beachaccess

New Jersey
Remember some of this from a few years ago? When the Governor resigned? Which Governor, you may ask...New Jersey's!

New York
Orchard Beach, in the Bronx, above. NOTE: 40 years ago it wasn't nice, either. Read about the latest Greenwich beach issue here;

Connecticut
Compo Beach at left, summer of 2007, and Greenwich Point Park, my favorite in CT. for painting; new ferry to Great Captain's opens new opportunities? Greenwich gets solar panels - maybe at Greenwich Point? Elsewhere...and I thought CT was confusing!!!

Beaches along the L.I. Sound .
Across the pond beaches are for recreation, amusement and now beaches threatened by...algae? Story of algae-related, perhaps, deaths here.

Piers in the U.S.A. are for fishing, and perhaps...enjoyment of nature and man's puny impact on it? How about hot beach law controversy (a good bet to reach the U.S. Supreme Court) on Whidbey Island?

SUMMERTIME, AND THE LIVING IS EASY...in shoreline Connecticut: N.J. has beach access issues; U.K. beach story. And environmental degradation of beaches across the pond...BLUE-GREEN ALGAE news...U.S.A.

Beach report 2010: more access push in the upcoming Legislative Session?
Beach report 2009: access to the waterfront on Long Island Sound here.
Beach report 2008: here. How about access to the Sound generally - protection of public access important!
Run-off and water quality issues;
Orchard Beach, Bronx, N.Y.
Fake passes story;
New Jersey version here;
On the subject of opening up parks to out-of-towners...how about voting rights?
The Greenwich case fostered new policies for all shoreline towns - an example here.
Whidbey Island, State of Washington's County Commissioner supports reclaiming beach rights for the general public;
Parking fees...
Link to on-line report on the place known as Greenwich Point Park;
More of this issue here...another page on this website.

DEP closes Silver Sands and Sherwood Island beaches
CT POST
Staff Reports
Published: 07:51 a.m., Thursday, August 26, 2010

BRIDGEPORT ---- The State Dept. of Environmental Protection has closed three shoreline beaches because of high bacteria counts, including Sherwood Island in Westport and Silver Sands in Milford.

Also closed along the coastline was Rocky Neck State Park in Niantic, leaving Hammonasset State Park in Madison as the only open shoreline state park.

Four inland swimming were also closed Wednesday by the DEP. They are Black Rock State Park in Watertown, Kettletown State Park in Southbury, Wadsworth Falls State Park in Middlefield and Wharton Brook State Park in Wallingford.

The closed swimming areas will be retested every 24 hours, the DEP says. To check the status of these parks, call 866-287-2757 and select Option 5.

It's not just the Gold Coast that's exclusive on L.I. Sound
Matthew L. Brown, Special to the Connecticut Mirror
August 24, 2010

When it comes to fishing, boating and other sporting activities, getting access to Long Island Sound is anything but a day at the beach.

While sunbathers can flock to large state parks, those who seek less crowded spots for recreational use say a limited number of access points and restricted or expensive parking make getting to the water difficult.

Access has been so bad for so long that when Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced in June that $4 million in grants intended for cities and towns to use for the broad purposes of "habitat restoration and coastal projects" would be available this fiscal year, longtime shoreline access advocates shrugged.

As far as they're concerned, any state money that isn't specifically allocated to access improvement efforts will simply not be put to such use.

And in fact, none of the 22 applications received by the state Department of Environmental Protection last month focuses specifically on improving access. Dennis Schain, a DEP spokesman, said the department believes the projects being considered, "if anything, are likely to create improvements in access."

That's the approach to access that infuriates people like Tom Boyd, president of the Connecticut Outdoor Recreation Coalition. To him, it's a classic example of the state's approach to Long Island Sound: long on rhetoric and short on specifics.

"I have lobbied for years for more access to the shoreline. I don't know of any other state that provides less access to their shoreline," Boyd said.

Part of the problem is that the development of Connecticut's shoreline began 300 years ago. David Kozak, in the DEP's Office of Long Island Sound Programs, noted, "We're between New York and Boston, two very densely populated areas, and we have extremely high land values, which makes it difficult to acquire new property for access."

For a number of reasons, projects that seek to improve access to the shore just don't get any traction in Hartford, Boyd said.

He suggested that the legislature give DEP the responsibility it deserves by allocating revenue from the sale of fishing licenses to the department's fisheries division rather than the state's general fund.

Tim Coleman, former managing editor of the Fisherman magazine's New England edition, argues that wealthy property owners are one of the main reasons access is so poor. The number of access points along the coast isn't the main problem, Coleman said. The problem is access to the access points.

"Go to Greenwich or Westport and try to go surf fishing," Coleman said. "The area between high water and low water is public property, but try getting there."

"That's the kind of thing people face here," Coleman said. While fishermen routinely sneak through private property to get to the water, public funding goes to projects designed to protect private property values.

According to DEP, when land fronting on the estuaries that drain into the sound and tidal wetlands is included, the entire coastal frontage of the sound measures 583 miles. Of that, 84.5 miles is sandy beach. The rest is bedrock, marsh, glacial drift or artificial fill.

Since 1980, the state's Coastal Management Program has added about 12 miles of public access to Long Island Sound.

In 2006, the U.S. Congress ratified the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, which allocated $25 million per year to the Long Island region for environmental protection and improvements to public access. In its justification for the act, Congress noted that Long Island Sound contributes more than $5 billion to the regional economy annually, but that only 20 percent of the sound's total shoreline is accessible to the public.

Overprotection of the sound is understandable. Connecticut's shoreline can be crowded and traffic-choked. It is estimated that 8 million people live within the Long Island Sound watershed and 28 million people live within 50 miles of the sound.

That's a lot of environmental pressure, and it's only within the last two generations that efforts to protect the sound have come to fruition.

In the last 30 years, 1,500 acres of Connecticut tidal wetlands have been restored, according to DEP.

The challenge is balancing protection with the public's right to its coastline, said Mark Tedesco, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Long Island Sound office director. Tedesco is part of the Long Island Sound Study, a partnership between the EPA and the states of Connecticut and New York aimed at restoring and protecting the sound's ecosystem.

"There's both compatibility and tension," Tedesco said. "If the public can't access Long Island Sound, the broader public is not going to be as engaged in efforts to preserve it. Generally, anecdotally, New York and Connecticut public access is fairly limited."

But the tide, as it were, may be turning.

The state doesn't necessarily promote increased coastal access. DEP typically works with coastal towns and non-government land conservation organizations to improve access to the sound. It also publishes the Connecticut Coastal Access Guide, Kozak noted.

But lately, Connecticut public coastal land acquisitions have received federal funding intended to assist coastal states acquire land for protection, as well as compatible public use, Kozak said.

What's ugly, smells, kills dogs? Blue-green algae
YAHOO
By ROBERT IMRIE, Associated Press Writer
September 27, 2009

WAUSAU, Wis. – Waterways across the upper Midwest are increasingly plagued with ugly, smelly and potentially deadly blue-green algae, bloomed by drought and fertilizer runoffs from farm fields, that's killed dozens of dogs and sickened many people. Aquatic biologists say it's a problem that falls somewhere between a human health concern and a nuisance, but will eventually lead to more human poisoning. State officials are telling people who live on algae-covered lakes to close their windows, stop taking walks along the picturesque shorelines and keep their dogs from drinking the rank water.

Peggy McAloon, 62, lives on Wisconsin's Tainter Lake and calls the algae blooms the "cockroach on the water."

"It is like living in the sewer for three weeks. You gag. You cannot go outside," she said. "We have pictures of squirrels that are dead underneath the scum and fish that are dead. ... It has gotten out of control because of the nutrient loads we as humans are adding to the waters."

Blue-green algae are common in waters but not every lake develops serious problems until plentiful "man-induced" nutrients like phosphorous arrive, said Jim Vennie, a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources expert. The toxins released by the algae can be deadly. Symptoms include rash, hives, runny nose, irritated eyes and throat irritation. No people have died in the U.S. from the algae's toxins, according to Wayne Carmichael, a retired aquatic biologist and toxicology professor in Oregon.

Many, however, have gotten sick: "Sooner or later, we are going to have more acute human poisoning," Carmichael said.

The scum has killed dozens of dogs over the years — including at least four in Oregon, three in Wisconsin and one in Minnesota this summer. Wisconsin wildlife experts are warning duck hunters with dogs to be extra cautious this fall. "If the water is pea-soup green, be sure to have clean water along to wash the dog off," Vennie said. "Don't let it drink the water."

Fewer than 100 lakes in Wisconsin typically have some problems with algae bloom each summer and the ones in western Wisconsin causing so much discomfort this year are being fueled by a perfect storm, Vennie said. The last month has seen little rain, warm, sunshiny days and little wind. The blooms just sit there, growing, then decaying and smelling.

"Some people say they have gotten nauseous and vomited from smelling it," said Ken Schreiber, a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources water quality specialist.

Officials have banned recreational activities at some lakes in Washington state because of blooms. And in Oregon, the blue-green algae is the number one water quality issue, Carmichael said. Yet other countries have worse problems, Carmichael said, because many have waters with even more nutrients than exist in U.S. lakes.

In France, a horse died on a beach in July after falling into some decaying algae sludge. Last year, the Chinese government brought in the army to remove the slimy growths so the Olympic sailing competition could be held.

Stephanie Marquis, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, said her agency had received 41 complaints related to health concerns with blue-green algae so far this season. Rashes, sore throats and eye irritation among the problems, she said. In Minnesota, Matt Lindon is a pollution control specialist for the state and he called 2009 a typical year for complaints about algae scums. But for some reason this summer, Bagley Lake in northwest Minnesota, an "historically clean lake," generated respiratory and odor problems, he said. "It may be related to the water level or some new runoff source," he said.

Loren Hake, 71, has lived about two blocks from a Lake Menomin in western Wisconsin since 1963.

He feels like a prisoner in his own home, isolated by a stench "something like a pig pen" that forces he and his wife to run the air conditioner although it's not that hot because they can't leave the windows open, he said. For the first time, the couple hasn't set on an outside deck because of the smell from the algae-covered bay.

"I don't know what they can do about it," Hake said.

There's little anybody can do besides wait for cooler temperatures, Vennie said.

John Plaza, president of the Chetek Lakes Protection Association, which represents six lakes in northwest Wisconsin, said farm runoff, lawn fertilizers, septic systems and even ashes from leaves being burned on the shorelines are among factors contributing to the algae problems.

"I have been a user of these lakes since 1962," he said. "I have never experienced anything like this before. It's nasty. People are saying we can't live with this any more."

A man takes a picture on Saint-Michel-en-Greve beach

A horse died on Saint-Michel-en-Greve beach late last month

Seaweed suspected in French death
Page last updated at 16:04 GMT, Monday, 7 September 2009 17:04 UK

French investigators are examining whether a lorry driver has become the first victim of a toxic seaweed that is clogging parts of the Brittany coast. The driver died in July after carrying three truckloads of sea lettuce away from the beaches where it has been decaying, releasing poisonous gas. His death was originally recorded as a heart attack but prosecutors want to know if it was linked to the seaweed.

France's PM warned of the health risk while visiting the beaches last month. Francois Fillon announced that the government would pay for cleaning up the beaches polluted by the sea lettuce, ulva lactuca.

Locals had raised the alarm after a horse, being ridden over the sands, collapsed and died. Its rider fell unconscious and had to be dragged off the algae-coated beach. By then, the lorry driver had already died.

The 48-year-old driver had been working without a mask or gloves and died at the wheel of his vehicle when it crashed into a wall, reports Tim Finan in Brittany for the BBC. The man had been part of the annual operation to remove 2,000 tonnes of rotting sea lettuce from the beaches at Binic. His family have so far refused to allow an autopsy to establish the exact cause of his death, but on Monday the local prosecutor ordered a preliminary investigation.

Farming blamed

Christian Urvoy, the mayor of Binic, said: "'We want to know if in future we should take precautions to safeguard workers who collect or transport seaweed."

A spokesman for the local authorities has strongly denied they were aware of the death when Mr Fillon visited St-Michel-en-Greve in August. Researchers from France's National Institute for Environmental Technology and Hazards (Ineris) have visited the same beach and found hydrogen sulphide in such concentration that it could be "deadly in few minutes".

Sea lettuce is harmless in the sea, but as it decomposes on the beach it releases the deadly gas. Environmentalists say decades of misuse of Brittany's agricultural land is to blame for the explosion of algae, due to the high levels of nitrates used in fertilisers and excreted by the region's high concentration of livestock.

They have called for tighter controls on farming.

Greenwich ponders selling waterfront property
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/17/2009 03:34:03 AM EDT

Drive south on Steamboat Road until you get to the water.

That is where you will find Joe Garcia on most days, seeking respite from the concrete treadmill of Interstate 95 and all the cares in the world. The chauffeur from New Jersey is one of many transient motorists and fishermen who regularly flock to a small town-owned parking lot and concrete pier at the end of the street lined with luxury condos and nautically named office buildings.

Many of them are from Latin America, including Garcia, who was born in Puerto Rico.

"You just sit here and you smell the air. As a matter of fact, I fell asleep down here one day," Garcia said, staring out at the iridescent waters of Long Island Sound this past week.

Garcia could be in for a wake-up call, however, and not from a ship's fog horn. A pair of suitors are interested in buying the small lot and pier from the town and making them private, eliminating one of the few public access points to the water in Greenwich. Regulars like Garcia bemoaned the potential loss of their waterside retreat.

"Tell me what town isn't having financial problems?" Garcia said. "Anything in the name of money. What about the people who enjoy this?"

The discussion by the town whether to accept offers for the property coincides with an effort to sell public land and buildings it no longer needs. Hurt by the recession, the town is facing growing deficits and shrinking revenues from local conveyance tax receipts, building permit issuance and bank interest.

First Selectman Peter Tesei said the town is entertaining the prospect but cautioned that the discussion is quite preliminary. According to the town's geographic information system, a high-tech database of aerial photos and measurements for all properties in Greenwich, the lot is about 4,000 square feet and the pier is about 2,000 square feet. Tesei acknowledged that the property's sale could reduce public access to the waterfront in Greenwich, where most of the shoreline is dominated by multimillion-dollar mansions or town parks that charge admission.

"We may not want to sell it," Tesei said. "I think that's a public policy issue that needs to be considered. Waterfront access is certainly important."

The Indian Harbor Yacht Club, which is next door to the lot and owns property on both sides of Steamboat Road, has put out feelers about acquiring the land.

"If the town is interested in selling it, we would be interested in purchasing it," said Sam Fortenbaugh, the yacht club's commodore.

No formal offer for the property has been made, according to Fortenbaugh, who said the club has been eyeing the property for a while.

"We've been all along for a number of years interested in acquiring any property that is contiguous with our existing facilities," Fortenbaugh said.

The club, he said, recently approached the town about the prospect after learning that a nearby condominium association on Steamboat Road had signaled its interest in the property. Town officials would not identify the other potential bidder for land. Fortenbaugh said the town would not only make money on the sale, but it would free itself of a potential liability. The concrete underpinnings of the pier, he said, are "starting to wash away."

"The pier is falling down," Fortenbaugh said, pointing out that the town put up a concrete barrier between the parking area and pier not too long ago. "Why else would they have put up the Jersey barrier? I think they must have recognized that they've got a problem."

Alex Molina, a livery driver from Bridgeport who was born in Uruguay, said the spot is dear to him.

"It's one of the best fishing spots anywhere," Molina said. "If I can't come anymore, I would be depressed."

Molina said he has been coming to the spot for 15 years and frequently takes breaks there during his work day.

