By Paul Goldfinger, Editor. Blogfinger.net. 10/5/23
In another front page Coaster article, Michael Badger once again gives a scoop to the Coastericans who never ask any tough questions and never dig out all the facts.
The suit was filed this week in NJ Superior Court.
Badger could have sued the NJDEP which found the CMA guilty of “violating” the Public Trust Doctrine, but instead the suit is being brought against two of the rowdy summer Sunday marauders who pushed their way onto the beach from 9-12 on summer Sunday mornings.
Shane Martins is the leader of Neptune United a group that has attacked the CMA over a number of issues including the cross shaped pier and the beach badges with tiny crosses on them. He and Pam Remler are named as defendants in this suit.
Badger says, in the Coaster, that he has “exhausted all other options trying to come to a resolution.”
He believes that even though his beach policy may not satisfy the DEP, the CMA owns the land and should be able to make rules which govern what goes on at the Ocean Grove beach on summer Sundays.
His arguments seem to be pretty weak emphasizing that the CMA should be able to enforce its “property rights” even though he allows public access in exchange for tax relief.
He is suing because he wants to continue his “traditions” at the beach. He also speaks about “safety issues.”
But we at Blogfinger find it pretty amazing that the defendants are two citizens. We have not been supportive of the Sunday gate crashings by troublemakers with flimsy complaints, but to sue them? Is there any legal precedent for that?
And, if one wants to point to “chutzpah” consider that the CMA wants the suit to strive for a “legal precedent” based on their “traditions.”
Consider the last two paragraphs of the Coaster piece, most of which was probably written by Badger himself.:
“Badger is hoping the case settles the dispute by next summer. According to a written statement, Badger “believes if the court decides in favor of the CMA, then law enforcement can use the court decision to carry out the Sunday closures next summer.
“Either way, Badger believes the decision will provide legal precedent for the long-standing question over who has the right to use or withhold use of access to the area’s most precious resource over the summer.
“We’re hoping for an amicable resolution,” he said.”
At Blogfinger we wonder why the CMA is willing to sue over this mushy issue., especially with two citizens as defendants.
Lawyers love it when people sue over principles.
The CMA collects money from the public, and this is how they spend it? Is this law suit outcome worth the expense and effort of this suit?
Editor’s note; You will notice that this Coaster post contains only the CMA point of view. That is because the Coaster is a terrible newspaper. Badger feeds them his approved press releases, and they print them on their front page.
Blogfinger will not do that, and that is why he never offers us news releases because we won’t let him pull the strings; even though we often defend the CMA on Blogfinger.net. We are an Ocean Grove publication while the Coastericans are from A. Park and offer little important independent reporting about the Grove.
We believe the Coaster provides front page coverage routinely because of the CMA’s advertising dollars. This is unethical journalism.
This suit is quite provocative, so why didn’t their reporter present the Neptune United reaction to the suit and maybe solicit some legal opinions.
We welcome some legal opinions on this: Blogfinger@verizon.net
Theme song for this law suit: Cast of Porgy and Bess
Wow. This nonsense has gotten crazy . Thoughts : Maybe have a designated Sunday morning beach area ? CMA does such a thing for surfers . Maybe charge more for Sunday morning beach going with all proceeds going toward a mutual agreed upon charity ? Maybe Blogfinger could poll folks on their opinion on the matter ?
Tradition is not a law. Hope CMA has a real game plan and better know if they have a legitimate legal path to winning here. Paying lawyers to scare some people off the beach is a waste of my $10.50. If these gatecrashers are as stubborn as their Sunday morning antics imply, they won’t be settling for an “amicable resolution”. If these two have the resources to stick this suit through and the law is on their side, this may backfire on CMA and end up establishing the legal precedent that permanently ends a tradition I enjoy.
Be smart CMA, be smart.
If Badger’s objective is to “provide legal precedent for the long-standing question over who has the right to use or withhold use of access to the area’s most precious resource over the summer”, he’s going after the wrong targets and needs to sue NJDEP to clarify these laws in favor of CMA’s wishes.
Have you heard of The ROSI List? Neptune has such a list which includes all Green Acres-funded properties (“funded parkland”) as well as all other lands held for conservation and/or recreation purposes at the time the local unit last received funding from Green Acres (“unfunded parkland”).
Neptune has a ROSI list for its parks and other properties where in exchange for tax relief, these listed places, etc. are reserved for public recreation.
So if the CMA parks are on that list, the CMA must allow the public to use those spaces for recreation—that sounds like public thoroughfares.
The boardwalk has been declared a public right of way but neither the parks nor the beach could be declared a public right of way since the OGCMA grounds have never been filed with the county to establish what any of the OGCMA lands are established for except, that is, for the 98 year leasehold lots, the boardwalk and it’s roads.
In a court of law, the Township tax map cannot be used to establish uses, which would include right of ways, only a legal survey can, and I doubt one exists for all of the OGCMA property.
What this establishes, is that everything done in creating the North End development was without a legal survey showing a legal subdivision of its North End properties from the beach, and therefore cannot establish a legal right of way for the public outside of streets and the boardwalk.
The difference is that the CMA has agreed that their privately owned boards, beaches and parks are necessary “public thoroughfares” so they can’t exclude the public from entry. Tax exemptions for houses of worship or farms are a different story.
Many farms receive tax relief by the public buying farmland development rights. That doesn’t mean I can now trespass on their property and steal their produce. There are churches that receive tax exceptions but that doesn’t mean I can break into those churches when they’re closed just because I feel like it. Any institution that receives tax breaks doesn’t give any tax payer the right to violate that institution just because they receive tax exceptions. Why should the OGCMA be any difference?