Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Charles Layton’ Category

The Battle of the Sampler Inn Revisited — When a revered landmark went bad, neighbors took action

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Neptune Township News, Ocean Grove news, tagged , , on March 19, 2012| 19 Comments »

People lined up all down the block for The Sampler Inn’s cafeteria food and convivial atmosphere. Photo courtesy Historical Society of Ocean Grove

By Charles Layton  @Blogfinger

By the time the Township demolished it in 2009, The Sampler Inn had stood at 28 Main Avenue for approximately 90 years. It was one of Ocean Grove’s most beloved institutions. As you can see from the photo above, people used to flock to its cafeteria for a traditional fare that included whipped sweet potatoes, creamed spinach, macaroni and cheese, lamb chops, ham with raisin sauce, a rich array of desserts and, at breakfast, among other things, a generous selection of hot cereals.

But the years took their toll. When The Sampler’s absentee owners filed for bankruptcy in 2006, the place had become a first-class public nuisance — boarded up, empty and gutted on the inside, unmaintained, with a caving-in roof and other structural atrocities. Teenagers broke into the place in summer to prowl and explore. Vagrants camped there in winter, sometimes drinking, sometimes warming themselves before sterno stoves.

Jeff Dean, who lived on Heck Avenue just behind The Sampler, said if the place had ever caught fire “the whole neighborhood would have been gone.” Another neighbor, Danny Beaman, said, “I remember being in bed and hearing noises and getting out of bed and running to see if The Sampler was on fire.” Some of the people living closest to The Sampler were disabled or elderly; they’d have had a tough time escaping from a raging inferno. “The Sampler was two feet from my mother’s house,” said Lisa Noll. (Her mother was in her early 80s, and a man living in the same house was in his 90s.)

The neighbors, especially those on Heck in the second block from the beach, fought for years against the menace that The Sampler had become. It was a battle to defend their properties, their peace of mind and, as they saw it, their very lives. But it was also a battle for the common good of Ocean Grove, alerting people in this town, and some people in government, to take derelict buildings more seriously.

One recent evening some of those Heck Avenue neighbors got together over refreshments in Beaman’s living room and relived their experiences. Theirs is a story that needs to be recorded and remembered. Lessons can be learned about the power of aroused and well-organized citizens.

Some (but by no means all) of the veterans of the Sampler campaign. Front, l. to r.: Kirsten Beneke, Sue Beneke, Danny Beaman, Carmen Rivera and Lisa Noll. Standing: Jay Shapiro, Gloria Wigert and Jeff Dean. Photo by Mary Walton

Some had fond memories. Although Sue Beneke, who lived right next door to The Sampler, endured years of anxiety and inconvenience, even she considered the place “a beautiful institution.” Her daughter, Kirsten, recalled how, as a child, she would go to the side door of the kitchen every morning and get a muffin for breakfast. Another Heck resident, Carmen Rivera, volunteered to teach English to a young girl from Poland who worked at The Sampler. Relations were usually neighborly, and when a problem arose people tended to seek constructive solutions. Beneke said some of the college kids who worked in the kitchen used to play a radio very loud at 5 o’clock in the morning. “So I bought them all radio head sets, and they actually used them,” she said.

Still, even before the place became a total wreck, there were problems, many associated with the kitchen, which faced Heck Avenue. One problem was rodents.

Beaman: “I used to watch from my front porch. There was a hole in the back wall where the cats would line up and wait for the mice to run out. It was amusing; they would wait in line patiently for the next mouse to come out, and then they would go chasing after it.”

Noise and truck pollution were less amusing. At a certain point, the neighbors said, large trucks started arriving at 5 a.m. to deliver goods to the kitchen. They would leave their engines running, filling the street with foul-smelling exhaust.

Then there was the leaking garbage — “dumpster juice” and “dumpster puddles” they called it. The odor drove people inside. “I just remember one summer day all of us had to go inside our houses because the garbage was leaking out of the dumpster,” Jay Shapiro said. “It was bad.”

Sue Beneke recalled “big canisters of fat” in back of the kitchen. “We tried to build a fence around the back of the kitchen, that would hide the fat vats and the dumpsters and everything,” Beneke said. “We drew the design. And then I went over there to the owners and said, ‘All the neighbors will even pay for it. We’ll pay for this beautiful Victorian fence for the kitchen, take the loading dock down.’ We were even going to make it like a French bistro. But they would not let us do it.”

TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE: click here.

Read Full Post »

Neptune Orders Work Stopped on Abbott Avenue House

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Neptune Township News, Ocean Grove news, tagged on March 7, 2012| 47 Comments »

By Charles Layton

Neptune Township has formally ordered all work stopped on the new house under construction at 65 Abbott Avenue.

