Today Blogfinger received an email from Rev. John DiGiamberadino, the Executive Director/COO of the OGCMA. He sent us a press release regarding a law suit being brought against the Jersey Shore Arts Center. He says, “The Camp Meeting tries to resolve long-standing dispute with Jersey Shore Arts Center:”
The press release is posted below.
This is the second news story where the JSAC is embroiled in a law suit. The first has to do with a discrimination charge brought against the JSAC by the Q Spot.
May 1, 2017 – The Ocean Grove Camp Association (OGCMA) has filed a civil law suit seeking to resolve a long-standing dispute with the Jersey Shore Arts Center (JSAC). The goal of the suit is to consummate a ground lease for the property. This is an effort that has been ongoing for approximately 18 years, following the return of the property to the OGCMA by the Neptune Board of Education:
“The OGCMA appreciates the many contributions the JSAC has made and continues to make in our shared community,” says John DiGiamberardino, COO. “The Camp Meeting has been extremely reasonable and respectful in trying to reach an agreement that is mutually acceptable. The JSAC lack of response has been disappointing and frustrating given that all property in Ocean Grove is subject to land lease agreements.
“The OGCMA has no desire to involve itself in the ongoing operations of the JSAC or any of its programs. Rather, our intentions are simple and straightforward. In order to meet our fiduciary responsibilities, we must finally bring this issue to closure.
“In conclusion we stand ready and available to meet with the JSAC at any time to discuss this matter of mutual importance.”
Entrance to Ocean Grove at Main Avenue. Blogfinger photo.
FROM FRAN HOPKINS:
I had to read and re-read the two Neptune Township letter excerpts* a few times until I finally “got it.” In 2005, Neptune Township asked that it be allowed to require only on-street parking in Ocean Grove. The State said “no.” In 2009, the Township asked a second time, but rephrased the request to ask that it be allowed to prohibit off-street parking in Ocean Grove. This is the same thing, just worded differently, if I’m understanding this correctly; and again, the state said “no.” The 2005 Township request said that it would apply to “future residential development”; the 2009 request said it would be “new residential development.”
In denying its repeated requests to not have to require off-street parking in Ocean Grove, the State reminded the Township that, since 1997–eight and 12 years, respectively, before Neptune made these requests–Neptune (of which Ocean Grove is a part) had been required, by law, to comply with the RSIS standards (including the parking requirements).
Also, the State’s 2005 letter was clear that RSIS applies to “all site improvements” involving residential development. The State didn’t limit RSIS’s applicability to new development only; yet that’s what the Township specified in its subsequent 2009 request. I don’t know enough about this to know the differences in meaning among “future residential development,” “new residential development,” and “all site improvements for residential development,” but I would think that the State’s wording is much broader.
So if I’m a reader who knows nothing about this situation except what I’ve read in these letter excerpts, I can only conclude that:
1. From 1997 through 2005, the Township complied with RSIS and required off-street parking in Ocean Grove for all site improvements for residential development, since apparently it didn’t ask the State during this time to permit it to NOT comply.
2. From 2005 through 2009, Neptune Township continued to adhere to the RSIS standards (including those related to parking) in Ocean Grove because the State affirmed in response to the Township’s 2005 request that its compliance was required by law.
3. From 2009 through the present, the Township remained, and remains, in compliance with RSIS standards because the State reiterated in 2009 that the Township (including Ocean Grove) was legally required to comply.
I’m sure I’m oversimplifying this, but is my reasoning correct? If it is, then do my conclusions accurately describe what’s occurred in Ocean Grove since 1997? If not, why? Despite what the State said, are there/have there been legal ways for Neptune Township to bypass RSIS? For example, would non-compliance be legally possible because of Ocean Grove’s Historic District designation? But if that were the case, then why did the State deny a non-compliance request for Ocean Grove twice?
I did come across the December 17, 2015 minutes of the NJ Site Improvement Advisory Board (SIAB) that Blogfinger and others attended. I saw a statement in there in response to comments by Kevin Chambers:
“Chairman Doyle and Ms. McKenzie responded by explaining that enforcement is a local issue. Towns have the ability to reduce the parking required for a specific project. There is flexibility built into the parking requirements in the rules. Notice is provided to the Board when a de minimis exception or agreement to exceed has been approved to enable the Board to continue to review the rules, and to make revisions, when necessary. Chairman Doyle added that any evidence of corruption should be reported to the proper agencies.”
