Belmar's use of its higher parking fees violates beachgoers' civil rights, judge says

The judge said the parking fees can't be used for projects that are not related to the operation of the beach

BELMAR -- By doubling its parking fees at the oceanfront, Belmar violated the civil rights of beachgoers because it didn't pump all of that extra revenue into beach projects, a Superior Court judge has ruled.

In finding that Belmar's governing body directed a portion of the increased parking fees to projects unrelated to the operation of the beachfront, Judge Katie Gummer, in a series of rulings against the popular Shore resort, ordered the town on Friday to restore the money to the account that is used to fund beach operations.

"It's a very, very important case for the rights of beachgoers to be able to enjoy the beach on the exact same terms as the residents," said attorney Kenneth Pringle, a former borough mayor who has brought several suits against the town since leaving office.

Gummer's ruling was the latest in a series of decisions against the town as it continues to rebuild its beachfront after Hurricane Sandy with what Mayor Matthew Doherty has strived to be as little tax burden on residents as possible.

Doherty called the ruling "a bad decision" and said the borough plans to appeal.

"It would be an unprecedented ruling that would affect not only Belmar, but (also) every beach community as well," he said.

Doherty insists the beach utility's share of parking fees are not being used for non-beach related projects. He said the increase is being used to pay for infrastructure improvements, such as new curbing, along Ocean Avenue after Sandy.

Belmar doubles beachfront parking fees

Belmar splits the parking fees between its beach utility and the borough's general fund. Doherty said the parking fee increase is not a violation of beachgoers' civil rights because that splitting of parking fee revenue remains intact at the same percentage as before the increase.

"We just increased the amount from $1 to $2 but we never changed the percentage," he said.

He called the suits "political garbage," brought either by former mayoral election opponents or by their supporters. In the end, he said, the taxpayers will suffer because of the protracted litigation.

Pringle, who was mayor until 2010 after he decided not to seek reelection, contends Doherty is using the beach utility in "creative" ways to keep taxes stable as a cornerstone of his campaign for Monmouth County freeholder.

In his arguments to Gummer, Pringle used a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision that says the state's Civil Rights Act is not limited to cases of discrimination.

He contended - and Gummer agreed  -- that beachgoers were being treated unfairly by the borough's use of parking fees for things other than beachfront operations, beachgoers were being made to pay for municipal projects that wouldn't necessarily benefit them.

In bringing a suit under the state Civil Rights Act, Pringle, as the prevailing lawyer, has the right to ask for his opponents to pay his legal fees, which top $100,000. Gummer on Friday granted Pringle's request for legal fees, but Doherty said the borough will appeal that as well.

It was Belmar's practices in the 1980s that prompted the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1989 to declare that Shore towns could not use their beaches to raise money to offset their municipal taxes because, among other things, having an oceanfront gave them an advantage over towns that did not have one.

The case has its roots in a lawsuit brought by some residents after Sandy when the borough planned to pass a bond ordinance to partially fund the construction of two boardwalk pavilions destroyed in the storm. Besides claiming that the price tag was too hefty and the projects should be scaled back, those residents argued the town's plan to use the parking fees to help pay for the Fifth Avenue pavilion, which houses a community center, was flawed because that pavilion has nothing to do with the operation of the beach.

Residents also sued the town over its payment to Partner Engineering & Science Inc., the engineering firm that took over Belmar's previous engineering consultant, Birdsall Services Group, which was in bankruptcy. That suit also claimed the town used a portion of the beach fees to pay engineering bills not related to the operation of the beach.

A group of residents sued again, in 2015, after Belmar doubled its parking fees from $1 to $2 an hour at the oceanfront.

As part of the borough's plan to raise money for reconstruction of the boardwalk, it adopted a "Buy-a-Board" campaign, where members of the public could pay to get an inscription on a plank of the new boardwalk.

Rather than use that money for the reconstruction of the boardwalk, the town directed it to offset the cost of the community center pavilion, known as the Taylor Pavilion on Fifth Avenue.