Officials say what is being built there does not comply with what the Historic Preservation Commission approved last August. Therefore, even though the home has already been framed, roofed and sheathed, the Neptune Construction Department issued a stop-work order on Tuesday.

Deborah Osepchuk, the HPC’s chairwoman, told me that the builder now needs to come back to the commission with a new proposal. “The height of the foundation has been raised putting the front porch at over 5 feet from grade,” she said. “This also raises the overall height of the house making it appear larger and more massive.”

The new house replaces a much smaller structure. Photo by Charles Layton

Because this house has become a center of some controversy on the street, I sought clarification Wednesday from George Waterman, the Township’s zoning officer, and Leanne Hoffman, director of engineering and planning. They told me that the mean roof height of the house remains several feet below the 35-foot zoning limit. Once the contractor files additional paperwork, they said, they expect it to pass muster with the zoning office.

The HPC is a different story, however, because it is concerned with the overall look of the building’s exterior, i.e., its appropriateness within the Historic District of Ocean Grove. Both the HPC and zoning consider it to be a problem whenever someone departs from the terms of building permits and zoning and HPC approvals.

Representatives of the HPC and the builder, Sawbucks Contracting of Ocean Grove, met on Tuesday to try to untangle the mess. Michael Solebello of Sawbucks told me on Wednesday that things remain “in fact finding mode” and that he isn’t sure what will happen next. “There’s a lot of question about what the problem actually is.”

He also said, “One way or other we’ll make everybody happy.”

The Township’s stop-work order did not spell out the specific nature of the problem; it simply said that the house “has not been constructed according to approvals.”

 The issue first came to the Township’s attention due to a complaint from a neighbor who is distressed about the size of the new building.

The property was purchased last year by a Freehold family. A much smaller house on the site was demolished to make way for a 2 ½ story single-family home with a total floor area of 2,672 square feet, including a habitable attic. The plans also call for a multi-purpose gym and home theater area in the basement.

Read Full Post »

Run-Down Buildings: Learning From Past Experience — An Editorial

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Editorial, tagged , on March 3, 2012| 9 Comments »

This building at 17 Spray Avenue had been cited as unsafe as far back as the 1980s. On September 2, 2008, it burned. Coaster photo

By Charles Layton

We’ve had some lively conversation on this website in recent days about the need (or lack of need) to take action when properties in Ocean Grove are abandoned or neglected by their owners and fall into disrepair.

Some people think it’s our duty as citizens to call attention to such problem properties. Others disagree; that kind of vigilance, they say, amounts to harassment of those who can’t always afford to keep their homes in pristine condition.

However, the fact is that an empty building in disrepair is more than just an eyesore or a drag on local property values. In Ocean Grove, especially, it can be an urgent danger.

Let’s look at some history. In 2008, a spectacular fire destroyed an old storage building at 17 Spray Avenue. That fire severely scorched and peeled the siding on a home directly across the street and also did minor damage to another nearby home. The Coaster quoted Mayor Randy Bishop, who lives nearby, as saying that the fire “could have been a tremendous disaster.” Other neighbors agreed. It was lucky, they said, that the wind blew the flames and embers back toward Wesley Lake instead of the other way, toward the town.

That fire shouldn’t have happened. The public record shows that Neptune Township tolerated what it knew to be dangerous conditions at 17 Spray for many years before the building finally went up in flames.

A Township inspection in 1988 found “a large pile of lumber and other combustible debris” on the grounds. The owner, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, was cited, and the dangerous condition was abated. However, the abatement was temporary. The building continued to deteriorate. In 1999 a Township inspection found, among other problems, cracked masonry walls, roof tiles falling onto the sidewalk and trash and debris all over the yard.

In the ensuing years numerous summonses were issued. Fines were threatened but not imposed. In fact, the Township backed off. At one point the Township had threatened to take the owner to court, but in 2005 all summonses were dismissed, and all fines were forgiven.

In February of 2008, the Township inspected the building again, found it to be “unsound” and “unsafe” and ordered the CMA to either demolish it or correct the unsafe conditions. Parts of the roof were collapsing and parts of the building were open to the weather, according to a Township citation, “causing interior deterioration of structural elements.”

But negotiations resulted in further delays until finally, on the night of September 2, 2008, fire destroyed the whole thing.

To some Ocean Grovers, the lesson was that tolerating a persisting dangerous condition is not a virtue.

Here is another piece of history. When The Sampler Inn at 28 Main Avenue, closed and neglected, fell into serious disrepair, neighbors on Heck Avenue took action. They organized and fought to have the problems corrected. Township inspections showed that the building was in terrible condition and could easily catch fire. Bill Doolittle, Neptune’s director of code and construction, said his greatest fear was a “fire storming” effect, in which “fire jumps from one building to the next to the next” across Ocean Grove.

And so, in 2009, despite strenuous resistance by the owners, the Township had the building demolished.

