Tuesday, December 9, 2008

A Tale of Two Towns: Red Bank v. Eatontown

It was the best of voluntarism (Red Bank), it was the worst of voluntarism (Eatontown) as Red Bank residents banned together and worked with their local government in order to "save" a piece of public property, a water front park. The borough council was looking to sell the waterfront lot to raise some money for the 08 budget and a few local residents (who don't stink) started doing the leg work and providing donations in time, money and materials to save the park. This is a great story and I believe it shows that there is hope for a better New Jersey.

However, and I've commented on this story before, the local residents over in Eatontown stink. Finally, Eatontown planners denied WaWa's bid to build a gas station in Eatontown at the site of the old roller rink. (The comments Rock on this one!)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am a firm believer in protecting private property rights, I really do believe that I am, others might disagree with my self-assessment. Because I'm such a big believer in private property rights, I'll ask again, *WHY* do these people of Clinton Ave *THINK* that they should have a say in what some other private property owner builds on their own property? *WHY* does the Eatontown planning board (or any zoning/planning board) *THINK* they can tell a private property owner what they can or can't build on property that they own.  I get it, no one really *WANTS* to have a garbage dump built next to their home, but I have a great solution that both protects private property rights, increases open space, prevents urban sprawl and even gets government out of our lives, it's called... if you don't want WaWa built next to your house, YOU BUY THE LAND.

Here is how it works.... just like the residents up in Red Bank got together and saved a lot on their own, their money, their time, their donations - the residents of Clinton Ave, who don't want the WaWa all dip into their piggy banks and THEY BUY THE DAMN LOT. Don't want something built on it, good you own it, your call, just pay the taxes on it and I could care less.

These local residents are just as guilty for NJ being the WORST state to run a business as the politicians who overtax and over regulate business. WaWa is looking to not only spend the money to demolish an eye-sore, but they are willing to spend the money to develop the property and then spend the money to operate a store, paying taxes and creating a few (likely min. wage) jobs along the way. A company WANTS to invest in NJ, and the local residents get in the way, sad.

Art is so right, we live in such a Nanny State. It is mind boggling to me that the people of Clinton Ave would rather have what is left of that dump of a staking rink in their front yard rather than a convenience store. Again, I LIVE WITHIN 500ft OF *TWO* gas stations *AND* a 7-11. There are many children who live on the same street I live on and (knock on wood) in my years of living here, there is no blood on any one's hands as local resident Jim Maziarz wants us to believe their should be... he even used the line "for the children".

Trouble. Deep. My pictures from the previous story are below, and don't be confused 4 months later, the local residents over on Clinton Ave haven't voluntarily removed the graffiti from the building, in fact, I'll get over there later, I'm pretty sure that there is MORE, NEW graffiti on the building instead. 


Son of Liberty said...

James you are right to a point. there has always been a right to put reasonable restrictions on how property is used. Someone should not be allowed to build a tannery in a residential zone.

However if you live next to a retail or industrial zone what the hell do you expect. The people objecting to that WAWA are moronic nimbys there is no reason that store should not be allowed on that proerty. The politicians once again caved to a vocal minority.

Chris said...

"if you don't want WaWa built next to your house, YOU BUY THE LAND"

You forget that the people against WaWa are liberals, and they don't usually buy land, they want the Government to buy it for them.

And it's not necessarily the nimby attitude, it's just that they're opposed to any kind of new development. It's ironic they call themselves progressives and call us conservatives when it's them who don't want anything new, they'd just want to revert everything to open space.