Ocean Grove Fishing Pier. Date unknown. By Moe Demby, Blogfinger staff .© Click on image to enlarge.
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger. 2014. And read the 19 comments below.
During the recent (2012-2014) post-Sandy FEMA foreplay era, Blogfinger went on and on ad nauseum about why our boardwalk deserved public money. The arguments presented by the CMA made sense to us and eventually prevailed, although the feds have yet to show us the actual boardwalk money. But they will.
During that period, the issue of the historic Fishing Pier was raised a few times. The OG Fishing Club members were upset that the CMA would not make a commitment to reestablish their club at the end of the pier.
You will see that FEMA also refused to pay for pier repairs after Hurricane Irene in the summer of 2011. The boardwalk was not damaged then. There was about $150,000 damage to the far end of the pier. FEMA said then exactly what they say now—- that the denial is because private non-profit groups like the Camp Meeting Association cannot be compensated for recreational facilities after storm damage.
But now, when both the boardwalk and the pier are damaged after Sandy, somehow FEMA has separated the two structures even though they are clearly attached at the hip, and the illogical distinction seems to be based on what? It’s as if they are desperate to nail the Camp Meeting Association in some way .
But the situation is also odd, because FEMA has done a double about-face—first a denial, then promises to fund the pier, and now a denial. The CMA always plays “Mister Nice Guy” so their reaction is one of kindness tempered by the need to engage in yet another interminable appeal. Herb Herbst, of the Jersey Shore Arts Center, said that the CMA should get more aggressive with demonstrations, picketing, pressure on politicians, and getting tough. But that’s not the CMA’s style.
Besides, what cards does the CMA hold? I can see their case that the pier is an extension of the boardwalk and does supply opportunities as a facility with some public safety attributes and potential, but they have to again make the case to a bureaucracy that has already ruled on one application and two laborious appeals resulting in a boardwalk award for $2.3 million. FEMA has got to be sick and tired of hearing those two words: Ocean Grove.
So why did FEMA change its mind about the pier? It smells like a political knifing—a blindside attack. If you want to hear one conspiracy theory, just re-read our piece about the editorial views of the Weekly Standard magazine. (Weekly Standard link ) You can make up your own mind if you smell a rat. And if you follow the money, you will find State funds (grants and interest free loans) to for- profit private businesses on the Seaside Heights boards given first for Sandy and then for a fire.
So help is there for their profitable private businesses, but not for our destroyed pier? Who’s to say which need is greatest—–quality of life for Grovers or for pizza operators in SH?
As for the historic Fishing Club, their future is in the hands of the pier’s owners—the OGCMA—who are evidently still not going to make any commitments with the OGFC, because that carries a risk of a firestorm having to do with use of public money for exclusionary clubs, even if the Fishing Club says that they are not private. The locks on the gates say otherwise to anybody who wants to stroll to the end.
Does the recent FEMA reversal on the pier have anything to do with the Fishing Club and the CMA’s unwillingness to make a decision? I think not, because if that were true, a deal would have been already struck between FEMA and the CMA, and all hope for the Fishing Club would have been carried away by the ocean fog.
Finally, there is one solid promise that was made last year by Interim Camp Meeting COO Ralph delCampo, and he made the promise several times when he said, “No matter what, the Fishing Pier will be rebuilt.”
VIVALDI from The Four Seasons
Radar: I don’t know how I missed that. But it is a great nickname for a nude pier. I guess that’s why they call you Radar. —Paul
Joe, could you identify the closest “pubic pier.” It would save me a trip to Sandy Hook.
If the $1.1 million cost to repair the pier is accurate, and there are 100 Fishing Club members, that works out to $11,000/member. At $150 dues/year, and assuming 0% interest and assuming that 100% of annual dues were used to pay off the loan, it would take them …. ummmm … 73.3 years to pay off the loan, (if the Fishing Club footed the entire bill).
Yesterday, the Together Fund thermometer sign at the foot of the pier looked like a total of about $1 1/2 million or so had been raised, and that’s over about one and a half years now, and presumably represents donations from several thousand donors.
Like many things, much of the problem seems arithmetic. So other than FEMA, who has a spare $1.1 million lying around?
Since the stump of the pier doesn’t extend out over the water like the wider part of the old pier did, I don’t think it’s quite the same experience now.
I’ll be extremely happy when just the missing section of boardwalk is completed so I don’t need to dodge cars on Ocean Avenue. If the north end of the boardwalk and the fishing pier are rebuilt any time soon, that would be icing on the cake.
