The council’s proposed ordinance aims to prioritize beach locker rentals for full-time residents, which has sparked significant opposition from non-resident locker holders and some residents alike. One speaker noted that the ordinance could violate the public trust doctrine, which ensures public access to beach amenities. This individual emphasized that by placing lockers on public land, the borough should not discriminate based on residency, as all New Jersey citizens have historical rights to enjoy these lands. They cited legal precedents like Neptune v. Avon.

Residents and non-residents raised concerns about the ordinance’s financial implications, noting that beachfront revenues, including those from lockers, should be used for related expenditures, not general township expenses. The potential for misappropriation of funds was highlighted, drawing parallels to past issues in nearby Belmar. Some argued that the ordinance could lead to disenfranchising non-residents who contribute to the local economy, warning that similar changes have led to negative outcomes in other towns.

One participant shared their frustration over the timeline for the ordinance, emphasizing the need for transparency and urging the council to reconsider or delay its adoption. This individual proposed that a more inclusive approach could involve charging higher fees for non-residents or expanding locker availability to those on the waiting list, which could increase municipal revenue without raising taxes.

In response, a council member addressed concerns about misappropriation, defending the proposed changes as legally sound and emphasizing consultations with legal counsel and the Chief Financial Officer. They clarified that the beach locker rental status cannot be passed down to the next generation and that transparency exists through the Community Pass website for checking waiting list positions.

As the meeting continued, several residents expressed the emotional and practical value of beach lockers, sharing personal anecdotes about long-standing connections to Bradley Beach. One resident mentioned the positive impact of lockers on their family’s beach experience, advocating for a grandfather clause to allow existing non-resident locker renters to continue leasing while ensuring no new lockers for non-residents.

The discussion also touched on the logistical challenges of locker storage and the borough’s limited space. Some residents and council members recognized the need to explore viable storage solutions before implementing any changes. Suggestions included utilizing other local spaces, like public works yards, to accommodate locker storage needs.

Beyond beach lockers, the meeting saw debates over changes to parking regulations, particularly regarding designated spaces for handicapped individuals and residency requirements. Concerns were raised about potential discrimination against non-primary residents and the administrative complexities of enforcing new regulations. Some residents proposed a two-tiered system for parking fees based on residency, while others suggested specific caregiver placards that could accommodate multiple caregivers.

Throughout the discussions, there was a clear call for the council to prioritize the needs of all residents, considering the diverse contributions of non-residents to the community.