Shoreline Dreams for Library Bulkhead Squashed

Any hopes from environmentalists that the borough would were all but dashed Tuesday night as officials said a clause in a more than 70-year-old deed prohibits eliminating the bulkhead under the threat of losing the property. 

Borough Administrator Stanley Sickles said Red Bank plans on replacing the existing bulkhead with another one and though he did not dismiss the idea of compromise entirely, likely leaving that distinction for council should it be required, it's clear that the borough is not considering a shoreline. The reason, Sickles, aided by the interpretation of borough solicitor Dan O'Hern, said, is that doing so could violate the deed written by the Eisner family when the property was given to Red Bank.

If Red Bank is found to be in violation of the terms of the deed, ownership would be transferred to the Harvard Endowment. 

Environmentalists, with input from the American Littoral Society and Stevens Institute of Technology, approached the borough with the idea of replacing the bulkhead with a living shoreline, more than a year ago. A living shoreline, they argued, would not only return the shoreline to its original state, but protect the habitat, limit runoff and increase public access to the shore and the Navesink River.

Concerns have hinged on two issues, the first being the potential for erosion of the , which shoreline experts have dismissed, and the second being with the deed, a sticking point since the idea first came up more than a year ago. Councilwoman Kathy Horgan, liaison to the the Environmental Commission, said there were attempts to reach the Eisner family about converting the bulkhead into a shoreline. It appears, however, that the deed provides the final word.

"The deed is fairly clear that the borough has the duty to maintain the bulkhead," O'Hern said. "In effect, (the Eisners) are controlling the decision from their grave.

"Generally speaking, words in contracts have to be taken for what they say. Typically, contracts will be enforced as written. My opinion is that there would be some risk to the borough if they tried to put in a living shoreline."

Considering the relative disassociation of the surviving Eisners from the property and Red Bank, if the borough lost the property it might easily be sold with proceeds benefiting the Harvard Endowment. The threat wouldn't come from Harvard, O'Hern said, but from anyone who wanted to challenge the deed. People with personal or financial motivations could challenge the conversion of the bulkhead into a shoreline, O'Hern said, and if a judge agrees, Red Bank could lose the property.

When asked how much a possibility there was for such a thing, O'Hern said he couldn't know, only that his responsibility is to protect Red Bank's interests by offering his professional interpretation of the deed and the impact should its conditions be violated.

Members of the Red Bank Public Library Board of Trustees also objected to the natural shoreline, but on different grounds. A representative from the library said she was worried public access might encourage, well, the public to use the public property more often.

Members of the board objected to the dismissal of a natural shoreline on such a pedantic interpretation of the deed.

"There was no idea of a living shoreline when that deed was written," Commission Vice Chair Andres Simonson said. "The property was left to the people of Red Bank, not the family of the Eisners."

Still, O'Hern said he believes the risk of a challenge exists.

"We're saying there are interpretation issues," Simonsen continued, to which Sickles responded: "We're not."