Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ocean Grove opinions’ Category

Back then the CMA controlled all parking in the Grove.  If that parking mandate was not outrageous,  then why not  the new paradigm?

 

Parking in the Grove. Resident parking should come first. Everyone else can find a way. Blogfinger photograph. 2015.

By Paul Goldfinger,  Editor @Blogfnger.net

Until 1980, the Camp Meeting Association ran the town and could command everyone to move their cars out of town on Sunday.  But they are no longer in charge, and Ocean Grove is now similar to other Shore towns when it comes to parking, except that we have few garages and driveways.

There are a finite number of parking spaces in the Grove and a finite number of residents.

Those people who live in this town and who pay to live here—owners and renters—-should receive a special status which gives them top priority for parking spaces.

The Township should  promise that residents will be guaranteed a parking space whenever they need one.  This can be done by allocating special reserved spaces for them.   All others who come into town including tourists, shoppers, church-goers,  and beachers will have to compete for the remaining spaces.

Where is it written that parking is a democratic process?  Favoritism for residents is essential to maintain life styles and functionality for those who make this town their home.  They deserve that privilege, and everyone else is on their own.

Many ideas can be implemented to help those non-residents who want to visit here, and those ideas involve reducing the number of visitors with cars and adding order with metered parking.

Yes there would be some wrinkles to iron out, but this favoritism offers a foundation for solving the problem and a chance to reclaim the town for the home-boys and girls who favor a comfortable, family style, non-congested, historical, small town atmosphere with air, light,  space, and parking.

Petition the town, wave a magic wand, and voila—our home values will go up and our town will be better.

BILLY JOEL ROYAL:

Read Full Post »

Giant truck Main Avenue near OceanAve. Ocean Grove, June, 2017. By Rich Amole, Blogfinger staff. ©

Soon the Township will try to squeeze a few more diagonal  parking spaces into the residential  part of Main Avenue near Firemen’s Park all the way to the “gates.”    That will be ugly and risky and will not help the residents of Ocean Grove with their intermittently disabling  parking issues.  We all have tried to enter Main Avenue from one of those side streets located where diagonal parking already exists  (such as New Jersey Avenue at Main.)  It is discouraging, dangerous, scary and difficult because oftentimes the driver cannot see what is coming as he plans to enter Main Ave.

But also, as Rich Amole points out in the photo above, huge cars/trucks  often occupy those diagonal spaces, and that can cause a problem as a car driving on Main has to go around that big vehicle.

Rich says:

“Hi Paul:     Accident waiting to happen?
“Vehicle turning off of Ocean Ave onto Main  Ave. certainly does not expect that a vehicle heading to Ocean Ave. has to swerve into that other lane to avoid hitting the truck.    I  happened to be in the Grove last Saturday and did have to pass into the other lane with caution.”

These are examples of how desperate attempts to add parking spaces in a futile effort to provide for the growing number of cars in the Grove all season long and beyond in both directions can create more chances for accidents.  We need to have less cars in this small town–not more.   People, including children actually live here; let’s improve the safety profile for them.

Cancel the plans for more diagonal parking and then let’s do some real creative thinking to help the residents.

—Paul Goldfinger, Editor.

CAST OF LA LA LAND     “Another Day of Sun.”

Read Full Post »

This is what the north side of Main Ave. looks like with diagonal parking. this scene is near NJ Avenue, and the new plan will extend this to Lawrence Avenue. Jean Breding photo, Blogfinger staff.©

This is what the north side of Main Avenue   looks like currently with diagonal parking. This scene is near New Jersey Avenue, and the new plan will extend this to Lawrence Avenue.  Jean Bredin photo, Blogfinger staff.© 2/16/17.

 

This is the north side of Main Ave. along the edge of Firemen's Park. Imagine it clogged with diagonally parked cars. ©

This is the north side of Main Ave. along the edge of Firemen’s Park. Imagine it clogged with diagonally parked cars. © Jean Bredin photo; Blogfinger staff. 2/16/17.

 

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger.net

In a Coaster article (Jan. 25, 2017) it was reported that the Township Committee approved “almost 100 new parking spaces”and that the Committee was “acting on recommendations presented by the ad hoc OG Parking Task Force.”  That task force has members on it from the OGHOA.

