Jump to content

Asharoken Residents Say They Won't Give Up Beach Property

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

post-26855-0-09360700-1428586929.jpg

 

Some Asharoken residents are rejecting the latest proposal that could funnel millions of federal dollars to restore the village's eroding beaches in exchange for opening private property to the public.

"I'm not turning over my land or my property rights," Steven Mirabile told Mayor Greg Letica at a village meeting Tuesday night. "And I don't think you, as my representative, should be working to give away my property."

 

Letica explained that nothing is final as officials work with the Army Corps of Engineers on a plan to restore dunes vulnerable to another storm like 2012's Sandy.

Asharoken's private beaches would have to become public to receive as much as $35 million wherever tax dollars are used to lay down sand.

Corps officials responded to Asharoken's November proposal in a March 13 memo, saying they would tentatively support it if a series of questions and changes were addressed. Corps officials want to have five public access points.

 

"Have we given up?" asked resident Martin Cohen, noting arguments that the project merited federal money because it would protect Asharoken Avenue -- the main road on the North Shore isthmus and the only emergency access for Eatons Neck.

 

"We haven't given up," Letica said. "If enough residents don't want to do it, it's not going to get done. It's not me or the board going that are going to force this down anyone's throat."

Other residents suggested pursuing a Hazard Mitigation Grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is on track to provide $58.2 million for flood protection of Breezy Point in Queens, while allowing residents to preserve their private property.

But Letica said the village is committed to the beach stabilization arrangement it has had with the corps since 2001.

The mayor said some residents think the corps deal is critical to protecting Asharoken in another superstorm.

 

"We can at least get to some end point, where we can look at it in a rational fashion, so when the Army Corps comes back to us and says 'here's the plan, here's the consequences,' you guys have to decide what you want to do," Letica said.

 

In an interview Wednesday, Letica said, "Ultimately, it's going to be up to the residents to sign easements to allow the projects to go forward. And if enough residents don't sign them, it's not going to go forward."

 

Former LIBBA #1818

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting topic & I can understand both sides of the discussion.  Feds are willing to help but only if access to beaches is provided to the public which seems fair given the fact that public funds will be used for the project. Homeowners are reluctant to grant easements through their properties fearing loss of control, privacy, etc.  I'd imagine we're going to see more of this type of thing in the wake of Sandy & I'm curious to see how this one turns out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those property owners should just do what the residents of Old Field and Westhampton Dunes have done. In the case of Westhampton Dunes, settle for billions of taxpayer dollars for continuous beach replenishment put some walkways in for public access, but don't allow any parking in the area. Works for them!!!

 

Old Field actually gets to me more. Here you get millions of bluff stabilization money a gigantic revetment project that goes around the entire point. They allow you to park at the lighthouse, but don't allow any access to the beach below.

The reason it gets to me is not the residents, but the low life's that call themselves fishermen. Publicly urinating, building fires, leaving trash, diapers and acting like cretins. Same old story of a few bad apples closing it to everyone.

Pete

"Ban Pre-shredded Cheese, Make America Grate Again"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a beachfront owner's point of view, the few bad apples that steal beach chairs, urinate in dunes as if the homeowner cant see them, drink eat (then litter) and burn anything they can fined on the beach (including burning peoples houses as one dude did in bridgehampton) make no money worth giving up private access.

 

TBD

TBD

CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a beachfront owner's point of view, the few bad apples that steal beach chairs, urinate in dunes as if the homeowner cant see them, drink eat (then litter) and burn anything they can fined on the beach (including burning peoples houses as one dude did in bridgehampton) make no money worth giving up private access.

 

TBD

Dude,

You don't have to own beach front property to have disdain for that type of behavior. BTW: do you really have private access at that end of Dune Road?

"Ban Pre-shredded Cheese, Make America Grate Again"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a beachfront owner's point of view, the few bad apples that steal beach chairs, urinate in dunes as if the homeowner cant see them, drink eat (then litter) and burn anything they can fined on the beach (including burning peoples houses as one dude did in bridgehampton) make no money worth giving up private access.

 

TBD

TBD we have been having this debate about the rights of the public and the rights of private homeowners at public beaches,FOREVER!

 

I had told you as far back as in 2011 that the common folk were fed up with the the "Lords of the manor" like attitude that many,not all,of the mega-beach front homeowners have.

Maybe you noticed that in recent years all of the major media outlets from Newsday,NY TIMES, the POST and even strongly read local newspapers,like the E.H Star are all advocating to

not spend the publics dollars on rebuilding eroded beaches solely for the benefit of beach front property owners. Instead,believe it or not---- the public and the government are now advocating that beach front properties should be moved far away from the raging surf.  It is the futility of spending public and government funds to reclaim the beach solely for homeowners,when common sense tells us that allowing a beach front property to exist often impedes public access and drains public funds.

It is that stick in the eye attitude when some of the LORDS feel that the public should not be allowed to build campfires or occasionally drive in front of "their  beaches" or maybe once in a while fish or walk a dog,or perhaps gleefully laugh and make a little noise, in front of their palaces- that  galvanizes the public.

 

Specifically to your point--- if you build a home on public beach,you should expect that a percentage of the public will inevitably misbehave.

But the vast majority of us are gentlemen and treat the  beach with respect.

 

It's also a shame that the few bad apples who own public beach front homes and then try to privatize the public sand in front of them,got away with this for so long.

