Tide Shifts on Red Bank Bulkhead Debate

By Elaine Van Develde

What's another 30 days?

After years of grappling with the environmentally sensitive issue of whether or not to move forward with a near $500,000 deed-restricted obligation to replace the dilapidated Red Bank Public Library bulkhead on the banks of the Navesink River or create a living shoreline, the governing body decided at its Wednesday night meeting that tabling it for another 30 days won't hurt and could help.

Talk on the long-debated subject started premature of the public hearing on the agenda item to bond for nearly $600,000 in bulkhead replacement cost to the site and another at the end of Prospect Avenue.

The library bulkhead would cost an estimated $480,000 of the $600,000. The bond, Mayor Pat Menna said, was something that had essentially already been decided on. The hearing was just a formality, until the talking trumped that and gave way to the decision not to make a decision.

Councilwoman Kathleen Horgan, who sits on the borough's Environmental Committee, first brought it up in her update to the governing body.

Saying she was all too cognizant of the fact that the library property's deed restriction calls specifically for bulkhead maintenance to keep the library in borough ownership, Horgan echoed the sentiment of environmentalists that she feels it's much more cost-effective and environmentally friendly to go the living shoreline route with the project. At one point, the American Littoral Society offered to create the shoreline and research and access funding for it.

Hurricane Sandy damage was a caveat to consider as well, she said. "During Sandy any living shoreline had very little damage and repaired itself very quickly," Horgan said in the stead of the environmental group.

The cost, she added, would be "significantly less," but the prospect of lawsuits and potential loss of the library property that came with it could be too much of a sacrifice for the borough and residents.

She referred to the legal opinion of Borough Attorney Daniel O'Hern, who said that the library deed's restrictions, put in place by the Eisner family owners, specifically called for the borough to "keep the bulkhead in good repair."

To remove it, he said, would violate the provisions of the deed. And a living shoreline may, he added, invite use as a public park or other venue, which could violate restricted use of the property in the contract between the Eiesners and the borough.

"No part of the premises will be used as a public park or public meeting place … the library shall be used for library purposes," he read from the deed.

Therefore, in his legal opinion, he said, "the library is a valuable asset for the borough. If the deed is violated the property can be sold," so the bulkhead should be built, notwithstanding his or anyone else's personal environmental beliefs.

But, creating a living shoreline does not necessarily equate to use as a public park or other such venue, said new Environmental Committee appointee Frank Corrado. "It's reeds — nothing inviting," he said.

Then there's the timeless environmental benefit element for all of Red Bank to consider, said borough resident and Star Ledger reporter Brian Donohue.

Saying that after countless municipal meetings and covering all sorts of issues, including Hurricane Sandy and the environment, and understanding fully the difficulties and annoyances with which municipal officials must contend, he never wanted to be a resident adding to the angst with NIMBY (not in my back yard) concerns.

The bulkhead issue, however, he said, is one that defies his own standard and is worthy of a plea for council to take a "rare opportunity to do something."

While the job of a municipal officials is often a "thankless" one that doesn't last a lifetime, Donohue said, such a decision's impact will span several lifetimes. As a father, he asked that council think about what the river means to a kid growing up in Red Bank right now. To children, he projected, "it's a garbage dump."

Taking a chance on trashing the riverfront without considering a living shoreline, because of uncertain lawsuit threats, is too high of a price to pay for a cost projection that's not concrete.

Some council members disagreed, saying that protecting residents from the potential tax burden of lingering lawsuits that always seem to crop up with such an issue is their primary obligation.

Michael Vitiello, attorney for Corinthian Cove condos, has been retained to protect the interests of his upscale condo clients whose property abuts the library's. He said after monitoring the site for some time, setting aside the deed issue, "there are obligations to adjacent land owners."

And officials have an obligation to all land owners and residents, Councilman Ed Zipprich said. Regardless of legal threats, the environment and what he sees as overwhelming support for a living shoreline just speaks to those residents more, he said, announcing that should a vote occur, he would be voting "no" to the bulkhead bond.

All the legal talk and deed obligation opinion aside, yet no one had actually yet spoken with those in charge of the Eisner trust, which is Harvard University, Councilman Michael DuPont said. And, considering the enormous weight of the future carried by such a decision, he agreed with Donohue that "we're (council) only here for a short time and I think we have to do what's best for this town."

He followed that up with the suggestion to table the ordinance until officials first contacted Harvard and found out exactly what they would and would not be amenable to. Worst case scenario, he questioned, if the deed was violated, the library property sold and that money reverted to the Harvard endowment, would the money even be of enough consequence to the university to fight over? Probably not, he said, considering the tens of millions already in that endowment pot.

And, Mayor Menna reminded, the vote on the bond ordinance would need a super-majority, or four out of six votes, to pass. That didn't look likely at that point.

So, after years, it'll wait for another 30 days, or more, while, Menna joked, he'd have to research the proper bottle of Moet et Chandon to bring to a meeting with the Harvard officials.