You must log in or register to comment.

Vaushist-Yangist t1_jdn7j4m wrote

Any extra taxed revenue that is raised by tourism in NJ should be given back to NJ citizens. This is our land and we all collectively use it, that means we should all collectively reap the benefits. This can be done with a land value tax + value added tax and distribute those funds equally to all NJ citizens. Alaska does this by sending out checks to their citizens with the funds raised from oil production, and it’s been very beneficial for them.


KaliGracious t1_jdndw3h wrote

Shut up you communist /s


Vaushist-Yangist t1_jdnebkr wrote

Funny enough this idea is actually Georgist and is American af 🇺🇸🦅 Henry George was actually born in Philly and died in NYC so all the more reasons to respect him, especially here in NJ 😎


KaliGracious t1_jdngghl wrote

I’ve heard some similar concepts in Left Libertarianism but always thought private ownership and profit of natural resources was fucking bullshit. thank you for introducing me to this.


Vaushist-Yangist t1_jdnho2g wrote

No problem! Thanks for the interest! Georgism is actually pretty compatible with a lot of schools of thought


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdnwwno wrote

Just don't get too excited. Georgists collectively ignore its problems, namely defining land value, which is the main revenue source but is affected by so many factors, and since it would be the only revenue source, then calculating the land value would become as complex as the whole current tax code. E.g. nice little mom&pop shop you got there, would be a shame if oil would be found under it and hike land value tax through the roof, or if a new subway line would hike it, etc.


Way2trivial t1_jdo03fa wrote

Heinlein had an idea.

Let everyone declare their own figure for value of their property, and pay taxes accordingly to their valuation.

Trick is, - if someone offers you that amount, you gotta sell it to them.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdo1g4y wrote

>if someone offers you that amount, you gotta sell it to them.

So if your house costs 400k and tomorrow I tell you "here is 400k, I buy it, move out" you gotta do it? Such a nice idea...


Way2trivial t1_jdo3bte wrote

so everyone lists an amount that would make it worth selling it for and the tax rate gets based on that amount..

So if everyone declares their house to be 'worth' 100% more than they paid for it, (and if I was offered double, I'd move) the tax basis is reduced to the same bill amount per property...You could also just make primary residences excluded....


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdo3rrz wrote

Your whole idea hinges on the obligation to sell, which is a stupid idea and will not work because of huge potetioal for abuse.


TangoZuluMike t1_jds7oqf wrote

Yeah the valuation would have to be such that you could only sell at that price.

Obligated to would be dangerous.


Way2trivial t1_jdo8vbv wrote

First, not my idea- I made that clear

second, can you be a little coherent about your perceived failure points rather than just rejecting?

You can set the price to whatever you wish....


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdogtcx wrote

Sure, not *your* idea but "your idea", no need to be that anal.

I gave you a very clear example how it won't work. Obligation to sell is incompatible with business plans, any competitor can upend you at any second, and it's very costly to move. It is ridiculous you demand me to explain that like it's not self evident.

So you either will have to set price very high, and pay ridiculous property taxes only to avoid being uprooted by a competitor, or risk being uprooted every day. With incentives like that "what can go wrong? /s".


falcon0159 t1_jdoli45 wrote

It's certainly an interesting idea, but very flawed as you pointed out. I agree that primary residences would have to be exempt somehow (but then why won't people set the value very low?) and maybe instead of being forced to sell if someone offers you the amount you set, they would need to offer more, and they only get one chance to offer more, and you could also choose to raise the valuation to that amount that they offer.

They would of course need to provide valid proof of funds for an offer and be willing to go through with the purchase or else be fined/lose an earnest money deposit of x% of their offer (maybe 10-20%?) which could go 75% to the homeowner and 25% to the state or something.

This would help prevent abuse and allow you to keep your property. We could also limit the frequency of those "takeover" offers to once a year or something like that as well.

We also have the highest property taxes in the country at the moment (and one of the highest income taxes), so we would need to find ways to both raise more money while making it more affordable IMO.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdoon5p wrote

You can see how "defining property value" tax code is exploding right at your laps? And mind that none of us is tax specialist, and still you were able to type out 4 "rules", and I can type 3 comments to each of the rules you made, and tax specialist will probably be able to type 20 comments to every rules you made, and make 250 more rules easily because they know the problematics.

The point is: what's the point of this whole overhaul? Does it really help with anything? Is it really provided that it will lead to more fair taxation?


falcon0159 t1_jdp7jyj wrote

Oh, I'm not the OP that you were initially responding to, I just read the thread and thought it was an interesting, but also a complicated and inherently flawed idea in many aspects and decided to comment on some ideas

I can come up with a ton of additional rules of the top of my head, but you're right in that I'm not a tax "expert" in that I'm not a CPA, but I am personally very knowledgeable about tax and work in a related field. (Obviously I have no idea about OP and what their knowledge on the subject is. Your assumption is generally a very safe one as most redditors don't know much about tax, or even personal finance let alone corporate or institutional finance.

