The North End… How about parking here? How about armed guards at the Casino to keep out those Asburian interlopers? Blogfinger photo.
President Michael Badger of the Camp Meeting Assoc. has a history of putting his foot in his mouth when giving interviews to the Coastericans and the Asbury Park Mess.
He indicated that A. Park’s parking policies are making things worse in the Grove, but OG has had parking problems long before A. Park’s renaissance. He refers to Asbury as “the specific issue we have there.” And, yes, AP nomads who wander over here to take our parking spaces are one issue, but our parking problems are multifactorical as one can tell from the mish-mash put out by the CMA’s $50,000 consultant firm and reinforced by the Better Parking Alliance (BPA) who are trying to butt in with their not so expert opinions.
The OG parking dilemma has too many components, too many experts , too many opinions, and too few agreed-upon solutions.
The BPA President said “We’ve become Asbury’s free parking lot.”
Meanwhile Badger went on to say that he is concerned that any parking plan here might “detract from OG’s historic charm.” Really? Since when does the CMA care about OG’s “historic charm?” They don’t even have their own historian.
And where are they when zone busters come in to make our town into Asbury Park South. The CMA is at the heart of the infamous North End Redevelopment Plan where historic single family zoning was dumped to make room for the CMA’s hulking redevelopment project at the North End.
He also inexplicably took a shot at the residents of OG who try to act in self defense by saving parking spots. That is controversial, but it certainly is not a cause of our parking distress. He also claims to read minds when he says that saving a spot results in “everyone else being annoyed. ”
Mr Badger, if you want to go after people who create parking glut in town, look in the mirror and at the Chamber of Commercials and at developers who want to destroy our historic heritage and worsen the parking problems in our town.
In addition, Badger has been consistent in opposing any sort of pay-to-park plan which would include resident permits.
Vito Gadaleta, who is the mouthpiece and Business Administrator for the Fabulous Five at the Mother Ship told the Coaster that he will run Kimley-Horn’s ideas by the Police Department and Township “officials.” He says that all of these new suggestions are “still under advisement.”
This sounds like code for “let’s sweep all of this under the rug and get back to the status quo.” Neptune has shown no enthusiasm for fixing our parking mayhem.
Can you imagine what the NTPD will have to say about these plans? Will police opinions matter at Town Hall when lawsuits are flying around between the NTPD and all the Kings’ men (and one unelected woman)
Meanwhile, we will have a busy summer in the Grove, so residents, get out your orange cones and save your spaces while you try to live your lives. We can implement our own parking plan for Grover residents. We see those cones as a form of protest.
But watch out because Badger wants Neptune to make a law against the cones. How about a law against those in town who bring tourists here by the tens of thousands to stifle our lifestyles?
And Badger had even more outrageous things to say during those interviews. See part II below.
In the end, the Township and Dr. Brantley will say “No” to most of this. So here is the theme from the Bond movie “Dr. No”
Paul Goldfinger, Editor Blogfinger.net
Before any parking study is done by the Township, it must bring the zoning of OG into conformity with the law. As long as OG”s zoning is invalid, then any parking study is invalid. Until that happens any and all actions taken by the township will be fraudulent.
Once OG’s zoning is brought into conformity with law then a parking study must include the legal number of parking spaces required for all OGCMA facilities: that includes the number of parking spaces for beach goers; number of off street parking spaces for all condo units created since RSIS was put into effect by the courts; number of parking spaces required for every two bedrooms of every unit in OG— this is a requirement of RSUS; the number of legal parking spaces on the street for every one of those units.
The parking study must follow the laws of the State and the courts’ decisions, unlike what was presented by the OGCMA, because the court assumes that anything that is presented to any township board is founded in the law or the courts decisions.
Neptune will never do a legal parking study because it will show that its zoning for OG has been illegal since the State created RSIS and that all use variances along with the North End Redevelopment Zone were either granted or created in violation of law.
From my readings, AP was the first town in the area to have parking meters in 1940. In many places, individual meters have been replaced with one vending machine per block that issues a timed ticket that must be displayed in the vehicle. A question was raised at the Neptune parking meeting about the unsightliness of many meters in front of houses. That sort of thing is passing from the scene.
Was the IGCMA’s parking study legitimate, I would say no. By refusing to address the illegal zoning issues, the violation of court ordered RSIS requirements, violations of Federal ADA parking requirements for all uses, number of legal parking spaces on the street, State mandated parking restrictions of 30 feet from ever stop sign, illegal zones such as the Ocean Front overlay Zoning that discriminates against all other leaseholds with the same leases, refusing of the township’s officials to enforce the 2 story restriction equally as in the rest of Neptune’s single family zones, or the OGCMA and Neptune, refusing to treat all 99 year lease holds equally, shows that there was not a legitimate parking study done.
Until the township addresses all these issues, any zoning action for any OG lot is illegal.