Was the SIAB saying that it’s OK to make “exceptions” to the parking requirements, as long as SIAB is notified? Has the Township been doing this? Maybe not, and perhaps that’s why its “special area standards” applications have been denied — because the SIAB knows full well that the Township has been disregarding the RSIS standards all along.
The thing I’m still not “getting” is how it could be that residential development that’s not in compliance with state standards–i.e., that’s illegal–has been going on in Ocean Grove for 20 years. I was an Ocean Grove homeowner for only a short time and hope that longer-time residents can explain this.
I do know that the extreme lack of convenient parking, which was only getting worse, was one of the main reasons I decided I had to leave last summer. It’s unbelievable and upsetting to think that the people whom residents entrusted with the care of this uniquely beautiful little area are the ones who let this happen.
Why does Ocean Grove remain part of Neptune Township? I know a vote to secede from the Township failed in 1980 (although a majority of Ocean Grove voters were in favor of the move). It may be time to try again.
Editor’s note: We welcome Fran Hopkins’ attempt to penetrate what seems almost impenetrable. The RSIS story in Ocean Grove is complex, so her summary and her questions are well worth airing out now for a 2017 update.
And, here is a link to a 2011 Blogfinger post, updated to 2015, where Kevin Chambers offers a brilliant summary regarding this issue. Don’t miss Kevin’s discussion by clicking on the link below.
Whitfield Watcher says, “I’m wondering if the scale of these new homes are really what the law permits. The Whitfield was not nearly this dense. This new Monopoly block of luxury housing dwarfs everything around it. “
Editor’s note: We have reported on the size of this property which will contain 4 houses on 4 undersized lots. We questioned the permission that was granted for this “subdivision.” And what about the height of those houses? They are obviously out of scale for the neighborhood. Why aren’t the neighbors complaining?
Here is a link to one of our Whitfield related posts. This is from March 18, 2017.
Re: Dispute regarding ground rents for condo owners. The item below this sentence appeared recently in the Wassup? section of Blogfinger.net:
Condominium associations lose their suit regarding ground rents. The two condo units are on Ocean Pathway. The ruling allows the Camp Meeting to change ground rent charges according to the sale price of the unit.
Here are links to two of our three Blogfinger February, 2017 posts about this subject. This court ruling can have major implications regarding the condo market in OG. The lawyer for the condo owners has recommended an appeal.
I am Gorton Wood and I live at 40 Ocean Pathway; I am one of the litigants in the ground rent lawsuit.
In 2007 when I purchased my 1,090 square foot condo (two bedrooms and one bath,) I was given a ground rent spreadsheet schedule by OGCMA. It was titled “New Condo/Townhouse Ground Rent.” It covered a period of 12 years. The first three years I paid 1% of the sale price of my condo or $475.00 per year. The second three years it went to 1.5% of my sales price or $712.50 per year. The third three years it went to 2% of my sales price or $950.00 per year. The final three years it grew to 2.5% of my sales price or 1,187.50 per year. Then beginning year 13 and going on forever [hold your hat], it was going to be tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which could be 3%, 4%, 5% annually, who knows. I could end up having to pay an annual ground rent of $3,000 or more annually.
On two occasions I went to the OGCMA and demanded to have someone explain who cooked this up (Jack Green—I learned from another source) and when did they cook this up? No one would speak to me. Then in 2014 I wrote out my ground rent check and sent a message to the OGCMA saying that when they gave me a meeting I would bring my check. They never responded. In 2015 I did they same thing and again they refused to grant me a meeting. Then I received a letter from their law firm in Freehold saying if I did not pay immediately, they would prosecute me.
I am willing to go to any length, even alone, to have this situation corrected. I don’t believe any of the owners, myself included, expect to not pay ground rent, but for God’s sake make it fair. I actually wrote the OGCMA and their law firm a letter saying I was confident I could get every owner at 40 Ocean Pathway and 30 Ocean Pathway to agree to $200.00 a year. They wrote back basically telling me to take a hike.
