[JerseyJen]

fwd'd to me by the coolest gal I know, passed onto you good folks:

-----Original Message-----
From: John Weber <jweber@surfrider.org>
Sent: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:29 am
Subject: Last Chance on Takanassee




Folks, I’ve created another Action Alert about the Takanassee
development.  This one is in petition form and I plan to hand deliver
this to the DEP Commissioner and the Governor next week.

 

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/Deny_the_permit

 

Last time we got over 700 letters to the Commissioner, mostly with the
help of the Sierra Club.  I don’t think we can turn in this petition
with less than 1000 names on it so please send this to everyone you
know.  We have to go huge or I think we will lose.




...EOT from John Weber

Here's the petition text:

Full Petition Text:

We the undersigned urge DEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson and NJ GOvernor Jon S. Corzine to deny the CAFRA permit for the Takanassee Beach Club for the following reasons.

Historic

The three historic US Lifesaving Service buildings must be saved and restored for some type of adaptive re-use like a Lifesaving Service Museum. This is consistent with the DEP Office of Historic Preservation's findings. See the attached memo from that office.

Public Access

Developing this property for 19 residential units would result in a net loss of access to the beach. Providing a path to the beach and 5 public parking spaces does not compare to the utilization of the property as a beach club where as many as 500 families and their guests could use the beach and the facilities. Please see the attached photo from the early 1970;s and note there are 210 cars on the property.


Floods and Erosion Hazard Areas

This site is in between the ocean and a coastal lake and has experienced flooding several times in recent years. CAFRA's Preliminary Analysis finds this property is an erosion hazard area. CAFRA rules prohibit development in erosion hazard areas.


Economic and Social Benefits

DEP Rules say development that would be of economic and social benefit and that serves the needs of local residents and neighborhood is encouraged.
The local residents need recreational opportunities and the neighborhood needs to hold on to some of its history, so much of which has been lost. The increased tax revenue for the City from 19 units is irrelevant in a City building hundreds of new units right now. Furthermore, more than half of the units built in Pier Village are vacant proving little need for another 19 units.

Open Space

The Lake is on the City's Roster of Open Space Inventory. People typically access the Lake to fish by way of the property in question. Building a parapet wall at the lake's edge will impact the lake, and development that will adversely impact public open space is discouraged by DEP rules. The plan calls for mitigation elsewhere on the Lake which proves there will be negative impacts. Mitigation is unworkable, and ineffective.

Please deny this permit.