Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand the rage against the beach tag fees. These communities are basically charging a "users fee" that offsets the expense of providing lifeguards, trash removal, beach cleaning, beach maintenance equipment and additional police protection. Who should bear that cost if the fees weren't charged? In our current environment of everyone paying "their fair share" it seems logical that the cost of the beaches would be paid for by the people who use them.
Other places mentioned like DE, OBX, New England, etc. don't have the crowds of day-trippers and short term stay people that the NJ beaches draw. Many of them also do not provide any lifeguards or other services on the beaches. They also tend to be naturally less crowded so they don't need to use the fees as a way to "cull the herd". Personally, I've never been offended by the idea of having to pay for a beach tag. If the cost is that much of a concern, there are still some areas in NJ that don't charge any fee at all like Wildwood Crest.
I don't understand the rage against the beach tag fees. These communities are basically charging a "users fee" that offsets the expense of providing lifeguards, trash removal, beach cleaning, beach maintenance equipment and additional police protection. Who should bear that cost if the fees weren't charged? In our current environment of everyone paying "their fair share" it seems logical that the cost of the beaches would be paid for by the people who use them.
Other places mentioned like DE, OBX, New England, etc. don't have the crowds of day-trippers and short term stay people that the NJ beaches draw. Many of them also do not provide any lifeguards or other services on the beaches. They also tend to be naturally less crowded so they don't need to use the fees as a way to "cull the herd". Personally, I've never been offended by the idea of having to pay for a beach tag. If the cost is that much of a concern, there are still some areas in NJ that don't charge any fee at all like Wildwood Crest.
GOAT,
Pacific Beach, California, Santa Monica in downtown L.A. These beaches are proximate to large population densities. There are no costs at these beaches, and the beaches are fully staffed with lifeguards and waste disposal provisions.
There shouldn't be fees for beaches any more than there should be tolls on the GSP.
Pacific Beach, California, Santa Monica in downtown L.A. These beaches are proximate to large population densities. There are no costs at these beaches, and the beaches are fully staffed with lifeguards and waste disposal provisions.
There shouldn't be fees for beaches any more than there should be tolls on the GSP.
All of those beaches are also part of large cities that basically maintain them as parks, hence the taxpayers of those cities pay for the maintenance of the beaches just like we all pay for maintaining park space.
To determine whether or not the fees are applicable we need to ask ourselves what that money is being used for. If the money is going solely to pad the towns general fund, then it is less "right" that they charge the fees. If the money is being used to directly support the maintenance of the beaches, as they all claim, then there is more of a case of it being "right".
Assuming the latter is the case, then we have to answer the question, if they don't charge the fees who should the costs be passed onto? Should it be the property owners in the town? The people of NJ as a whole? Additional taxes on business' like motels and restaurants, etc.?
The issue with the tolls on the NJTP and GSP, as well as all the area bridges is that we all know that the toll money is not solely used for the maintenance of the highways and bridges. It goes to fund countless other projects. If the money was solely used for maintenance, then I wouldn't have an issue with that either and the tolls would be miniscule compared to what they are now.
Ocean City MD owns their beach frontage and it is free. I wonder how many others follow the local model. California's beaches are owned by the state park system. I know that Island Beach State Park is owned by NJ, and wonder how practical or impractical it might be for the state to claim these estaurine lands. The idea of locally owned beaches being managed calls into question, I would think, how the funds are being used, versus the idea of a more centrally managed agency, i.e. the question of fungibility when it comes to hiring a lifeguard as a state employee, vs local, or a state run waste disposal or sand contract being performed by the state versus a local contractor getting preferential treatment, hence the need to inflate the costs of admittance onto the beach.
Lavallette has lots of signs posting "no animals on beach at any time." However, this only appears to be enforced between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Same with the bay front.
There was an article in the Ledger or possibly the Ocean Star recently about other nearby towns but I can't recall the specifics. I think most of the other towns are okay with it off-season, particularly Bay Head.
Last weekend was interesting. The Lavallette beach had absolute sandstorm conditions on Saturday with the roughest surf I've ever seen anyone try to stand in. Forget swimming. Sunday was okay but cloudy, and the surf was no better. Strictly for surfers and bluefish. I'm glad we didn't need badges.
Anyone know which (northern) beaches allow dogs on beach after Labor Day?
Somewhere near Pt. Pleasant, Spring Lake, Lavalette, Sea Bright, Bay Head...
No beach town "officially" allows dogs on the beach after Labor Day, but down here everyone just brings them to the beach, and no one bothers them. I would just go to an uncrowded area and I don't think you'll have a problem. We also have a "doggie" beach between Longport and Ocean City, where you can take dogs anytime of year. If your dog is friendly with other dogs and can be off a leash, I'm sure there must be some up north, too.
I don't understand the rage against the beach tag fees. These communities are basically charging a "users fee" that offsets the expense of providing lifeguards, trash removal, beach cleaning, beach maintenance equipment and additional police protection. Who should bear that cost if the fees weren't charged? In our current environment of everyone paying "their fair share" it seems logical that the cost of the beaches would be paid for by the people who use them.
Other places mentioned like DE, OBX, New England, etc. don't have the crowds of day-trippers and short term stay people that the NJ beaches draw. Many of them also do not provide any lifeguards or other services on the beaches. They also tend to be naturally less crowded so they don't need to use the fees as a way to "cull the herd". Personally, I've never been offended by the idea of having to pay for a beach tag. If the cost is that much of a concern, there are still some areas in NJ that don't charge any fee at all like Wildwood Crest.
If it's such a great idea, why don't other states charge? The SL also reported that towns have been diverting beach fees to other town uses. I guarantee it goes on all the time.
And why don't towns & counties charge for usage of their parks? Not everyone in a given area uses the parks. $5 to park, a usage fee to pick up the dog poop or change the garbage bags, a few dollars to use the tennis and basketball courts. I see no difference other than than the amount of people involved.
If it's such a great idea, why don't other states charge?
I don't know, it comes down to the structure of how they are managed. Some treat them as state parks, others place the burden on the local towns who pay for it with other revenue methods. Regardless, the money needs to come from somewhere. I'm not against saying we should get rid of them, but then that means the costs need to come out of the state, because lets face it, the county and local towns aren't going to foot the bill, but they may find more creative ways to charge fees or taxes to make it up.
Also, I never said it was a "great idea" just that I didn't understand the vitriol against it.
Quote:
The SL also reported that towns have been diverting beach fees to other town uses. I guarantee it goes on all the time.
The money should only go to the beaches and services related to maintaining those beaches. For instance, if it is going for paying for additional police in the summer, then I don't think that is a problem. Overall though what you are describing could be "fixed" by forcing the towns to keep the fees in the "beach fund" and only use the revenue for specified purposes.
I suppose we could argue that we "all" pay for the beaches to exist though. The beach re-nourishment projects are usually funded through a combination of federal, state and local money. On federal replenishment projects the fed pays 65% and the remainder is divided 75/25 by the state and local government. On non-federal projects, the state and local governments divide the total cost 75/25.
Overall, I am not particularly for or against the beach tag fees. I would be fine with it being free and the costs being paid in a different way. However, it is not as if there are no costs with running the beaches and the towns are simply pocketing piles of money off of this. So, the choice becomes we all pay or the people who go to the beach pay. Which do you prefer?
Quote:
And why don't towns & counties charge for usage of their parks? Not everyone in a given area uses the parks. $5 to park, a usage fee to pick up the dog poop or change the garbage bags, a few dollars to use the tennis and basketball courts. I see no difference other than than the amount of people involved.
Some towns do charge user fees for the parks. Woolwich Twp. which is next door to me added a "park maintenance fee" onto all of the youth sports programs that use their facilities and this is apparently not an uncommon thing in many towns these days. They charge $5 per kid that participates to offset the cost of maintaining the facilities. Personally, I find it ridiculous that they charge their residents for that. Some kids from other towns do play in those leagues, so I could see a justification there, but overall I am against such a fee being charged to residents.
It is a little different in the case of the beach towns though where the vast majority of users are not residents and there is a large number of short-term stay and daytrip users.
I think the residents should at least get a discount on their seasonal tags. And I don't even live in one of them!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