GORTON WOOD
Ocean Grove, NJ, April 10, 2017
The writer is a resident of a condominium at #40 Ocean Pathway.
The recent articles on Blogfinger about the quest for a driveway at 27 Heck Avenue, are about much more than a place to park one car. In the grand scheme of things, as some have stated, we have a lot more problems in the Grove than whether to allow a homeowner to build a driveway on his property. But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore seemingly small issues.
Small issues can represent much larger ones which may be revealed in one of our posts when citizens participate in the discussions and share their curious questions, opinions and knowledge.
In the process of discussing the Sampler driveway, our readers have invoked the following issues:
Enforcing the land use laws in our town
Special political and land use treatment (favoritism) for certain people in town
Failure of the efforts to solve the parking problems
Use of inappropriate historic precedents in making current decisions. For example the subdivision of the Whitfield site.
Understanding Township ordinances, Master Plan, subdivisions, lot conformity, and zoning.
Variances and what they do
What is the flare and can you park in the flare?
Do campaign contributions influence the decisions of Neptune politicians?
Role of citizen activists in opposing efforts to diminish our town
What are curb cuts?
Are new Victorians historic?
What are RSIS standards regarding parking?
What is the role of the CMA in situations such as this?
What is the role of the HOA—where have they been up to now regarding land use topics?
15 What goes on at those Zoning Board meetings?
Is there equal justice in the Grove?
And this is why we at Blogfinger find our efforts on behalf of the town to be so satisfying. The driveway topic is about getting from here to there at the old Sampler site, but the resultant discussions are about so much more.
RITCHIE HAVENS AND THE PRESERVATION HALL JAZZ BAND:
In October we reported that houses would be built on that property next to the Arts Center. Internet photo.
From OGJaimie:
“Just thought you’d be interested that dump next to the old high school, which used to contain lumps of soil and sand is now a construction lot for the Gannons and whatever other construction job is occurring in the immediate area, which currently involves something that involves digging up the street.
“Every day the number of vehicles, equipment, containers seems to increase. Pretty certain this is not an approved use.
“A worker/supervisor doing work on the roads (I assume on public utilities) told me that Herb Herbst, of the Jersey Shore Arts Center, said they could use the lot, but Herb no longer owns the land; the Gannon’s own it.”
Editor’s Note: OGJaimie is a resident over there and he has a history of commenting about this subject. Blogfinger has no information at this time about the current status of that property.
Here is a link to our October, 2016 post about that property. There is a discussion there which deals with lot sizes and subdivisions, a topic that we are currently involved with regarding the Whitfield property on Surf Avenue.
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger and Jack Bredin, Researcher @Blogfinger
This is no surprise, but the final Site Plan approval for turning the Warrington into a boutique hotel will be signed this week by the Zoning Board of Adjustment Engineer, Secretary, and by the Board Chairman. As you may recall from our October, 2016 article (see link below,) the process of final approval had been held up pending consideration of a variety of issues.
Our concerns last October included the need for an easement to connect the Lake Avenue structure with the utilities on Seaview Avenue. There are two small cottages which are interposed between the Warrington and Seaview Avenue.
According to Kristie Armour, the Zoning Officer for the ZBA, in an interview today, it was found that there was a pre-existing easement which would cover this matter. But the tax map has shown no such easement.
Also, the new project encroaches on CMA property, but Ms. Armour tells us that the CMA wrote a letter to give permission. However, normally, such a letter would be useless unless the CMA property were newly subdivided to show that the Warrington owner now owns that encroached property.
There were other matters as well, but we have no information about these concerns including the bizarre suggestion by the Home Owners Assoc. to turn part of Lake Avenue into a two-way street near Founders’ Park ostensibly in order to create new parking. New parking should never crowd out a historic location.
Another irregularity is that the Warrington is on a land-locked lot, not fronting on a street; Lake Avenue is not a street. This should be illegal now as it pertains to the new project.
Other violations include failure to follow New Jersey state RSIS parking standards whereas this project should have been required to provide on-site parking.
The Warrington originally received final ZBA approval in 2015. In June 2016, the ZBA Engineer found that a Developers Agreement was needed. In September 2016, the Developers Agreement was passed. But there were still loose ends, and now we hear that the matter is finalized.