If the Spray Avenue fire taught us the danger of complacency, the Sampler experience proved that if citizens and neighbors organize and fight –and if they persist — it’s possible to resolve such problems. (A corollary lesson is that the government acts more forcefully if it is prodded and pushed by citizens.)

The above examples, along with others, have led many Ocean Grovers — and some Township officials — to the firm belief that citizens must act as watchmen. When a problem arises, they must make it known. And when an owner tries to minimize the problem, it’s unwise just to take him at his word. (The lawyer for The Sample Inn, at a public hearing, characterized the problems there as “aesthetic” in nature.)

The issue is not harassment of well-meaning owners who can’t afford to paint their homes as often as we might like. And a group of citizens petitioning for redress of a problem is not akin to a “lynch mob,” as some have suggested. Portraying it as such evades the point, which is that a derelict building is better dealt with before the problem becomes truly dire.

There is a sweet spot between petty harassment of our neighbors and the kind of indulgence that led to the Spray Avenue fire. As we argue individual cases, let’s do so in that reasonable context.

Read Full Post »

Seaside Park Man Mistaken for Neptune Woman — “Nobody will clear it up but it’s obviously wrong.”

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Feature article, tagged on February 27, 2012| 9 Comments »

By Charles Layton

At the end of every Neptune Township Committee meeting, members of the public are invited to come to the podium and ask questions or make comments on any subject they choose.

People complain about taxes, or accuse the Township of poor management, or ask for help with standing water or some other problem in their neighborhood. The Committee members have pretty much heard it all, many times over.

But on Monday night a man named George Matreyek of Seaside Park, NJ, took everyone by surprise. He told the Committee he had once been, at various times, a mayor, a committeeman and a member of the zoning and planning boards in Andover Township. “So I’ve been in your position,” he said, “and I’m hoping you can help me.”

After his retirement, Matreyek told the Committee, he and his wife moved to northeastern Pennsylvania where he took a part-time job at an outdoor store selling firearms and ammunition. Anyone who takes such a job must submit to a routine background check, and when Matreyek’s report came back “it said I was a convicted felon.” It also said he had served a year in prison for his alleged crime — assaulting a Neptune Township police officer.

So in December, Matreyek lost his job.

He says he’s absolutely certain he was never convicted of any felony, let alone served time in any prison. “He’s been in my bed for all that time,” his wife, Barbara, told me out in the hallway after the meeting.

Matreyek told me he and his wife have established that the crime in question was committed on June 26, 1998, that the perpetrator was a woman, not a man, and that she was convicted in Manasquan Superior Court. However, he said, through some typo or other form of bureaucratic foulup, Matreyek’s Social Security number was attached to the woman’s name. This misinformation has spread across federal, state and local databases far and wide, and officials have refused to take responsibility for correcting the mixup, he said. In the eyes of the government, at all levels, he remains a criminal and an ex-con.

Barbara Matreyek said one of the first phone calls she made, trying to clear things up, was to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The woman on the other end of the line, she said, told her, “Well, you don’t really know your husband that well. Men can tell you anything.”

Neither the ATF, the FBI nor the U.S. Justice Department has been willing to take their problem seriously, they told me.

The bum rap has been humiliating. It has damaged his reputation. People “think of him now as a convicted criminal,” his wife said.

“Nobody will clear it up but its obviously wrong,” he said. “I don’t know the name of the woman. Don’t know her age. Nothing.” Officials have denied them that information, he said, for privacy reasons.

In his speech before the Township Committee, Matreyek said that because the object of the assault 14 years ago had been a Neptune policeman, he hoped Neptune could get to the bottom of things “and get it corrected on down the line, and on up the line.”

The Committee said they would try.

Matreyek told me, though, that no matter what happens now he doubts he can get his job back. “They had to hire someone else,” he said.

Read Full Post »

A Civil War of Words, in Asbury Park and Ocean Grove

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Feature article on February 20, 2012| 15 Comments »

By Charles Layton

Could the dividing line between North Jersey and South Jersey be Wesley Lake?

The thought occurred to me the other day during a stroll past Asbury Park’s Civil War memorial on Cookman Avenue. The plaque at the foot of the memorial reads as follows:

That’s pretty bellicose language – or used to be. “The war of rebellion” is a name the North imposed on the conflict, reflecting its own perception of events.

Asbury Park's memorial to those who fought defending the Union. Photos by Mary Walton

Even though, after the war, Southerners continued to refer to themselves as “rebels,” the Yankee phrase “war of rebellion” rankled them. They also, for obvious reasons, disliked calling the conflict “the war to save the Union” or “the war of Southern aggression.” Another name appearing on Northern war memorials and in Northern textbooks, but not Southern ones, was “the great rebellion.”

