This is the article on the front page of today’s February 13, 2025 Coasterican News; “Award Winning Weekly.” It is journalism at its worst. If the print is too small, click once or pay a buck and buy the paper..
Notice the education papers to allow supporters to be informed. Were these 700 OG petitioners informed?
By Paul Goldfinger, MD. Editor Blogfinger.net Ocean Grove, NJ, USA. Free speech should live here!
Freedom of speech comes in a variety of forms, one of which are petitions. But petitions like this dopey one need to be performed fairly and their conclusions should have no influence on the Neptune Township Committee.
Although the headline screams “Petition,” the article doesn’t tell us what question was posed and how it was stated. The title says that “700 sign petition against permit parking.” But show us the question. Does the Coaster know that those who were asked may not have been citizens of OG and that they may have known nothing about the planned permit solution.
Does the Coaster know anything about the use of petitions to express free speech and to allow the signers to influence public affairs which is different from a petition to ask if hot dogs should be sold on Main Avenue en plein aire.
In addition, most of the article consists of quotes against the permit parking plan by a few outspoken Grovers, but those who favor the proposal are not included except for a moment of sanity by Barbara Burns who is introduced as merely an OG resident.
The Coaster reporter did allow non-citizens to offer opinions, but he included very few Grovers. If that petition did collect 700 “no” opinions, then how about the roughly 2500 official census citizens whose opinions were evidently not solicited.
But Blogfinger (C’est moi) has questions. I contacted the Clerk’s office at the Neptune Mother Ship to request a copy of the petition. I want to post the names of everyone who signed it and whether they are OG residents or not. Is our township governance transparent? That petition is now a public document, so let’s see it.
Amazingly I found out that the Township currently has no Clerk. I am submitting an OPRA request for whatever information was submitted to Neptune Township regarding this petition.
I want to know:
a. What was the question asked in the petition? Did it say, “Are you opposed to a permit parking plan?” If so, were participants allowed to say that they support the plan? If so, then what was that count? And if no opportunity to say “yes,” then the petition is biased and useless. Was there any indication that those who acquiesced and signed actually knew anything about the issues? Did the pollsters hand out any honest literature?
b . How was this petition distributed, who distributed it, and how were the recipients chosen? Was it done on-line or in person? Was the distribution to participants done fairly? Did the petitioners try to convince or coerce the participants to adopt a particular opinion?
c Was any effort made to offer this petition to all OG residents who should have been the only ones surveyed? No one asked me or my wife.
Why is the Chamber of Commercials allowed to participate? This is a matter of public policy, and those Chamber exploiters should have no say in this matter. Similarly, no one who owns a business in town should have participated unless they live here. Sure anyone can have an opinion, but those outsider opinions should not have been presented at the Township meeting or in this Coaster piece on OG public policy.
d. Who counted the results and supplied the Township with results? And who verified that count?
e When the Township decided to abandon a “public forum” was the Committee influenced in their decision by the results of this fraudulent petition? And if they did take this “poll” into consideration in making up their minds on behalf of OG citizens, then they all should resign for failing to safeguard democracy in our town.
One of the Committee, a rookie named Jones, “asked for the petition to be submitted to the Township to be considered alongside other factors.” NO! He should be devoted to the citizens of OG, and if he would allow others to have influence on his decision, then he should be impeached now. He should know that this petition is a distortion of the truth, and he is being had.
f. If the petition did not influence the Committee, then why was the public forum idea abandoned?
g. Why didn’t the Coaster find some of those who are involved extensively in this issue to explain the permit plan and to offer a critique of the petition results in their news article today? Instead they sought opinions from those who don’t live here, and the emphasis was on a negative result. Does that paper know that journalism is supposed to just engage in honest factual reporting
h. Martha Cutrell, a resident who evidently was vehemently opposed to the plan, made some outrageous statements at the meeting according to the Coasterican reporter:
She wanted the Committee to tell her how many people “want this to happen?” Does she really think that OG residents have been polled about this? If she got 700 signatures who were against the plan, what about the remaining 2300 or more who were not asked to sign, or said they approved?
She was worried that the plan would harm “customers, employees and tourists, ” but she didn’t seem to care at all about the actual situation at hand where We-The-People are harmed by all this tourism and commercialism.
Citizens want to enjoy their town, and offering them a parking leg up during busy seasons does not reduce the number of parking spaces available because Grovers have to park no matter if there is a plan or not. It’s just a kindness to give residents a chance to park near their homes.
If anyone wants to comment on Blogfinger, just click on “comments” below. Or email us at Blogfinger@verizon.net
Note: comments may be edited or rejected, but our goal is for your voices to be heard.
JOHN PIZZARELLI
Tom: So only participants were chosen who had some reason to vote against the plan, and no one who is in favor gets to say “Yes.”
If that is true, then this “petition” is merely a list of those who dislike the plan, for whatever reason.
As such, it was contrived to be negative, and the Township should not take into consideration this biased and un-scientific survey of nay sayers. And, I seriously doubt the result, ie that 700 OG residents would be opposed.
Some years ago Blogfinger stopped our polling of issues in town because we weren’t sure that cheating wasn’t happening. Polling or petitions should not be be used to help the town make decisions on behalf of We-The People.
As a resident who has struggled with parking for years, I think that the Township should only concern itself with tax paying homeowners. Period! That is how it is done in most American towns.
The Chamber of Commerce needs to be purged of its bad attitude. They deserve nothing from the town.
This is the ultimate and best solution: Each homeowner should get one parking space for the 6 busiest months. And everyone else: shoppers, tourists, and renters will compete for the rest.
It’s as simple as that. The Neptuners should not worry about parking for anybody else. They can find their own solutions.
Paul Goldfinger, Editor, Blogfinger.net
Only small compact cars & horses should be allowed. Big SUV’s & trucks should be turned back at the gate. Send them to Asbury to park there. At gate they could issue parking passes on a first come first gets it basis . Be good for 24x hours.
Paul, it wasnt a poll or survey – it was a petition with an invite/call-to-action to sign if you dont like all or parts of the proposed parking permit plan. Many people have different reasons for signing the petition – for example: current versions of the proposal seem to favor some home owners over others. (STR owners are unhappy – to name one group). There are other parts of the plan, cost, enforcement, etc which some people feel are problematic. In general I dont like the current proposal but I understand why some people might support. -Tom C.
We received an email with a link from the organizers of this petition. It seems that it was an electronic poll, and the link was to allow me to vote. But when I clicked on the link I received a huge warning from Apple that my computer was in danger.
I therefore will not share that link with you.
However, I did not express an interest in voting in this fraudulent petition; What I want is to receive from the Township a copy of whatever was submitted to the Township Committee.
I also want the names of all who voted. Do you suppose that they shared that with the Township? I will submit an OPRA request.
Is this an example of free speech, or is something that the NJ Attorney General might want to look at?
Paul Goldfinger, Editor Blogfinger.net