U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-17-2010, 09:03 PM
 
5,343 posts, read 9,003,568 times
Reputation: 1129
So dumb. Tourism is the CORNERSTONE of the shore's survival. So if no one went, then what? Now, that said, I'd rather go on an "off" time myself.

So stupid. Should NYC tell all the people who don't live there to stay out? Silliest argument.

 
Old 04-17-2010, 09:38 PM
 
9,269 posts, read 5,237,614 times
Reputation: 9255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post
The mayor, especially with the help of the residents, can drive them out of business very easily. The fact is the residents and the mayor love the income from the tourist-based businesses and will never give them up.

That's why it's so hypocritical and STUPID of them to turn around and complain about "bennies".
I am a resident and I can tell you I do not LOVE the income from tourists as it has no positive effect on any part of my life in this town.

Quote:
OK, then pay for it. Don't rely on the state or Fed to do it for you.

Not major repair, the kind that the state and Fed pay for when it's needed.
But everyone benefits from a stable shoreline, not just the benny businesses. Didnt bound brook just get federal money because of their flooding problem? What is the difference?

Quote:
Restrict liquor licenses or don't renew liquor licenses (see Ocean City, NJ). Restrict business hours and force them all to close by 9 or 10. Don't use eminent domain to drive people out of homes where you will then build a touristy shopping boardwalk on the beach (see Long Branch). Make sure any hotels and guest houses have strict rules so as to attract a few guests who will fit the stereotype the bigots in the town want to attract. It's your town, you can do what you want, if the majority is in agreement. My bet is the residents aren't in agreement and neither are the town governments. They just all whine about it, that's all.
What LB did was abhorrent and a misuse of power and the public trust and that has nothing to do with bennys or not (and it is bennys fyi). As much as I do not enjoy tourist season I would not be remotely for a municipal government misusing its power. If they choose to enforce ordinances to prevent the "animal house" type of rentals thats one thing but it is entirely something else to deliberately force a business out.



Quote:
There you go. They are also building big homes there for bennies. My friend just bought one a couple years ago. He's a benny no more... What about the other gin mills? They still there?? I was partial to the Osprey, that's where I went with my friends and I knew several bartenders there. Are they still there?? How about Leggettes???
Leggetts is a year round bar that may get more business in the summer but I was just there after the Fool's Run and it was packed. It is not a benny bar.

The Osprey has not been open in years.



Quote:
Jersey Shore towns that restrict beach access may not get federal funding for repairs | - NJ.com
Quote:

If your town is serious about restricting beach access and that they don't need the money from tourism, then let them turn down that federal funding and all other similar funding.
No one said anything about restricting beach access. Where did you come up with that?

Bennys surely have the right to come here. Even I, who has no love or monetary reliance on them admit that. Everyone, no matter where they live have the same right to access the beach, its public property.

But if those of us who do not rely on tourism bemoan the behavior of the tourists and the overwhelming inconvenience they cause why should the beach not be maintained?
 
Old 04-18-2010, 12:13 PM
 
153 posts, read 278,038 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post
What a total crock.

If Belmar or any other town wanted to reduce tourism to the point of elimination they could. But they don't.

No, instead, most of the locals are like that Belmar Mayor. They love to whine and complain about the "bennies" (because, we all know, that people from North Jersey are rude and the ones who aren't, well, too bad for them, they get the label anyway - because intelligent people stereotype and make up labels ) but while they're whining and moaning they are catering to the "bennies".

I don't know if they need the money or not; the fact remains that they do what they need to do to keep the businesses that attract "bennies" open.

Why doesn't Belmar shut D'Jai's down? That mayor shoots off his mouth like a jackass but what's he doing to shut the place down? Not a damn thing.

If shore locals want their town to have no "bennies" then shut down the tourist businesses and hotels, and turn down state and federal funding for the beach and take care of it with your own money (or let it erode away).

But that never happens. Why not? It's not hard to shut down places like D'Jai's, my town did it years ago. Very easy to enact a few ordinances that will make it impossible for D'Jai's to stay in business.

So, until I see shore towns stepping up and taking care of their own town and getting rid of the tourist businesses, then every time I hear them whine and moan about "bennies" I'll know they're full of crap and just looking to whine and complain and justify their bigoted attitudes.

That's not to mention all the sob stories of mayors of shore towns that cry to the Governor for money, "wahhh it's been a rough economy, wahhhh".
You're so off base on this it's not even funny.

First off, Belmar HAS systematically removed most of the attractions and bars along Ocean Ave. over the past 15-20 years. D'Jais is literally the only place left. No more miniature golf, no more arcades, no more bars like Tropical Pub, etc. They're gone and the town is jumping for joy over it. They've reduced rentals from 1,200 units to 200, and they do not allow ANY more duplex houses to be constructed to make sure rentals don't spring up again. In addition, they have one of the strictest "animal house" laws in the entire country and do everything they can to dissuade rentals.