"It takes the stress out," he said. "It's a wonderful view for everybody. It's a free space."

All sales of town property or buildings must be approved by the Board of Selectmen, Planning and Zoning Commission and the Representative Town Meeting.

"I'd want to see the details, but my initial reaction is positive," Selectman Peter Crumbine said of selling the property. "It sounds like the kind of thing the town should be exploring."

Town Planner Diane Fox said that the state Department of Environmental Protection would also have to sign off on the sale because the property is shown on their maps as a public access point to the waterfront.

"That would be an issue that would come up. How do we give up public access to a private group?" Fox said.

Crumbine said those displaced would have other options for accessing the waterfront.

"The town of Greenwich has considerable waterfront access, of course starting with Greenwich Point," Crumbine said.

Visitors to the 147-acre park must have a beach pass, which are available to residents only, or must pay a $5 daily admission fee and $20 for parking. Bucky Fisher, an emergency lighting contractor from Waterbury who was taking his lunch break in the lot Wednesday, was jaded about the potential sale of the property to a private interest.

"What isn't private in Greenwich?" Fisher said.

Fortenbaugh said the Indian Harbor Yacht Club, which looks out onto the pier and owns about 1.7 acres of property, is all for public access to the waterfront.

"We're not opposed to people having access to the water, quite to the contrary," Fortenbaugh said. "Maybe there are other places it can be duplicated. We try to be good neighbors to everyone around us."

Selectman Lin Lavery said the spot has special meaning to her.

"My son Michael did bluefishing off there when he was in middle school," Lavery said.

Lavery said the town needs to weigh the pros and cons of a potential sale of the property very carefully.

"At this moment we really do need to seek additional revenue for the town," she said. "However, we need to provide waterfront opportunities for simple pleasures like fishing. We need public access to the water."

Access denied: Belle Haven proves impregnable for trekkers
Stamford ADVOCATE
Posted: 07/09/2009 08:48:16 PM EDT
Updated: 07/10/2009 01:03:41 AM EDT

As we made our way down Steamboat Road early Thursday morning, the other side of Greenwich Harbor -- a row of large homes with expansive green lawns leading down to the water -- seemed about as surmountable as Everest.

Though I didn't want to believe it, there was going to be very little direct access to the waterfront on this leg of our series. I had already called Frank Creamer, Belle Haven's head of security, to ask if they would let us in and at least catch a glimpse the million-dollar vistas. The answer was, of course, a resounding, "No." Still, we kept that grove of trees in our sights.

The first part of our walk was easy enough. It started from the tiny pier at the end of the street, where a small group of fishermen had already gathered at 7:30 a.m. to stake their claim on bluefish and porgy, and one of the best public views of the Sound in town.

There was mostly concrete, as photographer Helen Neafsey, intern/videographer Jay Polansky and I passed through parking lots and watched the people eating breakfast on the patio at L'Escale.

Eventually, after getting a look at the setup for Shakespeare on the Sound in Roger Sherman Baldwin Park (and finding a bunch of used rubber gloves scattered around the grass, which I can only hope was used to apply the actors' makeup), we came to one of the most contrasting views in town -- Grass Island.

The first thing we saw was a big truck pumping out the material from Greenwich's septic tanks. Grass Island is home to the town's wastewater treatment plant, but is also a park and marina. While it attracts many early-morning strollers and dog-walkers, it wasn't always very inviting. Well, as inviting as it could be when you're competing with sewage.

"They had more garbage down here than the garbage dump," said Sylvester Pecora Sr., co-chairman of Friends of Grass Island, a group started about eight years ago to slowly improve one of the rare public access points to the water in central Greenwich.

"They took 17 Dumpsters out of here of debris," said Pecora, 71, who grew up in Byram and now lives in Chickahominy.

The town also spent $285,000 to patch up the road, which was falling apart and had massive potholes. With the improvements, more people now take advantage of the waterfront, and Pecora said come noon, the park is filled with Greenwich workers enjoying their lunch.

"This is probably one of the most beautiful views in Greenwich we have on the water," said Chris Antonik, the other co-chairman of the Grass Island group. "It's for everybody, not just for us."

Antonik, 62, keeps his 35-foot Bertram boat at the nearby Greenwich Boat & Yacht Club, which he gave us a quick tour of before we trekked up Shore Road.

John Lagano recalled how he and the other original members built the modest club themselves in the late 1960s. The building had the comfortable feel of a friend's worn-in rec room, albeit one with a striking view of boats bobbing in the water.

Still, as Lagano bragged about the people from all walks of life that pay the club's $132-per-year membership fee, he couldn't help but mention the "rich and famous" folks who lived just around the bend, such as the uncle of Dodi Fayed, the Egyptian heir to the Harrods department store fortune who died in the 1997 car crash with Princess Diana.

And then, after a quick side trip to the treatment plant, we plodded on with an impending sense of doom, looking at the marshy water next to us. Jay had learned Wednesday from the Greenwich Police Department Marine Division that getting around Field Point Park and Belle Haven would be impossible, with no way of staying under the mean high tide mark -- even at low tide, the water is 6 feet deep.

So, with an idea of what would happen, we paused to look at the big "No Trespassing" sign at the start of Smith Road, and made our way in. We passed a jogger on Field Point Park who nodded at us and gave a small smile as she passed. Then the old-looking police car pulled up next to us.

The security officer instructed us to meet us at the guard booth, and Jay couldn't help but notice a copy of Greenwich Time sitting inside, with the 19th installment of our Breaking the Sound Barrier series splashed across the cover.

"Everyone here knows about it," said the guard, who refused to give his name. "These people are very concerned about their privacy."

We backtracked down Field Point Road, stopping at the security checkpoint for Belle Haven, where a friend of my family lives and had offered access to her property in Quarry Farm. But unfortunately for us, she had just left for a trip that morning, and we wouldn't be able to get in on foot without her there to escort us.

On Hamilton Avenue -- our one escape to Byram Park where our walk finished up, and where Jay and I had parked our cars -- we hit another roadblock, literally. Traffic was being detoured because of downed power lines. We stood pondering our options, the least tempting of which was to trek up to the Post Road.

After Jay talked to W. Christian Andersen Jr. of the Cos Cob Fire Police and took some notes for a possible story, a wonderful thing happened -- the police waved us through while there was a pause in the work and we took the last leg of our odyssey, to the waterfront in Byram.

Our feet aching, it was some of the best shore access we had all day.

A bonanza of beaches
DAY
By Kathleen Edgecomb
Published on 7/3/2008

The Danish author and poet Hans Christian Andersen, famous for fairy tales about mermaids and match girls, swans and snow queens, knew a thing about being happy.

”Just living is not enough ... one must have sunshine, freedom and a little flower,'' he wrote. What he was saying, I believe, is: go to the beach.

That's right, slather on the sunscreen, put on a wide-brimmed hat and a white gauze shirt for your best Nathan Lane in “The Bird Cage” imitation, and bask in the sun's warmth. We live in a state that has 110 miles of beaches. Add to that the beaches at Misquamicut just over the Rhode Island border, and we're talking many, many miles of shoreline property that is open to the public. From Westerly to Old Saybrook, beach parks offer the minimal - like water and sand - to much more, with food stands, showers, boardwalks and swimming pools.

Many of the beaches are quite picturesque, with tall grasses, rambling roses and other flowers. The salt air is fresh. The sound of the waves, either lapping or crashing, can be mesmerizing.

Grab a blanket and a picnic lunch for a quiet day at one like McCook Beach in Niantic. Or take along a beachchair and a radio to Ocean Beach Park in New London to listen to the latest ballgame. When you're hungry, eat in one of the concession stands there.

There's fresh water at lakes and ponds, and salt water along the coast. The shoreline is vast, and the beaches vary enough to offer whatever kind of water experience you're looking for.

Here is a selection of local beaches that are open to the public. In general, their hours are 8 a.m. 'til sunset, but other details vary, as described below.

EAST LYME

HOLE-IN-THE-WALL BEACH
Baptist Lane
Fees: Day passes $5 per car for residents; $15 per car for non-residents. Season passes $30 for residents and $80 for non-residents. Day and season passes can be purchased at the Parks and Recreation office at Town Hall and at the police station on weekends.
Parking lot
Concessions: No
Picnic area: No
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: The beach also connects to the Niantic Bay Boardwalk, which provides views of Long Island Sound.

MCCOOK BEACH & PARK
McCook Place
Fees: Day passes $5 per car for residents; $15 per car for non-residents. Season passes $30 for residents and $80 for non-residents. Day and season passes can be purchased at the Parks and Recreation office at Town Hall and at the police station on weekends.
Parking lot
Concessions: No
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: Concerts and dances are held in the adjacent park area.

ROCKY NECK STATE PARK
Route 156
Fees: Weekends $10 for residents, $15 for non-residents; Weekdays $7 for resident, $10 for non-resident; $5 after 4 p.m.; $15 per night for camping
Parking lot
Concessions: Yes
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: The park also offers hiking trails, camping and interpretive programs.

GRISWOLD

HOPEVILLE POND STATE PARK
Route 201
Fees: $7 on weekends and holidays for Connecticut registered vehicles; $10 for out of state plates. $13 a night for campground plus a $3 to $9 registrtion fee.
Parking lot
Concessions: no
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: Trails for biking and hiking. A large field for sporting activities. The pond is open to boaters, fishermen and swimming. A campground with 80 sites is available from mid-May through Sept. 30.

GROTON

BLUFF POINT STATE PARK AND RESERVE
At end of Depot Road
Fees: None
Parking lot
Concessions: No
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: This 800-acre state reserve lies between the Poquonnock River and Mumford Cove. One of the largest natural areas in the state, it contains not only a variety of wildlife, but also a barrier beach, steep cliffs, forested lands and tidal wetlands. You can paddle up beyond the railroad bridge to the north (about 1/3 mile) and down to Bushy Point Beach (about 1 1/4 miles). Hiking and running trails offer vistas of Long Island Sound, Mumford Cove and the Poquonnock River. Shellfishing and crabbing are also allowed. Swimming is unsupervised.

EASTERN POINT BEACH
Beach Pond Road
Fees: parking $10 weekdays, $20 weekend.
Parking lot
Concessions: Yes
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: Small beach at the mouth of the Thames River near the University of Connecticut's Avery Point campus. The site offers showers, picnic tables, concession stand and playground. Shallow water depths along the beach and seasonal supervised swimming also make this beach a favorite for families.

ESKER POINT PARK
Groton Long Point Road
Fees: None (except for during concerts on Thursday nights)
Parking lot
Concessions: Yes
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: This man-made beach area is about 600 feet long. The park provides facilities for saltwater swimming and picnicking under a grove of shade trees. A snack bar, restrooms and lifeguards are available during the summer season. This site offers expansive views of Long Island Sound and Mouse Island.

NEW LONDON

GREENS HARBOR BEACH
Pequot Avenue, near intersection with Converse Place
Fees: Free
Parking lot
Concessions: No
Picnic area: Yes, in park across Pequot Avenue
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: Beach pavilion
Hours: Weekdays, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; weekend, 10 a.m.-6 p.m.

OCEAN BEACH PARK
98 Neptune Ave.
Fees: For people driving in, it's $18 weekends, $14 weekdays, $25 holidays. Walk-ins $5. Season passes $50 residents ($10 seniors), $85 non-residents.
Parking lot
Concessions: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: Boardwalk, pool, mini golf, arcade, rides and water slide.

NORWICH

SPAULDING POND
Mohegan Park, Mohegan Park Road
Fees: None
Parking: Off-street parking across the street.
Concessions: No. Ice cream truck comes by.
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Hours: Beach is open 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily through third week in August.

OLD LYME

WHITE SAND BEACH
15 White Sand Beach Road
Parking lot: Only open to town taxpayers with a sticker
Fees: $20 per vehicle/$15 for seniors
Concessions: No
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: No
Sanitary facilities: Yes

HAINS PARK
Boston Post Road
Parking lot: Only open to town taxpayers with a sticker
Fees: $20 per vehicle/$15 for seniors
Concessions: No
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: No
Sanitary facilities: Yes

OLD SAYBROOK

HARVEY'S BEACH
Route 154
Parking: 140-car capacity parking lot
Fee: $7 season pass for residents; $10 daily for non-residents, non-residents can buy a season's pass for $95.
Concessions: No
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped Access: Yes
Sanitary Facilities: Bathroom, changing rooms, and shower.
Special features: Shaded area for seating and a small playground.

OLD SAYBROOK TOWN BEACH
Town Beach Road
Parking: 65-space parking lot, only open to residents with beach passes
Fees: $7 season pass for residents; $10 daily for non-residents, non-residents can buy a season's pass for $95.
Handicapped access: Yes
Concessions: Yes
Picnic area: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes

STONINGTON

DUBOIS BEACH
Stonington Point
Fees: The daily fee is $5 per person or $10 per family. A season's pass for an individual costs $40 for Stonington Community Center members and $60 for nonmembers. A family membership is $55 for members and $80 for nonmembers.
Parking lot
Concessions: No
Picnic area: On adjacent lawn
Handicapped access: No
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: A small, calm beach protected by two jetties, it has a pavilion and a floating raft. Owned by the Stonington Village Improvement Association, the beach is co-operated by the Stonington Community Center through Labor Day.

WATERFORD

PLEASURE BEACH
50 New Shore Road, Waterford
Fees: For Waterford residents, $2 weekday/$5 weekends and holidays; free for Waterford senior citizens (age 65 and over). For non-residents, $10 during the week, and $20 on weekends and holidays. Season passes also available, $10 for Waterford residents, $60 non-resident.
Parking lot
Picnic area: No
Concessions: No
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Hours 9 a.m.-5 p.m. daily.

WATERFORD BEACH
305 Great Neck Road
Fees: For Waterford residents, $2 weekday/$5 weekends and holidays; free for Waterford senior citizens (age 65 and over). For non-residents, $10 during the week, and $20 on weekends and holidays. Season passes also available, $10 for Waterford residents, $60 non-resident.
Parking lot
Picnic area: Yes
Concessions: No
Handicapped access: Yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Hours 9 a.m.-5 p.m. daily.

WESTERLY
MISQUAMICUT STATE BEACH
257 Atlantic Ave.
Fees: Weekday fees (all fees are per car): Rhode Island resident $6 (seniors, $3); non-Rhode Island resident $12 (seniors $6).
Weekend and holiday fees (all fees are per car): Rhode Island resident $7 ($3.50 seniors); non-Rhode Island resident: $14 (seniors $7).
Parking lot
Concessions: Yes
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: Yes, including restrooms
Sanitary facilities: Yes
Special features: All Rhode Island state beaches are now smoke free. No trash receptacles, visitors are responsible for carrying out their own trash. Admission is free on July 28, the day of the Misquamicut music festival, in honor of Governor's Bay Day.

WUSKENAU BEACH
(Formerly known as the New Town Beach)
311 Atlantic Ave.
Fees: Day passes vary each day between $6 and $20, typically higher on weekends
Parking lot
Concessions: Yes
Picnic area: Yes
Handicapped access: yes
Sanitary facilities: Yes

Beaches marred by runoff carrying filth into water
Norwalk HOUR
Associated Press
June 30, 2008

The summer season along Connecticut's shoreline and lakes is being marred by beach closings due to bacteria and contaminants.

Many swimming areas, coastal and inland, are well-groomed and well-managed. But on any given summer day, dozens of swimming spots are one good rainfall away from being shut.

The problem is that storm water runoff carries into the water feces from wild animals or pets and contaminants from highways, subdivisions, malls and farms.

Over the last decade, swimmers have lost at least 3,000 days to bacteria-related closings, based on a review by The Hartford Courant of 10 years of closure data for Long Island Sound beaches and state parks, and four years of records for lakes and ponds.