Although it never really caught on, “the war for Southern independence” came closer to reflecting the South’s point of view — the white South’s, anyway. Those Southerners who saw the North as the belligerent party also favored the term “war of northern aggression.” Confederate General Joseph Johnston called it the “war against the states,” another sore-loser title that sounds like it could be accompanied by a one-finger salute.

And so it was that, after the war itself was decided, there began a much longer conflict over what the history books ought to call it.

The name Southerners lobbied for was “the war between the states.” Confederate officials and veterans used the term in their memoirs. In the early 20th century, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (as die-hard a group as you’ll ever find) tried unsuccessfully to have that name enacted into federal law, their argument being that the conflict wasn’t really a civil war, but rather a war between two well-defined, separate governments, the word “states” in this case meaning sovereign nations. After all, the Daughters argued, the Confederacy had its own currency, its own army and navy, its own commerce – everything you could ask for in a legitimate nation.

Although the United Daughters didn’t get their way, Southern politicians tried for many decades to sneak that language into law and common parlance. In the 1940s and 1950s, when Southerners held great sway in Congress, the term “war between the states” found its way into at least two federal laws, as well as various Congressional reports. As a schoolboy in Texas, I heard at least one high school teacher argue in favor of the phrase. It was kind of a Southern talking point.

Ocean Grove's cannon

It even gained currency in parts of the North. Paul Goldfinger, who grew up in North Jersey, says he frequently heard the Civil War referred to as the “war between the states.” But Paul wasn’t aware of the underlying political spin the term carries in the South. Most Northerners probably aren’t, at least not these days.

But now, here’s something interesting: Ocean Grove has its own Civil War memorial — the cannon in Founders Park — and its plaque contains that Southern-friendly phrase “war between the states.” Furthermore, the Ocean Grove memorial is friendlier to the South in another way. While Asbury’s memorial only pays tribute to those on the Union side, Ocean Grove’s honors all of the combatants, no matter which side they fought on.

MUSIC from The London Philharmonic Choir:

Read Full Post »

The Blogfinger Grammarian: Listen up, y’all!

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Feature article, tagged on February 7, 2012| 12 Comments »

Y'all

All y'all

You

By Charles Layton

The plural form of I is we. The plural of he/she/it is they. But the plural form of you is just you.

Spanish changes usted to ustedes to make it plural. Most other European languages also have a separate plural form for “you.” But not English. We’re deprived.

When I joined the Army I’d never been north of the Texas-Oklahoma border, so I’d never heard anyone say youse before. When I got to basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, a sergeant got on the company squawk box and bellowed, “I want youse to listen up!” This sounded so ignorant to me that I burst out laughing.

But I shouldn’t have. The sergeant was from Yankeeland, where some people said youse for the very legitimate purpose of specifying the plural. I should have understood that, coming from a part of the country where people said y’all 60 or 80 times a day.

In spite of all formal teachings to the contrary, we-uns in the South have always had this perfectly good, time-tested second-person plural pronoun, and we’ve put it to good use. Regardless of what some people think, y’all is correctly used only as a plural. I agree with the Urban Dictionary when it says, “Only an absolute idiot would use y’all as a singular pronoun.” In the South, when an individual customer enters a hardware store or diner or tractor dealership or bail bond agency, the clerk or hostess or salesperson or bondsman says, “Can I help you?” Not “Can I help y’all.”

Some Yankees get mixed up about this because they’ve heard Southerners say “all of y’all” or “all y’all” or “all a’ y’all,” as if y’all were the singular and all y’all the plural. But that’s wrong. Let me explain.

In my high school, the cheerleaders would exhort us at pep rallies: “ALL Y’ALL YELL!” Which was correct usage. One would not say “all y’all” when addressing two or three people. In that situation, the proper term is “y’all,” the simple plural. “All y’all” is the all-inclusive plural. It comes into play when the group being addressed is so large that one would want to spread one’s arms as a gesture of inclusivity. However, say you’re addressing five people, two of whom are going to the rodeo and three of whom are staying home. You’d say, “Y’all are going” addressing the two “and y’all are staying” addressing the other three. Only if all five were going would you say, “All y’all are going.”

So, you see, Southerners have evolved the usage of this friendly little pronoun to a highly nuanced state of sophistication. The North has nothing to compete with it. Northerners might say “you guys” in one of the above situations — or “youse guys” — but then the masculine guys is forced to apply to people of both sexes. Y’all, being gender neutral, avoids that awkwardness. Plus, y’all has an elegant, easy-to-use possessive form: “That’s none of y’all’s business.” “Where is y’all’s ammunition?” (The possessive of youse is pretty clumsy by comparison.)

Up here in Yankeeland, I almost never use the word y’all (or its more dignified and stately variant, you all), because up here y’all are so confused about it. But last month, when I was in Florida, I found myself reverting to y’all a time or two. And I have to say, it felt comfortable, like meeting a very close friend after a period of separation.

English once had a solid distinction between singular and plural forms. Thou was singular and you plural. But, for some reason, thou dropped out of usage except in formal public prayer and in Amish country. So then you occupied the singular position, doing double duty. When y’all came along, you gave up its original plural spot (in the South, that is) and became just singular. E pluribus unum.

In Yankeeland, you still plays a double role, and an ambiguous one. It doesn’t seem quite right.

Read Full Post »

The Blogfinger Grammarian: democrats vs. Democrats

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, tagged on January 20, 2012| 6 Comments »

 

Ocean Grove. July 4, 2013. Paul Goldfinger photo. ©

Ocean Grove. July 4, 2013. Paul Goldfinger photo. ©

By Charles Layton  (Originally posted on BF in 2012)

Are the Democrats democrats? That question arose this week when the leader of the Neptune Democratic Club tried to prevent a group of Ocean Grovers from expressing their opinion at a Club meeting. One of those Grovers said later that the meeting was “undemocratic.”

But here are two other questions: Are Republicans democrats? Are Democrats republicans? While the answer to that first question may be unclear, the answers to the latter two questions are, for the most part, “yes” and “yes.”

What am I talking about?

I’m talking about what the names of our two major parties actually mean. Here’s some history. In the beginning, the United States was non-partisan – that is, it had no political parties. The writers of the Constitution didn’t want parties to take root here, as they had in England. George Washington was not a member of a party while he was President.

But because of a policy split within Washington’s administration, we soon had a Federalist Party (led by Alexander Hamilton) and then a Democratic-Republican Party (led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson). After the Federalists went into decline, there arose the pro-Andrew Jackson Democrats and the anti-slavery Republicans, and although the policies of those two parties have altered in various ways over time, the names have stuck. But what do those names mean? What did they ever mean?

Well, a republic (notice the lower-case “r”) is a government that’s not a monarchy or a dictatorship, but rather is run by officials elected by the “public.” After the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had completed its work, a group of citizens gathered around Benjamin Franklin and asked him, “What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

A democracy (again, small “d”) is technically a government in which all the citizens make public policy. But really, it’s almost always a “representative democracy” rather than a “pure” one, which is to say we elect people to make laws and run things, and if a majority of us don’t like the way they do that, we kick them out. Not much distinction, really, between that and a republic.

In a 1964 convention speech, President Lyndon Johnson, quoting Jefferson, said, “We are all Democrats. We are all Republicans.” But Johnson misquoted Jefferson. What our third President actually said, at his 1801 inauguration, was this: “We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.” (Federalism refers to a system in which power is shared between a central authority, the “federal” government, and other units within that – states or provinces).

What I say is, we are all republicans, we are all democrats, we are all federalists. But what I also say is, Jefferson and Johnson both had their capitalization wrong; they were referring to republicans small-r, democrats small-d and federalists small-f.

And that is today’s language lesson: when you’re referring to members of the Democratic Party, it’s upper-case D. When you’re referring to “democrats” meaning people who believe in “democracy,” the d is lower case.

Thank you, my fellow federalists.

JOHN DENVER:

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: More Non-answers About the Surf Avenue Fire — Investigator Can’t Say Whether Heater Was Left On

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Ocean Grove fire 3/11/11, Ocean Grove fire March 11, Ocean Grove news, tagged , on November 3, 2011| 6 Comments »

By Charles Layton

The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office, it seems, is still not telling all it knows about the March 11 fire that destroyed a former hotel and six homes on Surf and Atlantic avenues in Ocean Grove.

We reported last week that the fire may have been caused by a gas heater in the old hotel’s basement. (Go here to reread that story.)

We also reported on the refusal of officials in the county fire marshal’s office and the county prosecutor’s office to tell the public what they know about the investigation of that fire. (Go here for our editorial on that.)

A central question is whether the gas heater, which was used to provide heat for construction workers at the site, might have been left burning and unattended the night before the fire. (The fire was reported at 5:11 on the following morning.)

On Thursday, in a telephone interview, Assistant County Prosecutor Chris Decker told us that the evidence “did not enable the investigators to determine with certainty whether the heater was left on.”

Asked if investigators had asked the construction workers at the site whether the heater was left burning, Decker said the workers had indeed been interviewed. However, he said, “I can’t get into what individual people said.”

When asked whether a night watchman or guard had been present at any time during the night, he said, “The scene was left secured the night before. My understanding is the area was locked. That’s all I can say, I don’t know any more.”

He did not provide answers when asked about the type of heater and whether it was in good working condition.

He said his office had conducted “a thorough, thorough, exhaustive investigation” and that “based upon the investigation and evidence, there is no evidence supporting criminal charges.”

Asked whether, regardless of the issue of criminality, county officials would consent to provide the people of Ocean Grove with a complete account, in writing, of their investigative findings about the fire’s cause, Decker did not offer much hope.

