Blogfinger

Ocean Grove Great Auditorium.  2014.   Does this look like a town in need of a special redevelopment zone?   Paul Goldfinger photograph.  Click to enlarge.

NOTE:  9/15/24.   We received a special delivery letter today from the OGNED lawyers advising us that we could attend a special hearing later this month to put the last nails into the coffin of Ocean Grove’s beautiful North End.

The meeting will provide final approvals for certain NJDEP and HPC requirements.   We won’t attend because the Blogfinger team tried for years to put a stop to this travesty, but we failed to arouse an energetic opposition among any Grover activists and organizations.

Special thanks to Kevin Chambers, Jack Bredin and Charles Layton of the Blogfinger team.   The BF article below, from 2019, is just one of many, many which railed against the North End Redevelopment Plan.

Without a doubt, Blogfinger published more articles in opposition  than any other media source.

By Paul Goldfinger, MD, Editor, Blogfinger.net:

The documentation  below is from the “NJ Statutes for Counties and Municipalities,” section 40A:12A-5: Determination of need for redevelopment:

2019 in Blogfinger.net:

As many of you know, the way that the CMA, WAVE, and Neptune Township were able to bury the single family zoning for the North End of Ocean Grove was to fraudulently declare the property an “area in need of redevelopment.”

That is how they justified turning that property into a commercial mixed-use  zone.  That is how they were able to grant permission for condominiums, an underground garage, a hotel, retail, and  restaurants. Those plans contain nothing that is cultural, or beautiful, or in harmony with the environment or  the wishes of those who actually live in the Grove.

All of this is contrary to the goals of Ocean Grove’s Master Plan which emphasized  the residential /historic nature of the town.

Currently the latest  consortium of big shots in town will push hard to begin a revised version of that project.

It’s not clear from the gobbledygook that they are putting out lately, that the changes which they are now happily  promoting will avoid complications such as environmental damage, congestion, worsened parking distress, and further deterioration of quality of life for residents.  Nor is it clear that those changes are legal and proper according to land use laws in New Jersey.  We think not, on both counts.

If you are curious about what went down in 2008, read this to see what the State had in mind for “areas in need of redevelopment.”

40A:12A-5   Determination of need for redevelopment:

5.A delineated area may be determined to be in need of redevelopment if, after investigation, notice and hearing as provided in section 6 of P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-6), the governing body of the municipality by resolution concludes that within the delineated area any of the following conditions is found:

a.  The generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated, or obsolescent, or possess any of such characteristics, or are so lacking in light, air, or space, as to be conducive to unwholesome living or working conditions.

b.  The discontinuance of the use of buildings previously used for commercial, manufacturing, or industrial purposes; the abandonment of such buildings; or the same being allowed to fall into so great a state of disrepair as to be untenable.

c.  Land that is owned by the municipality, the county, a local housing authority, redevelopment agency or redevelopment entity, or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of ten years prior to adoption of the resolution, and that by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, or topography, or nature of the soil, is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital.

d.   Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.

e.   A growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title, diverse ownership of the real property therein or other conditions, resulting in a stagnant or not fully productive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and welfare.

f.  Areas, in excess of five contiguous acres, whereon buildings or improvements have been destroyed, consumed by fire, demolished or altered by the action of storm, fire, cyclone, tornado, earthquake or other casualty in such a way that the aggregate assessed value of the area has been materially depreciated.

g.   In any municipality in which an enterprise zone has been designated pursuant to the “New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zones Act,” P.L.1983, c.303 (C.52:27H-60 et seq.) etc.

h.   The designation of the delineated area is consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted pursuant to law or regulation.

L.1992,c.79,s.5; amended 2003, c.125, s.3.

SIMON AND GARFUNKEL:  “So Long, Frank Lloyd Wright.”