At the Connecticut shore's 144 beaches that report testing data to the state, 65 closed for one or more days in 2007.

Some areas have problems occasionally and a few are very clean. For example, Hammonasset Beach State Park, the busiest state park in Connecticut, has not had a closure in at least a decade, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Beaches east of Fairfield County, including West Haven, have steadily improved.

But several persistent problems continue to plague some areas. Troubled areas include Hop Brook Lake Beach in Middlebury, Mixville Pond in Cheshire, Wharton Brook State Park in Wallingford and Byram Beach in Greenwich.

At Byram Beach, local authorities don't have to test for bacteria following a heavy rain. Experience teaches that runoff from a heavy rain will contaminate Long Island Sound and officials pitch a "No Bathing or Fishing" sign in response to a heavy rain.

Barbara Beqiraj, 48, a lifelong Greenwich resident, says she swam in the Sound when she was a youngster.

"I don't go in the water in Greenwich whatsoever. It's disgusting," she said.

Local authorities have been using many tactics to get to the source of contamination. At Mixville, they chase the geese away. At Wharton Brook, the state wants to install a filtering dam where a brook feeds into the pond.

And at Hop Brook Lake, the Army Corps of Engineers will try to increase flow when the water level drops later in the season.

Interesting planning concepts - how many beach blankets per square mile makes an urban density?

In Counting the Crowds, It’s All About the Visuals
NYTIMES
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
August 3, 2009

On some days in this unusually wet and cool summer, so few people wandered onto the beach at Coney Island that they could have been counted by making tally marks in the sand. But on Saturday, when the sun blazed from dawn to dusk, figuring out the size of the frolicking mob posed more of a challenge for Steven Ferrara.

Twice a day, Mr. Ferrara takes time out from his other duties as a city parks supervisor to estimate how many people are on Coney Island’s famous Boardwalk and the adjacent three-mile stretch of sand. At 2 p.m., sections of the beach were so densely packed that Mr. Ferrara could not pass on his four-wheeled utility cart.

It was one of the biggest throngs since July 4 and one of the few real crowds this summer, which so far has been New York City’s wettest since 1975. Mr. Ferrara chose a few vantage points that afforded views of the most popular spots and made mental notes of how many people he thought they contained. He also surveyed the parade of arrivals snaking down the ramps from the subway station at Stillwell Avenue.

Using no tools or devices, not even a pencil and paper, Mr. Ferrara, 42, settled on an estimate of 120,000 people. He radioed it in to the parks department’s outpost on the Boardwalk, where Jackie Reagan, a seasonal guide, wrote it in a black binder marked “Beach Stats 2009” along with notations of the temperatures of the air (73 degrees) and the ocean (68 degrees) and a description of the day (“sunny and gorgeous”).

When Ms. Reagan, 54, called the number in to the department’s offices in Lower Manhattan, it became, for better or flimsier, the official attendance for Coney Island’s beach that day.

The parks department attempts to count beachgoers because it has to, said Liam Kavanagh, the agency’s first deputy commissioner. The city’s health code requires that attendance be measured even though there is no way to control or register the flow of visitors through spaces as wide open as Coney Island, he said.

“Crowd estimates are notoriously difficult to do well or accurately,” said Mr. Kavanagh, who added that the New York Police Department stopped releasing estimates of crowds at events like rallies and concerts in Central Park. “Beaches in particular pose a challenge because beaches are pretty dynamic places. People are flowing in and out all the time.”

Acknowledging how unscientific the department’s methods are, Mr. Kavanagh said he had a team of people studying ways to make more accurate counts of beach attendance. If they can devise a significantly better way, he said, the parks department may implement it next year, at least as a pilot project.

The department has tried to measure the number of visitors at various parks and playgrounds, but doing so can be time-consuming and it “eats up a lot of resources,” Mr. Kavanagh said. But, he added, “It’s important to have that kind of information. Like every other business, we are more and more driven by data.”

At Rockaway Beach in Queens, Joseph Mauro, a parks supervisor, was handling data collection by estimating the current populations of three segments of the shore, one at Beach 59th Street, one east of that and another to the west. In midafternoon, he concluded there were about 150,000 people scattered along seven miles of beach and Boardwalk.

At Orchard Beach in the Bronx, Philip R. Koenig, a parks supervisor, performed his computation as he steered a two-seat electric buggy. This form of multitasking was risk-free because Mr. Koenig, like Mr. Ferrara, was formulating his estimate in his head. He based it not on the number of cars in the 5,800-space parking lot, but on what he saw on the sand and in the picnic areas that day, compared with what he had seen in 26 years as a permanent staff member there.

“O.B. 1 to base,” Mr. Koenig, 53, said into his radio. “It’s 11 a.m., water temperature is 71, air temperature is 77 and total pop is about 2,950.”

In the office, Maria Rosario, a seasonal aide, read back the temperatures and Mr. Koenig’s estimate of bodies at the beach: “71, 77, 2,950, copy.” She logged the figures into a large ledger that dates to 1985, then called them in to headquarters.

For the month of July, the logs show, the estimated total attendance at Orchard Beach was 583,000 people, or nearly 19,000 per day. On Saturday, the first day of August, Mr. Koenig estimated that the crowd had swelled to 43,050 by 2 p.m. and to 59,050 by 5 p.m.

That was too large a sea of swimsuited humanity for Tiffany Schiulaz, 16, and Jen Costa, 17, students from the Bronx who were considering a retreat from Orchard Beach.

“It’s too crowded, there’s not enough room, everybody’s got to sit near each other,” Tiffany said. “We got in 10 minutes ago, but we’re trying to go home now.”

Jen agreed with her friend’s estimate. “There’s not enough sand for all the people,” she said.

Report Card for City’s Beaches Offers Low Marks
NYTIMES
By Maria Newman
July 17, 2007, 12:27 pm

An independent watchdog group for the city’s parks today issued its first-ever report card on the city’s beaches, rating six of the seven beaches as “challenged” or “unsatisfactory.”

Only one, Staten Island’s Midland Beach, was deemed “satisfactory” by New Yorkers for Parks, a group that rated the beaches on such factors as water quality, lifeguard protection, bathroom availability and cleanliness, and litter.

The ratings were based on visits to the beaches last summer.

What is a “challenged” beach?

“A challenged beach is a beach that you still go to, you can swim, but what you find is dependent on the day,” said the organization’s executive director, Christian DiPalermo. “I think you find that in certain areas, especially where there are no lifeguards, there is a significant amount of litter, broken glass on the shoreline. What happens in a lot of our beaches is you have too many closed sections because of the chronic lifeguard shortage.”

The organization said that conditions vary greatly from one beach to another, and even within one beach, and that information on the beaches is hard to find in any one place. The group also said it would behoove the city to make improvements because beaches are popular destinations for residents.

“We have 14 miles of beaches, more than for any urban area of this size,” Mr. DiPalermo said. “We get 20 million visitors a year. What other beach gets that kind of usage?”
The good news, the organization said, is that the boardwalks at most of the city beaches were “safe and bathrooms that were opened were well maintained.” The bad news, which was more prevalent, is that most of the beaches had “significant litter and broken glass on the shorelines, closure of beach sections due to the chronic lifeguard shortage, closed bathrooms and broken or damaged water fountains.”

Two beaches received “unsatisfactory” ratings: Brooklyn’s Coney Island/Brighton Beach, and Wolfe’s Pond Beach in Staten Island. Four were rated as “challenged”: Brooklyn’s Manhattan Beach, Orchard Beach in the Bronx, South Beach in Staten Island and Rockaway Beach in Queens.

Among the group’s recommendations is that the city improve its efforts to recruit lifeguards by administering more training to potential lifeguards. (Mr. DiPalermo said the city’s had not hit its lifeguard recruitment goals since 1998.) The group also recommended that the city spend more resources teaching young people to swim by offering classes in public schools to increase safety while it beefs up its lifeguard numbers.
The group noted that “water quality in New York City has improved in recent decades,” but it nevertheless urged the city to come up with better storm-water management strategies to improve beach water quality.
The nearly 100-year-old group, which has spent much of its energy studying conditions at the city’s parks, decided to turn its focus to the beaches, an area no one else seems to be keeping tabs on, Mr. DiPalermo said, and a topic that has more to do with the outer boroughs than it does Manhattan.

“New York is unique with all its beaches,” he said. “That’s what makes it extra special. Let’s take a look: What kind of experience are people going to get there?”

Greenwich has the greatest beaches, in this website's opinion, on Long Island Sound. Of course, ocean beaches are vastly better (more opinion)!

Greenwich ferry parking appeal fee rejected
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 12/20/2008 01:00:00 AM EST

GREENWICH - A proposal to charge $10 just to appeal a parking ticket, regardless of the outcome, innocent or guilty, didn't stand a snowball's chance of getting approved Friday by the Board of Selectmen. The selectmen unanimously panned the controversial plan, one of several presented by town Parking Services Director Allen Corry to boost revenue during the current recession.

"I think your parking appeals fee doesn't have support, it's safe to say. We'll just nix that," First Selectman Peter Tesei told Corry during the board's regular meeting at Town Hall.

The selectmen did, however, approve a host of fee increases affecting everything from parking to the use of town recreational facilities, including beaches and ferries. The board voted unanimously to triple the fines on any unpaid tickets after 30 days, as well as hike the administrative fee for removing a metal boot from a vehicle from $75 to $100.

Renting a meter for the day in the downtown will cost construction contractors and businesses $25, up from the current $15. Parking fines across the board also will go up by $5.

The selectmen opted to wait until January to vote on a 5 percent hike on the price of annual parking in town-owned commuter lots after questions arose about the practice of overselling permits and other aspects of the plan.

"This particular increase is untimely, and I urge you to keep those fees level," said Leslie Tarkington, a Board of Estimate and Taxation member and permit holder at Greenwich Plaza, where there is a lengthy waiting list for spots.

When ferry service resumes to Island Beach and Great Captains Island next June, nonresidents will be required to buy their tickets at an off-site location and pay a daily parking fee of $20 per car if they use one of the two lots that are closest to the Arch Street ferry dock. A half-mile away at Town Hall will be the closest point of sale for ferry tickets for anyone who doesn't have a seasonal beach card, which are available to residents only at a cost of $27 per person. On weekends, however, ferry tickets will only be sold at the Bendheim Western Greenwich Civic Center in Glenville or at the Greenwich Civic Center in Old Greenwich.
Out-of-towners, however, can buy tickets in advance in multiple quantities.

Selectman Peter Crumbine grumbled the changes didn't go far enough to pacify locals upset by the decision to allow nonresidents to ride the ferries for the first time this year without the company of a resident. He voiced his opposition to keeping the round-trip fee to ride the ferry at $3 for residents and nonresidents alike.

"That's what bothers me. I just can't support that," said Crumbine, who cast the lone vote of the three selectmen against the ferry fees.

Parks officials said that the fees were developed in consultation with town lawyers. Selectman Lin Lavery voted with Tesei to approve the revised ferry policy.

"I think it should be fair and equitable to all," Lavery said.

In addition to the $3 ferry fee, the town will still charge a $5 daily beach fee to nonresidents or anyone else without a season pass who wants to visit the islands, which are about two miles offshore and are owned by Greenwich. Town officials quietly changed the ferry policy last winter, fearing another lawsuit like the one that forced Greenwich to open its beaches to outsiders in 2001. The move infuriated many residents, with more than 325 signing a petition demanding that the town rethink the changes.

Overall, ferry ridership increased by about 16 percent from 2007 to 2008, according to figures released by the parks department.

Corry said the town will do parking enforcement at the meters along Steamboat Road and near the Bruce Museum on Saturdays and, for the first time, on Sundays to discourage ferry riders who don't want to pay $20 for the lot across from the dock from using outlying areas to park.

"So, if they don't put sufficient funds in there, they'll be cited," Corry said.

Report: Conn. beaches slightly cleaner
Norwich Bulletin
The Associated Press
Posted Jul 29, 2008 @ 12:30 PM

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A new report says Connecticut’s beaches were cleaner in 2007 than in 2006, but more work needs to be done. The National Resources Defense Council report shows there were 108 closings and water advisory days in Connecticut in 2007. That’s compared to 224 in 2006. Environmental groups say reduced rainfall and less storm water runoff likely contributed to the decrease. But they claim the beaches still aren’t as clean as they should be and wantwant Connecticut to focus on long-term pollution solutions, such as cleaning up more of the raw sewage that enters the rivers from outdated sewage treatment plants.

The report says Fairfield County had the most closings and water advisories in 2007. New London County fared the best. But that they claim the beaches are still not as clean as they should be and want Connecticut to focus on long-term pollution solutions, such as cleaning up more of the raw sewage that enters the rivers from outdated sewage treatment plants.

The report says Fairfield County had the most closings and water advisories in 2007. New London County fared the best.

Fewer Beach Closings, but Pollution Is Still an Issue
NYTIMES
By BERNIE BECKER
Published: July 29, 2008

WASHINGTON — There were fewer beach closings and health warnings to swimmers last year than the year before, when beach pollution reports reached a record, an environmental group reported on Tuesday. But the National Resources Defense Council said its study, based on data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency at more than 3,500 beaches, showed that American beaches “continue to suffer from serious water pollution that puts swimmers at risk.”

The study found that pollution caused beaches to be closed or issued warning advisories for more than 22,000 days last year, down from more than 25,000 in 2006. But the 2007 figure was still the second highest in the almost two decades the environmental nonprofit has conducted the study.

For the first time, the study rated individual beaches from one to five stars on a water safety scale. The data is on line at www.nrdc.org/beaches.

The study found shifting causes and locations of polluted beaches. Seven percent of samples exceeded national pollution standards, the same rate as in 2006. And for the second consecutive year, polluted stormwater runoff caused approximately 10,000 days of beach closures or advisories.

But the amount of closures or warnings attributed to spills or overflows from sewage lines and treatment plants more than tripled to more than 4,000, while the number from miscellaneous causes like boats or wildlife soared by more than 700 percent.

On the New York and New Jersey coastlines, closures and advisories spiked for the second consecutive year and have now almost tripled since 2005.

Meanwhile, beaches in the Southeast saw a sharp drop in 2007, falling more than 60 percent from 2006.

Data for the Gulf Coast was distorted because many beaches reopened for the first time in 2007 after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the region in 2005.

Closures and advisories also declined by 36 percent in Hawaii, which had uncharacteristic rain levels in 2006, and led to an overall drop in closures and warnings in the West last year.

The council also reported that some beach water considered safe by federal standards could still contain pollutants that can put swimmers at risk. The group sued the E.P.A. two years ago in an attempt to force the agency to enact new pollution standards and testing methods that comply with the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, which Congress passed in 2000.

Six states, including California and Illinois, used computer models last year that made it possible to issue advisories or close beaches more rapidly. Five other states are looking into using similar models.

Beach season opens under stunning skies
Greenwich TIME
By Meredith Blake, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/25/2008 02:30:13 AM EDT

More than 2,200 people went to Greenwich Point yesterday to kick off the summer season.

"Since it's a holiday weekend, it's busier than ever," said Annmarie Smutney, gatekeeper at the popular park.

Many residents who had not yet ventured out to the town's beaches were basking in the sun, either lying on the beach or walking or biking around the park.

"We just got our beach cards yesterday," said Gillian Geiger, a new Riverside resident. "There was a lot of excitement."

She, her husband Benjamin and daughter Megan, 2, were on the beach, playing in the water and in the sand.

"It's a great spot," said Benjamin Geiger, "Perfect for kids."