The plan includes creating diagonal head-on parking on the north side of Main Ave. from New Jersey Ave. to Lawrence Ave. The same is planned on the west side of Central Avenue from Heck to Webb avenues.

But diagonal parking is ugly. The “new spaces” are created by cramming more cars into a given space where currently there is parallel parking. Diagonal parking may be OK for commercial areas, but in residential areas it is not suitable.

On Main Avenue, starting from the eastern edge of Firemen’s Park and heading west, the diagonal parking will look congested and will visually and actually narrow Main Avenue. Currently that portion of the Avenue has an impressive and welcoming boulevard look.

For visitors who come into our historic town, they will not enjoy the same openness that currently shows off the Grove at its best with historic homes and a lovely park.   In addition the town will lose one of the few places where a bus or truck can legally pull over and give some respite for the drivers to get their bearings or have a coffee.

As for how our leaders feel about this idea, here are two quotes borrowed from the Coaster:

Deputy Mayor Nick Williams, a member of the Township’s parking task force said, “We are going to move forward with these recommendations, and I think the task force did a good job.”

Resident Joyce Klein who is a member of the OGHOA and chairman of their parking committee said, “This is a great start*  but I hope to think that this is the beginning and not the end of the parking study.” She is also on the task force.

So we will get some more spaces, but we don’t need more congestion and density as the price to pay in our residential areas while the town continues its slide downhill.  The policy makers think that this will be wonderful, but do you think these task force people are doing the right thing?

It seems that they believe that all Grovers care about is parking and that we will accept any new spaces no matter the price.   Do you think the task force gave any consideration to the appearance of our town—–how about  the more important variables such as air, space and light?   How about our quality of life?

This plan of squeezing more cars onto our streets fits in with the worrisome current pattern of more condos,  more density, and more crowding.  Making more spaces is not necessarily better than leaving those streets alone.

Who is this really helping?–the commercial and real estate interests, or the people who live here?  Help the residents  with parking stickers and do something to reduce the numbers of cars coming into town and the number of town-clogging events that are too often and create temporary paralysis for OG tax payers. Or build a parking garage somewhere.

This plan will be implemented by Memorial Day. Other ideas are also being considered, including even more diagonal parking on other parts of Central Avenue.

When it comes to policies that hurt our historic town,  if no one complains, they will soon do it again:

MARILYN MONROE   “Do It Again.”

 

 

Read Full Post »

images

 exit 100 off the GSP.


Exit 100 off the GSP.

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger.net

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.

THE PUPPINI SISTERS:

Read Full Post »

 

This is why Grovers need to pay attention to HPC issues. Blogfinger file photo. ©

This is why Grovers need to pay attention to HPC issues. Blogfinger file photo. ©

The  Township Committee is having a first reading of the new HPC guidelines this Monday at 7:00.  The Historical Society sent out an unsigned email stating,
“These new guidelines are very damaging to the historic district and threaten our historic designation. I’m hoping to get a good showing at the meeting to voice our concern.
The draft can be found on the township web site under committee agenda for Dec. 12. Scroll all the way to the bottom .
Thanks for any help you can offer.”

Below is the official announcement by Neptune Township regarding the HPC guidelines ordinance:

ORDINANCE NO. 16-45

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE BY AMENDING SECTION 508, ENTITLED, “HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES”

WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have needed amendment from time to time based on changed circumstances,

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Committee of the Township of Neptune in the County of Monmouth in the State of New Jersey that the Land Development Ordinance, Volume II Section 508, entitled, “Historic Preservation Design Guidelines” is hereby amended as follows:

§508 – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.

c. The Design Criteria in Guidelines: The aforesaid Guidelines, also known as the “Ocean Grove Historic District Architectural Design Guidelines for Residential Structures” are hereby adopted as an integral part of this Ordinance and incorporated in the Ordinance by reference to the Guidelines available as part of this Ordinance for review in the Clerk’s Office of Neptune Township. Future amendments to the Guidelines, where minor in nature; that is, not amending the entire Guideline document, may be amended by Resolution with all dates of amendments noted in the Guideline document.

All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances that are inconsistent herewith are repealed, but only to the extent of such inconsistency.

The amended Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and the publication as required by law.