Now, let's move to Seaside Park. The one bar they have in town, The Sawmill, is now forced to close at midnight because they town council wants them gone and upscale condos built in its place. Unlike what you say, it is NOT easy to "kick out" a business. You can't just take someone's property, but you can make it unpleasant for the business to operate, which is exactly what they are doing.

You want more? Let's go to Surf City. The mayor there has openly stated that he wants no more tourist-based businesses zoned in town. The council and land use board wants to actively get rid of most of the businesses and replace them with single family homes. It's been widely reported on in recent years. Same with Manasquan. They're on a crusade to convert the beach section of the town into a year-round community with single family homes. The stated goal is zero rentals. I used to live there and be involved in local government there - I know exactly how it all works. You use your planning board and land use laws to encourage a certain type of home and you rezone business lots to R-1 zoning so a developer who buys a property builds what you want them to build. It's not overly complicated, but it just takes a long time, since you can't go in and just take someone's property! (Well, you can, but that takes forever and it's not worth it).

In closing, exactly what you said Shore towns should do - they're doing it! If you want to go to some town council and planning board meetings to see it for yourself, be my guest. But it's a slow process that can take decades.
 
Old 04-18-2010, 12:23 PM
 
153 posts, read 278,038 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post
If your town is serious about restricting beach access and that they don't need the money from tourism, then let them turn down that federal funding and all other similar funding.
That's just a ridiculous argument. Beach replenishment has absolutely nothing to do with tourism. It's infrastructure that protects a municipality. They build up the dunes to protect the town in the same way towns along rivers/lakes are protected with levies.

If we give up replenishment funding, how 'bout you guys give up your infrastructure that prevents flooding up there. Same thing.
 
Old 04-18-2010, 01:56 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
4,086 posts, read 4,935,911 times
Reputation: 2516
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS37 View Post
That's just a ridiculous argument. Beach replenishment has absolutely nothing to do with tourism. It's infrastructure that protects a municipality. They build up the dunes to protect the town in the same way towns along rivers/lakes are protected with levies.

If we give up replenishment funding, how 'bout you guys give up your infrastructure that prevents flooding up there. Same thing.
A seawall is a more efficient, less costly way to protect the coastline. Build a seawall and have no more beach. Dumping sand year after year, especially in years when the sand was completely eroded away by a storm, is worthless UNLESS people want to have a nice, sandy beach there to enjoy. If you want a beach, pay for it yourselves, or share the cost and share the beach. Make up your damn minds, people.
 
Old 04-18-2010, 02:00 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
4,086 posts, read 4,935,911 times
Reputation: 2516
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS37 View Post
You're so off base on this it's not even funny.

First off, Belmar HAS systematically removed most of the attractions and bars along Ocean Ave. over the past 15-20 years. D'Jais is literally the only place left. No more miniature golf, no more arcades, no more bars like Tropical Pub, etc. They're gone and the town is jumping for joy over it. They've reduced rentals from 1,200 units to 200, and they do not allow ANY more duplex houses to be constructed to make sure rentals don't spring up again. In addition, they have one of the strictest "animal house" laws in the entire country and do everything they can to dissuade rentals.

Now, let's move to Seaside Park. The one bar they have in town, The Sawmill, is now forced to close at midnight because they town council wants them gone and upscale condos built in its place. Unlike what you say, it is NOT easy to "kick out" a business. You can't just take someone's property, but you can make it unpleasant for the business to operate, which is exactly what they are doing.

You want more? Let's go to Surf City. The mayor there has openly stated that he wants no more tourist-based businesses zoned in town. The council and land use board wants to actively get rid of most of the businesses and replace them with single family homes. It's been widely reported on in recent years. Same with Manasquan. They're on a crusade to convert the beach section of the town into a year-round community with single family homes. The stated goal is zero rentals. I used to live there and be involved in local government there - I know exactly how it all works. You use your planning board and land use laws to encourage a certain type of home and you rezone business lots to R-1 zoning so a developer who buys a property builds what you want them to build. It's not overly complicated, but it just takes a long time, since you can't go in and just take someone's property! (Well, you can, but that takes forever and it's not worth it).

In closing, exactly what you said Shore towns should do - they're doing it! If you want to go to some town council and planning board meetings to see it for yourself, be my guest. But it's a slow process that can take decades.
Tourism is a 5 billion dollar business in Ocean County alone. I think it would be great to get rid of it and see what happens. The problem is it will never happen, and shore residents KNOW this, so they feel free to complain because they know in reality they will continue to attract tourists and that tourism will remain alive and well and they will keep their costs down. It's the hypocrisy of pretending that they don't want tourists that kills me.

You people are no better than the idiotic New Yorkers who complain about the tourists and "B&T" crowds which fuel a lot of business and tax revenue in the city. Just provincial, small, bigoted minds hard at work finding reasons to label people (i.e. "B&T", "Bennies") because they're afraid of others.

Why don't you, this summer, gather up all the locals with pitchforks and torches, and have "Bennies go home" rallies??? Invest in some hoods and robes and you're all set.
 
Old 04-18-2010, 02:02 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
4,086 posts, read 4,935,911 times
Reputation: 2516
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
I am a resident and I can tell you I do not LOVE the income from tourists as it has no positive effect on any part of my life in this town.

But everyone benefits from a stable shoreline, not just the benny businesses. Didnt bound brook just get federal money because of their flooding problem? What is the difference?

What LB did was abhorrent and a misuse of power and the public trust and that has nothing to do with bennys or not (and it is bennys fyi). As much as I do not enjoy tourist season I would not be remotely for a municipal government misusing its power. If they choose to enforce ordinances to prevent the "animal house" type of rentals thats one thing but it is entirely something else to deliberately force a business out.

Leggetts is a year round bar that may get more business in the summer but I was just there after the Fool's Run and it was packed. It is not a benny bar.

The Osprey has not been open in years.

[url="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/jersey_shore_towns_that_restri.html"]

No one said anything about restricting beach access. Where did you come up with that?

Bennys surely have the right to come here. Even I, who has no love or monetary reliance on them admit that. Everyone, no matter where they live have the same right to access the beach, its public property.

But if those of us who do not rely on tourism bemoan the behavior of the tourists and the overwhelming inconvenience they cause why should the beach not be maintained?
So let me get this straight, what you're saying here...

You believe "bennies" deserve the right to go to your town's beaches.

You believe the beaches are public property and should remain that way.

Tourists come to your town for the beaches.

You hate the tourists coming to your town.

So what do you want? You choose to live in a town which has had visitors, mostly "Bennies", going there for decades, since before either of us was born, and you don't like the situation but you choose to stay there?

Take a reality check.
 
Old 04-18-2010, 02:12 PM
 
9,269 posts, read 5,237,614 times
Reputation: 9255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post
A seawall is a more efficient, less costly way to protect the coastline. Build a seawall and have no more beach. Dumping sand year after year, especially in years when the sand was completely eroded away by a storm, is worthless UNLESS people want to have a nice, sandy beach there to enjoy. If you want a beach, pay for it yourselves, or share the cost and share the beach. Make up your damn minds, people.
LOL!!!

Seawalls are incredibly inefficient and costly. The one in Sea Bright cost over $7K per 3ft section and is maintained EVERY SINGLE YEAR!!

Here read up. Google scholar is your friend.

Plant, Nathaniel G., and Gary B. Griggs (1992) "Interactions between nearshore processes and beach morphology near a seawall" Journal of Coastal Research, vol. 8(1), pg. 183-200.

Tait, James F., and Gary B. Griggs (1990) "Beach response to the presence of a seawall: A comparison of field observations" Shore and Beach, vol. 58(2), pg. 11-28.

Kraus, N. C. (1988) "The effects of seawalls on the beach: An extended literature review" Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 4, pg. 1-28.

Seawalls are not useful in the type of situation found at the Jersey Shore. The most cost effective measure for maintaining a beach and the land behind it is the existence of coastal dunes.
 
Old 04-18-2010, 02:18 PM
 
9,269 posts, read 5,237,614 times
Reputation: 9255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post
So let me get this straight, what you're saying here...

You believe "bennies" deserve the right to go to your town's beaches.
Yes.

Quote:
You believe the beaches are public property and should remain that way.
Yes.

Quote:
Tourists come to your town for the beaches.
Some of them do. And I have never had an issue with the polite family types who use the beach. Many of the bennys come to "party"; those are the ones I wish would go elsewhere.

Quote:
You hate the tourists coming to your town.
I hate the way many of the bennys act.

Quote:
So what do you want? You choose to live in a town which has had visitors, mostly "Bennies", going there for decades, since before either of us was born, and you don't like the situation but you choose to stay there?
1. My family has been here for over a hundred years. Why should I have to move due to a NEW occurrence?
2. Manasquan has only become an animal house town in the last 15 years or so and we are already working to stop that.
3. So what? Do you think native NYers do not find tourists hugely annoying? Can you imagine how much angrier they would be if the population of their city tripled for two months each year?

Quote:
Take a reality check.
You want people who have nothing to gain from bennys to be grateful and pleasant for their arrogant ways and you think I need a reality check? Seriously?
 
Old 04-18-2010, 02:29 PM
 
153 posts, read 278,038 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post
A seawall is a more efficient, less costly way to protect the coastline. Build a seawall and have no more beach. Dumping sand year after year, especially in years when the sand was completely eroded away by a storm, is worthless UNLESS people want to have a nice, sandy beach there to enjoy. If you want a beach, pay for it yourselves, or share the cost and share the beach. Make up your damn minds, people.
Year after year? The beach in my town has been replenished once... ever. The beaches in Monmouth and Ocean counties have both been replenished a grand total of one time... ever. Many towns have never, not once, had any replenishment. And if there is an emergency in a particular town, the town already foots the bill. As I said, I'll give up replenishment funding from the feds when you North Jersey folks turn away funding when one of your rivers overflow and floods a whole town.

You really should get to know the facts on this. Your posts make zero sense whatsoever.
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.


Closed Thread



Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top