Paul Goldfinger, Editor, Blogfinger.net
“Save Our Values” –a new organization announced their website:
New ground rent activist group website
Today, Nov 19, we find the new “Save Our Values” group has some more to say: “Save Our Values is a Nonprofit Organization formed to stop the OGCMA from infringing on our property ownership.”
They say that they want to “preserve our OG values—values of our homes and businesses as well as the values of our special community—a community of neighbors that respects and supports all who live, work, and visit in Ocean Grove.”
Well–this is a grand statement, but playing around with words such as “values” and “community of neighbors” sounds pretentious and empty of clear meaning. Read what they say carefully. Will you fall for incendiary language such as “cause for alarm?”
And grandstanding about “respecting and supporting all who live, work, and visit in Ocean Grove” is meaningless and distracting from their supposed real purpose which is to resist changes in CMA ground rents.
And they “want to fight for the full OG community.” And how exactly will they “fight?” They don’t mention law suits which would surely be needed, so who will bring such suits and who will pay for them?
This pompous talk reminds me of the “Better Parking Alliance” which never lived up to its grand goals as it got drawn into the arms of CMA/Neptune mishmash.
For too long the residents of Ocean Grove have been left unrecognized by the players in town, and why do I feel that this new group will be anything else besides defenders of condo owners, developers, landlords, lawyers and real estate agents?
It’s easy to say that they want to “fight for the full OG community,” but skepticism is what we the people need to embrace right now. Let’s see what evolves before we get into bed with another group of fast talkers.
The first sign that we can embrace is when these Sandinistas produce a membership list and an explanation of how they will finance their project. They want to sign you up, but be careful handing out your email at this time. Let’s see if they actually accomplish something.
And if the Home Groaners are part of this leadership, then watch for signs of gutless inaction and absent cahones.
The burden is on them to convince us that they can succeed and not just talk.
HIGH HOPES:
“Just what makes that little old ant
Think he’ll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant can’t
Move a rubber tree plant”
FRANK SINATRA
I was merely quoting perhaps the first OG publication mentioning lots. It is not a legal document. You can make of it what you will. “Buying a lot” would have been properly “buying a leasehold.”
David: You quote some 150 year old materials. You say that an individual may “hold” only one lot in order to avoid speculation, which is ‘foreign to the design.'” Please explain “foreign to the design.”
You also say that “instead of selling the lots, the lots were to be leased to prevent anybody from “using his lot for purposes that would be an annoyance to other lot holders” I don’t think this reason is clear–please explain.
Note that the earliest history books describe the “sale” of lots, and in fact Bradley was the first to “buy” a lot. It has been unclear to me how the sale of lots could magically become the leasing of lots. This is a big deal, and the use of language in this regard is murky. Please explain. Tell us if the CMA can produce title deeds proving that they actually own all the land in town.
I should note that historian Ted Bell told me that it was leased lots from the very beginning. But I remain unconvinced.
And finally regarding “renewals” during a 99 year lease, you say that such leases are “subject to renewal and are subject to an assessment not exceeding seven percent upon the cost of the lot in any one year….”
What in the world are you talking about? Please explain!
PG: “….absent cahones”
LOL! I luv it. I’ll be stealing and using that one!
I happened to make one of my infrequent visits to OG yesterday and became better acquainted with the current lease situation. In 1870, the OGCMA published a lot map as part of a sort of offering plan. In addition to the historically useful map, the document explained aspects of the Ocean Grove.
V-Lot Privileges
The lots are 30 X 60 feet. No individual may hold more than one lot. The limit is prescribed to avoid speculation, which is foreign to the design.
The proceeds,if any, after defraying the cost of improvements and other necessary expenses, will be devoted to charitable purposes. The lots will be leased for ninety-nine years, subject to renewal, if the conditions have been met and liable to an assessment not exceeding seven percent, upon the cost of the lot in any one year, for the purpose of keeping the grounds in order.
The plan of the leasing, instead of selling the lots, has been adopted to prevent any person from using his lot for purposes that would be an annoyance to other lot-holders.
The holders of lots may erect thereon cottages, or tents, as may be most convenient subject to such rules and regulations as may be adopted by the Association, not, however, imposing any burdensome restrictions.
The price for lots for the present is $100. [about $2,111 in 2021]
Christopher Reder liked your post on blogfinger.net
They thought “Save Our Values” announces a website and a confusing mixture of purposes. Can we the people trust them? was pretty awesome.