APPROVED ON FIRST READING: APPROVED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED:

___________________________ Richard J. Cuttrell,
Municipal Clerk

___________________________ Kevin B. McMillan,
Mayor

 

Editor’s Note:    

Here is a link to read the guidelines:

www.neptunetownship.org/agendas-minutes/township-committee

Click on Dec 12 in the agenda column and then scroll down to Ordinance 16-45 and then keep scrolling down and you will find the Guidelines dated October, 2016.

But where are the latest changes?  Is there an official document that enumerates the changes?   And who wrote these Guideline changes and why?

Someone sent us a notice from the OGHOA which said, “A key change will limit application of the design guidelines to the street-facing facade only of a building. The result of this change alone is not difficult to imagine. The sides and backs of homes could be faced with different materials, and historically appropriate materials would no longer be a requirement on non-street-facing facades.”  

—Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger

 

ETTA JAMES

Read Full Post »

This is what's left of the Park View Inn on Sea View Avenue. Blogfinger photo Sept 22, 2016 ©

This is what’s left of the Park View Inn on Seaview Avenue. Blogfinger photo Sept 22, 2016 ©  On the left is the Warrington (see our Warrington posts), and on the right is the La Pierre condos  at the lake and a private home on Seaview. Click on photo and you might be able to discern palm trees in A. Park.

 

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger

Shirley and Ted Bell were married 62 years ago in the Park View Inn on Seaview Avenue in Ocean Grove which was owned by Shirley’s parents.  It was a busy place and quite wonderful.  There were porches in the back where guests could look out onto Wesley Lake and enjoy great hotel food.  Lake Avenue ambled by, and walkers provided a parade for the Park Viewers. The Park was Founders Park.

Ted, an eminent Ocean Grove historian, recalls that Lake Avenue was “always a walkway.”  The founders would not allow even a horse and buggy on that footpath.  Lake Avenue actually had two levels, with the houses and hotels being elevated (see photo below).  But for now, Ted and Shirley can sit on their porch on Seaview Avenue, look across the lake, and see real palm trees!

1896. Wesley Lake. Ocean Grove. Clearly the precedent for Lake Avenue is a walkway. Courtesy of Ted Bell.

1896. Wesley Lake. Ocean Grove. Clearly the precedent for Lake Avenue is a walkway. Courtesy of Ted Bell, Ocean Grove historian. Look closely and you will see Ted walking over to Days Ice Cream Garden.

 

1896. OG. Lake Avenue had upper and a lower elevations. No one imagined that someone might want a roadway there. Courtesy of Ted Bell

1896. OG. Lake Avenue had upper and a lower elevations. No one imagined that someone might want a roadway there. Courtesy of Ted Bell.

Now that the Inn is gone, the Township has approved plans to subdivide that narrow lot into 4 undersized house lots.  Two would be on Seaview Avenue, while two would be on Lake Avenue.   Those lots are currently for sale.  The two lake front lots are $459,000 each.  The two  Seaview Avenue lots are $419,000 each. The four houses planned are said to have received approval for 3 stories each.

But since Lake Avenue is not a street or a road, land use law would forbid building those two lakeside houses.  They should have never been given permission.  We also need to determine if the lakeside houses are being built on Green Acres properties.

Municipal Land Use Law (New Jersey). Official record.  Click to read it easier. Source: Jack Bredin.

Municipal Land Use Law (New Jersey). Official record. Click to read it easier. Source: Jack Bredin.

The neighbors over there are concerned about parking  and access issues. Supposedly a path between the houses would allow access to Lake Avenue from Sea View.  Or the residents could walk around to Lake Avenue  (aka Beach Avenue) by the boardwalk and then head west.  But what about UPS, garbage trucks, mail delivery, etc.?

And won’t those houses be crowded together when built on small lots?  Would they get any breezes or light?   Aren’t OG lots small enough?  Shouldn’t there be only two houses there, fronting on Seaview and with lovely rear yards and views of the lake?

Blogfinger will be investigating these issues.  Please comment if you have any information.

Link to our 1/14/16 article about the land under the now demolished Park View Inn.  It is very interesting:

https://blogfinger.net/2016/01/14/is-the-park-view-inn-subdivision-in-violation-of-new-jersey-municipal-land-use-law-when-is-a-street-not-a-street/

So how exactly were these permissions given?  How long has this been going on?

