Gov. Murphy Must CV Public Access Bill

A bill to ensure public access to beaches and waterfront areas will instead allow towns and developers to continue denying access after amendments weakened it. The New Jersey Sierra Club recently sent a letter to Gov. Murphy asking that he conditionally veto bill S1074 (Smith)/A4221 (Pinkin). The original bill had widespread support from businesses, beach advocates and environmental groups, including the New Jersey Sierra Club, before the last-minute amendments gutted it. The CV should restore the original language to properly ensure public access.

“This legislation was supposed to give the public access to beaches and waterfronts that belong to all of us but instead keeps the status quo. The bill undercuts the public trust and does not meet the governor’s objectives to ensure public access. The governor needs to CV the bill and require the original language be restored. This bill was a consensus bill to improve public access to waterfront and beaches. DEP put in amendments that significantly weakened the bill, making it harder for people in places like Bayonne to get waterfront access. The new bill now makes it easier for towns and developers to block public access,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

New amendments to the bill state that “[The] Pursuant to the public trust doctrine, the¹ State of New Jersey ¹[has a duty to] ²[shall¹] has a duty to² promote, protect, and safeguard the public’s rights and ¹[to]¹ ensure reasonable and meaningful public access to tidal waters and adjacent shorelines.” Changing “shall” to “has a duty to” provides flexibility in granting access that does not belong in the bill.

 “The new language in the bill changing from ‘shall’ to ‘has a duty to’ can be subject to challenge and can end up in courts. Who is going to interpret these language changes? Deal, Avalon, or the developers? That is why it is so important that the new amendments changed the language from a shall. Whether it’s some of the wealthy homeowners in Edgewater who we have been battling for years for public access on the Hudson or down in Long Beach Township, if the law becomes a may, they are not going to do it,” said Tittel.

Other amendments of the bill changed the state’s requirement to provide access to tidal areas and shorelines from when “possible” to “practicable.” That weakens the language, opening the door to continued denials of access.

 “We are concerned with the language change from possible to practicable when it comes to protecting access rights. The setback is adding the word practicable, which means reasonable or current practice. Ultimately, nothing will change and will not allow for better access that towns currently have. This means towns like Deal or Avalon who want our money but don’t want us on their beach will keep playing their games to keep us out,” said Tittel. “The bill also states the DEP may produce rules on public access. Instead it should say that DEP shall produce rules.”

Murphy’s conditional veto should require the legislature restore the language of the original bill. That would ensure public access to beaches and waterfronts. The language changes in the current amended version would be a step backward in providing proper access.

 “Governor Murphy must conditionally veto this bill so that the legislature can amend the bill to make sure that the language is not up to interpretation or optional. Too many times people give restricted access to these areas that we all own. We need to codify the Public Trust Doctrine to help ensure access. As taxpayers we are paying hundreds of millions of dollars for restoring our beaches, it is even more important for the public to have access to them,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.