“I’ve released all I can release,” he finally said.

On another front, Blogfinger reporter Yvette Blackman placed a call to County Fire Marshal Henry A. Stryker, III on Wednesday of last week, seeking information about his office’s investigation of the fire. She still has not heard back from Stryker.

Read Full Post »

EDITORIAL: The Curious Case of Marshall Koplitz

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Editorial, tagged , , , on October 10, 2011| 8 Comments »

By Charles Layton

I’m going to ask you all a question, but first I’m going to ask that you try to put yourself in the position of Marshall Koplitz.

Assume that you had a real estate business and that you owned a large, uninhabited building in Ocean Grove, specifically, the Park View Inn on Sea View Avenue, and that this building had been in a run-down state for years.

Further assume that the neighbors were so concerned about it – particularly due to the potential for fire – that 33 of them had signed a petition calling your building “an eminent danger” and urging the Township to take action. Assume that the HPC had also asked the Township to take action.

Now assume that the Township had summoned you to court and forced you to agree to rehab the building. But assume that, concurrently, the Ocean Grove Board of Fire Commissioners had ordered you to install an automatic fire alarm system. And that, for 14 months, you had been refusing to do that. And that the County Construction Board of Appeals had agreed with the fire commissioners, going so far as to state, in its official written opinion, that your building was “extremely susceptible to the rapid spread of fire” and was “a significant threat” to neighborhood residents.

Assume that since May 16 of this year, penalties had been accruing against you for failing to install that fire alarm system. Assume that as of September 8 those penalties amounted to $114,000, and you still hadn’t installed the system. And assume that since then penalties had been increasing at the rate of $1,000 for every day that you fail to install the system.

If you were Marshall Koplitz, what would you do? Photo by Charles Layton

And, finally, assume that the fire commissioners are asking the Superior Court of New Jersey to order you to pay your due penalties (which would amount to $146,000 as of this Monday, by my count) and also to install that alarm system without further delay.

Here is my question: Would you give in and install the alarm system? Or, even as the penalties mount, would you continue to fight on, possibly increasing the chances of another catastrophic fire in Ocean Grove? Possibly risking people’s lives?

This morning I telephoned Marshall Koplitz’ attorney, Michelle Lebovitz Lamar of the Sterns & Weinroch firm in Trenton, to ask about all that. “I prefer that you speak with Mr. Koplitz directly,” she said. “It’s a no comment.”

I have left a message for Mr. Koplitz at his office in Asbury Park.

 

For background information about this issue, go here and also here.

Read Full Post »

35 Embury Avenue Is Sold: Demolition Likely

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Neptune Township News, Ocean Grove news, tagged , , on September 28, 2011| 8 Comments »

By Charles Layton

Rear view of 35 Embury. Photo by Charles Layton

We have learned that one of Ocean Grove’s worst derelict buildings — the home at 35 Embury Avenue — has been purchased by a Long Branch company and that it most likely will be torn down.

The closing took place last Friday. Purchase price was said to be $205,000.

A permit would be required to demolish the property, but people both in and out of the Township government seem to agree that the building is unsafe and should be torn down.

On August 11, then-owner Beatrice Albano of Brooklyn, NY, pleaded guilty in Municipal Court to maintenance violations and agreed to correct the problems within two months. However, on August 30 Neptune Township’s Construction Department issued an unsafe structure notice for the property. Committeewoman Mary Beth Jahn said at the time that Bill Doolittle, head of Construction, did not believe the building could be saved.

The unoccupied house is quite large. According to real estate records it has 13 bedrooms and three bathrooms. It has rotted wood throughout. Huge areas lack paint and boards have pulled loose, leaving large cracks and holes for rain to enter the building.

Local attorney William Gannon told me that he had the opportunity to go on a walk-through inspection of the place a couple of months ago and “it is in very bad structural condition.” Asked what the problems are, Gannon said, “You name it.” He said the floors were so unsafe that he could not even complete his inspection.

Another person we spoke to who had been inside the place said it had been neglected for so long that pigeons and seagulls were nesting in there, with all of the filth that implies. “Horrible” was this witness’s general description.

People familiar with the sale say that the buyer intends to build a single-family home, assuming the Township gives permission for demolition of the existing building.

With this sale, 35 Embury joins two other problem buildings in Ocean Grove that seem finally to be on a path toward some kind of resolution. The derelict home at 91 Cookman Avenue was purchased in June by local developer Jack Green, who plans to renovate it. And the absentee owners of another problem building — at 80 Main Avenue — agreed earlier this month to renovate, following a lengthy legal struggle with the Township.