PEGGY LEE

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Warrington's condition has been deteriorating. Photo by concerned neighbor. 9/16 © Special to Blogfinger

The Warrington’s condition has been deteriorating. Note the graffiti. Photo by Concerned Neighbor. 7/1/16. © Special to Blogfinger

The Warrington: Squatters, drug users and other upstanding citizens have been seen in the building. Note the graffiiti. Photo by concerned neighbor 9/16. Special to Blogfinger

The Warrington: Squatters, drug users and other upstanding citizens have been seen in the building. Note the graffiti. Photo by Concerned Neighbor, 7/1/16. Special to Blogfinger.

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger

“Jack Ancona, LLC, aka the Warrington Hotel ” intends to go ahead with plans to remodel this former rest home into a high-end boutique hotel overlooking Wesley Lake.  Supposedly it will have 16 rooms.  The owner of the building, which is next to the site of the former Park View Inn, has received site plan approval from the Township.  At the last Committee meeting, the owner was granted approval to “build and locate an innkeeper’s suite in the basement.”  Such a structure is prohibited by ordinance, but the Zoning Board of Adjustment has  permitted this,  and so has the Township. The Township has executed a Developers Agreement with “Jack Ancona LLC” to make sure that the work is done properly.  But Developers Agreements are not executed until all other approvals have been recorded.

We will look into those approvals, including concerns about the 3 lots that are included in the Warrington’s plans.  The Warrington used to be shown on the tax map as existing on one lot:  Block 101, Lot 2.

Meanwhile the building is in poor condition.  Sawbucks Construction Co. has been sending one or two workers into the building daily  for the last 4-6 weeks, and the neighbors have noted daily hammering. No one seems to know what those workers are doing inside. They wonder if building permits were granted for this work.  Such permits should be openly posted at the site.

The Neptune Township Police Dept has been “exceptional” according to a neighbor in responding quickly to calls to deal with incursions at the site.  Graffiti has been cleared from the building, and, according to nearby residents,  the contractor has taken down shrubbery on the lakeside, and that is supposed to be illegal in a Green Acres location, which Lake Avenue is said to be.

As usual, due to lack of transparency, the neighbors on Seaview Avenue are complaining that they do not have enough information regarding the future of the site.  They worry that the hotel, which will not have on-site parking, will worsen an already difficult parking situation.  Many people in that vicinity are year-round residents, and they already often have trouble with parking, 12 months of the year.   One resident estimates that at least 10% of those who park there are headed to Asbury.  They also are worried about the garbage disposal from the hotel.  How will that be accomplished?

The owner has told some of them that all guests will park off-site somewhere and then be offered transportation back to the hotel.  Has such a shuttle plan been approved? This sounds potentially  like an innovative solution, but will it work and satisfy those high end customers, and where will they park those cars?  And will those well-to-do guests return after experiencing the OG parking life?

Locals are also worried because the hotel front is on Lake Avenue, a walkway, and they were told that the hotel has been granted an  access pathway between the buildings to reach the Lake side of the hotel from Seaview, but that no garbage, deliveries,  or other non-personal items can be moved via that passageway—-it would be just for guests and their luggage.    We have no details regarding these elements.

It is said that a room in that luxury hotel might cost up to $300.00 per night.  Can someone want to stay there when there is inconvenient parking and when there is no alcohol inside?  And what about parking for visitors that the guests attract? And how about the Asbury Hotel, a boutique hotel just a few blocks away in A. Park?

More details should be provided to the public.  How will this hotel impact the quality of life for that community?

Finally, we have reported on speculation that the Township would like to turn that part of Lake Avenue into a road for cars.  There is widespread anticipatory opposition to that idea.  See our recent articles about whether Lake Avenue is a road or a street. If it is not, then no road could be built there. It would be illegal.

See our forthcoming piece about the 4 lot subdivision which is the site of the former Park View Inn on Seaview, next door to the Warrington. There are some related issues.

Here is a link to a related article dated March, 2015 on BF:

https://blogfinger.net/2015/03/18/just-wondering-about-the-warrington-hotel/

LOUDON WAINWRIGHT III    from The Aviator

 

Read Full Post »

Ocean Grove North End Redevelopment Zone. Paul Goldfinger photo ©

Ocean Grove North End Redevelopment Zone. Paul Goldfinger photo ©

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger and Jack Bredin, reporter and researcher @ Blogfinger.

