Rich folks steaing our beach access in NJ?

[HarryLee 0]

It's amazing how these tourism NJ commercials show happy families running on NJ beaches when in reality, a majority of us are all locked out of beach access.

Where are the public access points?

Where are all the parking spots if there are public access points?

yeah yeah, sure there are a few spots like point pleasant & such but the majority of miles of beach, we are locked out.

While we all pay via taxes for beach replenishment, we are locked out.

 

What say you?

[colnar 0]

How are we locked out?

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

I think he means the 1% own all the beachfront properties.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

If its privately owned, why do you feel entitled?

 

Asking for more public beach is basically asking to revoke land from the private hands who worked for it, "for the people"

 

Socialism!

 

Its like saying Mr. joe blow has more guns than I can possibly ever enjoy, so I should have acess to them. Where is the parking at his house for us?

 

I know this sounds pompus but land is property. If its not owned by the state or if its not a park, its owned by somebody. If I want to spend millions of dollars (fueling the economy) on my own beach front property I have the right to do so, and the right to do whatever I want with it.

 

*flame suit ON*

[Sandy 44]

Can you expand on that ? I.E what do you mean by locked out? Because you need to buy a badge or be a resident or something?

[Dan 177]

Read up on "perpendicular access".

http://www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/access/public_access_handbook.pdf

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

"perpendicular access".

 

*whine* - But I don't have a parachute!

[Turbotezza 1]

Communism more like!

 

If its privately owned, why do you feel entitled?

 

Asking for more public beach is basically asking to revoke land from the private hands who worked for it, "for the people"

 

Socialism!

 

Its like saying Mr. joe blow has more guns than I can possibly ever enjoy, so I should have acess to them. Where is the parking at his house for us?

 

I know this sounds pompus but land is property. If its not owned by the state or if its not a park, its owned by somebody. If I want to spend millions of dollars (fueling the economy) on my own beach front property I have the right to do so, and the right to do whatever I want with it.

 

*flame suit ON*

[Shane45 807]

I disagree with this position. If you privatly own it, then you can privatly fund it! But the sea walls, dredging, replenishment etc etc is tax funded, not privatly funded. So would that make it royalty? When the many pay for the pleasures of the few?

[tony357 386]

They actually do not own the beach only the access point.. You can walk right by their property on the beach..

[BlueLineFish 615]

Keep the beach. I like pools

[Danno 127]

They actually do not own the beach only the access point.. You can walk right by their property on the beach..

 

Actually they own the beach. You can walk on any beach anywhere in the state as long as you are BELOW the high-high water mark. If you go above that mark, even to leave the beach and you don't have a badge or club memebership or the what not you could be fined. Believe me, as a surf fisherman I know all about theses rules. If you think the police don't know anything about gun laws you should see the looks on there faces when you start citing puplic acess codes.

[Scott204 1]

Danno I actually believe the law is 15 feet ABOVE the high water mark is PUBLIC and anyone can have access.

[EMB 1]

If it's private, let them pay for the beach replenishment every time we get a northeaster.... NJ dumps millions every year into private and public beach replenishment and dune projects, and then have some of the same folks sue the state for ruining their ocean view because of a dune.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

You want free beaches go to wildwood. Lots of beach there

[silverado427 10,677]

Keep the beach. I like pools

+1 no bennies no traffic + no bullsh t

[Shawnmoore81 623]

I go to the shore yet I never go on the beach.

[Adam 6]

I live 10 blocks from the beach now. I used to live 2 blocks from it before.

 

Let them keep the beach, hell make it $1000 per person if you don't live in the town the beach is at.

 

It'll keep all the assholes from screwing up my weekend and dumping their trash all over for it to blow into my yard.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Got to agree make the beech as expensive as possible. Keep the trash out

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Got to agree make the beech as expensive as possible. Keep the trash out

 

While I would probably take that point of view if I live at the shore, I do think it's funny, I have been all over the world and at some fantastic beaches and I'll tell ya, I never paid to get on any beach other then when I am in NJ..

[Duppie 73]

While I would probably take that point of view if I live at the shore, I do think it's funny, I have been all over the world and at some fantastic beaches and I'll tell ya, I never paid to get on any beach other then when I am in NJ..

I'm with you,I grew up,partied,and slept on some of the best beaches in the Caribbean and South China sea and haven't paid a cent yet.

Then I saw what I paid for not only parking but beach access in NJ and was sorely disappointed,that was 25 years ago and I've never been back so by all means,raise prices even further for it won't affect me.

[Vlad G 345]

I disagree with this position. If you privatly own it, then you can privatly fund it! But the sea walls, dredging, replenishment etc etc is tax funded, not privatly funded. So would that make it royalty? When the many pay for the pleasures of the few?

 

Hmm .. are you saying we shouldn't build water retaining projects that prevent floods in certain areas? For example are you saying that we shouldn't build dams, levees, canals, etc with public money because they protect private property? I'm not sure I see the difference.

[Shane45 807]

Well.... it is a subject worthy of debate I think. Is it a good idea to rebuild all those towns that keep getting flooded out because they are built on a flood plain below sea level such as many of the areas destroyed by katrina and spend many more millions upon millions to build barriers to protect them? I understand trying to protect towns that either found theirselves afflicted because no one knew any better when they were built 200 years ago but in the case of beaches I think it is different. I think it would be more like the taxpayers buid levy's and walls and create a utopia and your not allowed to go to the town and the property values top the charts as a result of the taxpayer effort. Here is an article likely far better articulating the concerns and issues.

 

http://www.erosion.com/60million.asp

[Vlad G 345]

I'm not wholly disagreeing, I do think the money might be better spent buying off all of Boundbrook then protecting it, but that is looking at somewhat of an extreme case. In many cases basic improvements make land safe and livable, and even with the prices today, livable land is worth something. When the options are make the existing land livable or go replace a farm or a bit of woods with more high density housing (or build a condo complex next to that shooting range, we'll just sue them later) which one does it make more sense to do?

 

However seeing how public work projects to protect private property are the norm inland, why are they objectionable on the coast? Isn't protecting private property the BEST possible of use of public funds, which lest we forget comes from property and income taxes disproportionately paid by those owning a higher income?

[Dan 177]

Actually they own the beach. You can walk on any beach anywhere in the state as long as you are BELOW the high-high water mark. If you go above that mark, even to leave the beach and you don't have a badge or club memebership or the what not you could be fined. Believe me, as a surf fisherman I know all about theses rules. If you think the police don't know anything about gun laws you should see the looks on there faces when you start citing puplic acess codes.

 

From: http://www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/access/public_access_handbook.pdf

MHW = Mean High Watermark

 

The public has the right to use a "reasonable" amount of dry sand above the MHW, example... walking laterally on the beach. NJ loves the word reasonable. IMO, beach access in front of shoreline private property is like NJ gun laws. Confusing and ambiguous. You are in a state of being illegal and legal at the same time, until arrested and having to prove yourself innocent in court.

 

i. Linear/Lateral Access

Linear or lateral access refers to acce ss along tidal waterways and their shores,

which are subject to trust for the public (see Figure 4). Under the Public Trust

Doctrine and the rulings of cases that have enunciated it, the public has the

right to use tidal waterways and their shores for activities including fishing,

swimming, boating, walking and sunbathing. In addition, the public has the

right of access to and use of a reasonable amount of the dry sand area landward

of the MHW line at beaches according to the factors set forth in the NJ

Supreme Court case Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Association, 95 N.J. 306

(1984) and listed above, as well as along the Hudson River as upheld by the

Federal District Court in National Association of Home Builders v. NJDEP, 64 F.

Supp. 2d (D. NJ 1999).

An example of linear or lateral access is the ability to take a walk on a beach

along the shoreline. Because of the public trust nature of these lands, anyone

should be allowed to walk uninhibited within this area and free of charge.

[Danno 127]

Danno I actually believe the law is 15 feet ABOVE the high water mark is PUBLIC and anyone can have access.

No it's not. First of all it's not a LAW it's part of the Public Trust Doctrin. The Doctrin state that the land "a reasonable distance" above the HMW mark is public. As a surf fisherman i carry a copy of this with me when i fish certain areas, When your in a small town with HUGE homes and the cops in thier pocets 15 feet is not reasonable.