Read Full Post »

NEW FEATURE: “The Blogfinger Grammarian”

Posted in Blogfinger Grammarian, Charles Layton, Feature article, tagged on September 27, 2011|

By Charles Layton

QUESTION: In a recent story about a photo exhibit, Blogfinger wrote: “Here is a photograph of Geanna’s.” Isn’t this use of an apostrophe S incorrect in combination with the word “of”?

ANSWER: In olden days, when grammar and punctuation rules flowed down from Mt. Olympus to school teachers and thence to the rest of us, this usage was condemned for being superfluous. The possessive in English could be formed in one of two ways, by using “of” — as in “the voice of reason” or “the snows of Kilimanjaro” — or by using an apostrophe S. Using both was like using a double negative (“I don’t have no shoes”). Although the meaning was perfectly clear, putting it that way made one sound like Li’l Abner. (Note to younger readers: Li’l Abner was a character in a newspaper comic strip. A newspaper was … oh, forget it.)

As the gods of Olympus lost their grip, people more and more ignored this injunction against the double possessive. Now, if you still care about the issue or if you fear the frowns and sneers of persnickety nitpickers like The Blogfinger Grammarian, just say “Geanna’s photo” and you’re home free.

In informal situations, of course, you can usually get away with “the photo of Geanna’s.” Such small transgressions aren’t nearly as bad as parking inside the yellow-lined rectangles on Mt. Hermon Way. Just don’t try slipping such expressions into a legal brief, a scholarly article or a proposed amendment to the New Jersey Constitution.

I would argue that traditional “correctness” is usually to be preferred, though, whatever the context. It costs nothing and has no down side. And even though Zeus is dead, preserving small linguistic distinctions still has value, because losing them can make the language less precise. I have read that the Latin tongue became less precise in just such ways when the Roman civilization moved from its classical into its decadent phase. You know what followed that.

-0-

Ed. note: If you have a question for “The Blogfinger Grammarian” you may submit it via pg1425@verizon.net. We won’t answer every one, but we will choose those that seem of the greatest general interest — or maybe just those that happen to ring our bell.

Read Full Post »

Neptune Planning Board Gives In To HPC on Master Plan — However, the Board Seems Headed For a Confrontation With the Ocean Grove Home Owners Association

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Neptune Township News, Ocean Grove news, tagged , , , , , , , on September 15, 2011| 17 Comments »

By Charles Layton

The Historic Preservation Commission seems to have persuaded the Neptune Planning Board to include stronger protections for Ocean Grove in its rewrite of the Master Plan.

But the Ocean Grove Home Owners Association remains at odds with the Planning Board over its own issues, and it appears that a fight between the two groups may be in the offing.

The newly-included language proposed by the HPC stresses the importance of Ocean Grove’s architectural heritage, its emphasis on single-family homes, and such defining characteristics of the town plan as the flared setback on avenues near the ocean.

The Planning Board has been working for months on a total rewrite of the Master Plan, a document that lays out basic goals and guidelines for land use and zoning.

Last week, the HPC passed a resolution expressing concern that the board’s proposed rewrite did not do enough to protect the Grove’s historic heritage. But at a public meeting on Wednesday night, the board revealed that it had inserted into its draft much of the language suggested by the HPC.

Also on Wednesday, the Historical Society of Ocean Grove weighed in for the first time with a letter to the Planning Board, in which it agreed with the issues raised by the HPC and also with a broader range of concerns raised by the Home Owners Association.

While acceding to most of what the HPC had asked for, the Planning Board made no concessions to the Home Owners. Members of the Home Owners board who were present at the meeting came away unhappy with that, and also with the Planning Board’s refusal to allow comment from members of the public.

“This is nonsense,” Home Owners trustee Fran Paladino told me after it was made clear that no one would be allowed to voice concerns or raise questions. The three-hour meeting was taken up by a lengthy report to the Planning Board by its consultant Jennifer Beahm, covering the details of the entire 207-page draft of the proposed new Master Plan.

In a letter delivered on Friday, a committee of the Home Owners had expressed fears that this new plan, as written, would be bad for Ocean Grove. (For full details, read the Home Owners letter here.)

There was no indication on Wednesday night that the Planning Board was in any mood to accommodate the Home Owners’ concerns. Neither did the Home Owners trustees show any willingness to back off, and it seems likely that the issue will be raised at the group’s next membership meeting, which is on September 24.

One of the Home Owners’ chief concerns is a suggestion in the Planning Board’s draft that the Township create a new Land Use Advisory Committee to make decisions as to whether “minor changes that have been found to be di-minimus [sic] in nature can be approved administratively” rather than going to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Home Owners committee’s letter said it feared this new bureaucratic layer of authority would “usurp the authority of the existing citizens boards, replacing their judgments with the judgments of various executives of the Township. This would potentially allow for more decisions to be made outside the public’s view, and would be an invitation to more political influence and insider dealing.”