The only way that this project could be blocked now is with an appeal to the governing body or a law suit brought by the citizens to the Superior Court. There is a 45 day opportunity to sue, and then it will be a “done-deal.”
But the Home Groaners have shown no interest in this project or any other important land-use issues in town including the condoization of the Grove. How do the residents of Sea View Avenue feel about this situation?
So there will be project approval this week even though the application is riddled with land-use law violations.
SUTTON FOSTER: From Mel Brooks Young Frankenstein. If you think that land use policies in Ocean Grove are hopelessly corrupted, do something silly and have a roll in the hay.
The Ross Bathing Houses, 1878. North End, Ocean Grove Beach. From the Atlas of the Jersey Coast. Previously posted on Blogfinger.
To the Editor:
I was reading your post and thought I would give you a little history on the original use of ground rent. On a map of either 1871 or early 1872, it stated that the plan of leasing, instead of selling the lots, had been adopted to prevent any person from using his lot for purposes that would be an annoyance to other lot holders.
As far as the use of ground rent in the early days of Ocean Grove, during the Stokes era and beyond, the use of ground rent was for public services for the lot holders. In a book published in 1919, entitled “The Story of Ocean Grove 1869-1919” written by Morris S. Daniels… it states:
“If it is conceded, for the sake of argument, that the ground rental corresponds to a tax, it may also be said that it is expended by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association for the benefit of the leaseholders.
It is doubtful “if in all the land there is another place where the people receive so much attention at so little cost.” The Ocean Grove Association “lights the public streets and avenues the year round;” it polices the grounds, summer and winter; removes the garbage from the doors of the producers. It takes sanitary supervision of the entire place. It keeps the the streets in order, maintains the board walk and many of the sidewalks. It provides public pavilions and seats for the free use and accommodation of the masses. It sprinkles many of the streets during the dry and dusty days of summer. It provides parks, fountains, lakes, and flowers, and does a thousand other nameless things for which the leaseholders have contracted to pay a small ground rental, which thus far has never exceeded $10.50 per lot, which is the maximum ground rental which can be charged under the leases already made. The ground rentals amount to about $18,000; but much more than this sum is required for the purposes mentioned and is made up by the Association.”
Here are a few other interesting facts concerning ground rent beginnings. In the first 4 years of Ocean Grove’s existence the OGCMA didn’t require any ground rent from their lease holders. After this period they only required $2.50 from their lot holders. In 1880, they upped the ground rent to $5.00. In 1883, owing to the expense incurred in erecting a fire house on Olin Street, the ground rental was increased to $7.50. It was thought that the lot holders should share in the expense, since it was to their benefit.
In the early OGCMA annual reports the Camp Meeting Association was much more transparent and open about their ground rent and its uses. They would give an accounting of what they received and gave exact breakdowns of what it was used for. They were also more reluctant to raise it, even though for years the funds received through ground rents were insufficient to cover the expenses of the public services. They seemed to have more of a conscience about the burden that was placed upon the lot holder.
I have a great appreciation for the CMA and enjoy participating in their many programs. I also have a concern for their future and that more will be stripped away from them in coming years if they continue on the path they have been following… for “Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud.” Proverbs 16:18-19
Justin Truth is a blogger who writes about Ocean Grove history. His blog has a few entries and they are quite interesting, especially the one about President Grant visiting the town and also a piece from an Irish publication in 1874 about a “Sunday at an American Camp Meeting.”
Blogfinger would like to thank Justin Truth for sharing his information with our readers. We asked him for some information about himself. After all, he showed some courage and answered our call for information sharing in Ocean Grove. This is his response:
“Thank you, Paul, for taking notice and interest in my recent comment concerning the ground rent issue. I choose not to reveal my identity at this time, as to avoid being caught up into a fire storm of controversy. I am a lifelong resident of Ocean Grove, having been involved in all of the OGCMA programs growing up, as well as in the present time. I have roots which go very deep in Ocean Grove, as well as in the surrounding area.
I’m just an ordinary guy, who is interested in Ocean Grove history and began researching for accurate information. It is my desire for others to become more interested in our history and this is why I began my blog.
It is my hope for people to begin to research themselves, considering all the information we have at our fingertips today. I would rather give people the tools they need to find the actual historic records, than to have them look to me as the authority on the subject. I like for the historic records to speak for themselves. I have included a link to the map I referenced in my comment.”
