| Author |
Message |
pir81 |
|
Post subject: N.J. asks court for access to LBI land
 Posted: Oct 23, 2006 - 07:40 PM
|
|
Puffer
Joined: Dec 31, 1969
Posts: 73
Status: Offline
|
|
N.J. asks court for access to LBI land
To let workers on private property
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/14/06
BY TRISTAN J. SCHWEIGER
MANAHAWKIN BUREAU
SURF CITY — State officials are ratcheting up pressure on oceanfront homeowners here to comply with requests for access to their land, and some property owners and opponents of the beach replenishment project on Long Beach Island aren't happy.
On Friday, state Attorney General Stuart Rabner announced his office was going to court to force five oceanfront property owners in Surf City to allow workers access to their beachfront land so a project to add more sand to the borough's beaches can begin. Dredging work is expected to start in Surf City next month.
"I can't believe the tactics they're using to get this thing done, which is going to ruin Long Beach Island," said June Logan, who owns oceanfront property in Long Beach Township's Brant Beach section.
Logan went on to describe the lawsuit as "strong arm, bully tactics."
Local and state officials have long sought access easements from oceanfront owners in the five is-land towns that will be part of the planned project. Many property owners have resisted this, citing a range of fears such as concerns over personal liability and the fact that the easements are to grant access forever.
Others have objected to design aspects of the project, worrying about the effect that building up dunes will have on views or the effect that extending the beach eastward will have on recreational activities such as surfing and swimming.
Officials, meanwhile, have argued that the project is vitally important to offer Long Beach Island some protection from powerful hurricanes and nor'-easters, which have devastated the island in the past.
"It's the best insurance that the federal government can buy for us at this point," said Leonard T. Connors Jr., Surf City's mayor and a state senator, who welcomed the news that the state would try to gain access rights in court.
In the long debate over the replenishment project, the specter of government officials invoking eminent domain and taking possession of land had been raised. But Lee Moore, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, said this lawsuit isn't about eminent domain.
The state is seeking access, not ownership, of the work area of the project within some oceanfront owners' property lines, Moore said.
He added that, for now, the state is only taking legal action against Surf City holdouts and not against oceanfront owners elsewhere on the island. But he left open the door for future lawsuits if owners in other towns don't sign their access agreements.
"It's fair to say that the state would prefer not to be in the position of having to sue someone," Moore said. "I'm comfortable saying that the state is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to complete this important public safety project."
None of the property owners named in the lawsuit — Michael Ginaldi, Debra Wright, Martin W. and Margaret C. Caulfield, Carol McCann and 10 Surf City LLC — could be reached for comment Friday night. Twenty property owners in Surf City had signed easements as of the time the lawsuit was filed, according to the Attorney General's Office.
After work is concluded in Surf City, the state and federal government plan to complete beach replenishment in Ship Bottom, the town immediately to the south. William Huelsenbeck, Ship Bottom's mayor, said he would prefer that the lawsuit wasn't necessary but stressed the importance of the project as a way of protecting the island.
"I believe in my heart that replenishing the beach is the best thing for everybody," Huelsenbeck said. "I guess it's just something that has to be done."
Bill Knarre, president of the Brant Beach Homeowners Association, said he thought the lawsuit would probably persuade many other oceanfront owners elsewhere to sign the easements.
But he said others will be more than willing to fight the state in court.
"People who are teetering are probably going to jump and sign it," Knarre said.
Oceanfront property owners have been among the most visible critics of the project but are far from alone in their opposition. For instance, the advocacy group Surfrider Foundation has charged that the project will ruin conditions for surfing and recreational fishing and could make for more dangerous swimming conditions by creating a steep drop-off at the water's edge.
John Weber, the group's East Coast regional manager, has called on the Army Corps of Engineers to change the design of the project. He characterized Friday's filing with the New Jersey Superior Court's Chancery Division as another example of stubbornness by state and federal officials.
"We always knew when it got down to four or five properties the state would do this," Weber said. "They mean to get this project done by whatever means necessary because they had people who were willing to sit down and talk and negotiate, and the line they've gotten from the government is no negotiations and no changes are necessary." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