On July 27, 2016,  we posted a summary regarding the North End Redevelopment Plan.  You should read it before you proceed with this article. Link below:

https://blogfinger.net/2016/07/27/just-wondering-doubting-thomas-wants-to-know-if-there-are-any-tid-bits-regarding-the-north-end-project-nerp/

Committeeman Brantley showing the North End project to a "developer." on July 27, 2016. Blogfinger photo ©

Committeeman Brantley showing the North End project to a “developer.” on July 27, 2016. Blogfinger photo ©

One issue that was raised on July 27 was:   “Why was Committeeman Michael Brantley inspecting the North End property on July 27, 2016, at 11 am? He wasn’t going swimming. He was dressed in a business suit and was with two other ‘suits.’   Shouldn’t he explain himself since the North End Redevelopment Plan (NERP) is a public project? Doesn’t this look peculiar?”

At the August 22, 2016 Neptune Township Committee meeting, Brantley volunteered that he indeed wasn’t swimming when he visited the North End on July 27 wearing business attire.  He explained that he was there showing the re-development property to a developer who evidently was not WAVE, the developer who has been sitting on this project for 8 years.

This information tells us that the Township is tired of waiting for that derelict property to be turned into something functional,  historical and beautiful. We know that despite the long engagement, the Township is not married to WAVE, because those parties never signed a redevelopers agreement.

Some of us hoped that if the WAVE plan fell through, that the Township and the CMA, especially with new Committeemen on board, would do the right thing and revert to original zoning for 25 single family homes.  But evidently  that is not in the cards since Brantley, the Committeeman who made the motion to adopt the NERP in 2008, is still looking for a big commercial project, and why not, since it means more money for the Township, the developers, the CMA and perhaps others who are in play to get rich on such a plan.  The heck with the Master Plan and the wishes of most citizens in the Grove.  Check the Blogfinger poll below from January, 2016. Click on “view results:”

Also, in our July 27 piece:  The Township Attorney Gene Anthony said that he had nothing to report publicly at the Committee meeting about the North End negotiations because he hadn’t heard from WAVE or their attorney.

Well, it seems that the Township has been taken for a ride by WAVE because at the August 22 Committee meeting, the Township attorney once again reported  that WAVE  (represented by William Gannon III)  failed to contact him with certain financial information.

The entire process continues to be cloaked in secrecy—it’s a fog that doesn’t lift, but since it is a public project, transparency  should be required.  But not in Neptune Township where they ignore NJ RSIS laws, where they hold secret, behind-closed-doors meetings regarding the North End, where they don’t reveal the identities of those who would develop the North End—ie WAVE,  and where they don’t represent the views of those who elected them .

And, Committeeman Brantley, who was the developer that you were showing around?  Why have you failed to reveal publicly that you are conducting such a search, and are all the Neptune Township Committee members aware of your efforts?    And has the Committee formally put out a required public request for developers to look at the project?  And, Dr. Brantley, which other developers are you speaking or negotiating with?  And, finally,  Dr. Brantley, how about explaining to the public why you believe the NERP to be the best course of action for the people of Ocean Grove?

Back in 2007, WAVE was handed the redevelopers mantle without such a public search process.  We know that some developers did look at the project, but WAVE was predestined  to be the crown prince no matter what.   Consider this email to Blogfinger  from a developer who tried to be hired for the job:

Entire content of an email from a redeveloper regarding a North End proposal. We are not revealing that company's identity. Blogfinger.net ©

Entire content of an email from the president of a major developer regarding a North End proposal.  Blogfinger.net ©

The Neptune Township Committee is behind the NERP (North End Redevelopment Plan).  In 2007 they provided legal cover for the CMA/WAVE planners to get the zoning that would be essential to substitute 160 condos for the 25 Victorian single family homes that was the original zoning.

Our new Committeemen (2016) have now inherited  the zoning charade and all that goes with it including the secrecy and the questionable motives of all concerned including the OGCMA.  If the NERP gets into legal trouble, the entire Committee will be exposed including you freshmen.  Is this what you entered public office to do?

We ask that the Neptune Committee give up on WAVE and cancel the phony re-development zoning, returning the Grove to single family housing at the North End.