Regarding the second sentence in Justin’s letter to the editor, the link below is for the 1870 map that he sent which proves that lots were leased from the very beginning and were not sold. You can enlarge the map and read the relevant section on the left side.
As for the fact that the citizens of OG early on were enjoying nearly-free services from the Camp Meeting Association, the CMA preferred to offer certain services such as police and the local court. The CMA wanted total control in the Grove including their wish to establish and enforce blue laws. Their motive was to perpetuate their “Christian sea-side community”
During those years, the citizens paid taxes to Neptune Township, and those taxes probably would have provided for those services had the CMA not insisted on doing it themselves.
However, the CMA did offer many nearly-free services enjoyed by Grovers which are listed in the Justin Truth letter, and many continue to this date. And Neptune likely offered services such as schools, utilities, sewage, and water during the years when the CMA ran the town but was part of Neptune Township. So the taxes did pay for Neptune services.
There were some protests and suits in the past over these Neptune tax issues, but the CMA always prevailed—until the NJ Supreme Court ruling in 1979.
Here is an item from the Blogfinger OG History Timeline. “1898: Ocean Grove’s “lessees,” who pay property taxes to Neptune Township, want the CMA to pay the taxes to Neptune. A suit is brought by the homeowners, but in 1900 the NJ Supreme Court sides with the CMA.”——PG
A small rehab center for short term care in W. Palm Beach Fla. Internet photo.
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor at Blogfinger.net
As we noted recently, Gov. Christie said that he would prioritize the problem of opioid substance abuse which has caused many deaths in New Jersey, especially in Essex, Ocean, Camden, and Monmouth Counties.
He is promoting a new bill that would mandate insurance coverage for such treatment by commercial companies. Federal mandates already exist for Medicaid.
Philly.com says, “While the Affordable Care Act requires substance-abuse coverage, New Jersey could account for the federal law’s potential repeal by passing state legislation.” (Source article by Philly.com reporter Maddie Hanna.)
“If the federal law goes away, it reverts to whatever the old state law was,” said Joel Cantor, founding director of the Center for State Health Policy at Rutgers University.
Very few states have such laws. The N.J. proposal would provide for inpatient coverage for up to 30 days for those who qualify. There have been some objections about the emphasis on inpatient vs. outpatient care. The Laingdon proposal for Ocean Grove would seem to fall under the heading of outpatient care, although maybe the housing component would categorize it as inpatient care. Regardless, increased funding would increase the pressure to create more such services for those who would be housed while undergoing treatment. (This is the model described for the Laingdon/Sprout concept.)
Our town would be a perfect location for places to house clients after an inpatient admission or for outpatient care. We have old hotels/boarding houses as well as homes (especially multi-family) which could be used for small residential operations doing short term care. But if there is an explosion of investment in such facilities in NJ, the article says that there will be zoning battles around the state (see quote below.)
Here is another quote from the Hanna piece, “There is an inadequate supply of substance-abuse treatment services, period. Not just in New Jersey, but around the country.”
“Others spoke Monday of challenges to opening treatment centers, including zoning battles. ‘I used to have a saying: It’s easier to open up a gentlemen’s club in this state than it is to open up a drug and alcohol treatment program. And that’s not far off from the truth,’ Tom Allen, co-founder of Summit Behavioral Health, told Senate lawmakers.”
It’s important for those of us who care about the Grove’s future, our lifestyles, our historical preservation, and our home values to keep an eye on zoning approvals and to take them seriously as precedent-setting events.
We cautioned about the zoning manipulation that allowed Mary’s Place, but hardly anyone seemed to care. And, even though the Laingdon application was withdrawn, we need to stay alert. The key will be the Zoning Board of Adjustment use variances
What are we to do with the totally ineffective Home Groaners? They have a meeting, drag a crowd of Grovers away from their warm beds, and find out that the Groaners accomplished next to nothing.
The first order of business was the Parking Committee report. It seems that the Township accepted none of their recommendations. In particular there will be no parking permits for residents, no parking meters on Ocean Avenue, and no park-and-ride trolley. Conclusion: A big zero for the Groaners.
Second order of business: Converting the Laingdon Hotel into a rehab facility? Well, the Groaner’s president, a lawyer, announced that she knows nothing about zoning law and that her board was considering spending $5,000.00 for another lawyer to represent the group at the Zoning Board meeting. She even admitted that she knows nothing about brain surgery either, so the Groaners should be disqualified from discussing zoning or performing lobotomies in the future.
Luckily, the Sprout application was withdrawn and saved the group $5,000.00 The Groaners must have a lot of dough, because they recently wasted $7,000.00 for a lawyer to look at a false alarm—ground rents. (i.e. no weapons of tax destruction were found.)
Oh, and why was the Sprout application withdrawn? The Groaners have no idea. Conclusion: Everyone should have stayed home in bed.
The third order of business: The meeting agenda promised that the HPC would come to discuss the “HPC War” because the Township wants to dilute the HPC historic guidelines, and this is a subject that could impact Ocean Grove’s future.
But golly, the HPC representatives instead reviewed what everyone already knows about (HPC history 101 minus the Greek Temple ) and ignored what everyone wanted to hear about—i.e. the “HPC War.”
Therefore we regrettably must report that the HPC laid an egg at the meeting and continues to deny the public information about this critical situation.
The Blogfinger correspondent concludes that “The Home Groaners Association knows nothing and does nothing.”
And that, ladies and germs, in the words of Laurel and Hardy*, “Is a fine kettle of fish.”
For our musical enjoyment we offer a suggested theme song for the HGA when the current board resigns and is replaced by a group of Grovers who will actually accomplish something for the town.
The deal to turn the Laingdon Hotel into a substance treatment center on Main Avenue was hatched last August—before the presidential election. In our discussions about this matter, we learned something about the economics and we found out that such facilities can be very lucrative, especially for those high end clients who probably would have been found at the new Sprout/Laingdon location. But we also found out that insurance money is available for patients, including those who are not wealthy, such as those under Medicaid. Also we spoke about a law enforcement program which lets drug criminals enter rehab instead of going to jail.
And that money trail exposed why entrepreneurs were interested in such facilities.
Our discussion also revealed that Ocean Grove still has multifamily dwellings and some multi-unit boarding houses such as the Whitfield (now deceased) and the Warrington (now unoccupied and aspiring to be an expensive “boutique hotel.”)
But a rehab facility could be created in a smallish multi-family house, even of only 2 or 3 units, just as such places could also be condoized, and neither use seems to be good for the town. But the pressure to find new sources of investment income in OG could grow even larger, given the rising spending on healthcare.
Now the Grove is in danger of going viral with such “medical shelters” for addicts (rich or poor), Mary’s style clients, or whatever such “shelters” might be devised by inventive investors.
Those who lived in this town in the 1980’s vividly recall all the “shelters” that were found around the Grove, and many of those attracted unattractive residents who hung out in various favored locations, smoking, yelling, sleeping on benches, and smelling. We have heard of some of that from residents who lived here during that era who are now dismayed that we might move in that direction once again.
But why would Neptune Township allow such deterioration? Well, there are those in the Grove who believe that Neptune officials really don’t care much about Ocean Grove and would be happy for it to slide into the abyss, as long as the tax dollars continue to flow in one form or another. And there are the local developers who are happy to exploit the town for money regardless of the consequences in terms of crowding, parking, and lifestyle deterioration.
However, during our last look at this subject, before we could really sink our digital teeth into the rehab/Laingdon matter, the application for a use-variance at the Zoning Board of Adjustment was abruptly withdrawn, and we don’t know why. Maybe the Blogfinger poll and citizen comments scared them away, but more likely we could find the answer by following the money. Being unpopular with the OG public has never frightened the Neptune Township and Ocean Grove movers and shakers when money was at stake.
The Township ZBA office denies knowing anything about the withdrawal. But on January 14, an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal by Jeanne Whalen in the US News section, page A-3. which might shed some light on the situation. It was sent to us by a citizen reporter.
In it she explains that there are provisions under the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) that forces ACA insurance providers to pay for addiction rehab. The amount of money available that way is “huge,” as it tries to chase the widespread increase in deaths due to opioids such as heroine and fentanyl, especially in the north east, including Monmouth County.
