Imagine 80 more of these downtown. (Photo by Dustin Racioppi; click to enlarge)
By DUSTIN RACIOPPI
Mayor Pasquale Menna can’t say enough how much he objects to a plan by New Jersey Natural Gas to replace aging equipment in town, although he’s trying his best.
“New Jersey Natural Gas decided they wanted to be modern day Vandals of Red Bank,” he said of the company’s proposed “gas pressure regulator relocation project,” which “sounds very fancy but it’s very ugly.”
The plan, to open up downtown sidewalks and remove old gas regulators, then install new ones above ground, has sent Menna into a whirling tirade against the company, saying it’s acting out of corporate greed and counteracting years of work to preserve the historic downtown.
Menna introduced a resolution Wednesday night opposing the project, and intends to bend the ears of state legislators to cut the gas on NJNG’s plan.
“Absolutely,” he said. “This goes against the grain of something we’ve done the last 25 years. We want to put things underground and they want to dig up the dead and put it right downtown.”
The plan calls for the aging regulators to be dug up in the late spring and early summer and replaced with new devices outside about 80 businesses in the downtown. The regulators, which channel high-pressure gas to a lower pressure for business use, look “like somebody put a toilet bowl pipe outside,” Menna said, and putting them on borough sidewalks is tantamount to vandalizing.
There are already a couple of the above-ground regulators downtown, Menna said, but adding another 80 of “the most hideous, ugly, disgusting-looking horse posts” will disrupt the historic look of the area. He’s also miffed that the company brought forth the plan with no consultation with borough leadership.
“I think it calls for very, very strident action on our part,” he said. “Our business community is up in arms over it, our residents are up in arms over it, and it deals a mortal blow to our historic district. And it’s up to our legislators to take action.”
Menna said they also pose a safety hazard, and he’ll be taking his complaints to the state Board of Public Utilities as well as legislators, he said.
“I’d like to see one in front of the (homes) of the executives of New Jersey Natural Gas in their homes in Rumson or wherever, in shiny yellow” to see how they like it, he said.
How about building a “box” around these regulators then use them for advertizing or sandwich boards.
Make a negative into a positive.
Better yet, OMG, create raised beds and grow a community garden.
Double revenue, advertizing on the sides, charge a small rental fee for square foot gardening on top.
Rivercenter in charge of advertizing,
Cindy Burhnam in charge of gardens!
WIN WIN for everyone!!!!!
Brandon, These are all great ideas, however, sounds like ya may need some permits for these improvements. Red Bank is gonna have to get something out of this and better check with the DEP! lol!!!!
We should see if NJNG can be persuaded not to construct any more and to replace the ones they’ve installed.
I’d be surprised if the law isn’t on NJNG’s side on this one so I don’t think a lawsuit should be the first resort.
Not sure how long you can go without paying them before they shut your service off, but I think it must be at least two months.
A boycott can be effective only with a very high percentage of resident participation.
There are other money wasters which could be deployed (eg. a large number of customers going online and switching between online bills and mail statements)
NJNG might not approve the of building any type of structure on them and may remove any that are built.
In that case could volunteers just place some type of inexpensive garland around them?
If that tear that off who cares?
And if quickly replaced they’ll soon tire of tearing it off.
If there isn’t some kind of safety concern driving this, then there is no legitimate reason for NJNG to do this. I’d also like to see who is expected to pick up the tab for what surely would be a very expensive project, though it wouldn’t be surprising at all if it falls on the tax payers.
Pat:
Since it’s part of project to replace aging gas lines it sounds as if it is a safety issue.
But I don’t know if these particular devices are safer than ones kept below ground.
Taxpayers probably won’t be paying, it will be NJNG customers, which is probably almost all taxpayers.
If it is a safety issue, then I don’t see why NJNG can’t just replace the old underground regulators with new underground regulators. If that’s possible, it would serve both the safety issue and the aesthetics problem.
If the taxpayers front the bill indirectly, then the smartest thing to do would to put it up as a ballot question for Red Bank residents. After all, they are the ones that would have to live with these above-ground regulators, not NJNG.
Pat:
Good thought.
I have no idea which NJ law governs this project or how it reads.
But from what I’ve seen, NJ law seems to give wide discretion to the various Govt Agencies and public utilities in how they handle their maintenance projects. I doubt RB voters have a say.
And apparently non-binding ballot questions are not permitted in NJ.
A few years back Monmouth County refused to allow Sea Bright to put a question on the ballot to change the state funding formula for towns like SB with no schools of their own.
The County had ruled that non-binding referendums are illegal in NJ.
If we want to fight this officially the NJ Public Utilities Commission is probably where we should start.
Even if someone were to file a suit the Court would probably direct they try to resolve it through the Commission first.
Well that makes a lot of sense (sarcasm). If a ban on non-binding referendums is a county decision and not a state one, then maybe it can be reversed in the county government. If the people are allowed to vote on this issue, then at least we would know what the right move here is.
Pat:
It’s a state decision.
But I guess the county is responsible for creating the ballot.
According to our meter-reader, they r changing the meters to ones that cam b read by a handheld scanner from a car so that they can read more meters faster, thus save the gas company money. Sounds like a money move, not a safety one.