Happy to report that the tide is changing dramatically in that regard.  Isn't it uplifting to know that East Hampton has hired a law firm to go after those A-holes in Napeague to

condemn the sand for the good of the public?   I believe that they'll win there ,too!

 

And from what I am hearing this mind set will be heading towards a beach near you,too.

If you build a mansion near a public golf course, expect to hear and see the public.

If you build a home next  to a school,expect to see and hear the public.

If you build a home on a public beach--- you guessed it--  you'll be interacting with some nice citizens and a relatively few idiots.

Some people ,probably most when they have to pee on the beach unfortunately will do so without any qualms.

And they'll build a fire, talk loudly and do what most people do -- basically have fun on the beach.

When you bought your home didn't you consider this?

Edited by JettyGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the topic--- if the  homeowners in ASHAROKEN  need public funds to repair and maintain their beaches-- then let them allow the public on the beaches.

What makes them so darn special that they feel obliged to ask for our tax dollars,but not obligated to let us enjoy a pristine  beach view or soak up some rays?

Short of that, let them fend for themselves.  They want federal funds,let them meet the  tax paying public halfway and allow people to enjoy the water views.

Make it a day time beach -- compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the beach front area they are discussing is NOT in front of their homes.. The beaches in Ashroken are on the main road heading in, there are NO homes in the area.  The residents have sole access to those beaches, they purchased parking spots along that road and are the only ones who are allowed to use the beaches.  If they want public funds to help restore the beaches and protect the area from further storm damage, open a public parking lot in the area and allow the public to use those beaches.  I can see if you own a house on the beach and dont want joe schmo hanging out on your property and whatever, but these beaches/houses in Ashroken are not for the most part beach front homes.. most of them are along that causeway heading into Eatons Neck..

 

BC  

"The kids they dance and shake thier bones and the politicians throwing stones. singing ashes, ashes all fall down"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the beach front area they are discussing is NOT in front of their homes.. The beaches in Ashroken are on the main road heading in, there are NO homes in the area.  The residents have sole access to those beaches, they purchased parking spots along that road and are the only ones who are allowed to use the beaches.  If they want public funds to help restore the beaches and protect the area from further storm damage, open a public parking lot in the area and allow the public to use those beaches.  I can see if you own a house on the beach and dont want joe schmo hanging out on your property and whatever, but these beaches/houses in Ashroken are not for the most part beach front homes.. most of them are along that causeway heading into Eatons Neck..

 

BC  

The picture posted in this thread  appears to show homes right on the beach.  Are those homes shown not  part of the actual area in dispute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude,

BTW: do you really have private access at that end of Dune Road?

 

Read my post carefully. I am not claiming that any part of Dune Road is private or not. Only pointing out that due to the behavior I have seen from the few bad apples (most people are respectful) I , if I were the Ashroken folks, would hold onto private rights for whatever it takes.

TBD

CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture posted in this thread  appears to show homes right on the beach.  Are those homes shown not  part of the actual area in dispute?

 

Jay, I believe the photo was more about the sign, than the actual location. If I remember correctly, BC is right. It's a stretch of road with no houses actually on the water.. I'll look for a GE image..

Edited by Leatherface

Former LIBBA #1818

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Leather and BC,I was curious about that.  Very often in my neck of the woods, homeowners have houses that are just across the street from the beach and they still make trouble for people who want to park near or even on the beach.  I just got involved in a dispute like that .  I think we will win that too.

What's nice about this caper is that we'll be putting in  five-seven public parking spaces to accommodate what will be designated as a preserve.

The local homeowners(those with homes located  near the  beach in question),of course are fighting this,but we have a better than 50/50 chance of winning. 

 

Sadly,the local municipalities prefer to sometimes take the path of least resistance when it comes to access.

They operate on the,"if no one complains,it's ok to give up a little access at a time theory."

Or they go with the "if we can somehow come up with federal or state funding, without having to dig into our local funds, "why not?" theory!

 

I wonder if that is a residence  across the street in your latest image?

The question is.... how did the sand that is adjacent to the publicly traveled road ever become basically privatized in the first place?

If I am missing the point,I apologize.  But I wonder if at one time people could fish or launch a small boat or kayak there,or maybe even take a stroll?

Was the beach sand along the road ever publicly used by others, BESIDES  the people who have  homes in the village located across the street from the beach?

Are the people who bought the parking spaces along the beach local homeowners living close to the beach? Can anyone in the village buy a  parking space?

Can  tourists secure sparking space?

 

The problem about access stuff is that typically the local people are privy to the inside info. and like me,the rest of us are guessing about what caused what

situation.

Edited by JettyGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those property owners should just do what the residents of Old Field and Westhampton Dunes have done. In the case of Westhampton Dunes, settle for billions of taxpayer dollars for continuous beach replenishment put some walkways in for public access, but don't allow any parking in the area. Works for them!!!

 

Old Field actually gets to me more. Here you get millions of bluff stabilization money a gigantic revetment project that goes around the entire point. They allow you to park at the lighthouse, but don't allow any access to the beach below.

The reason it gets to me is not the residents, but the low life's that call themselves fishermen. Publicly urinating, building fires, leaving trash, diapers and acting like cretins. Same old story of a few bad apples closing it to everyone.

Pete

Youre 100% correct!!!!! Me and my wife regularly fished Oldfield. Over the years saw it progressively

going to he!! in a hand basket.

We went to all the meetings to try and retain access. You know what final out come was, but had a resident tell me "its not you guys in the rubber boots that are the problem" exact words.

But like many other spots its easier and cheaper just to prohibit access rather than police the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...