It wasn’t hardly the locked domain , it was a locked domain. Why would I pay 150 dollars to use the end of the pier, when if left as is I can enjoy it for free? I still like the gazebo idea.
The “white line” that was on the pier marked the spot where the pier ended pre-noreaster 1992, so was not a theirs vs. ours delineation as some seem to think. Pier was extended to the original 500 feet when the pier was rebuilt during the Winter 93-94.
Fishing Club then took out a Small Business loan to re-do the part they rented. If you REALLY want to use the end of the pier, join the club. $150, last I heard. Membership is mostly, but not exclusively, older men, vacancies occur quite frequently, so your wait wouldn’t be long.
In addition to the few guys some have observed fishing, they have a youth fishing club every Tuesday morning during the Summer. Free bait, use of members tackle and experience, free ice cream afterward, and $1 for each fish caught. 90% of the long time OG locals probably have participated at one time or another. Hardly the locked,exclusive, private domain that some make it out to be, is it?
It seems there are only a few pubic piers in Nj. The one I know is down south next to the GSP, used to be part of route 9
http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/fshpiers.htm
I think it’s going to be harder to prove this is anything more than recreational
Those busted old pilings,how far up the tide is and how smooth the shore line is in that picture must of been a time when the beach and water were pretty much level and not like it is now with drop offs from the beach to the water.
Anyway there appears to be a mannequin sitting on the edge of the pier which I enlarged, perhaps a Grandpa Ralph. Neat picture though perhaps those old pilings are the remains of a former pier that was destroyed in 1944. Just speculating.
Rich
Davis. I think your wording is a bit sloppy when you say, “The fishing pier, the Club specifically, benefits no one but the members.” The Fishing Pier actually benefits everyone who comes to the Ocean Grove boardwalk. Of the ultimate historic 500 feet of the pier, only about 90 feet was used by the Club. So I think your wording should have been exclusively about the Club.
We had the opportunity to speak today to Dr. Dale Whilden, the President of the OGCMA regarding the future of the Fishing Club. He said that there are many ways this scenario might play out, so the CMA will make no decisions about this now.
He did say that the CMA wants to ” try to work with the Fishing Club to find a solution to the situation”, but he said, “It’s too premature to decide anything at this time.”
The funding for businesses and recreational uses are distinctly different. The fishing pier, the Club specifically, benefits no one but the members. The businesses, especially those referenced in Seaside are a part of the larger community. Jobs, identity etc. I love to fish, and do so often from the beaches and jetty. The need for the pier as a fishing pier is simply not a big deal.
I know three women who were members prior to Sandy, and one them was the club President. There may have been more, because I wasn’t up there much, even when I was a member.
At no time during the process of applying for FEMA aid was the Fishing Club ever mentioned as part of the FEMA applications for aid to rebuild the beachfront including the pier.
I think an effort should be made to separate the pier from the club. Getting FEMA to fund the the pier structure as an extension of the Boardwalk I think will be easier with mention of the “private club” at the end. There project to rebuild the club would then be much smaller and I am sure funds could be raised locally to get it back.
The wide part of the pier west of the fence that was over the water — the part that was used for the yoga classes — was posted “No Fishing”. I also recall a line painted across the deck — I assumed that was to mark where the OG structure ended, and the Fishing Club’s structure began.
Are there any public access free fishing piers in New Jersey? I’m wondering how that would work out. It’s not hard to see how it could develop into an attractive nuisance.
I agree with Reader 20. It is a private, members only club that admits members in its discretion. My understanding, which may be wrong and I would like to know if it is, is that only men were ever admitted as members. I was told this by the person who sold me my house. If that’s the case, it is a further argument against public money paying for it. Does anyone know the answer?
There are numerous programmatic approaches a public-oriented fishing club can use to attract and maintain active members. Obviously the lock has to go.
As for resources to rebuild the pier, has the case been made about both its economic and recreational impact on the entire community–that’s OG and Neptune Twp.? That’s a developmental non-clubby approach the OGCMA began a while back when it stopped interviewing potential OG homeowners.
As others have observed, when the club occupied the prime real estate on the the pier, it was a rare day when more than a few people were present on the other side of the fence. Who, query,did the safety analysis and concluded that the club was compelled to prevent any new members from joining? In any event, the salient fact remains that it is a private club.
Reader 20. In a prior post about this subject on BF you will find this quote:
“The Fishing Club trustees refuse to consider their organization as a private club. They say that anyone can be a member, and the only reason for limiting the membership has to do with size—-‘engineering and safety issues.’ “
How is a strictly limited membership club that keeps non-members locked out not “private”?