I am not sure what OP's intentions were with this tax idea, but I believe the purpose is to fairly tax each individual property based on it's value on a state wide level, rather than doing it by municipality. This would lead to a much more accurate valuation and tax base, as we wouldn't be relying on town's to do reassessments. We could then set a state wide property tax rate based on revenue needed and adjust it annually based on the total property valuations rather than having each town have it's own semi-arbitrary tax rate. This would lead to people in town's like Alpine and Paramus have a increase in tax as they have very low taxes ($ wise) in relation to property values and other towns like West Orange seeing lower taxes as they have the opposite problem.


Way2trivial t1_jdokfs8 wrote

Do you know how property taxes are set? dividing the ratables over the budget.

so (keeping it simple) if the total value the tax assessor finds for a community real estate is 100 million, and the community needs 1 million to operate, everyone chips 1% of the value of their property in.

if the value of all the real estate is 1,000 million (billion) the tax rate is .1% and every chips .1% of the value of the property in.

If implemented, and EVERYONE with property started off with an automatic 4X amount as assessed by the tax assessor- then everyone would have the same tax bill as before.

It's when you go to declare a different valuation that your tax bill changes and risk increases or decreases to match.

So if my fair market price $500,000 house WAS assessed at $420,000 now my fair market house still priced at $500,000 is now assessed at $1,680,000 but my tax bill stays the same. If someone wants to pay me 1.6 mill for it- I'm good.

It's when I want to declare a different value that my bill levels out...


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdom12u wrote

Ah, so your idea is "let's artificially inflate all property prices 4x at once". If I wasn't lazy and drunk on saturday I might have typed out how dumb this idea is in a different way and how it's going to shoot you in the foot, but I'm too lazy and drunk on saturday night..


Way2trivial t1_jdonn5p wrote

No- let's inflate the 'prices I'd sell at in a heartbeat' at once.

again, if someone wants to pay me 1.6 million dollars for my 500k house?
No problem on my end...


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdop98d wrote

So, is there a price of "I would sell in 2/3/4/6/10 heartbeats"? Because if not then there is only one price, and you just inflated it 400%.

You can ask Chat GPT "what would be economic consequences if commercial property prices were inflated 400% overnight"


Way2trivial t1_jdorzpu wrote

yeah. the regular "i need to move due to life changes" price.
negotiated and voluntary.


lCt t1_jdpelko wrote

Based Georgism! Land value tax is such a fucking cool idea.


WaltO t1_jdolz55 wrote

he Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) is a constitutionally established permanent fund managed by a state-owned corporation, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC).


Vaushist-Yangist t1_jdoy53d wrote

It may be state-owned, but the benefits are publicly owned because they are gifted out as checks every year


WaltO t1_jdqkgqu wrote

My point was it is in the State Constitution....


Vaushist-Yangist t1_jdpm313 wrote

Something else I like is to ensure an economic safety net for all New Jersey citizens, by raising funds from a carbon, inheritance, and data tax to add on to the dividends I’ve previously mentioned. Lots of academics agree that all of these are useful and meaningful taxes to fund dividends to ensure the population has enough funds to best adapt to changing environmental and economic environments.


HappilyPartnered t1_jdqz1ih wrote

Never, ever going to happen. Keep fantasizing.


Vaushist-Yangist t1_jdr2uqd wrote

You don’t know that! 😁


HappilyPartnered t1_jdxdep7 wrote

Sure I do. It’s just not practical and it’s not going to happen. The money is already being spent elsewhere. Too late ⏰.


Vaushist-Yangist t1_jdxdi0r wrote

Can you tell me what tomorrow’s lottery numbers are too?


HappilyPartnered t1_jdzzczh wrote

I can tell you that it wouldn’t matter if the money in the pot was already spent.


Vaushist-Yangist t1_je1ytu6 wrote

The lottery, like gov spending continues to pay out.


solarsound t1_jdnak4r wrote

Very many people from Pennsylvania and New York enjoy NJ beaches. I believe mostly for that reason they decided not to pay for the upkeep with taxes. Also, Governor Murphy has been allowing free access to state parks during the summer months. There are some you can visit with plenty of oceanfront access.


la_de_cha t1_jdnptgy wrote

There is only 1 ocean front state park Island Beach State Park and that was only done last year. All other “public” ocean front property is either federal, Sandy Hook, or county, 7 presidents.


solarsound t1_jdnq3h6 wrote

You're right, I mistakenly thought sandy hook was owned by state


la_de_cha t1_jdqjp3r wrote

You are not the only one. I used to work at the fee booth at Sandy Hook, and folks would try to use there State Park Pass. I got yelled at a number of times because people refused to understand that they couldn’t use it there since we were operated by 2 different organizations.


[deleted] t1_jdqyuie wrote



la_de_cha t1_jdr07gx wrote

Yep. Statue of Liberty, Alcatraz too. The park is free, but you gotta pay for the boat.

When you turn 62 and get the senior pass you get a discount at least at Sandy Hook.


Kashsters t1_jdoqod6 wrote

Not the case. There is also Barnegat Light State Park, North Brigantine Natural Area, Corson’s Inlet State Park, Strathmere Natural Area, and Cape May Point State Park.


la_de_cha t1_jdp9mp8 wrote

But you can’t swim at any of these places though.


dumbass_0 t1_jdpm4of wrote

Wildwood beaches are free too


la_de_cha t1_jdqj3ib wrote

Yes, AC as well. But we were talking about beaches owned by the state parks.


dumbass_0 t1_jdqv3i3 wrote

Sandy hook & 7 presidents aren’t either, you brought up non state owned beaches first?


la_de_cha t1_jdqvjuv wrote

No. The original commenter brought up state owned beaches. I was correcting them.


dumbass_0 t1_jdqwy1j wrote

You’re still the only person that brought up non-state parks. I’m rereading their comment and only see mention of ISBP. And your comment about ISBP being the only oceanfront beach is also entirely untrue. Cape may county exists & has a beachfront state park soooooo???

Not everyone goes to the beach to swim so you disregarding non swimming oceanfront state parks as not oceanfront enough is bizarre. Go to the beach in these state parks that are not swimmable and let me know if they’re empty in the summer. I can guarantee you neither cape may nor barnegat light are empty in the summer bc I’ve been to both in the summer🤷🏼‍♀️


la_de_cha t1_jdqxq7s wrote

This entire post was about charging fees for beaches. All the beaches that charge fees are swimming beaches. Also, some of the state parks you mention require sports fishing passes to visit, making them not free.


dumbass_0 t1_jdr1qh3 wrote

You don’t need a sports fishing pass to visit either park i mentioned. You need it to fish. Read something.


la_de_cha t1_jdr2c70 wrote

In the first list you provided you do. You are being such a nit picker.


dumbass_0 t1_jdr3oe1 wrote

“First list you provided” i never provided a list.

Firstly mentioned wildwood - which you do not need a sports fishing pass to sit on the beach and relax.

The 3 state parks i mentioned, when state parks are free do not require a sports fishing pass to sit on the beach and relax.

You good?


la_de_cha t1_jdrbczo wrote

I’m sorry. I’m an idiot. There was someone else who listed a bunch of state owned natural areas, which I thought was you. My apologies.


dumbass_0 t1_jdrdt3x wrote

All good, originally i was really just adding to the list you gave of public beaches so i was thrown off by the responses.


OkBid1535 t1_jdqek06 wrote

Are state parks free this year though? If I go to island beach state park for example I can almost guarantee I have to pay a fee. Even as a local.

My husband and I were just discussing how IF you participate in a beach clean up than you SHOULD be given a beach pass for the season. Hey thanks for cleaning up the beach for free, here’s incentive to do it again. Carry in and out and leave no trace behind. Ya know?

A pipe dream I’m aware. God forbid our beaches be free. Yet countless other states along the shore have entirely free beaches throughout the state

Explain it to me like I’m 5


Specialist_Finding94 t1_jdqj62c wrote

I think the clean up in exchange for a pass is a great idea & way to get more people invested in their own communities!!


la_de_cha t1_jdqjheh wrote

They have yet to make an announcement weather they will charge entrance fees yet. As of right now they are currently selling state park passes. Which are for all state parks in Jersey. Last year they announced the entrance was free around May, right before Memorial Day. The beach clean up idea is great, but every beach is owned by different people, so it you would only have access to one beach in particular.


weaselpoopcoffee1 t1_jdn4xza wrote

It irks me as well but I try to think of it from another perspective. The beaches are guarded and cleaned daily during the summer season. I kinda like that. The other thing is, why should taxpayers who never get to the beach have to pay (via taxes) for a beach they don't use? It kind of makes sense to only charge the actual users of the beach. Feel free to disagree.


Alter_ego_cohort t1_jdnyxhl wrote

You do realize how much crap you pay for through taxes that you never get to use, right??


BrothelWaffles t1_jdnds33 wrote

Literally the only sensible comment in here so far. Apparently everyone just thinks the beaches magically maintain themselves.


Zaknoid t1_jdngw40 wrote

Yet, there's states that have free beaches and still have them maintained and have lifeguards so they magically found a way to do it.


HiggetyFlough t1_jdnllro wrote

Well I assume the magic way is more taxes


RhymeGrime t1_jdnomlp wrote

Florida has less taxes and all beaches are free. Just saying.


Psirocking t1_jdo8tsz wrote

There’s a decent argument I’ve heard.

People don’t drive to Florida beaches from out of state and then go home the same day, maybe spending a few bucks on parking and food like they do here. People there spend hundreds on hotels and do a whole vacation there. If NJ didn’t charge for beaches you’d have people from PA and NY who would use the beaches here and basically contribute nothing in revenue.


Big_lt t1_jdor7er wrote

Simple, beaches are free if you show a valid NJ drivers license. All others pay the beech fee


ItllMakeYouStronger t1_jdqp4wm wrote

What about children and people who do not drive?


Big_lt t1_jdqssfm wrote

There are other state documents that can be used in place of drivers license.

Also, you don't need to drive to have a driver's lice se but it is the most common document.


HiggetyFlough t1_jdnq06w wrote

the argument would work better if Florida had comparable amount of taxes as we do and still had free beaches, instead they don't tax on a ton of stuff but still probably use property taxes on beach upkeep.


pantslesseconomist t1_jdnr49x wrote

I went to North Carolina last summer and the beach was "free" but there was no public parking for miles, so functionally it was private.

And there were lifeguards, but instead of on a stand, the guard was on an ATV patrolling several miles of beach. Hope she's close while you're drowning!


MOM_1_MORE_MINUTE t1_jdp5mf2 wrote

I mean ocean city cleans every night (or they did, havnt been in years) and don't have to pay. VA beach cleans don't have to pay. Been to a few in NC and SC and didn't pay. Either way you do you NJ!


Big_lt t1_jdor253 wrote

The cleaning point makes sense; however your other one does not

I don't have children, nor do I own a car yet I have my taxes pay for schools and roads. The reason you pay for them is it's beneficial to our state just like a beach is as it brings tourism from out of staters and a place for others to recover me tally by enjoying nature


weaselpoopcoffee1 t1_jdrk024 wrote

You buy goods and services and you get mail so yeah you indirectly use the roads. BTW most road maintenance is paid via gasoline taxes. Having good schools assures you can get a good buck if you sell your house so you get some of that back. In addition property taxes are deductible so again you get some of that back. Not saying it's perfect but I understand it.


financialanon t1_jdnt32k wrote

Guarded beaches are the worst.

They create very narrow swimming areas and prohibit you from swimming outside these areas.

They herd you in like cattle leaving vast parts of the beach unusable. And I have to pay for this privilege?

It feels so restrictive. Freedom in America is an illusion. You can't move without someone telling you what to do or giving you a ticket for violating some rule.

NJ has absolutely the most restrictive beaches in the country.


wubbels89 t1_jdnu2qr wrote

Yes god forbid there are trained professionals ready to help you in the event of an emergency in often dangerous environment. I don’t know what beaches you go to where they “herd” you into tiny loacations. The beach is huge. Spread out my dude.


SailingSpark t1_jdnypsa wrote

I grew up in Ocean City, don't want to swim at a guarded beach? Nobody is forcing you to go to one. While 34th street is guarded, 33rd and 35th are not. The next guarded beach up would be 39th, which is why 40th is a informal surfing beach.


Way2trivial t1_jdo0n9y wrote

Not "informal"
"Additionally, surfing is permitted on beaches south of 36th Street where lifeguard stands are 3 blocks apart. Surfing is permitted at all beaches either before or after lifeguards are on duty."


SailingSpark t1_jdo5fk1 wrote

that must be new, I moved out of Ocean City 25 years ago and hung up my board to take up sailing.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdnxi0d wrote

> Freedom in America is an illusion.

Freedom is an illusion!

Life is an illusion!

Nothing else matters! So close no matter how far....


GomezCups t1_jdox023 wrote

Manasquan and many other beaches have plenty of lifeguards that they do not restrict swimming areas


Kershaws_Tasty_Ruben t1_jdolsvo wrote

I grew up in a beach town. The main thing that prevents “free” beaches is home rule. I put free in quotes because someone has to clean the beach and, maintain them and, pay for Lifeguards etc. So take a town like Sea Bright or Monmouth Beach both have a small population year round but after May it doubles and then on weekends can sometime triple. Beach fees or, parking fees pay for maintenance Lifeguards part time cops and anything else that has to do with the beach. There’s actually an auditing process that the towns have to use to justify the amount spent on costs associated with the beach vs. the regular operation of the rest of the town. If it’s discovered that the towns are overcharging the people who use the beach and using the extra revenue for taxpayer relief the state can attempt to recover the extra money and force the town to adjust their fees. Often, you’ll see beaches in towns that are free to enter but, have a parking fee that’s because the towns can use the parking revenue more liberally than just a straight beach entrance fee.


The_Healed t1_jdrxmji wrote

And yet go to new york coney island and the lifeguards and police are also paid without a beach fee


thebruns t1_jdvh7sp wrote

>because someone has to clean the beach and, maintain them and, pay for Lifeguards etc.

This is true everywhere else on the planet and yet NJ is the only place that charges


Kershaws_Tasty_Ruben t1_jdzfkpk wrote

That’s actually not accurate. There’s a number of places that don’t have Lifeguards and, often beaches are set up as county or, state parks passing the costs to either the county or the entire state.


thebruns t1_je077r8 wrote

> passing the costs to either the county or the entire state.

We have the technology to do that here too


OkBid1535 t1_jdqf848 wrote

Monmouth beach was my go to. Just parked at the little lighthouse and enjoyed a free beach. I just never understood and still don’t, why there aren’t more free beaches. Especially in ocean county. Not a single one here


justicebarbie t1_jdng63j wrote

You're actually correct! NJ follows the Public Trust Doctrine (started by Justinian around 500AD). All beaches including the water and sand to the high water line is available and must be accessible by the public even on private land. check it out.


Javi1192 t1_jdnrvow wrote

So when they ask you to pay to get on the beach, do you just say I am traversing the land to the high waterline and must be allowed free passage to such?


financialanon t1_jdntcmw wrote

Interpreting what the public trust doctrine actually means is not as straightforward as it sounds.

Try to access the beach in Mantoloking and see how that goes.


Mrguy4771 t1_jdq9u70 wrote

Hello 15 year old girl badge checker, I won't be paying today. Please refer to my copy of the NJs Justinian Public trust doctrine.


Zaknoid t1_jdnhibk wrote

When friends from California visited they could not believe you had to pay to go on the beach and yes beaches in California still are maintained and have lifeguards. Also, outside of certain areas like Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Huntington etc they don't commercialize every fucking inch of coastal areas. I appreciate keeping the natural beauty of the coastline and keeping it from being over commercialized. Nice to sit on a beach and just see mountains and water instead of t shirt stands and smoke shops. They keep that shit in Venice for a reason lol.


Alter_ego_cohort t1_jdo0e9m wrote

It may be that California has a density of 251 people per sq mile and Jersey has a density of 1,260 people per sq mile, not including the tourists coming from NY and PA on any given summer weekend.

Jersey beaches are also way more crowded and have more obnoxious individuals who do not care about trashing the place.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdo0zi6 wrote

California has coastline of 840 miles, beaches visited by ~130 million people per year. NJ has coastline of 130 miles, visited roughly by ~48 million people per year.

  • California has 150,000 visits per mile, NJ has 370,000 visits per mile (246% more)
  • California has 3.3 beach visits per state citizen, NJ has 5.3 beach visits per citizen (160% more)

So NJ beaches are 246% more packed and it happens 160% more often that in CA.

But it's probably mostly because of the culture of boroughitis. NJ towns surely love to behave like city-states in medieval Italy.


OkBid1535 t1_jdqetk6 wrote

This is my argument!!! Every other state with a shore, has free beaches. That are maintained with lifeguards!!!

So people rallying behind beach taxes and why it’s necessary to keep them clean or have a lifeguard. Are you all brain dead? Seriously. Go visit California or Florida beaches and start demanding the people be taxed to enjoy the natural resources and just see how people react

It’s absolutely absurd our beaches aren’t free. And seaside is constantly trashed all summer despite being “maintained and cleaned.”

So the argument completely falls flat

Beaches should absolutely be free


getdemsnacks t1_jdnbg4y wrote

They took all the trees and put 'em in a tree museum

And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them


Woodbutcher31 t1_jdn1741 wrote

No “Beach” is really private, just the access to it. So you can walk along the water anywhere you like. The rich keep us out by restricting parking and walk- on access. If you go to other states you can easily access beaches, rivers and waterways. In Hawaii you can walk through ANY hotel lobby and access it’s beach.

In NY, there are scenic pullovers all around for you to pull over and take pictures, have a picnic,..walk down to the river,or lakes…. Not here.
It’s only for the rich. Or the 27.5 parking spaces provided by the state at one of the no-access points.
Or you can pay again to enter one of our beautiful state parks which you ALREADY PAY for with your tax dollars…


jayac_R2 t1_jdp1al3 wrote

Not really. Try walking on Jenkinson’s beach at night. Police will chase you off claiming it’s private property.


Cantholditdown t1_jdojt0h wrote

Hamptons seem to make beach access pretty difficult to anyone that isn’t a local I hear.


Woodbutcher31 t1_jdqr9y5 wrote

Yes, but I believe it’s by each state law, and they vary, that you’re allowed on beaches,( and waterways?) to high tide mark. Murphy signed this in 2019 giving public access.

Public Rights under the Public Trust Doctrine
The Pubic Trust Doctrine provides that public rights to tidal waterways and their shores in the state are held by the state in trust for the benefit of all of the people. Further, it establishes the right of the public to fully utilize these lands and waters for a variety of public activities.…


jerseyborn733 t1_jdn0c7h wrote

So they don't have to worry about bennies trashing all of the beach. They have there own sections to enjoy


Luckilygemini t1_jdmz0pe wrote



profmoxie t1_jdnpabo wrote

Yeah I think this about country-club style exclusion more than anything else.


zsdrfty t1_jdn5pop wrote

It should, the justification is that America has zero culture of collective action so rich assholes commodify everything knowing you won’t fight back


Horror_Assistant_ t1_jdnsgn8 wrote

First beach to charge for access was Bradley Beach in 1929. It was descendants of James A. Bradley who put the rule in place. Bradley developed Asbury Park into the resort town it became and was also a supporter of segregation during post-civil war reconstruction. So it has racist, classist origins. My guess is it’s still a thing contemporarily because most citizens don’t question it and the towns like the tax revenue. But if you want to be cynical, there are still people who think it’s a good idea to restrict access to “certain people” (just read some of the other comments on this post referring to keeping “riff raff” off the beaches lol).


yuriydee t1_jdph81z wrote

>So it has racist, classist origins

Of course it does. End of day charging people just keeps the "poors" away from the beaches.


shoozy t1_jdn4emh wrote

What defines "natural attraction". What if your backyard has nice rocks and you have a lot of geological enthusiasts in the area. Should they have free access? Just playing devil's advocate.

The premise of our way of living is property and by extension property lines. Can be on grass, forest, beach, or lake. The only places we haven't drawn lines in the universe are the ones where we can't (artic, space, difficult to access oceans)


DrGraffix t1_jdn1szv wrote

Pretentious rich people


profmoxie t1_jdnpf7m wrote

I grew up in Maine and I wonder about this all the time. I love Sandy Hook bc there isn't the annoying shore stuff (boardwalk, etc.) and I don't mind paying the park fee for it. But I also miss freshwater swimming.

Every lake around here that I know of has private beaches that you need residency passes and memberships to swim in


irishdave999 t1_jdp10rz wrote

Frank Pallone, US congressman, lives on a private, fenced off beach in Lomg Branch, one that is replenished with sand every couple of years at a cost of millions in taxpayer money. This unbelievably hypocritical situation, which has been the case for years, is kept quiet by the media because Pallone is a leftist Democrat.


dumbass_0 t1_jdqvq6e wrote

He is the only rich person that lives on a private beach that gets replenished every few years rumor has it


bros402 t1_jdqv8ph wrote

Pallone? A leftist?

what the fuck are you smoking


irishdave999 t1_jdue3b9 wrote

In his own words:

“I’m a progressive,” said Pallone, Long Branch-born and raised. “I’m a liberal. I believe in progressive values as an advocate for Medicare, as a big single payer advocate and as an advocate for public schools.”


J3ebrules t1_jdptwfx wrote

This is America, where the rich get whatever they want and the rest of us can shut up and enjoy the beautifully hand-crafted propaganda that makes older people afraid of change. Obviously. Stop worrying about whether or not you are being completely fucked over every single day and go worry about what children playing sports have in their pants instead like a good little American.


sndyro t1_jdrhp70 wrote

At least you didn't use the word "Boomer"....I give you props for that.

But, please, just because a person is older, doesn't mean we are afraid of change. I embrace change....change is good. I know a LOT of people my age that are not afraid of change and are rather progressive. I am 68...nearly 69....and I go to the beach once a year for an afternoon because I can't afford the cost any more than any other poor person. And I have more important things to worry about than what is in a kid's surviving to be a year older, And yes....that is America, at this point.


cagonzalez321 t1_jdnf1eu wrote

Having to pay for access keeps the riff raff out.


Maximum-Excitement58 t1_jdnn8mx wrote

Which beaches in NJ are private?


SnooBooks4898 OP t1_jdnx2uy wrote

Not just ocean beaches, lakes as well. Many NJ ocean beaches charge an access fee.


Maximum-Excitement58 t1_jdnzs9w wrote

Charging an access fee is not the same a being “private”


Extension_Health2522 t1_jdoz61j wrote

All the beaches in Pt pleasant are owned by the Jenkinson family. Plus the own pretty much everything on the boardwalk. Only beaches in state or federal parks are public while charging a fee to use the park.


thekennytheykilled t1_jdnsf79 wrote

100% agree- all waterways - oceans, rivers,lakes, etc- there should be a nature easement


dirty_cuban t1_jdo4dys wrote

I believe they should be free (libre) but not free (gratis). Everyone should be able to access the beaches but it makes sense to collect some revenue since upkeep costs money. It should be no different than a state park.


Substantial-Bat-337 t1_jdogrzq wrote

The reason it's not free is also why it's so nice and pretty. It weeds out a lot of people who don't appreciate it imo. I grew up near the beach and never had a problem paying. That and the money normally pays kids who are badge checkers and lifeguards which is a good thing.


SnooBooks4898 OP t1_jdohvlu wrote

Interesting...when I go to state and local parks that don't charge, they are generally well-kept and clean. Same holds true for many of the parks I've been to along the east coast of the US.


Extension_Health2522 t1_jdoyk3m wrote

A day at the beach in NJ is a scam, and pricing is intended to be a burden to people with limited income. Consider family of 4, I'm gonna call it $8 each to get on the beach, so $32, minimum of $25 to park, $57. Plus food and drinks, ok yeah bring your own... Call it $8 for ice, your at $65, $25 for your snacks, $90. Had to drive there $20 for gas, were at $110 and all we've done is reach the sand...


Shawnski13 t1_jdrb4tz wrote

Edited to comply with rule 7

I'll give you a hint and it starts in 1928 when Hotel owners in Atlantic City getting complaints from white visitors

“The matter of colored bathers was taken up,” an executive from the Ambassador Hotel wrote a public official according to historical archives at the Atlantic City Free Public Library. “The Georgia Avenue side of the Convention Hall would be a logical place for colored bath houses.” This led to the founding of Chicken Bone Beach. Prior to this Black and White people were permitted to occupy the same beaches for 80 years. James A. Bradley, the founder of Asbury Park, followed suit shortly thereafter. He also banned Black visitors from using the boardwalk until 10:30pm.

Then, in the 1930s NJ beaches started to adopt Beach Tags which became further enforced in the 1970s as a way to favor locals and keep out outsiders, you can probably guess who they considered outsiders in rich white beach towns, PoC, the poor, and people from the cities. They created policies that made beach tags harder to obtain and established parking time limits. And those same communities are effectively still just protecting that 1970s enforcement today.This paper from a researcher at Monmouth Uni, takes a long in-depth look at the privatization of NJ beaches.


newwriter365 t1_jdngjjd wrote

Home rule. Beach communities have power.


lilBob1989 t1_jdnmpg1 wrote

Too many people, not enough beach, no way to subsidize the cost and maintain said beach


turbopro25 t1_jdo1gzw wrote

There is no reason for beaches to not be free for at least NJ residents. I used to live in San Diego and all the beaches are free and the lifeguards are full time careers. Not teenagers with a summer job. The beaches there are garbage free as well so when the state says “yeah but” I call bullshit.


PomboRich t1_jdoa3uu wrote

Because people trash every outdoor area when left to their own devices. Keeping beaches clean and not insanely overcrowded requires gatekeeping, and that costs money.


WeCanDoThisCNJ t1_jdoefi5 wrote

Are you upset with beach badges? Why shouldn’t people pay their way for things they use? If you’re using the beach and expect it to be clean and safe, who says you should get it for free, especially if you’re not from the town in which the beach exists?


Spectre_Loudy t1_jdorlai wrote

So that when you come down on vacation from Long Island you don't have to deal with the undesirable locals. You've worked so hard maintaining your families vast generational wealth, having a private beach to relax with out having any poors in sight is what you deserve.


bopperbopper t1_jdnn1uc wrote

People in other states have a very same philosophy, but not New Jersey


SnooBooks4898 OP t1_jdnxglo wrote

While I do LOVE living in NJ, I find that the general rule is to observe the way the rest of the country is doing it and do the opposite! Gotta turn right to go left, can't pump our own gas, close most retail in an entire county on Sunday.


OxygenSherpa t1_jdns7cp wrote

I can understand a modest fee to keep things clean. But when a private company owns the beach and security guards openly displaying pistols are collecting to cover charge, that's pure crap.


Spiritual-Stress-525 t1_jdo61tp wrote

I would imagine getting a return on the cost of the initial purchase and upkeep of the beach would be the reason.

People don't respect public property; you see how they litter and some actually vandalize, so who would want that on a place they pay good money for to enjoy the view.

This is the reason for gated communities and cul-de-sac layouts instead of grids, to limit access. People on the common causeway litter, let their pets do their business and are loud and obnoxious on their phones and blast their music.

Another prime example public transportation versus private transportation. Would you take a public conveyance today if you didn't' have to? Especially in crime ridden cities?

Entitlement isn't an argument for access in my book nor is equity. Even the Soviets had Dachas for the fortunate to escape the press of humanity if only for a bit.

In my opinion, find a way to join a beach club, get a timeshare or purchase a property if you so desire a nice beach getaway versus the public venues.


harekele t1_jdoalab wrote

Honestly, imagine how mf crowded the beaches and traffic would be if they were free. Look how crowded they are with badges.


talk_birdy_2_me t1_jdokz3k wrote

The justification is so wealthy landowners can have their own little slice of beach away from the plebs and not have to deal with everything that comes with being a public beach. The trouble is, they want their private beaches but still expect the government to pay for replenishment. The way it works in NJ is that if federal money is used for beach replenishment or maintenance, that beach must have a management plan that incorporates things like public access and endangered species protections. These people who try to claim their beaches are "private" are actually wrong and get very pissy when you call them on it. Accept public money, allow public uses.


Cool_Cartographer631 t1_jdow2h6 wrote

I know photos of Avon years ago there weren’t even homes. Looks beautiful


olde_dad t1_jdp98ub wrote

Also seems like healthcare and college education should be…


arch_llama t1_jdpcf5u wrote

>Can someone explain the justification for having "private" beaches? It seems like access to natural attractions should be free.

"Attractions" are subjective?


Snoo-79741 t1_jdpd42i wrote

Can't help thinking about Christy and the picture of his entire family on the beach he closed to residents who pay the taxes. Hey guys let's start voting for the right candidates PLEASE those that will change the world instead of OLD WHITE MEN and in Christy's and Trumps case OLD FAT WHITE OLD MEN


brunhilda78 t1_jdphte6 wrote

Wealthy people do not want to swim with the “general public” or working class/ poor. It is class discrimination.


dexecuter18 t1_jdptswz wrote

How expensive do you think a day pass is? I honestly can not see how the people thinking it beach access is unattainable are arguing in anything other than bad faith, my family still went to Sea Girt multiple times a week when we were on food stamps.


Javesther t1_jdpjj5r wrote

It’s ridiculous for the municipalities to charge you to get into the beach . Your paying tolls to get there, spending money in whatever town you’re in , paying for parking , etc. sadly it’s out of control. There needs to be some reform .


dexecuter18 t1_jdptvlx wrote

Millions do it without issue. What makes you special.


waukeecla t1_jdpu5sr wrote

are you going to go after the national park service next for charging admission to their parks?


SnooBooks4898 OP t1_jdq3uqp wrote

I’ve never been to a park, national, state or local where I had to pay any fee.


yltercesksumnolE t1_jdqukd8 wrote

If you go to the Grand Canyon, you pay $30 at a gate to get to see the canyon, same for Yellowstone, Glacier, Zion, Arches, Volcano, or crater lake. If you want to hike trails in Michigan and want to use a trailhead on State land, your gonna need a recreation pass on your car if you could get a ticket. California has similar laws as does Wisconsin. Fees go to keeping trash cans emptied and toilet paper stocked. Fun Fact, you can d $80 or and you can get a card that gets you in all year and if you’re a military veteran you get a free lifetime pass


imarainbo t1_jdq6fqy wrote

Yeah what’s the justification for having”private” land? It seems like access to natural land should be free.


Eastcoasthairstylist t1_jdqpr92 wrote

I agree private beach makes no sense… no one should own the beach


Dull-Internet-6722 t1_jdqro4j wrote

Anyone from NY or Pennsylvania should pay for beach fees & double on parking. NJ taxpayers should have free beach passes & no parking fees.


royalewithcheese51 t1_jdqsmxp wrote

What drives me nuts about this is that some beaches, like Cape May, literally wouldn't exist without taxpayer dollars paying for the Army Corp of Engineers to rebuild the beach as it erodes. So the beach is only there because I paid my taxes, and then those motherfuckers want to double dip and charge me for a beach badge? No thanks.

Compare this with Hawaii, where every beach is required to be legally open to the public and doesn't cost anything to access. Plus, the beaches are way better. It's Hawaii.


Douglaston_prop t1_jdqygxv wrote

I love that in Oregon, public access to all beaches is the is the law. I wish we had the same rights here.


JerseyGeneral t1_jdr1z7p wrote

Easy. Towns want to cash in on their geography and the massive tax bills for their very expensive shore side properties isn't enough.


Kevinm2278 t1_jdrewzl wrote

Lol have you seen some of the ghouls at the jersey shore?


clonechemist t1_jdsxk9r wrote

We recently moved to one of those towns and it is amazing, but we always feel a bit weird about the whole situation. Not that many lakes with public beaches to choose from - maybe Hopatcong?

But coming from Maine you were a bit spoiled for pristine freshwater swimming opportunities.

In contrast, I grew up in the Midwest, where every public freshwater beach was crowded and generally gross.


specialgravity t1_jdnmozj wrote

Devil’s advocate: There are plenty of accessible beaches in NJ for people of different income levels. The State beach is free under Murphy and the cost was marginal under Christie if I recall correctly. It’s nice for a non-beach taxpayer to not have to pay for maintaining free beaches that NYers and Pennsylvanians will vacation at. Also, California has free beaches but hey also have homeless encampments lining their boardwalks. You wouldn’t even bother going to the beach if we had that here. There’s a trade off.


SnooBooks4898 OP t1_jdny6yv wrote

I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that the fee is a deterrent or that there are an overwhelming number of non-NJers spending an appreciable amount of time at our beaches. Would be an interesting experiment to see what happens if the open all beaches for a season.


lost_in_life_34 t1_jdnuqlj wrote

there are a bunch of private beaches in NY because they are on private property


Manhattan Beach in Brookyln. Seagate Beach you have to buy into the summer beach club which pays for cleaning and whatever. Long Island has a bunch of summer beach clubs that have private beaches you pay for. and some towns like Long Beach control their beaches and charge outsiders to use them.


whoever owns the property can charge for use of it


SnooBooks4898 OP t1_jdnwilw wrote

I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone can PURCHASE part of ANY beach. I'm restricited from enjoying the ocean or lake because I can't get there without walking across the beach, for which I have to pay a price. Housing developments are easier to understand because it's more efficient for essential services such as water, electric, sewer, etc.


Boring_Ad5468 t1_jdokcex wrote

Exclusiveness…private beaches keep the “riff raff” out. I personally enjoy it.


DisregardDisComment t1_jdpbwiw wrote

Do you think Native Americans would find this post funny or sad?


Longtermthrowaway5 t1_jdng3ul wrote

It's land just like any other land that can be owned. And a lot of things can be attractive. A cool climbing tree can be a natural attraction. Does that mean we should be able to go on anyone's property to climb their tree, or see some flowers on it, or go fly kites on their grass patch?

If you want to argue for abolishing private property completely, fair enough, but beach front property works just the same as any other property.