Support for the Home Owners position on this and some other issues appeared to be growing in certain quarters. In its Wednesday letter, the Historical Society made a point of concurring with issues raised by the Home Owners. Gail Shaffer, president of the Historical Society, told me she was especially concerned about the issue of the proposed new advisory committee. Deborah Osepchuk, chairwoman of the HPC, told me she too was concerned about that issue, although she stressed that she was speaking only for herself, not for the HPC, on that matter.

Another major concern of the Home Owners committee is the proposal’s frequent recommendations that various rules on zoning, density limits, the flared setback and other issues important to Ocean Grove be “reviewed,” “redrafted” or “evaluated.” So much “broad language in the Master Plan, urging such sweeping changes, would give present and future administrations too much discretion to make whatever changes they please,” the Home Owners letter said.

The Historical Society’s letter specifically supported the Home Owners on this issue. It spoke of “weakly defined language that urges sweeping changes to the present regulations.”

Osepchuk said she was pleased that the Planning Board had accepted the HPC’s suggestion to put protective language from the old Master Plan into the draft of the new one. “There are marked improvements from what was originally written,” she said, but added that “there is still room for some tweaking.”

One important historical passage from the old Master Plan, which Osepchuk’s commission succeeded in having transplanted into the new one, described Ocean Grove’s physical decline in the 1990s as hotels and rooming houses for summer lodgers gave way to multi-family residences and boarding houses for the indigent. Legal changes since then, prohibiting similar conversions to multi-family residential use, “have limited additional deterioration and facilitated a renaissance of investment in single-family housing, bed and breakfasts and historic hotels,” the restored language says. It continues: “These types of uses are more appropriate to the scale and character of the [historic] district and provide appropriate development that preserves the character of Ocean Grove.” The newly included language also promises “a strong commitment to the protection and preservation of Ocean Grove’s unique town plan, particularly its flared setback, and all properties designated as having architectural and historic significance.”

The HPC considered that language important to protecting Ocean Grove’s status as a National Historic District.

Planning Board Chairman Joseph Shafto said the public would not have a chance to speak before the board until it meets on November 9 for what could be its final consideration of the Master Plan. Between now and November 9, however, anyone who wishes to submit a letter for the board’s consideration may do so, Shafto said.

After the plan is approved, in whatever form, by the Planning Board, the Board and its attorneys would then rewrite the local land use ordinance based on what’s in the new Master Plan. The new ordinance would then be passed into law by the Township Committee.

Read Full Post »

EDITORIAL: The Master Plan Rewrite Has Reached a Critical Moment

Posted in Blogfinger News, Charles Layton, Neptune Township News, Ocean Grove news, tagged , , , on September 2, 2011| 1 Comment »

By Charles Layton

OK, all you zoning and land use nerds, we’ve reached the really important stage in the rewriting of Neptune Township’s Master Plan. Time to pay attention.

The draft proposal for the plan’s “land use element” – which deals in large part with policy and zoning issues for Ocean Grove – has just been posted online.

The proposal was written by a special committee created by the Planning Board. It deals with things like the density of our residential areas, the extent to which the flared setback should be protected (or not) and proposals to rewrite the entire zoning code for Ocean Grove, including things like the definition of building height limits.

This proposal is just that, a proposal. It is subject to change, for the better or for the worse. It will be aired at a Planning Board meeting on September 14 at 7 p.m. in the Committee Meeting Room at the municipal building, and there will be opportunity for public questions and input. But for Ocean Grovers to have effective input, they need to read and understand this document.

The proposal on land use is one of 10 “elements” of the overall Master Plan draft. The land use element is 34 pages long and begins with general statements about protecting the character of existing neighborhoods, with particular reference to the Historic District of Ocean Grove. It speaks of “maintaining the character, scale and privacy of established residential neighborhoods,” ensuring that renovations and new construction “are compatible with existing neighborhood character” and paying attention “to overall residential densities.”

These are pretty words. (If they were taken at face value it’s hard to see how the proposed North End hotel/condominium complex could be built, but nevermind.) The most interesting part of the document comes toward the end, in the “Recommendations” section, and especially beginning on page 28, which deals quite specifically with Ocean Grove. That section contains a proposal that the Township Land Development Ordinance regulations pertaining to Ocean Grove be reviewed and rewritten. That rewrite, one imagines, could get sticky.

Therefore, be it resolved that all concerned Ocean Grovers look this document over, print it out, scribble notes in the margins of it, discuss it among ourselves, attend the September 14 meeting, and remain vigilant as the process moves along. It’s a long process, and there’ll be time for suggestions and debate. But the time to get interested and start raising questions is right now.

NOTE: For a free, downloadable copy of the draft of the entire proposed new Master Plan, click on this link:   Master plan link  Be warned, however, that the document is very difficult to read online, and the maps it includes are so small that their details are almost a blurr.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »