Tell the City Council to Amend their Waterfront Redevelopment Plan this Wednesday at 7 PM.

Bradley Cove Development as Currently Proposed in the Waterfront Redevelopment Area Plan*.

If you want to see the North Beach stay a beach, send the Mayor and Council an e-mail by clicking here and attend the next City Council meeting on May 18th at 7:00 PM at the City Council Chambers to express your opinion about the open space at North Beach. [Read more…]

Tell the Asbury Park City Council to Keep North Beach a Beach!

Click here to send the City Council an e-mail telling them you want to keep North Beach a Beach!  Be sure to include the following updated information in your e-mail:

  1. You are disappointed that their suggested amendments to the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan still contain unsustainable development on the North Beach.
  2. You are disappointed that despite over 45 applications from concerned members of the public for the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan Advisory Committee only two at-large members were appointed and up to this point the committee meetings have been held behind closed doors.
  3. You would like to see one of the City’s suggested amendments to be the removal of the Bradley Cove development from the North Beach and an oceanfront park put in its place.

[Read more…]

Despite Rhetoric, City Council Plans to Move Ahead with Development on the North Beach of Asbury Park

Today the City released a City Concepts document that outlines their suggested amendments to the current Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.  The document clearly outlines the Bradley Cove project as proposed to the planning board over 2 years ago.  That means despite all the talk of an oceanfront park and preserving the area, the City Council is planning to move ahead with illegal development that builds too close to the ocean (in the high hazard zone) encroachs on open space (actually on Green Acres land) and decreases ocean views and access.
[Read more…]

Oceanfront Preservation Coalition Provides Record of Opposition to the City Council

Documented Opposition to Development on the North Beach of Asbury Park and Support for an Oceanfront Park; updated of February 16, 2011.

1. 1693 Petition Signatures; 272 from Asbury Park Residents.
2. 584 letters delivered to the City Council and City Manager as well as 9 letters to the editor.
3. Letter from the City’s own Sustainability Committee (October, 2009) and Environment and Shade Tree Commission (November 23, 2009) encouraging the City to re-evaluate the proposed development.
4. Statements of opposition signed by all 10 members of the Oceanfront Preservation Coalition:
– Clean Ocean Action
– NJ Sierra Club
– American Littoral Society
– Jersey Shore Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation
– Citizens for Oceanfront Preservation
– NJ Environmental Federation
– Surfers Environmental Alliance
– NJ Environmental Justice Alliance
– Conserve Wildlife Foundation of NJ
– NJ Audubon Society
5. Overwhelming turnout at the two planning board meetings that dealt with the Bradley Cove development on November 10, 2008 and January 26, 2009.
6. Standing offers from the two prominent land trust organizations in the state of NJ, the Trust for Public Land and the NJ Conservation Foundation, to help the City with their Green Acres application and help acquire further funding from mitigation and philanthropic sources for the City of Asbury Park’s North Beach.
7. Three visits by land trust employees to Asbury Park to meet with Coalition members and City officials to discuss the ways in which the City could create a waterfront park on the North Beach of Asbury Park.
8. Indications from the NJ Green Acres Program and the Monmouth County Park system that the North Beach of Asbury Park would be a top priority for open space funding; both acquisition and development funds.

 
[Read more…]

Asbury Park wants out of waterfront contract

City goes before judge to argue against arbitration with developer

8:24 AM, Feb. 18, 2011  | Nancy Shield | Asbury Park Press

FREEHOLD — Asbury Park says it’s time to be free from its waterfront redeveloper Asbury Partners, telling Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson on Thursday that the 2002 waterfront contract allows the city to do exactly what it has done: hold Asbury Partners in default and terminate the agreement.
[Read more…]

Asbury Park approves panel to revive waterfront plans

The Asbury Park Press, February 6, 2011; Nancy Shields

The City Council has approved setting up a waterfront redevelopment plan advisory committee and to seek qualified developers as it pursues a court case to break free of its 2002 beachfront developer Asbury Partners.

The city claims Asbury Partners, which is now owned by real estate commercial lender iStar Financial, defaulted on its waterfront agreement with the city.

City Manager Terence Reidy sent a letter terminating the agreement last month shortly before the city filed suit in Superior Court to move ahead independently and prevent iStar from continuing as the master developer on the beachfront.
[Read more…]

Catastrophic Weather Events Are Becoming the New Normal — Are You Ready for Life on Our Planet Circa 2011?

By Bill McKibben, AlterNet
February 2, 2011

If you were in the space shuttle looking down yesterday, you would have seen a pair of truly awesome, even fearful, sights.

Much of North America was obscured by a 2,000-mile storm dumping vast quantities of snow from Texas to Maine–between the wind and snow, forecasters described it as “probably the worst snowstorm ever to affect” Chicago, and said waves as high as 25 feet were rocking buoys on Lake Michigan.

Meanwhile, along the shore of Queensland in Australia, the vast cyclone Yasi was sweeping ashore; though the storm hit at low tide, the country’s weather service warned that “the impact is likely to be more life threatening than any experienced during recent generations,” especially since its torrential rains are now falling on ground already flooded from earlier storms. Here’s how Queensland premier Anna Bligh addressed her people before the storm hit: “We know that the long hours ahead of you are going to be the hardest that you face. We will be thinking of you every minute of every hour between now and daylight and we hope that you can feel our thoughts, that you will take strength from the fact that we are keeping you close and in our hearts.”

Welcome to our planet, circa 2011–a planet that, like some unruly adolescent, has decided to test the boundaries. For two centuries now we’ve been burning coal and oil and gas and thus pouring carbon into the atmosphere; for two decades now we’ve been ignoring the increasingly impassioned pleas of scientists that this is a Bad Idea. And now we’re getting pinched.

Oh, there have been snowstorms before, and cyclones–our planet has always produced extreme events. But by definition extreme events are supposed to be rare, and all of a sudden they’re not. In 2010 nineteen nations set new all-time temperature records (itself a record!) and when the mercury hit 128 in early June along the Indus, the entire continent of Asia set a new all-time temperature mark. Russia caught on fire; Pakistan drowned. Munich Re, the biggest insurance company on earth, summed up the annus horribilis last month with this clinical phrase: “the high number of weather-related natural catastrophes and record temperatures both globally and in different regions of the world provide further indications of advancing climate change.”

You don’t need a PhD to understand what’s happening. That carbon we’ve poured into the air traps more of the sun’s heat near the planet. And that extra energy expresses itself in a thousand ways, from melting ice to powering storms. Since warm air can hold more water vapor than cold, it’s not surprising that the atmosphere is 4% moister than it was 40 years ago. That “4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the government’s National Center for Atmospheric Research. It loads the dice for record rain and snow. Yesterday the Midwest and Queensland crapped out.

The point I’m trying to make is: chemistry and physics work. We don’t just live in a suburb, or in a free-market democracy; we live on an earth that has certain rules. Physics and chemistry don’t care what John Boehner thinks, they’re unmoved by what will make Barack Obama’s re-election easier. More carbon means more heat means more trouble–and the trouble has barely begun. So far we’ve raised the temperature of the planet about a degree, which has been enough to melt the Arctic. The consensus prediction for the century is that without dramatic action to stem the use of fossil fuel–far more quickly than is politically or economically convenient–we’ll see temperatures climb five degrees this century. Given that one degree melts the Arctic, just how lucky are we feeling?

So far, of course, we haven’t taken that dramatic action–just the opposite. The president didn’t even mention global warming in his State of the Union address. He did promise some research into new technologies, which will help down the line–but we’ll only be in a position to make use of it if we get started right now with the technology we’ve already got. And that requires, above all, putting a serious price on carbon. We use fossil fuel because it’s cheap, and it’s cheap because Exxon Mobil and Peabody Coal get to use the atmosphere as open sewer to dump their waste for free. And today you can see the results of that particular business model from outer space.

Overcoming that will require a movement–a movement that is slowly beginning to build. In 2008 a few of us started from scratch to build a campaign with an unlikely moniker: we called in 350.org, because a month earlier this particular planet’s foremost climatologist, James Hansen, had declared that we now knew how much carbon in the atmosphere was too much. Any value higher than 350 parts per million, he said, was “not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” That’s troubling news, because right now the atmosphere above Chicago and Cairns and wherever you happen to be is about 390 ppm co2. In other words, too much.

At the time, some of our environmentalist friends said that science was too complicated for most people to get–that the only way to talk about these issues was to simplify them. But we thought people could understand, just as we understand when a doctor tells us our cholesterol is too high. We may not know everything about the lipid system, but we know what ‘too high’ means–it means we better change our diet, take our pill, lace up our sneakers. And indeed 350.org has now coordinated almost 15,000 demonstrations in 188 countries, what Foreign Policy magazine called ‘the largest ever coordinated global rally” about any issue.

That’s just a start, of course, and so far not enough to counter the power of the fossil fuel industry, the most profitable enterprise humans have ever engaged in. So we’ll keep building, and hoping others will join us. But the good news is simple: more and more of this planet’s inhabitants are remembering that they actually live on a planet.

We’ve been able to forget that fact for the last ten thousand years, the period of remarkable climatic stability that underwrote the rise of civilization. But we won’t be able to forget it much longer. Days like yesterday will keep slapping us upside the head, until we take it in. The third rock from the sun is a very different place than it used to be.

Bill McKibben is founder of 350.org, the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, and author most recently of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet.

See story here

Asbury Park becomes fed up with waterfront plans

NANCY SHIELDS – APP – Jan. 28, 2011 ASBURY PARK — City Manager Terence Reidy took a few minutes in his office Wednesday to explain why Asbury Park had to do it, why he and the City Council and its legal team reached the point late last year of declaring its beachfront partner, Asbury Partners, in default, and then a week ago, filed a lawsuit to get its development rights back.

What came through that morning once again was a sense of urgency that now is the time, that new developers who have come forward have to get to work on the waterfront. The city cannot afford to miss the next cycle of opportunity.

As the legal briefs and paperwork flow into Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson’s chambers with the first hearing on Feb. 17, some of the issues dividing the city and the commercial real estate lender iStar Financial who now heads Asbury Partners are clearly evident.

“We sent qualified, experienced, well-capitalized developers to iStar and there was no movement,” Reidy said. “That was the last straw for me.”

The city contends Asbury Partners has defaulted on numerous obligations under a 2002 agreement and has no intention of fulfilling them. No cure period is needed.

Let Asbury Partners hold on to its 70 or 80 properties it has accumulated. Just give the city its rightful power to bring in developers and build, large or small projects on whole blocks or parts of blocks, but amend the plan and get a revised vision going.

Asbury Partners says it has not defaulted on anything, but made it clear in letters from its lawyer Gage Andretta after the city held Asbury Partners in default, that it has invested more than $100 million in Asbury Park, and wants the city and company to keep meeting and planning for some “mutually satisfactory plan amendment that will foster successful redevelopment.”

Reidy said Asbury Park has been held hostage by different developers for years because of its weakened state when agreements were made, but that time is over.

City redevelopment lawyer James Aaron wrote in his brief submitted to the court that Asbury Park had to turn over substantial powers to developers in past decades just to get them to come in and invest money in the first place.

See story here.

In Ventura, a retreat in the face of a rising sea

Higher ocean levels force Ventura officials to move facilities inland, an action that is expected to recur along the coast as the ocean rises over the next century.

By Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times

January 16, 2011

At Surfers Point in Ventura, California is beginning its retreat from the ocean.

Construction crews are removing a crumbling bike path, ripping out a 120-space parking lot and laying down sand and cobblestones. By pushing the asphalt 65 feet inland, the project is expected to give the wave-ravaged point 50 more years of life.

The effort by the city of Ventura is the most vivid example to date of what may lie ahead in California as coastal communities come to grips with rising sea levels and worsening coastal erosion. As the coastline creeps inland, scouring sand from beaches or eating away at coastal bluffs, landowners will increasingly be forced to decide whether to spend vast sums of money fortifying the shore or give up and step back.

State officials say the $4.5-million project in Ventura is the first of its kind in California and could serve as a model for threatened sites along the coast.

“Managed retreat, as it’s called, is one of the things that we’re going to have in our quiver to deal with sea-level rise and increasing storms,” said Sam Schuchat, executive officer of the California Coastal Conservancy, which helped fund the Surfers Point project.

Sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last century and are expected to swell at an increasing rate as climate change warms the ocean, experts say. In California, the sea is projected to rise as much as 55 inches by the end of the century and gobble up 41 square miles of coastal land, according to a 2009 state-commissioned report by the Pacific Institute.

For years, the preferred solution to an eroding shoreline has been to build sea walls or dump imported sand to serve as a buffer. About one-third of the Southern California coastline and about 10% of the shore statewide have been fortified with sea walls and other hard structures.

Although artificial barriers may protect property in the short term, they often intensify the effect of waves, leaving beaches stripped of sand until they narrow or disappear, permanently altering surf patterns.

As a result, beach-armoring projects are increasingly out of favor with environmentalists and coastal regulators.

At Surfers Point, Ventura officials first knew they had a problem about two decades ago, when storms started chewing away at the oceanfront bike path a few years after it was built.

When heavy storms hit, waves ate mounds of sand, washed away chunks of asphalt and exposed rebar, car parts and junk that had been underground for decades.

Officials at the Ventura County Fairgrounds, which is on a 62-acre site next to Surfers Point, initially suggested a buried sea wall. But environmentalists and surfers fiercely objected, saying that armoring the shore would protect a parking lot at the expense of the beach and destroy the point break near the Ventura River that generates the distinctive, surfer-friendly waves for which the site was named.

After extensive debate, the fairgrounds agreed to give up some of its property for a plan that would provide room for the sand to shift. It is based on the idea that beaches are constantly in flux, growing as the summer’s gentle waves bring sand ashore and shrinking when winter storms scour it away.

“It was the right thing to do for all of the residents of the county,” said fairgrounds Chief Executive Officer Barbara Quaid, who prefers not to view it as sacrificing land but as redirecting its use. “Coming down to the beach and seeing it beautified is a lot different than coming down and seeing a bike path that’s falling into the ocean.”

The “managed retreat” marks a reversal with profound implications for a state that has for more than a century crammed its most valuable homes and businesses on the edge of the ocean.

“There’s the old-school mentality that when nature threatens you, you fight back,” said Paul Jenkin, Ventura campaign manager for the Surfrider Foundation and a longtime advocate for the project. “So this idea of retreating and moving back was really quite a radical proposition.”

In the near term, there are a number of publicly owned sites, from a weathered parking lot hugging a narrow strand at Cardiff State Beach in San Diego County to a lifeguard station within a few steps of the surf in San Clemente, where planners might soon have to consider moving structures out of harm’s way.

Such a decision would be far tougher for private property owners, but they too could eventually be in the position of giving up billions of dollars of desirable real estate.

“The challenge is we have built most of our civilization within a few feet of sea level or right at the edge,” said Gary Griggs, a coastal geologist at UC Santa Cruz who co-wrote the book “Living With the Changing California Coast.” “It’s either going to be managed or unmanaged, but it’s going to be retreat.”

Some coastal residences are already faced with similar predicaments.

In Santa Barbara, homes with exposed pillars teeter on the edge of the fast-eroding oceanside cliffs of Isla Vista. Residents on the bluffs of Pacifica in Northern California have had to evacuate their mobile homes and apartments as waves pounded dangerously close.

Where residents have chosen to erect sea walls to protect their homes, including mansions built along Malibu’s Broad Beach and beachside mobile homes in San Clemente, the sands have narrowed so dramatically that walking along the seashore is impossible except at low tide.

Experts point to one shoreline where a planned retreat has worked.

The historic Cape Hatteras Lighthouse on the Outer Banks of North Carolina was in danger of being lost to severe shoreline erosion until 1999, when the National Park Service relocated it 2,900 feet inland.

Goleta Beach County Park in Santa Barbara County could be the next location for a planned retreat. Officials there are watching Ventura closely as they develop plans for a beach that has receded hundreds of feet since the 1970s.

Park officials want to remove two parking lots, a bike path and underground utility lines that are dangerously close to the sea and move them up to 120 feet inland.

The idea has been unpopular with some because it would mean giving up about an acre of public land to potentially be overtaken by the ocean.

Erik Axelson, a deputy director with Santa Barbara County Parks, said the plan is about coming to grips with the future.

“We’re recognizing that we’re living in a coastal environment that changes,” he said. “And we want to work with that change and move things out of harm’s way.”

See story here.

Tell Mayor Johnson you want to Keep North Beach a Beach!

Write, call and e-mail Mayor Johnson to tell him:

1. You want to keep North Beach a Beach!

2. You want the City to explore all options to Keep North Beach a Beach – Land Trusts, Private or Public Purchase of Development Rights.

3. Once the land is protected against development, you support the creation of an Oceanfront Park.

Request a clear written response from the Mayor.

Mayor Ed Johnson:

mayorjohnson@verizon.net

P.O. Box 1415
Asbury Park, NJ, 07712

732.776.9890 (732) 776-8683 fax