According to the WSJ, “There are 2.8 million Americans with substance abuse disorders who would lose some or all of their insurance if the ACA is repealed.”
“Researchers at Harvard Medical School and NYU estimated a repeal would withdraw at least $5.5 billion annually from the treatment of mental health conditions including substance abuse.”
So, is there any wonder that investors have been sniffing around our town thinking of rehab facilities as sources of healthcare income? And perhaps, after Trump won, Sprout may have freaked out and chosen to drop the Laingdon idea.
But, because the opioid addiction problem is growing and harming families and small businesses, the new administration might be compelled to keep the money coming, and if so, OG is really a perfect place to open rehab. facilities.
If Mary’s Place could get zoning approval for their “shelter” without even a variance, then you’d better not pout, you’d better not cry–I’m telling you why: Santa Claus is coming to town and he has goodies in his sleigh for those who want to help addicts in the Grove.
One month ago we began reporting on the efforts of Neptune Township to change the guidelines that the HPC uses to protect Ocean Grove’s historic designations.
At the Township meeting, Dec 12, 2016, where those new guidelines were presented, members of the HPC expressed serious concern when they went to the microphone to protest. But those comments were unofficial, and Deborah Osepchuk, the chairperson of the Commission, promised to review all the changes and to present an official HPC response.
On Dec. 13, we posted an article about the meeting and we said, “The HPC itself made no formal announcement about their opinions, but it is our understanding that they are not pleased with the changes. Don’t they have an obligation to inform the OG public about their concerns?” Later that day, the HPC voted to draft a statement speaking out against the guidelines.
The Neptune Twp. web site says this about the HPC: “The current members of the HPC are dedicated to the goal of sharing information about the benefits of preserving Ocean Grove’s heritage and to ‘Recapture the Spirit of Ocean Grove, with all residents.”
At Blogfinger we wrote a series of articles on this subject, calling it “The HPC War” and we sympathized with the HPC. We asked Ms. Osepchuk to send us the official HPC response for our readers to see. She said she would.
The next day she did an about-face and said that she would not provide BF with the requested information on advice from the HPC attorney . The legal reason given was unbelievable, and we posted a piece on 12/16 on the subject of the “silent treatment” offered by the HPC.
We urge our viewers to re-read that post (linked below) and to especially read the comments:
Ms. Osepchuk said that she was not allowed to communicate with the media, but if you look at the Coaster on-line, you will find an in-depth interview with the HPC dated Dec. 14, 2016. The HPC had indeed made up its mind . The Coaster reported that: “HPC Chairperson Deborah Osepchuk said the Commission was ‘absolutely against the changes.’”
So what we have here is duplicity on the part of the HPC. *
We contacted the Chairperson again a few days ago and inquired if there was any progress regarding the guidelines issue. She said that there was none and she didn’t mention that there was an official HPC position and that the matter had been discussed with the Home Owners Association and with the Coaster. This is deceit by omission.
She also didn’t tell us that the HPC would present their official position regarding “the HPC War” to the HOA meeting next week. Instead she said, “We’ll be talking preservation and the importance of guidelines at that meeting.”
It looks like the lawyer for the HPC advised them to specifically ignore Blogfinger, but that it was perfectly OK to give out the information to the Coaster and to the HOA. Is that possible? Maybe that lawyer should comment here about what seems to be atrocious legal advice to the HPC to selectively ignore a request for information from a member of the press.
The HPC is an arm of the Neptune Township government and its denial of our request appears to be a violation of the Freedom of Information Act and a rude stiff-arm to the only media source totally devoted to Ocean Grove and totally based in the Grove.
Why would the HPC deny Blogfinger news that belongs to the people of Ocean Grove? We can speculate, but the bottom line is that 50 people at the HOA meeting will hear the news next week, but we get an average of 5,000 to 7,000 views per week and higher on Blogfinger.
The only explanation is fear—they don’t want to expose their opinions to the scrutiny of the BF viewers, because we allow you-the-people to challenge them in our comments section.
This is disgraceful, and it puts the HPC in an alliance with the untrustworthy HOA and with the Coaster—a publication that could care less about our town. I used to admire the HPC, but no more. Blogfinger will watch them with suspicion. There’s something fishy going on over there.
*Dictionary.com Duplicity is deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter; double-dealing.