Editor’s Note:    If you enter “North End Redevelopment” into our search box at the top of this homepage, on the right, you can catch up on our many articles about this subject.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Ocean Grove, Main Avenue. July 4, 2009. Paul Goldfinger photo ©  Click to enlarge

Ocean Grove, Main Avenue. July 4, 2009. Paul Goldfinger photo ©  Click to enlarge

A letter appeared in the June 2, 2016 edition of the Coaster entitled, “Disappointed in Ocean Grove” It was from Ocean Grove United.

 

Letter to the Editor. the Coaster, June 2, 2016.

Letter to the Editor. the Coaster, June 2, 2016.  Click to enlarge.

 

This is not the first time that OGU has taken a public stance regarding  religious leaders who speak at the Sunday services during the summer. The group complained about Kurt Cameron, about Mike Huckabee and about Rabbi Jonathan Cahn. They have pressured the CMA to only  invite certain speakers who pass their litmus test.

Last August 17, when Rev. Tony Campolo appeared in the Grove,  OGU held a demonstration in Auditorium Square Park welcoming him to the Great Auditorium.   Here is a link.

https://blogfinger.net/2015/08/17/ogu-clams-up-and-stifles-free-speech-in-the-shadows-of-the-great-auditorium/

This season Campolo was not invited to speak in the Great Auditorium, presumably because of his known favorable stance regarding  gays in the Church.

So now we have this letter condemning the CMA for not embracing Campolo in Ocean Grove this year.

Of course OGU has a right to express its opinion, but  this letter is full of obfuscation instead of clarity of meaning. Where in the letter do we find the words “gay,” or “Camp Meeting Association?”  Why does the headline confuse “Ocean Grove” with “CMA?”  Who are the “many members of the community” who, they say, are concerned about the absence of Tony Campolo?  And finally why does OGU think it should concern itself with the CMA programming?

This letter should have been rejected by the Coaster because it accuses the CMA of hypocrisy  and motives that include “not wanting speakers who preach an accepting message of love and diversity,”  This  bomb-throwing is intolerant and unfair.

And why doesn’t the OGU air out its issues privately in the Grove instead of blaring them out-loud in the Coaster, where most of the readers could care less about this topic?

This letter is  a disrespectful public declaration of war by OGU at a time when factions in the Grove need to  work together for the common good.

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger

 

CANADIAN BRASS   “Bring a Torch Jeanette, Isabella.”

 

Read Full Post »

Nagle's in Ocean Grove, NJ. 2015. By Jean Bredin, Blogfinger staff. ©

Nagle’s in Ocean Grove, NJ. 2015. By Jean Bredin, Blogfinger staff. © Do you want to keep our town or lose it??

 

By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger

 

For several years Jack Bredin has been following the goings on at the Township Committee meetings regarding the North End Redevelopment Plan. He would get up at the meetings and challenge the situation, but, except for being annoying, he was disregarded. But evidently, his concerns were noted, and on 3 or 4 occasions he was approached by Committeemen who said, “Jack, you’re the only one who cares about this thing.”

Jack was also approached by members of the OG Homeowner’s Ass. who told him that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

But Jack does know due to his vast experiences with Land Use Law fighting developers along the Palisades who wanted to put high rises up overlooking the Hudson River, destroying the views of those who had been there for ages.

Jack Bredin speaks up for Ocean Grove at a past HOA meeting. Paul Goldfinger photo. ©

Jack Bredin speaks up for Ocean Grove at a past HOA meeting. Paul Goldfinger photo. ©

Now Blogfinger has joined forces with Jack, Kevin and others who are outraged over the abuses of Neptune Township Committeemen and expert advisors.

We have an opportunity now for our citizens to show the  new Committee that Jack isn’t the only one “who cares.”

We would like all of our readers to share the Blogfinger articles about the North End and the Park View Inn and other matters that you might agree with. At the bottom of each post on BF is a button that says “Email’   Just send hundreds or thousands of emails to each Committeeman and please put your real names..

You can also send your personal views to them in the form of letters and emails.

Go to Neptunetownship.org and click on “contact us” to find the email addresses of the 4 known Committeemen. We will soon learn the identities of the other two.

JACK TEAGARDEN   “Stars Fell on Alabama.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: