WORKSHOP 8/14/08: Washington Ave. Port-a-John

[VENTNOR eVOICE ADMIN]

The Commission's workshop held last Thursday provided a preview of business to be formally conducted at this coming Thursday's more formal monthly Commission meeting. Agenda is photo-imaged below.

In attendance last Thursday, also, was a large contingent of homeowners who live on Washington Ave. -- either in the beach block, or users of that access point to the beach. At issue was a public access portable toilet which was placed on the beach. The residents took issue with its location, its cosmetic appearance, and its possible sanitary disadvantages. In responding, the Commission noted the various alternative locations which had been considered (including a point adjacent to the VCBP stand located between Washington and Martindale Ave. beach access points). The facility was erected in the belief that the beach replenishment project funded by the State's DEP created, on the part of recipient coastal communities, an obligation to maintain public access and public restroom facilities.

The lead spokesperson for the Washington Ave. group of residents/homeowners read a document referred to as a "Register" for what the legal requirements might be, and pointed to an interpretation which appeared to create some flexibility. Distance from the nearest comparable facility set up on the Margate beaches was one of the points scrutinized in the back-and-forth of the discussion.

Citizen Norm Klinger then rose to raise an even more basic question: Does Ventnor have an executed contract with the DEP in place, relating to obligations under a beach replenishment deal?

He recited that shortly after the new Administration took office, he had reviewed some documents during the transition period. Among these documents was a 2007 contract which had never been executed by the previous Administration. It raised the question of whether there had ever been an earlier executed agreement, at the time the dunes were passed by Referendum (2002) or actually created (circa 2003-04), or whether years of back-and-forth had ensued with no agreement ever executed at all.

Workshop Agenda's front page.



Agenda's back page.



Readers unable to view the above with acceptable image quality are cross-referred to www.ventnorcity.org where the Commission "link" has a PDF version available for downloading.

Photos of the subject "facility" were taken this weekend.

View as one approaches the beach.



View as one approaches from the beach, and toward the facility.

[VENTNOR eVOICE ADMIN]

Placement next to VCBP stand would have located the facility even closer to homes than its current placement.



Meanwhile, wheeled vehicle parking on the boardwalk at that access point showed that a crowd was out on the beach, enjoying the sunny ideal weather.

[VentnorMod]

The customary thorough reporting by Shaun Smith brought to light additional details about the Port-a-John issue, which was front page news in the weekly Downbeach Current.



continuation on page 21



For every issue, there seems to be a Blog. In this case, the NJ Enviro-Politics Blog reported on the portable restroom situation during August.

http://enviropoliticsblog.blogspot.c...ss-battle.html

Wednesday, August 13, 2008
New Jersey's epic beach-access battle

[Updated with additional news clippings on 8/21 and 8/23/08]

One of the longest-playing environmental soap operas in New Jersey involves a cast of rich oceanfront property owners, out-of-towners seeking to claim their DEP-given right to enjoy a day in the sun (especially if it involves ticking off the rich property owners in the process), and local mayors forced to plop port-a-pottys up and down their pristine beaches.

The story plays out against a backdrop of devastating hurricanes, a rapidly eroding shore line and the threat of rising tides spurred on by melting polar icecaps. But wait…it also includes (bugle call in the distance) the chance of a last-minute rescue by an army of slide-ruler-wielding engineers driving bulldozers.

A bit over the top? Perhaps, but this, after all, is New Jersey and things tend to be a bit more dramatic here.

A bit of history...and then a request for your opinion.

For almost eight years now, Garden State residents have been following media accounts of state and federal efforts to encourage, entice, educate and, when necessary, threaten those holdout property owners along Long Beach Island who are still resisting all entreaties to cede legal access (easements) to their properties for a massive program of beach replenishment and dune building.


The $72M project, experts say, will stabilize beaches and dunes where eroding sands have left some homes perilously perched over the sea. It also may help save many more properties along the barrier island when the next major hurricane hits--an event some forecasters say is overdue.

Why would a property owner not jump at the chance to allow the government to save their properties?

Well, some are afraid that higher dunes will block their view of the ocean. Others fret about the noise and mess of construction (such a nuisance, after all, during afternoon cocktails) or the possibility of a lawsuit if a worker is injured on their property. Some just don’t trust government. A smaller number, we suspect, are just plain ornery.

Government, however, holds the trump card. It won’t allow the Army Corps of Engineers to pump one grain of new sand onto on beach in any town unless and until every oceanfront property owner therein grants the access.

The prospect of all your neighbors’ properties being washed out to sea because of your intransigence likely would, on its own, bring even the staunchest hold out around. But New Jersey went and upped the ante

Its Department of Environmental Protection decided that protecting the Shore and its valuable tourism economy (and, yes, all those million-dollar-plus, property-tax-paying homes, too) might be all in a good day’s work. But they also seized on the threat of withholding beach-replenishment funds as an effective tool to implement the social-equality goal of “equal beach access for all.”

So the DEP constructed a beach-restoration policy that not only requires towns to get everyone to waive their property rights when it comes to beach paving and dunes-building but also to provide for easy public access (including parking availability and toilet facilities) to all beaches--including those in residential neighborhoods and at private beach clubs and marinas.

The resulting regulations mandate public access to the beach at ¼ mile intervals along the island’s entire length--and the installation of restroom facilities every ½ mile.

The best argument for this policy is that the ocean belongs to everyone and that millions of dollars of in tax money should not be spent to protect properties that block access to it.

But it clearly has stiffened the opposition among some of the access holdouts. Many of them claim that the DEP is overstepping its role as environmental protector and is now pursuing a social-engineering mission.

Some argue that a person who has worked hard enough to afford a two million dollar home in an upscale town like Loveladies, in the northern half of the island, has earned the right to enjoy its traditional exclusivity—and that this privilege extends to not having port-a-potty placed alongside their property so that out-of-towners can frolic in the surf there instead of at any of the island’s numerous public beaches. Those public beaches, they add, already provide parking and rest rooms--in addition to the restaurants, shops, amusements and marinas that make for the traditional Jersey Shore experience.

What do I think? I think that I shall never make enough money to afford a seaside property in Loveladies (or anywhere else for that matter). But I don't resent those who do, and I don’t expect the state to assure me access to every nice thing that super successful people enjoy.

How about you? Click on the “comment” line below and share your opinion.

MORE:
It may appear private, but it's for everybody (Atlantic City Press - 8/23)

Beach-lane privacy may not be enforceable (Atlantic City Press - 8/21)

How did a group of Delaware shore communities manage to secure enough easements to complete a multi-million dollar beach replenishment project? (Atlantic City Press-8/12)

Beach replenishment on hold (Associated Press - 7/20)

The posted comments to the blogged article:

6 comments:
Theresa Gallagher said...
Well, I'll never be able to afford living on the beach, either. But, I truly resent having to pay for beach replenishment for beaches that I have no access to. No beach access to the masses - then no tax payer dollars to shore up your beach. Let the rich decide for themselves. Let them "opt" out ..... pay their own beach replenishment fees, or not. But, don't use the Amry Corps of Engineers to dredge and pump sand to save your home - don't use FEMA funds to repair damages to your flooded beach front home - they have to stop having it both ways.

Sincerely, Theresa Gallagher, Cape May County, NJ

August 13, 2008 2:49 PM
John said...
I would say that if state and federal tax money is being spent on the project, then the public should have access.

August 13, 2008 3:25 PM
nsslbidoc said...
I own a home on LBI. I favor signing the easements to allow the beach replenishment project to go forward. With few exceptions, the island is so narrow and crowded that it is unlikely to attract that many people to the beach for a day trip, as there is no available land for meaningful parking. I forsee little or no impact on homeowners from public access and restrooms.

August 13, 2008 5:09 PM
lrdvadr said...
I own a home on LBI, and am in favor of beach replenishment. There is no significant acreage available to provide adequate parking for visitors wishing to spend only one day at the beach. Public access over presently private oceanside lanes and washroom facilities will not lure day visitors if parking is difficult.

August 13, 2008 9:34 PM
sandytoes said...
Also an LBI homeowner (bayside). It would be simpler, of course, if homeowners who opted out weren't affecting the rest of the replenishment project, which in the long run could affect the entire island. I hope it doesn't take a couple of collapsed houses to convince the reluctant homeowners to sign up. I also hope I don't end up with oceanfront property after a couple of storms.

I'm all for public access, but would suggest a better, more-permanent solution than portapotties. They're gross, and I'd hate to have one next to my house, too.

P.S. Love the EnviroPolitics blogs!

August 14, 2008 11:34 AM
Editor said...
Thank you all for your comments

August 23, 2008 7:12 PM

The companion article regarding Margate's cost-cutting decision to suspend off-season Sunday open hours at their Public Works yard for non-residents to make trash drop-offs may result in a ripple effect in adjacent towns. If Margate homeowners find their own PW yard closed to them, they may opt to seek the nearest open PW yard to their North, South or East.

[normkling]

Just before the Commissioners' business meeting last Thursday, the City Administrator handed me a 2004 Dunes Agreement (signed 4-5-04). That's the first time I had seen this agreement. A quick reading of the few pages making up the agreement disclosed only that, as part of the deal with the DEP, Ventnor had to provide public access to the beach and parking. Ventnor already complies on both counts. I found nothing in it dealing with Port-a-Johns. The 2007 agreement relating to the dunes was never signed by the City. As to bathroom facilities, I have yet to see any compulsory requirement from the DEP that applies to Ventnor.

Norm Klinger