, and using illegal zoning to deny equal protection that Neptune has provided to the rest of the Township’s residents.
Neptune has spent taxpayer money knowing the zoning they have been using to over burden this community is directly in violation of law.
This clear intent of Neptune to violate the equal protection of OG residents is intended to do great harm for all in Ocean Grove.
That is outright bigotry.
There is a State Schedule that requires on-site parking for every developed lot, or the Township must provide an equal amount of parking on the street, even for a church.
If the Township adopts a “Parking Plan” that would allow for parking permits in Ocean Grove, how many spaces on a street would a home owner be entitled to. For example, a 4-family house would require 8 on-or-off-street parking spaces; the Great Auditorium about 2,600.
But first, before any parking plan can be prepared or adopted by the Township, there must be a “study” conducted by a licensed engineer or a traffic expert to determine just exactly how many LEGAL PARKING SPACES there are on the streets of the Grove pursuant to all applicable State laws.
However, this is the responsibility of the Township and not the Ocean Grove Homeowners Association. In any case, no such study exists. The HOA simply made up the number, and our Planner, on behalf of the Township said, “There are plenty of parking spaces for everyone, or they can park in Asbury Park,” and the Township has been “looking into it” since 1982.
The purpose of the current CMA study is: in the unlikely event such a study is ever conducted, how many spaces would the CMA properties be enticed to by law.
This CMA “study” was inspired when the Homeowners Parking Committee concluded that the Camp Meeting Association was not entitled to any parking spaces, just the homeowners.
Visitors and people going to the Beach could take a proposed jitney bus.
The CMA is simply looking out for their own interest, as they should.
Everyone else is depending on the Township Committee and the OGHOA.
“Houston, we have a problem”
In the 1930’s the court ruled that all OGCMA 99 year leases were held in perpetuity, in other words, that were held for an infinite amount of time and could not be changed.
Therefore by federal law all OGCMA lots must be zoned the same and defined as undersized, non-conforming lots held to single family use.
Not only is the lease held in perpetuity, anything dealing with the lease is restricted to only single family use.
Therefore the OG overlay zone used to create the North End Area in Need of Re-Development is 100% illegal and was created fraudulently to grant a use that Neptune knew was illegal.
The parking report being presented to Neptune is based on zoning that Neptune knew it created in violation of law. This is known because Neptune failed to receive approvals from the state RSIS board because Neptune’s zoning was found in violation of law by the State.
As long as Neptune refuses to bring OGs zoning into conformity with federal and state laws, any actions it takes for OG is illegal and violates the rights of residents of OG.
Yes. This ridiculous study was held despite the profound effects of the pandemic on parking. And it seemingly was done on purpose so as to make the parking problems in town seem to be less significant and to try to force a hurry-up private plan on a slow public process.
Your comment was very good, but a garage is not the “only solution.” Yes we have a limited number of spaces. (supply), but what we really need is to change the town’s plan and restrict the number of mega-events and thus to reduce the numbers of parkers on the best weekends of the year. (demand)
OG residents are being ignored by those who fill our town with tourists who suck up all the parking. The parking professionals have paid attention mostly to the supply side of the parking equation by nibbling at the edges. Those nibbles can help residents by providing resident permits. The residents pay the taxes here, and this is a quality of life issue for them and no one else.
The consultants should pack their bags, proclaim defeat, and go where their plans might work. Ocean Grove needs some basic changes in its values and planning.
Paul. Was this study done in 2020 in the midst of a pandemic? How could these results be valid if most restaurants were not open to capacity and there were few events held in town or at the auditorium.
Since there are not enough spaces available for the number of residents, it seems to me that the only solution is a parking garage, metered parking for beach visitors and permits for all residents.
I doubt any of these options will happen.
The study also references employees of Bradley Beach parking in the Grove, yet I don’t see any information on how the south end of town is impacted.
Very disappointing – waste of money .
Here are some dates relating to OG parking:
1899 First automobile in OG.
1914 Sunday parking prohibited.
1928 Garages on private lots first permitted in OG.
1987 Parking within 25 feet of an intersection prohibited. (-2k spaces in OG).
The 1932 bridges over Wesley Lake may be reaching the end of their service lives. Concrete structures often fail from the rusting of internal reinforcing steel bars. In Feb. 2021, the Wesley Lake Commission had the underside of the bridges inspected by boat. An inspection done decades earlier revealed some problems even then.
The OGCMA owns an auditorium that holds 6,000 people; why isn’t this important meeting being held where the public can attend?
Is Neptune and the OGCMA working together to promote an invalid parking report?
Is the OGCMA’s report following and including state mandated requirements for parking for all their facilities and leaseholds they control?
Is the OGCMA’s parking study based on Neptune’s invalid and illegal zoning requirements for OG?
If any of these questions are answered with a yes, then we in OG are dealing with major corruption.