Families had their blankets spread, filled with toys, books and chairs for a day at the beach.

Ryan Beiley, 3, pushed his plastic cart along the beach, collecting fish and crabs he could find near the water's edge, while Natalie Cook, 2, played with her friends in the sand, looking for shells.

Some braved the cold water - the temperature was 50 - for a quick dip.

"I'm having so much fun in the water," said Audrey Schedler, 3.

She and her dad, Old Greenwich resident Ryan Schedler, played in the water to clean off her sandy feet.

Byram Beach also opened yesterday with dozens of visitors.

Gioia Della-Ragione, 10, loves going to Byram Beach because it has a lot of big shells, she said.

It was the first time she and her brother Luca, 5 had been to the beach this season.

"It's always fun," she said.

With temperatures remaining around 70 degrees today, it is likely that residents will come out again, said Smutney.

Tomorrow, Memorial Day, skies will be partly sunny, with temperatures in the high 70s, according to Peter Wichrowski, a meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Upton, N.Y.

Police struggle to get answers in fake beach card probe
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor
Article Launched: 04/20/2008 02:03:49 AM EDT

A police investigation into an alleged counterfeiting operation involving beach cards has been stonewalled by recipients of the highly-coveted passes who refuse to be questioned, according to Chief David Ridberg.

"That's one avenue we would like to nail down," Ridberg said. "We're trying to confirm that there were passes handed out to people."

Right now, much of what investigators have to go on in the case is a binder received in February from an anonymous tipster containing copies of the fake beach cards, parking stickers and marina permits. It also identified the person allegedly running the operation, who police have said is a suspect and would not identify.

The alleged suspect in the case also has declined, through his attorney, to be interviewed by police, police have said.

"The investigation is continuing and we're endeavoring to solidify the case for prosecutors," Ridberg said. "We're trying to independently corroborate the information provided that was the genesis of the investigation."

First Selectman Peter Tesei, who pushed for the criminal investigation in the case, said he was disappointed in the lack of cooperation.

"All I can say is let their conscience be their guide," Tesei said. We're not punishing those people per se. At least show some remorse and help us bring some accountability to the person who did it. As I said, it's a criminal activity."

Only residents can buy a beach card, which costs $27 per person for the entire season.

Each cardholder is entitled to a free parking sticker for the season if his or her vehicle is registered in town. Stickers for vehicles not registered in Greenwich cost $100 for the season.

Anyone without a beach card, including nonresidents, must pay a $6 daily admission fee per person to enter the beaches. Daily parking is $20 per vehicle.

Greenwich Time received a binder with materials similar to those described by town officials. It contained photocopies of beach cards from the 2005 and 2006 seasons with the names of several individuals and their supposed addresses, which were all in Old Greenwich.

None of the individuals named were listed in telephone directories at the addresses printed on the cards, however. One of the individuals was listed as a Stamford resident.

Photocopies of beach parking stickers from the 2006 and 2004 seasons also were included, as well as several marina permits from 2006.

Greenwich probes fake beach passes
CTPOST
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Article Last Updated: 02/16/2008 03:56:03 PM EST

GREENWICH — Greenwich officials are investigating whether someone has been counterfeiting and distributing copies of the town's highly coveted beach access passes, parking stickers and marina permits.
In Greenwich, where questions of beach access have gone as high as the state Supreme Court, having a beach card can save hundreds of dollars yearly.

Joseph Siciliano, the town's parks director, said someone sent a binder to his office two weeks ago with copies of the supposed knockoffs and information about the alleged counterfeiter. He would not say who sent the information and who was named as the possible copycat. However, he said that if the allegations are true, that person — whose most recent address on file was in Old Greenwich — could face municipal and legal repercussions.

"Obviously, we could suspend (recreation) privileges of this individual. This also may be a police matter at a later date if we can validate some of this information," Siciliano said.

A police spokesman said the department was not aware of the matter, but was ready to help.

"If parks and recreation feels this might be a matter for the police to look into, our assistance would be available to them," Lt. Daniel Allen said.

Beach access in Greenwich has been a thorny issue, landing the town in court. It also has been forced to add holograms, bar codes and other anti-counterfeiting security measures to its highly coveted passes. In 2001, the state Supreme Court struck down the town's residents-only beach policy. Six years earlier, a Stamford man who received a trespassing ticket for jogging onto a Greenwich beach won his case alleging the town's restrictive policy violated the free speech rights of non-residents. Selectman Lin Lavery said she was not surprised to hear about the investigation into the new allegations of counterfeiting, saying it's "not the first time."

"We just have to be vigilant," Lavery said. "I hope the parks department is aggressive in finding out who is responsible and handles it."

The Greenwich Time reports in its Saturday editions that it received a binder similar to the one sent to the parks office. It contained photocopies of beach cards from the 2005 and 2006 seasons with the names of several individuals and their supposed addresses, all in Old Greenwich. However, the newspaper reported that none of the individuals named were listed in telephone directories at the addresses printed on the cards, and one was listed as a Stamford resident.

Siciliano said the town has taken various steps to make it harder to produce knockoff beach cards, from adding colors to the pictured town seal to using bar codes. This year, for example, senior beach cards — which are free for residents 65 and older and are good for three years — will have a hologram for the first time, he said. Siciliano said further changes are in store, and that beachgoers may be greeted by more than a gatekeeper at Greenwich Point and Byram parks.

"It is feasible in the future that we would have a bar code reader or scanner at various locations to access people in," Siciliano said.

Town cleared in racial bias probe
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published September 5 2007

An investigator with the state's civil rights agency has rejected claims by three minority residents, who include the wives of two former New York Mets, that they were restricted from group exercise at a town beach because of their skin color.

In a seven-page memo issued Aug. 30, Paul Gaynor of the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities said he found no reasonable cause to support the discrimination complaints made by Millie Bonilla, Sheila Foster and Claudette Rothman against the town.

The three women each filed complaints with the state agency in December 2005 that said they were prevented from working out together with a personal trainer at Greenwich Point Park that June because they are minorities.

Bonilla and Foster, who are Puerto Rican and black, respectively, are married to Bobby Bonilla and George Foster. Rothman is of West Indian descent.

Town officials have contested the women's claims, saying some did not have beach cards required to enter the park and the remainder were prohibited from exercising together because of liability concerns. Gaynor agreed with the town's explanation in his memo and said the town provided evidence showing that at least two other groups were stopped from using the beach for similar reasons, including a yoga class.

"It is clear that a number of the parties in question, despite being residents of the town, did not possess the passes and permits required to access the beaches on their own, let alone participate in a commercial/group venture on the beach," Gaynor wrote.

Greenwich officials said the investigator's findings vindicated the town and its employees of any wrongdoing.

"I was confident from the beginning in listening to our employees and how they described the situation that they acted accordingly and in the departmental guidelines," said Joseph Siciliano, the town's parks director.

Reached on his cell phone for a comment yesterday, Joseph A. Moniz, the Hartford lawyer for all three women, explained he would have to confer with his clients first and said to call back later in the afternoon. Moniz did not respond to a follow-up message on his cell phone. Messages were also left with the three women, who have until Sept. 14 to rebut Gaynor's findings, or else the investigation will be closed and their complaints dismissed.

A June 2005 investigation conducted by Kelly Houston, who was the town's affirmative action officer and friends with some of the women at the time, found no merit to the discrimination claims. But the women filed complaints with the CHRO against the town that December, saying that Houston's findings were severely compromised by a series of e-mails that she exchanged with a personal trainer who they hired before the conclusion of her investigation.

"Seeing a group of Black people that they do not know is going to draw attention," Houston wrote in the June 8 e-mail, which was submitted by the women as evidence in the CHRO investigation and contained Houston's name, title and town e-mail address.

"I do think that you can use the facilities. However you will have to be discreet and if you are asked you are going to have to say you are just working out with friends. If you are doing a black group, you are going to need to cut your numbers down. Welcome to Greenwich!"

Gaynor, the CHRO investigator, said Houston was not acting in official town capacity when she sent the e-mail. Houston resigned her position for unspecified reasons earlier this year, with the town out-sourcing the duties of affirmative action officer to an outside consultant. The state's civil rights commission initially tried to broker a settlement between the sides, which fell apart in April 2006 after the women rejected its terms partly because of the inclusion of language denying wrongdoing by the town.

Under the proposed settlement, the town would have been required to conduct diversity training for several of its employees, incorporate anti-discrimination language into its beach policy and repay the women's legal expenses.

Human rights investigator supports Greenwich in racial complaint
DAY
Posted on Sep 5, 7:03 AM EDT

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- An investigator for the state human rights agency has concluded that three minority women were not refused access to a Greenwich beach because of the color of their skin.

In a memo issued Aug. 30, Paul Gaynor of the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities said he found no reasonable cause to support the discrimination complaints made by Millie Bonilla, Sheila Foster and Claudette Rothman against the town.

The three women each filed complaints with the state agency in December 2005 that claimed they were prevented from working out together with a personal trainer at Greenwich Point Park that June because they are minorities.

Claudette Rothman, Millie Bonilla and Sheila Foster claimed they were denied entry to the park because they are Puerto Rican and black. Bonilla and Foster are wives of former New York Mets players Bobby Bonilla and George Foster.

Town officials have contested the women's claims, saying some did not have beach cards required to enter the park and the others were prohibited from exercising together because of liability concerns.

Gaynor agreed with the town's explanation and said the town provided evidence showing that at least two other groups were stopped from using the beach for similar reasons, including a yoga class.

"It is clear that a number of the parties in question, despite being residents of the town, did not possess the passes and permits required to access the beaches on their own, let alone participate in a commercial/group venture on the beach," Gaynor wrote.

The three women have until Sept. 14 to challenge Gaynor's findings.

The CHRO had tried to work out a settlement, but it fell through in April 2006 after the three women said they would not sign the settlement because they wanted the town to apologize and admit that it did something wrong.

Inquiry on beach bias could take up to a year
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published August 19 2006

It could be months before a state agency's investigation into discrimination complaints involving minority access to Greenwich Point Park and the wives of two former New York Mets reaches closure.

"I'm hopeful that we can conclude the investigation within a year or less," said Donald Newton, chief of field operations for the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

Newton said the commission would likely assign an investigator, who will conduct interviews with the complainants and the town employees involved, within the next two weeks.

The commission filed a complaint against the town in August 2005, three months after Sheila Foster and Millie Bonilla, the wives of two former New York Mets, and a third resident, Claudette Rothman, said they were prevented from exercising together at the town beach as part of an organized fitness group on the basis of skin color.

The women later filed their own complaints with the commission. But in April they rejected the terms of a proposed settlement in the case that would have required the town to conduct diversity training for several of its employees, incorporate anti-discrimination language into its beach policy and repay the women's legal expenses.

While the town and the commission could have reached a settlement on their own and left the women to pursue their individual cases, the town attorney advised against a bilateral agreement.

Selectman Peter Crumbine said the town would have preferred to settle the case, but is prepared to defend its name.

"It's going to be a long time," Crumbine said. "Obviously, we were disappointed it could not be resolved more quickly."

From a reputation standpoint, Crumbine said he didn't think it mattered whether the case came to a quick resolution or remained unresolved.

"It's my view that the town did nothing wrong. So we will be vindicated," Crumbine said. "I don't think it will make a big difference."

Bonilla and Foster, who are the wives of former New York Mets Bobby Bonilla and George Foster, said they were denied entry to the beach on June 7.

A town investigation into the allegations found that the women were not carrying the resident beach cards required to enter the park.

Rothman, who is of West Indian descent, said she was allowed to enter the park but was told that group exercise was not permitted.

The town's investigation said that group exercise is prohibited for liability reasons.

At least two other groups have been allowed to exercise at the beach, however.

Messages seeking comment from Joseph Moniz, the Hartford lawyer who represents the three women, were left Thursday and yesterday.

Lawsuit rekindles beach fee debate
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published June 19 2006

From former First Selectman Lolly Prince's defeat in the 2001 municipal election to the recent ouster of half the parks board, the issue of beach access has been a costly one in Greenwich politics.

But with the town facing a new lawsuit over pedestrian and bicycle access to Greenwich Point Park, some are the taking the unpopular position that the town should cut or outright eliminate its $10 per day entry fee for nonresidents. Mirroring a landmark court case that opened the beach to nonresidents in 2001, the lawsuit has many in town asking the same questions about access.

Is the town's $10 daily admission fee for nonresidents defensible when other shoreline communities allow out-of-town pedestrians and cyclists into their facilities for free?

Will a negative verdict embolden masses of nonresidents to visit town beaches? How much does the town stand to lose from a cost and reputation standpoint by fighting the lawsuit?

"We can do what we did last time with the original lawsuit," former First Selectman Richard Bergstresser said. "We can fight it and we can lose it." Calling the access plan flawed, Bergstresser said the town should relax its admission fees for nonresidents who visit the park without a vehicle to avoid another setback in the courts.

"There's no such thing as an airtight case," Bergstresser said of the town's defense of its fees. "I favor just letting people walk in."

But Bergstresser conceded that his position might be extremely unpopular with many of his former constituents. He was blasted by the public in January 2002 after supporting a proposed $5 weekday admission fee for nonresidents. In a twist of fate, it was Bergstresser who political observers have said was an earlier beneficiary of the beach issue, unseating Prince as first selectman in 2001 following the landmark ruling.

Joan Caldwell, the moderator pro tempore of the Representative Town Meeting, said last week that she was vehemently opposed to relaxing the town's daily $10 admission fee for nonresidents.

"I think we have the right," Caldwell said of charging admission to the beach. "We pay to police it. We pay to maintain it. Why should we as taxpayers provide a facility with supervision and maintenance for people who do nothing for the town of Greenwich? I am just fed up with it."

In the latest lawsuit over access, Stamford cyclist Paul Kempner accuses the town of discriminating against nonresidents by charging excessive fees to visit its beaches. Those fees, the lawsuit says, violate the spirit of the 2001 state Supreme Court ruling that declared the town's residents-only policy a violation of nonresidents' free speech rights and opened the beach. Greenwich is one of only a few communities that charge nonresidents for both admission and parking at its beaches. Madison also charges a $10 daily admission fee.

"Greenwich has ignored these binding rulings of the Connecticut courts and, in willful and wanton contempt of those courts, continues to discriminate in respect of access to its public parks against citizens of Connecticut, who reside in municipalities other than Greenwich," the lawsuit says.

Kempner had no comment about the case.

Police officers issued a trespassing summons to Kempner last June after he refused to pay the $10 fee for admission to Greenwich Point and entered anyway. He entered the park several other times without police intervention, but the town billed him for each visit. Kempner would only offer to pay $25, the cost of a seasonal beach card available to residents.

Kempner's defiance is now being met with defiance from Greenwich residents, who have accused him of seeking the privileges of residency without paying the local property taxes that help with the upkeep of parks and beaches.

"The word freeloader comes to mind," Caldwell said. "I wish this guy would try it some place out in the Midwest where they still have the heart to let him know what they think."

Christopher von Keyserling, a District 8/Cos Cob RTM member, said the town needs to avoid a negative precedent and must put up a vigorous defense of its fees.

"They're not fighting Mr. Kempner," von Keyserling said. "They're fighting everybody in the world that wants a freebie at the town's expense. When do you stop paying the extortion?"

Bergstresser was not the only skeptic over the current policy, however.

"One day, it may be necessary to come to a policy where just cars have permits," said Karen Sadik-Khan, chairman of the Representative Town Meeting Parks and Recreation Committee.Sadik-Khan is also an ex-officio member of the town's parks board, the group that earlier this year recommended a controversial dollar-a-day visitor fee for nonresidents. The group said it would make it easier for residents to bring a guest to the beach and, more importantly, reduce potential legal challenges.

But the Board of Selectman rejected the proposal and later ousted four of the group's nine members.

"We had what we thought was a policy that would have worked on all accounts," said Ira Bloom, one of the targeted members. On the day of his ouster last month, parks board chairman Gary Oztemel predicted that the town would be sued over the current policy.

He was right, only it had already happened.

"I think it's serious," Oztemel said last week of the situation.

Class action status denied in beach lawsuit
Greenwich TIME
By Martin B. Cassidy, Staff Writer
Published February 28 2008

With a trial approaching, a federal judge has granted the town a partial victory by rejecting a Stamford bicyclist's request to add a discrimination claim to his pending lawsuit that Greenwich's beach access fees for out-of-towners are unconstitutional.

In her six-page ruling last week, U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall upheld the town's argument that Paul Kempner, 77, a Stamford shoreline resident, could not pursue a discrimination claim himself because a town policy change giving free access to town beaches to Kempner and others over the age of 65, made his claim moot.

Before last beach season the town revised its beach access policy allowing people 65 and over in for free regardless of where they live.

"The plaintiff's proposed class contains residents over the age of 64 who cannot have standing," Hall wrote in the decision. "The town's beach access policy as it currently exists does not require them to pay any fee to enter the town's beach parks."

Kempner filed a class action lawsuit in 2006 on free speech and discrimination claims, arguing the town's policy of charging out-of-towners more to use town beaches discriminates against non-residents and deprives free speech rights.

Last year Hall ruled Kempner could sue the town on his claim the town violated his individual free speech rights, and a trial is expected to begin on that issue on April 15.

In last week's ruling Hall declined to qualify Kempner and his fellow plaintiff, James P. Schwartz, 51, of Stamford, as representatives of all non-Greenwich residents, finding that Kempner has not shown evidence that a large number of Connecticut residents outside of Greenwich might ever seek to exercise their free speech rights at Greenwich beaches.

"The plaintiff's proposed class makes no distinction between those residents of the State of Connecticut who have suffered or will suffer a violation of their rights... and those who have not, or will not suffer injury because they have never engaged in speech in a Greenwich beach park," Hall's decision said.

Hall also ruled that even with Schwartz' addition as a plaintiff, Kempner did not meet the standard of "numerosity," proving there was a significant number of people likely to be deprived of their free speech rights by the policy.

"This evidence does nothing to persuade the court that there are so many citizens in Connecticut who desire access to the traditional public forums of Greenwich that joinder of them would be impractical," Hall wrote.

Town Attorney John Wayne Fox praised Hall's ruling and said that Kempner failed to make a case that the beach policy violated the rights of all Connecticut residents.

"He argued to the court that there ought to have been added as plaintiffs to this case approximately three million people; the entire population of Connecticut," Fox said. "We did not think he had a basis for it, and are very pleased the judge agreed with us."

Last year Kempner asked that Schwartz be allowed to join the suit as plaintiff, arguing that the younger plaintiff would boost his discrimination claim

Last week was the third time Hall threw out Kempner's claim that the town beach policy's of charging out-of-towners more than residents was discriminatory, because it unfairly restricted access to town beaches to non-residents.

Kempner declined comment on the ruling yesterday, saying he was unaware the issue had been decided, and calls to his attorneys were not returned.

Michael P. Shea, a Hartford-based attorney for Day-Pitney LLP, who is representing the town in the case declined comment.

Parks board proposes cutting beach fees to non-residents to $1
Greenwich TIME
By Martin B. Cassidy, Staff Writer
Published January 10 2006

Bring that uncle from Stamford, yearning to swim or ride free. Well, almost.

Members of the town's parks board unanimously voted last night to recommend slashing the daily entrance fee for beaches from $10 to $1 for those entering by bicycle or foot, or guests of residents. The move was driven by resident complaints about paying the fee for visiting friends, board members said.

The advisory board also will recommend adding the town's non-discrimination policy to the beach policy, in response to a civil rights probe involving the minority wives of two retired New York Mets, Board of Park and Recreation Chairman Gary Oztemel said. Other proposed revisions are for increased fees, including boosting the daily vehicle fee for non-residents from $20 to $25 and the annual permit fee for adult residents over 14 years old from $25 to $40.

The recommendations go to the Board of Selectmen, who will vote on the proposal at its next regular meeting.

Paul Kempner, a Stamford resident who challenged the town's beach access policy by riding his bike into Greenwich Point this summer, sent town officials an e-mail in advance of the meeting urging them to change their policy that he said violated the 2001 state Supreme Court decision ordering the town to open its beaches to out of towners.

"It should be make (made) clear that I would like Greenwich to administer their parks in a fair and equitable basis," Kempner wrote. "I have no desire or intention of seeking a monetary claim for interference of my First Amendment rights..."

Board urges slashing Greenwich beach fee
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Martin B. Cassidy, Staff Writer
Published January 10 2006

GREENWICH -- Members of the town's parks board unanimously voted last night to recommend slashing the daily entrance fee for beaches from $10 to $1 for those entering by bicycle or foot, or guests of residents. The move was driven by residents' complaints about paying the fee for visiting friends, board members said.

The advisory board also will recommend adding the town's nondiscrimination policy to the beach policy, in response to a civil rights probe involving the minority wives of two retired New York Mets, Board of Park and Recreation Chairman Gary Oztemel said. Other proposed revisions are for increased fees, including boosting the daily vehicle fee for nonresidents from $20 to $25 and the annual permit fee for adult residents over 14 years old from $25 to $40.

The recommendations go to the Board of Selectmen, which will vote on the proposal at its next regular meeting.

Paul Kempner, a Stamford resident who challenged the town's beach access policy by riding his bike into Greenwich Point this summer, sent town officials an e-mail in advance of the meeting urging them to change their policy, which he said violated the 2001 state Supreme Court decision ordering the town to open its beaches to out of towners.

"It should be make (made) clear that I would like Greenwich to administer their parks in a fair and equitable basis," Kempner wrote. "I have no desire or intention of seeking a monetary claim for interference of my First Amendment rights." Kempner could not be reached for comment yesterday. Kempner's crusade to fight the policy was not a factor in lowering the fee, Oztemel said.

"This will really benefit our residents who paid the $10 fee last year because it was the rule," he said. "If it benefits him, it is coincidental but also beneficial."

As before, passes can be purchased at the Eastern Greenwich Civic Center, and Greenwich Town Hall, but the board recommends reviving the 10-visit pass abandoned in 2002. Board member Scott Johnson asked whether the change meant out-of-towners could ride the Great Captain's Island Ferry for a dollar, to which the response was no.

"They can go on their own boat and pay a dollar but not on the ferry," Oztemel said. The proposed revised policy also sets the starting and closing dates of the town's three beach seasons, high, shoulder and low. If approved, the high season, the summer, would be shortened by about three weeks and run between May 26 to Sept. 17, during which out-of-towners and residents' guests would pay the $1 entrance fee, with a daily out-of-towner daily parking fee of $25.

The "shoulder" season, between summer and the onset of winter would be longer by about a week, from April 17 to May 25. If approved, residents must display vehicle permits, and non-residents pay the $25 parking fee. The low season will be from Nov. 13 to April 15, where access to the park would be free and unregulated.

Several residents listened but were told by Oztemel not to ask questions during the meeting. David Weatherseed observed after the meeting that the daily price for a group of four nonresidents using a Greenwich beach for a day would fall from $60 to $29. Weatherseed is president of the Lucas Point Association, a group of private homeowners who own Tod's Driftway, the entrance to Greenwich Point.

"It would be less restrictive than Stamford," he said. Also last night, Parks Superintendent Joseph Siciliano said the town is still considering whether to follow up on First Selectman Jim Lash's earlier pledge to bill Kempner for those rides into Greenwich Point.

"It's still under consideration," Siciliano said. Lash could not be reached for comment last night.

Are beach policies uniformly enforced?
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor. Staff Writer
Published September 11 2005

Summer may be unofficially over, but two incidents involving beach-goers who were denied admittance to Greenwich Point Park during June thrust the town into a controversy that some say could have been avoided had entrance policies been enforced more uniformly.

The controversy started when a group of mostly black and Hispanic women -- two of whom are the wives of former New York Mets and live in town -- said they were not allowed to enter the picturesque park to exercise on June 7 because of the color of their skin. A town investigation into the alleged racial discrimination case cleared parks employees of any wrongdoing, finding that the women were not carrying beach cards required to enter Greenwich Point.

One day after the incident, on June 8, Greenwich police cited a Stamford cyclist with simple trespass after he entered the park without paying the town's $10 daily admission fee. In both cases, the individuals who were denied entry said gatekeepers had previously let them into the park without a beach card.

"Ninety percent of the time, and with a big smile, they'd wave me in. 'Welcome,' " said Paul Kempner, 75, a retiree and avid cyclist.

Town officials conceded that some visitors may have been able to enter Greenwich Point without a beach card but said park employees were working hard to ensure admission policies are applied consistently. "I'm sure that mistakes happen from time to time," First Selectman Jim Lash said, adding, "I don't have any indication that there is a gross misapplication."

The town requires beach-goers to have a beach card or a $10 daily admission pass to enter Greenwich Point. Beach cards, which are only available to residents, cost $25 for the season and include free parking for vehicles registered in town. Gatekeepers are instructed to give beach-goers who claim to be residents the benefit of the doubt -- within reasonable limits -- if they don't have a beach card, according to park supervisors.

"We also tell the gatekeeper to err on the side of the resident the first time," said Fred Walters, superintendent of marine and facility operations for the town's parks department. A separate parking fee of $25 per day is charged to vehicles registered in other communities, and residents without beach cards must buy a $10 daily admission pass under town policy.

But the town has agreed to waive those admission fees in some instances, such as when an inner-city church group consisting mostly of children visited Greenwich Point, town officials said. Special arrangements require advance notice and a local organization to sponsor the outside group's request under town policy.

"I think the parks department has, in light of the couple of events this year, reviewed the admission policies with the people who man the gates to make sure they understand them and are applying them consistently," Lash said. Still, the town's chief elected official said not to expect wholesale changes to the operation of the town's beaches.

"I don't think two instances out of tens of thousands would cause us to do our training different from the usual training we do each year," Lash said. Kempner, who succeeded in getting a prosecutor to drop the $92 infraction against him because of the legal fees that would have resulted from trying the case, said the town has tried to cover its tracks since the incident.

"I think that since I made an issue out of it, they're applying it across the board," he said of the entry policy.

Beach Access Battle Returns
By Donna Porstner, Stamford ADVOCATE
Published September 6, 2005

STAMFORD -- Four years ago, Stamford lawyer Brenden Leydon won the landmark court case that forced Greenwich to open its beaches to out-of-towners.

Now that his neighbors in Stamford want to lock the gates and make nonresidents pay to use "their beaches," the crusader of public beach access is cringing.
Leydon said he is not opposed to cities and towns charging for parking at beaches -- which Stamford has done for years. But charging pedestrians for admission would be going too far, he said.

"Without an extraordinary need for it, to stop people on foot and ask them to show a pass or a pay a fee, I think is a bad idea," he said. Leydon was jogging when he was turned away from Greenwich Point a decade ago. He said the city should go to such extremes only if city beaches are severely overcrowded, which he has not seen.

"Cove, you can go anytime and get a parking space," he said. "The grills are at a premium -- but there's always parking." The vacant spaces may be at the rear of the lot, which requires walking, but many people go there to walk for exercise after all, Leydon said. Stamford's Board of Representatives, which is responsible for setting municipal fees, has been discussing charging walk-ins next summer because of concerns about too many out-of-towners using city beaches. Some elected officials say it is wrong to allow nonresidents to get dropped off at the entrance and use a city amenity for free.

Anyone is allowed to enter Stamford beaches on foot, regardless of where they live, but vehicles parked in beach lots without a permit risk a $55 fine.

Season parking permits are $20 for residents and $225 for nonresidents. A small number of nonresidents purchase season passes, which are only valid weekdays. One- and two-day passes are also available, though they must be purchased in advance at the Stamford Government Center. Mayor Dannel Malloy has staff working on a proposal that would allow out-of-towners to pay for parking on site next year. Encouraging nonresidents to park in beach lots would get their cars off residential streets in the Cove and Shippan neighborhoods and boost revenue for the city, Malloy has said.

Maintaining Stamford's three beach parks costs the city about $960,000 a year. Parking revenue recoups about $500,000 -- $300,000 from the sale of beach stickers and $200,000 in parking ticket fines and penalties. The mayor said he prefers to charge for parking rather than admission because it would be easier to administer, but he has said he would not oppose an entry fee if that's what city representatives want.

City Rep. C. Stephen McDermott, R-4, who represents the Cove neighborhood, has proposed the city sell buttons that would be required for admission to city beaches.
Leydon said he doesn't like the idea of charging admission or requiring a pass to enter a public facility.

"It seems un-American that you are stopped and asked show a pass in a public park. It's a little disturbing," he said. "I was just in Hawaii this summer. If somebody came up to me and said 'Get off our beach' I'd be like, 'What?' " A policy that would require drivers and pedestrians to pay for entry would be virtually impossible to enforce in Stamford, he said. Unlike Greenwich Point, which has a single access road to the entrance, Cummings Park is accessible for vehicles from Shippan and Soundview Avenues and from numerous points on foot.

"It might be legal to have a pass system, but it's fraught with problems," Leydon said. "Stamford's parks are just not designed for it unless you hire 10 times the number of people to patrol it." Leydon asked how Stamford residents would feel if they were in New York City "using their streets and sidewalks and someone stopped them a charged a toll? They'd probably be justifiably outraged."

He said he finds parking fees acceptable, as long as they are not so high that they are intended to keep people out.

"I think it should be priced with the intention of off-setting the costs, not with the intent of discouraging people," he said. Leydon said he has not been to Greenwich since he won his court case because he refuses to pay the $10 nonresident entrance fee and $20 for parking.

Since the fees were instituted in 2002, nonresident attendance has dropped at Greenwich beaches. Nonresidents accounted for 1.4 percent of visitors to Greenwich's two main beaches --ÊGreenwich Point and Byram Park -- last year.

Leydon said he could not sue Stamford if it adopted an admission fee for out-of-towners because, as a city resident, it would not affect him directly. But he said, "somebody else could."

Even if Stamford were to tighten its regulations for drop-offs, Paul Kempner -- the Stamford resident who was given a $92 ticket for trespassing in June when he rode his bicycle into Greenwich Point without paying admission -- said he is not worried about his hometown limiting cyclists' access to city parks. His appeal of the ticket was dismissed.

"There is no place in the country that doesn't let a cyclist in for free. I've biked all over the country and all over New England," Kempner said. "I'd be surprised if Stamford did that."

Reps rap current beach access rules in Stamford
By Donna Porstner
Staff Writer

Published August 25 2005

STAMFORD -- The temperature at city hall heated up like the pavement at Cove Island in August last night as city representatives let off steam about out-of-towners using the beaches. Members of the Board of Representatives' Parks and Recreation Committee assembled to talk about implementing a new policy next year that would require residents to show some form of a pass before gaining entry, but spent much of the two-hour meeting chastising staff for allowing so many out-of-towners to gain access to Cove Island Park, Cummings Park and West Beach this season.

They argued the current system, which requires residents to purchase permits each summer to park in beach lots, is not working because the entrance booths are not manned regularly.

"There's almost never anybody checking permits, so I don't know what's going on," said city Rep. John Morrow, R-16, who said he's been to Cove Island at least 20 times this summer. Since the city has already issued about 3,000 parking tickets for the season, newly appointed parks superintendent Mickey Docimo said it's unlikely anyone who parked illegally got away with it. He blamed the reduced manpower in the booth on budget cuts, saying the $157,000 beach enforcement budget he requested was reduced to $87,000. He promised to ask for additional beach enforcement funding next year.

Cove residents in attendance disputed Docimo's claims that the Cove Island entrance booth is manned from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends.

"I've never seen anyone there and I'm there every day. Every day," one woman called out. The city contractor in charge of parks maintenance, Joseph Barbarotta, said he has had problems this summer with attendants not reporting to work.

"They're college kids," he said. "They don't always show up, so then we have to scramble for people to replace them."

City Rep. Patrick White, D-1, said the city didn't have that problem a few years ago when it hired senior citizens for the $9 an hour job and suggested the city seek older, more responsible employees next season. A promise to hire more booth attendants next year wasn't enough to satisfy committee members who gave Docimo a mandate: Find a better way to keep out-of-towners at bay. They asked him to create a proposal that requires residents show a badge or identification card to gain entry.

"Let's try to fast-track it, so by next Memorial Day we'll have something better," said city Rep. Richard Lyons, D-1. City Rep. C. Stephen McDermott, R-4, who represents the Cove, said the city's walk-in policy has got to go. Out-of-towners who come in on foot shouldn't be allowed to "use our water and trash our facilities," McDermott said.

Vehicles without parking permits should be banned from dropping off passengers and gear at the entrance, said Rep. Mary Fedeli, R-17.

"It makes my blood pressure boil when the cars pull up and they drop off people by the carloads," said Fedeli, a Springdale resident who frequents West Beach.

The Cove Neighborhood Association submitted a written statement to the committee after the meeting asking members to ban the use of the drop-off zone by vehicles without permits, saying it encourages nonresidents to park on surrounding streets. Since most nonresidents using city beaches do not purchase parking permits, presumably because of the cost and the inconvenience of having to purchase them in advance at city hall, a drop-off ban would virtually wipe out nonresident use of city beaches.

To date, the city has sold only about 20 nonresident season passes. The parking passes, good on weekdays only, cost $225. Thirty-dollar daily passes and $40 two-day passes also are available.

Docimo said the only waterfront community in the area that charges an admission fee is Greenwich. All the rest do what Stamford does now --charge for parking. If the city wanted to follow Greenwich's lead, Docimo said, the city would have to research how much state funding it receives for its beaches and find out if it could legally limit out-of-towners.

Docimo said it also raises the question of how vigilant residents want to be to keep the beaches for their use only. He said officials have to ask, "Do we turn away residents if they don't have their pass?"

Committee members and Cove residents in attendance replied with a resounding "yes."

"You just say no," Fedeli said. "If you don't have it, you don't come in." She said the only way it will work is if the city adopts an approach that requires separate permits for parking and admission. Lyons, whose district includes West Beach, said the Cashiering and Permitting staff who work on the first floor of the Government Center should be selling beach access permits at the entrance to all three beaches during peak season.

The way it is now, Lyons said, "you couldn't make it more inconvenient."

"I think Cashiering and Permitting has to more accessible," he said. "They've got to be at the point of entry." Police could ride all-terrain vehicles on the sand and check to make sure beachgoers have the proper pass or identification, he said.

"You do that for two weeks, from Memorial Day to the beginning of June, and you'll get the word out," Lyons said. The committee plans to continue the beach access debate at next month's meeting.

Survey: No Out-of-town Rush To City's Beaches (COMMENT: we are not so sure that is exactly what is going on.)
By GLADYS ALCEDO, New London DAY, March 7, 2004
Groton –– Two seasons after a court ordered all city beaches open to all the public, a city analysis of the attendance at the city-owned Eastern Point Beach found that most of the out-of-towners came from the nearby towns of Groton and Ledyard.

A few people who came from farther distances either grew up in the area and were visiting or had local ties with families living here. “We haven't seen any major impact,” Parks and Recreation Director William E. Sanford III said.

The state Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that it was unconstitutional for municipal beaches to restrict access only to residents. Some residents feared the ruling would mean overcrowded beaches, but that hasn't happened.

City officials have said the ruling's true impact wouldn't be known until after two seasons, when the novelty wore off. “We don't seem to be having too many problems. We've only been overcrowded two days,” Mayor Dennis L. Popp said. “We don't have enough parking for the capacity of the beach, but we'll always do our best to get our city residents in there.”

Only once, on a Sunday afternoon, did the city have to invoke the 80-percent local rule enacted in 2002 that was aimed to guarantee city residents would have access to the 9.4-acre beach on the shores of the Thames River. That rule stipulated that once the 234-space parking lot was 80 percent full, the remaining 40 spots would be left to city residents and taxpayers.

Groton city saw a slight drop in its season parking passes from 1,787 overall in 2002 to 1,606 in 2003. But Sanford said that was mostly due to the foul weather early in the beach season last year.

“Beach attendance is based on sunshine,” he said. “Last year was a difficult year because the weather was horrible ... There were 19 less sunny days. That makes a big difference.”

City officials will adjust some of their beach regulations this year to address problems when beach-goers tried to skirt the parking fees. The new fees will include an attempt to discourage illegal parking on city streets, taking precious parking spaces away from neighborhood residents.

It's the first time the fees have been changed since the beach was opened to the entire public. The city opted to leave the fees unchanged for two years while the attendance was studied. Season-long parking passes for city residents and taxpayers age 62 and older will be $10, down $5 from before. Season passes for other city residents and taxpayers will remain at $30.

Season passes for nonresidents will go up by $5 to $45 for seniors and $10 to $65 for all other age groups. Daily parking passes, regardless of age and residency, will remain at $10 on weekdays and $20 on weekends and holidays.

The City Council approved the fee schedule last week at the recommendation of the city's Beach & Parks Committee. Passes will go on sale sometime in May. The beach season runs from the third Saturday in June to Labor Day.

The drop in passes meant a drop in revenues over the two years from $67,000 to $60,900, still not enough to cover costs associated with the beach, officials said. The city didn't hire additional personnel after the court ruling. The city spent $228,750 last year, counting the costs of financing, interest and staff time, Finance Director Anthony Timpano said. Maintenance and lifeguard costs alone were $97,000.

The city found 10,304 people regardless of residency walked into the beach free of charge in 2003, a drop from 11,945 the year before. Officials noted 12 extra days were added to the 2002 season.

But this year, out-of-towners walking in will pay $5 each. Last year, officials said out-of-town drivers would park as far as the Shennecossett Municipal Golf Course and walk in.

“It raises revenues from parking tickets, but that's not what we want to do. We want to keep the cars off the streets,” Popp said. After the court ruling, the city enacted a resident-only parking in some neighborhoods near the beach.

The city study also found that some people rented the Zbierski House at Eastern Point to get 20 free passes. Private parties hosted by city residents could rent the house for $20 per hour, while non-residents could rent it for $50 an hour –– much cheaper than paying the value of the passes.

This year, the city will charge renters of the Zbierski House $5 per vehicle and limit them to 20 passes.

Open ferry policy upsets some in Greenwich
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Neil Vigdor
Article Launched: 06/17/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT

GREENWICH - Reverting to a policy that restricts nonresidents from riding town ferries unless they are accompanied by a resident would be impossible to justify if challenged in a court, First Selectman Peter Tesei said yesterday.

"Like I said, it's pretty straightforward," Tesei said. "You look at all the facts that are out there on the table, I think that's a likely conclusion that most people can draw."

Tesei was responding to criticism from residents over allowing out-of-towners to ride the ferries to Island Beach and Great Captains Island for the first time this past weekend. About a third of the ferry passengers were from out of town during one stretch of Sunday afternoon, drawing the ire of Greenwich residents who said they pay for the upkeep of the ferries and the islands.

"They come in. They take over the whole island. I don't think it's right," said Mary Pellegrino, a member of the Representative Town Meeting who frequents the islands. "I think it's awful."

Greenwich owns the islands two miles offshore. Fearing another lawsuit like the one the town lost that forced it to open its beaches to nonresidents in 2001, officials quietly changed the ferry policy this past off-season.

Selectman Lin Lavery called on the Board of Selectmen to revisit the policy.

"I think the Board of Selectmen should be briefed on the fees that are charged, how they are comparable to other communities and what the cost of the services are," Lavery said.

Selectman Peter Crumbine said he empathized with residents upset over the change.
"I agree with them entirely," Crumbine said. "We pay not only to maintain the beaches, but we pay a considerable amount to operate the ferries."

At the same time, Crumbine said residents must consider the repercussions of impeding nonresidents' access to the islands.

"I support anything that will avoid further lawsuits and legal expenses," Crumbine said.

Beset by a series of costly lawsuits against the town, the Law Department exceeded its $600,000 budget for outside legal help by $1 million this fiscal year. Among cases that ate into the budget was a lawsuit brought by a Stamford resident who said Greenwich's daily admission fees at its beaches were onerous. The town prevailed in the case but has gradually lowered its daily admission fee from $10 per person to $6 and then to $5.

A round-trip ferry ticket is $8 per person for nonresident adults, compared with $3 for residents with beach cards. A card costs $27 for the season and is available only to a resident.

Pellegrino, meanwhile, said residents were being forced to cede more and more of their town to nonresidents.

"Come on, I've got a front porch here. I've got to let them on it and be nice about it?" she said.

The opinions of longtime residents like herself should carry greater weight with elected officials such as Tesei, Pellegrino added.

"Are the people in the Bronx voting for him, too?" she said.

Facing Criticism, Greenwich Adopts New Beach Policy
1:33 PM EST,March 8, 2002 - Associated Press
GREENWICH, Conn. -- Stung by criticism that this wealthy New York City suburb is elitist, officials approved a new plan today that will make it much cheaper for nonresidents to visit Greenwich beaches.

The Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 to adopt a plan that will allow out-of-towners to buy a day beach pass for $10 per person and a day parking pass for $20. Those fees replace a plan adopted on Valentine's Day which required nonresidents to buy a seasonal pass for $308 and spend another $100 to park for the season. The earlier plan did not allow day passes.

"The beach plan approved on Feb. 14 along party lines has proven to be a public relations nightmare," said Selectman Peter Crumbine, the only Republican on the board. The earlier, more expensive fee structure was widely criticized by radio talk show hosts, newspaper editorialists and a state lawmaker who wanted the state to sue Greenwich. The controversy intensified when town officials said they would also restrict access to town parks.

The new policy does not provide any restrictions on parks. It allows residents to buy a seasonal beach pass for $20 and to park for free.

The state Supreme Court last year struck down Greenwich's residents-only beach access policy, ruling that the town could not prohibit nonresidents from using the beaches because the areas are public forums under the state constitution. The court also said the policy violated citizens' state and federal freedoms of expression and assembly. State Rep. Ernest Newton II, D-Bridgeport, called the policy adopted in February "discriminatory and elitist."

"I think that's reasonable," Newton said of the new policy. "I think that shows some maturity on behalf of Greenwich. And it shows they're willing to comply with the intent of the law." Brenden Leydon, a Stamford lawyer whose lawsuit against the town resulted in the Supreme Court decision, had vowed to return to court after officials adopted the plan in February. Leydon said Friday the new policy appeared to be an
improvement. He said he would have to review it before deciding whether to return to court.

"They're certainly at least approving something that is defensible," Leydon said. "This one at least gives me pause." Leydon sued the town after he was prohibited from jogging at Greenwich Point in 1994. Crumbine said he supported most of the plan, but voted against it because of its impact on parking at beaches. He wanted shuttle buses to bring nonresidents to the beaches.

First Selectman Richard Bergstresser said the beach issue was difficult for Greenwich. He said the town had focused too much on the internal debate, which involved issues such as traffic congestion on a narrow beach road and limited parking.

"We really failed to look at the external implications," Bergstresser said. "I think we were very unfairly characterized as an elitist community."

Town will require passes at most parks
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer, Greenwich TIME
March 3, 2002 (Part of article)
Somewhat forgotten in the topsy-turvy battle over beach access was the town's long-standing, loosely enforced policy of allowing only residents to use all of its parks. But not anymore.

Public places such as Greenwich Common and Bruce Park could be affected just as much as Greenwich Point and Byram Beach by last year's state Supreme Court order that Greenwich open its parks, not just beaches, to out-of-towners.

Widely criticized for their plan to sell seasonal park passes to nonresidents for $308 apiece, town officials are quick to point out that the new park passes will be valid at about 30 of the town's largest and most frequently used parks, not just its beaches. The town will not sell daily passes to the parks.

Concerned about litigation, parks department employees plan to conduct spot-checks at each park, asking people to show their passes. That way,
they cannot be accused in court of enforcing the town's new policy at some spots and not others, they said.

"I don't think we have the option to take a more relaxed (approach)," said First Selectman Richard Bergstresser, who voted last month to approve the plan, but expressed some apprehension about its scope.

"I'm uncomfortable with the situation," he said. "I don't like the thought of essentially a police state where we're restricting access to the informal parks."

The informal parks that Bergstresser is referring to are Greenwich Common, Bruce Park, Binney Park in Old Greenwich and others that do not have a toll gate like the town's beach entrances do...

Greenwich to restrict access to all parks, not just beaches
Published Monday, March 4, 2002 (from the Yale Daily NEWS)

After being criticized for a new beach-access policy that would charge out-of-towners $308, officials in this wealthy suburb of New York City say they also will restrict access to all other town parks.

Selectmen say the seasonal beach pass, which will cost residents $20 and nonresidents $308, will also apply to parks such as Greenwich Common
and Bruce Park. The town will not sell daily passes to parks and beaches.

Parks department employees will conduct spot checks at town parks and ask to see people's passes. If park-goers do not have passes, they will be
asked to leave, officials say.

The state Supreme Court last year struck down Greenwich's residents-only beach access policy. Justices said the town could not prohibit nonresidents from using the beaches because the areas are public forums under the state Constitution. The court also said the policy violated citizens' state and federal freedoms of expression and assembly.

Last month, selectmen approved a policy with fees allowing out-of-towners to visit the town's beaches and about 30 of its parks.

Greenwich TIME
Tuesday, February 19, 2002

To the editor:

Kudos to John Rindlaub and his ideas as set forth in his letter on Feb. 3.

Mr. Rindlaub has expressed the first and only rationale solution to the beach lawsuit issue to date. It is not propelled by the thoughtless and shallow momentum of politics, fear, classism or xenophobia, and has the imprimatur of courageousness and keen foresight that the selectmen's proposals sorely lack. In a word, ban the car, all cars, from the beach on summer weekends, and render it the true sanctuary it cries out to be, by affording frequent and convenient shuttle service from the Greenwich Civic Center, train station and other lots in town.

Mr. Bergstresser and especially his Republican counterpart, Mr. Crumbine, are not seeing the beach for the sand in their interpretation of the state Supreme Court's ruling. It is abundantly clear that the robed ones are requiring equal access to the beach for all, regardless of residency. Ergo, this unfortunately translates into "parking for one, parking for all," with no permissible distinction between us and the rest of the world, despite any understandable longing for the opposite decision. Bergstresser's plan of yearly beach passes for all out of towners is absurdly restrictive, and Crumbine's position of not allowing any nonresident cars to park at the beach is equally so. Neither has a snowball's chance on the Fourth of July of withstanding Supreme Court review.

As Mr.Wetmore, the town attorney, forcefully pointed out at the town meeting, the court will not take kindly to any such restrictive policies, and will surly rule with a stern hand if it determines the town has tried to circumvent the previous ruling. We cannot afford to be cute here and play semantic games with the court's holding, for that will only incur the wrath of a unanimous court, which went out of its way to rule against the town on the widest possible constitutional grounds, catching even our high-priced, out-of-town attorneys flat-footed, with their briefs down.

Perhaps this is our one shining moment, where our elected officials can actually do something proactive and enlightened, not as a result of a political power play or in response to a madding, and uninformed, crowd. So let us seize this apparent defeat and transform it into an uncategorical victory to benefit the Point, and the local residents at the same time by closing the beach to all cars on summer weekends.

This policy will keep the crowds down, fully comply with the court's ruling, and make our streets safer, quieter and less polluted than ever before.

Ken Brown
Old Greenwich

And more from the residents of Greenwich (in part)
To the editor:

We are a registered Democrat and a registered Republican who have lived in Greenwich for more than 30 years (Peter, more than 42 years) and Old Greenwich almost five years. We care about our town and have been appalled at the extreme and inadequate positions on the beach issue put forward at varying times by our first selectman.

While we are not writing to endorse the beach access plan recommended by Selectman Peter Crumbine's task force, we do support the essence of its proposals. Because of our proximity to and special interest in Tod's Point, our comments relate only to this town beach. Our thoughts are as follows:

1) Nonresident cars and motorcycles should be banned from Tod's Point between April 1 and December 1. (If they are not, the Lucas Point Association may see to that anyway, maybenecessarily banning all cars. Reality check, Mr. Bergstresser!) But nonresidents' vehicles should be allowed to go to a staging area, perhaps the Old Greenwich Railroad Station, where they can park for a modest fee, pay for their daily beach tickets and be taken on scheduled buses to the far concession stand at the beach. An alternate, but very good, plan involving busing appeared in Greenwich Time on Feb. 7 in a letter to the editor, "Beach issue offers an opportunity for transportation effort," by Paul Pugliese. His plan may be too complicated to be implemented this April, but it has marvelous long-term potential for this part of town.

2) Nonresident walkers, runners and bikers (not motorcyclists) could buy their daily beach tickets at the gate to Tod's Point or go to the Old Greenwich Railroad Station and follow the procedure above.

3) Residents should receive the same treatment they have in the past with one exception: They would have to obtain, at modest cost, season parking stickers for any and all cars and motorcycles they would plan to drive to the beach -- and are subject to personal property tax for Greenwich residents. Other vehicles would not be allowed.

Yes, there might be a parking problem for some nonresidents on hot summer weekdays, necessitating a back-up plan for the railroad station, such as the Greenwich Civic Center parking lot, but we believe this plan is simple, reasonable and enforceable. Mr. Leydon might even like it because it would allow him to run into and through Tod's Point, only having to stop and buy a daily pass at the gate.

But then again, he probably won't like anything sensible the town tries to do.

Linda and Peter Austin-Small
Old Greenwich

Porricelli drops residency protest
Greenwich TIME
By Colleen Flaherty, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 09/24/2008 02:32:16 AM EDT

Jerry Porricelli's fight for Greenwich residency might have ended up one great man vs. system story but, after seven years, it's over. The owner of Porricelli's Market announced Tuesday he's out.

"It is time to stop the effort," wrote Porricelli in a letter to area newspaper editors. "It has taken up so much time and expense that we can no longer justify its continuation. Our lives are filled with wonderful blessings, the most precious of which are our children and grandchildren, and they should be the paramount focus now."

Before purchasing his Hillcrest Park Road home in 2000, the longtime Greenwich resident visited the town's registrars of voters with a seemingly straightforward question. Porricelli wanted to know whether his would-be home, which lay in Stamford but whose driveway, mailbox and street address are in Greenwich, was in fact in Greenwich, allowing him and his wife to continue voting here.

Sharon Vecchiola and Veronica Musca agreed that they had told Porricelli it would not be a problem. He bought the house and voted in Greenwich in November 2000.

In May 2001, however, Porricelli was notified by the registrars of voters that he could no longer vote at North Mianus School and must consider himself a Stamford resident. A notable town businessman and Republican, Porricelli appealed the decision, setting him on a 7-year path of litigation.

Porricelli's residency was initially restored by the State Election Enforcement Commission, and he served two terms on the Republican Town Committee. Last year, however, Connecticut passed a law that says residents must vote in municipal elections based on the location of their bedroom.
Porricelli described his consequent appeal to that language in his letter.

" I appeared in a little courtroom in Meriden to find no less than 6 attorneys, and staff, poised and ready to defend a new state law of town residency which was enacted solely in reaction to my case, without debate, more than 6 years after the initial challenge to my residency by the town!" he wrote. "What prize does a man get when he gains all his worldly desires, but loses his moral compass?"

The judge at that hearing ruled against Porricelli. He filed an appeal but said he had withdrawn it Tuesday.

"I think he looked at his entire agenda and priorities over the next two to three years," said his attorney Alan Neigher, of Westport. "With all that he wanted to do, he decided he was not going to be able to maintain going forward."

Neigher said Porricelli may have successfully appealed despite the new law, but that it would have taken two to three years, propelling the grocer and his wife into a decade's-worth of courtrooms.

"We believe we're right," said Neigher. "I really can't say enough about how unfairly Jerry was treated by the registrars. They did not give an accurate reason as to how they discovered this out of the blue."

Calls to the registrars were not returned before press time.

In his letter, however, Porricelli said he holds no hard feelings, despite his "New York street fighter personality."

"There is no loser nor is there a winner. Others can look at this and come to their own conclusions, whatever they are, but I feel a sense of peace and contentment realizing that I have done what I could and it is not where one lives which define who a person is," he wrote. "It is in loving family, good friends, quality associations and so many well-wishers where I now choose to place the emphasis on my life's remaining path."

Residency decision appealed
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published May 31 2007

A grocer and his wife are challenging a state agency's decision to banish them from the town's voter rolls despite having part of their land in Greenwich.

The state Elections Enforcement Commission last month declared Gerald and Marianne Porricelli ineligible to vote in Greenwich because their home is in Stamford, upholding an earlier decision by a town arbitration panel. In an 11-page appeal filed last week in state Superior Court in Stamford, the couple contested the standards used by the commission for voting and said there was set of extenuating circumstances establishing them as bona fide town residents.

In 2000, when they were considering the purchase of their current home, the couple said the registrars of voters confirmed that they could vote at the 9 Hillcrest Park Road address. The couple, whose property straddles the town line, also said the postmaster recognizes their address as an Old Greenwich one and that they pay motor vehicle and some property taxes to the town.

State law requires citizens to be bona fide residents of the community where they vote, but does not define the term. Alan Neigher, the couple's Westport lawyer, said yesterday that his clients have tried to avoid becoming consumed by the protracted dispute over their voting status.

"This is important to them but there's a lot of other things going on in their lives," Neigher said.

Joan Andrews, the commission's director of legal affairs and enforcement, said she was not surprised by the appeal.

A 2005 change in state statutes gave the commission initial jurisdiction of appeals of local decisions in voting eligibility cases, creating an intermediary step before cases could be appealed in court. The couple's case was the first one decided by the commission after the change in the law, setting a potential precedent for others who want to challenge the residency standards used by municipalities for voting purposes.

"We'll be defending the decision," Andrews said, explaining that the commission used the "bright line" test -- a clearly defined rule or standard -- of determining residency based on the location of the home. Though a piece of the Porricelli's lot is in Greenwich, their house is actually in Stamford. Although the town is not named a defendant in the appeal, Town Attorney John Wayne Fox said it would likely intervene because it used the same residency standards.

"I would anticipate that we would argue in support of the finding of the commission in support of the bright-line test," Fox said.

But the Porricellis have accused town officials of ignoring key evidence in their case. They said the registrars went back on their word when they notified them of their removal from the voter rolls 10 months after buying their current home because a majority of their property was in Stamford, including the dwelling. In addition, the couple noted that they were allowed to vote as Greenwich residents from their current address in 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Jerry Porricelli, who owns the Food Mart supermarkets in Cos Cob and Old Greenwich, also has run for and served twice as a Representative Town Meeting member while living at his current address.

Fox countered that using a bright line such as the location of a family's home eliminates any confusion over residency.

"It's specific, much easier," Fox said, describing other methods as subjective. "It would be much more difficult for a municipality to weigh those various interests from case to case."

Porricelli allowed to vote on RTM
Greenwich TIME
By Hoa Nguyen, Staff Writer
Published January 22 2007

Jerry Porricelli will remain a voting member of the Representative Town Meeting until he has exhausted his legal appeals to remain on Greenwich's voting rolls.

The Food Mart grocer, whose property straddles the Greenwich-Stamford border and who is to be removed from the voter rolls following a Board of Electors decision declaring him ineligible for residency, was vacationing in Italy and unable to attend the RTM meeting on Monday. But if he had, he would have been allowed to vote like other elected RTM members, officials said.

"He's still a member." said RTM Moderator Tom Byrne, who recently consulted the town attorney to determine whether Porricelli should be allowed to vote. "There are appellate rights where the deadlines have not run out."

Porricelli is seeking to overturn a town Board of Electors' decision made earlier this month, which said that because the Hillcrest Road resident's dwelling is situated entirely in Stamford while only part of his land is in Greenwich, the grocer could not be considered a resident or voter of Greenwich. Porricelli is appealing the decision to the State Election Enforcement Commission.

"This is one stop along the path," Porricelli said by phone Wednesday. "We haven't come to a conclusion yet."

Until all legal appeals have been exhausted, the RTM will allow Porricelli to participate and vote, Byrne said.

"We would let him vote as any member until he has exercised his final rights and we have what we consider a final judgment," Byrne said.

Though Porricelli could vote, there could be a problem if a particular issue being voted on hinged on one member's vote. A case could be made that Porricelli's vote should not count.

"As a practical matter, I don't think we're going to face that problem," Byrne said. "It's one of the beauties of having such a large group. We don't have that close a vote very often."

Porricellis challenge vote verdict State panel to hear appeal on Feb. 5
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published January 18 2007

In a three-page appeal received yesterday by the state Elections Enforcement Commission, Jerry and Marianne Porricelli are challenging a decision to remove them from the voter rolls, saying the town completely ignored evidence establishing them as Greenwich residents.

That evidence, they said, includes a 2000 letter from the registrars of voters telling them they could vote in Greenwich at their current 9 Hillcrest Park Road address when they were considering buying the property. The couple, whose property straddles the town line, also said the postmaster recognizes their address as an Old Greenwich one and that they pay motor vehicle and some property taxes to the town.

A town eligibility panel ruled earlier this month that the couple were not bona fide residents and upheld their removal by the registrars, however. The Board for Admission of Electors said the location of the couple's house -- entirely in Stamford -- disqualifies them from voting in Greenwich.

"I think it's a bad opinion, a bad decision," Jerry Porricelli said yesterday. "I feel real, real good that this will not withstand judicial scrutiny."

First Selectman Jim Lash, who voted with three of the four panelists to keep the couple off the election rolls, said the town has a sound case.

"We expect it to be upheld," Lash said.

The state Elections Enforcement Commission will hear the couple's appeal on Feb. 5 in Hartford, meeting a 21-day deadline required by the law. A 2005 change in state statutes gave the commission initial jurisdiction of appeals of local decisions in voting eligibility cases, creating an intermediary step before cases could be appealed in court.

"It's the first time we've got an appeal under this procedure," said Joan Andrews, the commission's director of legal affairs and enforcement.

The Porricellis have accused the registrars of voters of going back on their word when they notified them of their removal 10 months after buying their current home because a majority of their property was located in Stamford, including the dwelling. State law requires citizens to be bona fide residents of the community where they vote, but does not define the term.

The couple, who voted as Greenwich residents from their current address in 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2005, has challenged the residency standards used by the town.
Jerry Porricelli, who owns the Food Mart supermarkets in Cos Cob and Old Greenwich, also has run for and served twice as a Representative Town Meeting member while living at his current address.

In their appeal, the Porricellis also took exception with the amount of time the town took to render a decision in the case. While the couple agreed to waive their right to a decision by Election Day on Nov. 7, their lawyer said he gave the town until Dec. 20 to rule.

Town officials contested that account, saying that they were never given a deadline in writing and reached a decision in a reasonable amount of time -- the Board of Electors ruled on the case on Jan. 7.

Also a matter of concern on another front,,,
RTM member can't vote: Town rules against Porricellis' voting rights claim
Greenwich TIME
By Martin B. Cassidy
Published January 8 2007

A town voting eligibility panel denied a local grocer and his wife status as Greenwich voters yesterday, saying that at least part of their house must be in Greenwich to qualify as residents.

The Board for Admission of Electors voted 3-1 to adopt a 10-page decision denying Jerry and Marianne Porricelli voting and residency status, noting that even though their property straddles the Greenwich-Stamford border, their house is entirely in Stamford.

"I think that the decision is incorrect and that I look forward to the appeal," the 58-year-old Jerry Porricelli said yesterday. "Saying something is a certain way doesn't make it so, and I think they are refusing to recognize their erroneous actions."

The Porricellis have argued that before they moved to the 9 Hillcrest Road home, the town's registrars assured them in writing repeatedly that they would remain Greenwich voters. The couple purchased the home in 2000, Porricelli said.

The board consists of Republican First Selectman Jim Lash, Republican Selectman Peter Crumbine, Democratic Selectman Penny Monahan, and Republican Town Clerk Carmella Budkins.

The Porricellis will appeal the decision to the state Election Enforcement Commission, according to Alan Neigher, their Fairfield-based attorney. Further appeal could be made in state Superior Court.

The grocer and his wife filed a complaint with the panel in May after being removed from the voter rolls as part of an annual review by the registrars, part of a standoff that began in 2001.

While the Porricellis' mailing address, mailbox, and part of their driveway are in Greenwich, their entire house is in Stamford, which, under the standard adopted yesterday, disqualifies them for Greenwich residency or services.

With the decision, the town has established a new criteria for residency, saying that at least part of a home must lie within town lines for those who live in it to qualify as residents.

Budkins, the sole vote in favor of granting the Porricellis voter status, said she thought the circumstances of the case made the decision to deny the Porricellis unfair.

"I think the facts dictated they should be allowed to vote in Greenwich as long as they resided at that address," Budkins said.

Town Attorney John Wayne Fox declined comment.

The town's two registrars, Republican Registrar Veronica "Ronnie" Musca and Democratic Registrar Sharon Vecchiola, removed the Porricellis from the voter rolls for the first time in 2001.

But in 2003, the Board for Admission of Electors voted 3-1 to restore the Porricellis' status as Greenwich voters for procedural reasons, finding that the registrars failed to properly notify the family of their removal from the voting rolls.

In 2005, the State Election Enforcement Commission also dismissed a complaint from Vecchiola and Musca that the Porricellis intentionally misled the registrars to believe they lived in Greenwich, but concluded that Greenwich was entitled to establish its own criteria as to whether the Porricellis were town voters.

Because of the registrars' assurances, the town is obligated to grant the Porricellis the right to vote, Neigher said.

"They can't do one thing and say one thing, and then take it back and say you are the one who has to pay for it," Neigher said. The written decision issued yesterday said that assurances given by the registrars do not prevent the registrars from revoking the Porricellis' voter status when it became apparent their home was in Stamford.

Municipalities have wide latitude in deciding what factors to use to determine voting eligibility. Neigher questioned whether the town can apply its new residency standards retroactively to the Porricellis' situation.

Jerry Porricelli, who has lived in the town since 1972, has served two terms on the Representative Town Meeting of Greenwich while living at his current address and owns the Food Mart supermarkets in Cos Cob and Old Greenwich.

"I think the language of the decision speaks for itself," Lash said. "It establishes a standard for what is a resident and denies the appeal."

On the Jersey Shore, a Question of Beach Access
A path to the beach is in dispute in Long Branch, N.J.
NYTIMES
By RICHARD G. JONES
Published: November 23, 2007

LONG BRANCH, N.J. - Richard Lee, a member of a group devoted to coastal preservation, toured the beach in Long Branch recently. “These are really fragile and delicate areas that need to be protected,” he said.
In the 19th century, this town on the Jersey Shore was considered so serene that doctors attending to the mortally wounded President James A. Garfield brought him here after he was shot in the summer of 1881 with the hope that the gentle pace and soothing sea air would make whatever days were left in his life more comfortable.

Most of those who have settled here in the decades since have been in far less dire straits, but nearly all have come with an appreciation of the delicate balance between man and the environment. Now, longtime residents in this town of 6.2 square miles find themselves in a zoning dispute with a relative newcomer: Charles B. Kushner, a wealthy developer who has a high profile and a checkered background.

Mr. Kushner, who recently completed two years in federal prison, wants to close off public access to the beach near his home and provide parking places for beachgoers a few hundred yards away.

The proposal is in essence a land swap: Mr. Kushner would get Adams Street, the beach access road that nearly bisects his sprawling oceanfront property, and he would give the town 10 parking spaces and a new, paved and lighted path to the beach nearby.

But in Long Branch, which is already embattled over the town’s use of eminent domain to make way for development, Mr. Kushner’s proposed swap has struck a nerve.

“You take away all the personalities in it and it’s not an easily resolvable issue,” said Adam Schneider, the mayor of Long Branch. “Then you push all of the personalities into it with Charlie Kushner and it takes it to another level.”

Few have played as significant or tortured a role in the state’s recent political history as Mr. Kushner, who was chairman of the Kushner Companies, a billion-dollar Florham Park firm that was the largest donor to James E. McGreevey’s campaign for governor.

It was Mr. Kushner who sponsored a visa for Golan Cipel, an Israeli man whom Mr. McGreevey appointed New Jersey’s homeland security adviser and later acknowledged having an extramarital affair with — a relationship that prompted Mr. McGreevey to resign.

In 2004, Mr. Kushner was convicted on 18 counts of tax evasion, illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering. He admitted hiring a prostitute for his brother-in-law and then videotaping their encounter, in a blackmail attempt.

With that unusual history in mind, Mr. Schneider, who has been mayor for 17 years, said he was trying to remain neutral in the dispute. The town is awaiting word from state environmental regulators about whether Mr. Kushner’s proposed changes to the shoreline would be acceptable.

“He has a right to ask,” said Mr. Schneider, a Democrat. “But you don’t want to be perceived as doing Charles Kushner any special favors.”

Mr. Schneider is aware of the benefits of Mr. Kushner’s offer. Currently, there are eight parking spaces for beachgoers on Pullman Avenue, a block away from Mr. Kushner’s home. There is beach access along a cobbled path at the end of Adams Street — next to the gate for Mr. Kushner’s property. Neither of these areas is particularly well lighted, and visitors must navigate uneven rocks to get to the stretch of beach favored by surfers and anglers.

Ronald S. Gasiorowski, a lawyer representing residents who are opposed to the proposal, said that if the town ceded Adams Street to Mr. Kushner, it would set a dangerous precedent.

“What it comes down to is can you take away a street from the public for private use?” Mr. Gasiorowski said. “What’s the rationale for taking away this street? Because one man wants to use it?”

Gordon Gemma, a lawyer for Mr. Kushner, said that the proposal would not only meet the needs of the community for beach access, but would also improve it.

“It seems like an equitable resolution for everyone involved — the city, the public and the property owner,” Mr. Gemma said.

Some environmentalists in the area say they are not convinced and wonder if the benefits are outweighed by the potential damage to the beach.

“These are really fragile and delicate areas that need to be protected,” said Richard Lee, a member of the Surfriders’ Environmental Alliance, a group devoted coastal preservation.

On a recent tour of the area, Mr. Lee stepped gingerly past a stand of beach grass about 100 yards south of Mr. Kushner’s walled home. With a red tiled roof and stucco walls, the house has a Mediterranean feel, as do many of the homes in Mr. Kushner’s neighborhood, called Elberon.

Should the town grant Mr. Kushner’s request, Mr. Lee said, he and other environmentalists would like to see the new 10-space parking area added to the eight spaces now on Pullman Avenue.

“That way you can really increase access,” he said.

A few yards away, Tim Kelly stood with his hands in his pockets and a knit cap pulled over his ears while he scanned the surf for the telltale flash of color indicating where the fish were biting.

He said that he was open to the idea about changing access to the beach, but promised that residents would work hard to ensure that any solution was fair.

“Nobody’s looking for a fight,” said Mr. Kelly. “We just want what’s right.”

Access point in question - does this remind you of any other issues in CT?

Beach rights: This sand is your sand, this sand is my sand
By ROY JACOBSON
South Whidbey Record Reporter
Aug 26 2009, 10:00 AM · NEW

There’s public property, and there’s private property. Then there’s beach property.

There has been a steady, near constant cadence of complaints to police over unwanted activities by people using Whidbey beaches this summer, from reports of tidelands trespassers to large bonfires, loud parties and people having sex near the shore. Emergency calls to 911 dispatchers have come from neighborhoods along Brighton Beach, Saratoga Beach, Columbia Beach, Mutiny Sands, Lagoon Point, Lancaster Terrace and beyond.

With roughly 200 miles of saltwater shoreline in Island County, it should come as no surprise that many people are drawn to Whidbey’s postcard-perfect beaches. But homeowners who have tried to draw a line in the sand by posting “Private Beach”-style signs on their property have found that — this year, at least — fewer folks are reading and heeding the warnings. Officials say such trespassing is a reflection of an extremely complicated situation involving tideland ownership, ancient public rights and an especially good humpy run.

“I spoke with several disgruntled citizens, and they all say it’s worse this year than in the past,” Island County Sheriff Mark Brown said Monday.

“It appears to be going on all over the county,” he added, “and it seems like people have a lot more attitude.”

Unlike other states that allow nearly unlimited access to shorelines, laws in Washington state protect the private property rights of waterfront residents. But only to a point.

“These are questions we get all the time,” Mike Rechner, assistant division manager for aquatic resources at the state Department of Natural Resources, said Monday.

“We usually have a pretty good idea where the line is, but pinning it down is an extremely difficult thing,” Rechner said.

Rechner said beachgoers have free reign on public tideland at state parks, and public beach access areas such as boat-launch ramps and other clearly marked areas. But stray from those areas, and people are likely to be on private property. There may be more public tideland down the beach, but you’ll probably have to walk across private tideland to get to it, Rechner said. And don’t think you’re on public property because you’re walking in the water, he added. Much private tideland stretches to the extreme low-tide mark, “something we hardly every have,” Rechner said.

Sheriff Brown said that while many trespassing complaints involve non-Whidbey residents, there also are a number of incidents involving neighbors, or their friends and relatives, who may or may not have been given permission to be on certain stretches of beach. Brown also said he has been running into confusion among members of homeowners associations. He said many members mistakenly think that their memberships allow them to go on private beach property owned by other members.

There’s also wide variation on what actually constitutes a private beach, depending on the reading of individual property titles, Brown added. He said once deputies respond to complaints, it’s up to a property owner to verify there has been a violation.

“It becomes difficult,” Brown said. “We don’t want deputies getting out tape measures to see if someone is on somebody else’s property.”

He said the issue is so complicated that there have mostly been warnings issued in trespassing incidents, and few arrests. Brown also said he believes many of this year’s complaints are tied into a particularly good humpy (pink salmon) run currently in full swing in the area. Humpies are typically three to five pounds, but can be as large as 14 pounds. In Washington, they tend to run heaviest in odd-numbered years, and at the height of summer.

They generally swarm within 60 feet of shore, and are often caught by casting “pink fuzz bombs” from the beach.

“So you can have a large amount of fishermen in a small area,” Brown said. “They encroach a little left or right, and are suddenly on somebody’s property.”

“We’ve been getting some complaints about people walking on a beach, but a lot more complaints about people walking and fishing,” he added.

Brown said tribal fishing rights also can come into play in reported trespassing cases. Some American Indians, by law, are granted access to certain traditional fishing grounds, regardless of who owns the property.
Janice Smith and her husband Karl live two houses north of the restaurant at Bush Point. Both the parking area of the restaurant and beach access to their home are clearly marked as private property, but that hasn’t stopped folks from trying.

“It hasn’t been too bad this year, maybe three or four a day during the humpy fishing season,” said Janice Smith. “In the past, I’ve had to call the sheriff, but usually I go and talk to them and they leave after a little grumbling.”

She added that in past years, people sometimes swore and became angry. Smith noted that the biggest problem occurs on the beach south of the Bush Point boat-launch ramp.

“On some days, there can be dozens of people lining the beach in front of those homes, all fishing on someone’s private property,” she said.

Reta Worden lives on the water near the Clinton ferry dock. She said she hasn’t been disturbed by people walking in front of her beachfront property on Columbia Drive.

“Hey, it’s a beach and folks walk by, but no one’s tried to camp here,” she said. Worden noted that the beach near her house has clear signage regarding trespassing, however.

Likewise, Harry Scott, the president of the homeowners association for the Scatchet Head community, said complaints of trespassers on the neighborhood’s beach have been few and far between. That may be due to the measures the association has taken in recent years to discourage unwanted interlopers in the beachfront community that has one of the best clamming beds in Puget Sound. In recent years, the homeowners association has hired an off-duty sheriff’s deputy to stand guard — complete with uniform and patrol car — to keep a watchful eye out for unwanted clammers at the start of the season.

“We call them clam guards,” Scott said of the hired help.

Word seems to have gotten around, he said.

“After that we didn’t have too much of problem. We seem to have evolved,” Scott said.

The association didn’t hire anyone this year to guard the beach, he added, but it may be considered again in the future. A live-in caretaker and a key-card access system to the association’s facilities has also made a difference. Brown said sheriff’s deputies attempt to respond to all beach trespassing complaints, but given recent staff and budget cuts, such incidents are a low priority unless violence breaks out. Brown urges beach property owners who don’t want visitors to clearly mark their property with signs, and for people who are unsure where to walk to attempt to obtain proper permission.

Brown said he hopes the number of beach trespassing complaints will dwindle once the humpy run is over in a week or two.

“Most people are somewhat reasonable,” he said. “In the end, we’re trying to police people into being nice.”

Complex laws covering property ownership at the water’s edge is one reason authorities stress cooperation over confrontation. Rechner of the DNR said tideland ownership is wrapped up in 19-year tidal averages, extreme high tide, extreme low tide, ancient common law, when a piece of beach property was purchased, and the language in the deed, Rechner said. He said each ownership is a separate case, and that it isn’t uncommon for two neighbors side-by-side to own different amounts of tideland.

Added to that is the fact that courts in Washington so far haven’t clarified public beach-walking rights implied by the public trust doctrine, Rechner said. The ancient doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain it for the public’s reasonable use. The doctrine dates back the laws of the Roman Emperor Justinian, which held that the seashore that wasn’t appropriated for private use was open to all.

Rechner said the tideland ownership situation is so complex that the DNR won’t take action on a dispute without taking a survey of a property in question. He said he would advise beach walkers to get as much permission from property owners as possible, and for property owners to communicate with walkers.

“People need to talk to people as much as they can to keep conflict to a minimum,” Rechner said. “But I don’t know how much that really happens.”

“It’s just a really complicated issue, one that hopefully in time will become clear,” he said. “But I’m not so sure it will.”

As picnic looms, county may take beach access to court
By JESSIE STENSLAND, Whidbey News Times Assistant editor
Mar 20 2009, 2:11 PM · UPDATED

A land dispute involving beach access in Greenbank is probably headed to court.

Island County Commissioner Helen Price Johnson said she will ask fellow commissioners to support a resolution authorizing the Island County prosecutor to bring appropriate legal action to confirm and restore public access to the beach, tidelands and water at the end of Wonn Road.

“I think we need a judicial determination on this,” she said after the commissioners discussed the issue in executive session Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Greenbank resident Glen Russell, founder of the Save Our Beaches group, organized a public picnic on the easement near the beach, which is not far from the Greenbank Farm. The picnic is scheduled for 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. today, March 21.

“The picnic is meant to be a public gathering open to all residents and guests to celebrate the beautiful setting that is Greenbank and to raise public awareness of the intention of a select few to deny the public their sole and long-held access to the beach,” Save the Beach members wrote in an email to officials and friends.

The message raises the possibility of a confrontation between the picnickers and Bruce Montgomery, an adjacent homeowner who is convinced that the beach belongs to him and was never in public ownership.

“If any confrontation ensues, all present are expected to graciously accept the guidance of the picnic organizers, and in no case engage in any conversation of an insulting nature,” the message states. “Greenbank Road is a public road and the public has every right to the use of its 40-foot wide easement.”

Montgomery constructed a stone wall on the site to dissuade people from going to the beach and driving over his septic system. If the issue goes to court and he loses, he will have to tear it down.

Speaking by phone from California Wednesday, Montgomery said he was uncertain if he would be present for Saturday’s picnic. He said he only learned about it when contacted by the Sheriff’s Office.

“I have to decide what I’m going to do,” Montgomery said. “It’s a trespass. ... Having a picnic on somebody’s beach is a little tacky.”

He said Russell has “completely fabricated history,” in saying the property in question is public. “It never was in private ownership, even the (defunct) dock was private,” he said.

Montgomery strongly maintains he owns the property, and cites property taxes assessments as proof. He’s been paying taxes on it for years. He said the county recently asked him to donate the access to the public, but said it wouldn’t make sense to give up land in the middle of his property.

He said he’s never denied use of the beach to anyone who asked, and pointed out that 27 other property owners in the Greenbank plat have beach rights through the access.

Picnic puts focus on beach access
By JESSIE STENSLAND
Whidbey News Times Assistant editor
Mar 17 2009, 4:03 PM · UPDATED

A community picnic planned for Saturday is shining a hot spotlight on an unresolved controversy over beach access in Greenbank. Glen Russell, founder of the Save Our Beaches group, organized the gathering at the beach at the end of Wonn Road, near the Greenbank Farm. The picnic is scheduled for 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. March 21.

“It’s the site of the old community picnics in Greenbank up through the 1960s,” Russell explained. He’s frequented the site, which is the only public beach access in Greenbank, for the last 38 years.

The problem is that the adjacent homeowner, Bruce Montgomery, believes the beach belongs to him and was never in public ownership. He even put up a rock wall to keep folks out and to stop them from driving over his septic system. Montgomery could not be reached for comment this week. Russell said he’s frustrated that the issue hasn’t been resolved by Island County officials even though it’s been ten months since the wall went up. The county hired a legal consultant and the prosecutor’s office has been researching the issue, but nothing has been decided.

“It’s a priceless piece of property,” Russell said, “and I don’t think public property rights are being defended here.”

County Commissioner Helen Price Johnson said the commissioners are having an executive session today to discuss the issue. At this point, it’s unclear what would happen if Montgomery were to call the police to remove the picnickers. Price Johnson said she understands the frustration of people like Russell, but she said the issue is very complex and contentious.

“There’s a lot of history on that little stretch of beach,” she said, adding that the commissioners are committed to preserving public access.

County Prosecutor Greg Banks said he can’t discuss exactly what the legal research has uncovered, though he said there was a “strange set of conveyances.”

“There’s a question of exactly how much of the beach is available to the public,” he said.

While the picnic has forced the issue to the forefront, Russell said the purpose is really to have a peaceful gathering and to show folks where the access is located.

“We’re asking people to bring daffodils to put on the wall,” he said. “It’s pretty ugly.”