Editor’s note: The following is a letter received by the editor of redbankgreen in response to a video and accompanying article published earlier this week with the headline “Video: walking Red Bank’s Entire Waterfront. The video and article can be viewed here. We are publishing the letter in its entirety.
Brian,
My name is Anthony. I used to live in one of the Chapin Avenue townhomes you obsess over. While this issue no longer affects me personally, after watching your most recent video I felt compelled to reach out. Your arrogance is remarkable, but what is even more remarkable is the confidence with which you present information that is demonstrably inaccurate.
In your most recent video, as you stroll along the Navesink River, you eventually arrive at the townhome I called home for nearly ten years. You then proceed down the public easement path until you reach its end. Legally, that is where the public access ends. The backyards of the townhomes are private property, and the public does not have the legal right to walk through them.
At one point you state, “Technically, you can come here, I think… if you look at it on paper… and have a picnic on one of these people’s picnic tables.”
Well, I did look at it “on paper”—the very map you included in your previous piece on Chapin Avenue, which I’ve attached for your convenience.
That map very clearly depicts two separate easements: one providing access along the pathway to the rear of the townhomes and another running along the waterfront. They are not connected. To travel from one easement to the other, a person would have to cross privately owned property. The map could not make that distinction more clearly.
If you’re having trouble interpreting the map, I’d be happy to have my second grader explain it to you. Since you seem to appreciate a little cheekiness yourself, I figured I’d return the favor.
Your video shows you trespassing onto private property and, more concerning, encouraging others to do the same. Regardless of whether that was your intent, the message you conveyed is that members of the public are free to walk through these homeowners’ backyards. That is simply not supported by the recorded easements.
The conclusion of your video was perhaps the most disappointing. You commented that it was “less fun” because no homeowner came outside to confront you and that it would have made for a better video if someone had. That suggests you were hoping to provoke a confrontation with residents for the sake of entertainment. Frankly, I found that pathetic.
In your video, you describe your work as “public service journalism.” I would respectfully ask: how is it a public service to encourage conduct that infringes on private property rights? Journalists, like everyone else, make mistakes. What distinguishes responsible journalism is a willingness to acknowledge and correct them.
Fortunately, Red Bank Green states that it “honors the journalistic ideals of fairness and accuracy with neither fear nor favoritism” and that, “If we make a mistake, we will correct or clarify it. Just let us know.”
I’m letting you know.
Based on the recorded easement map and the clearly established property boundaries, your video presents an inaccurate description of where the public may lawfully walk. I hope you will issue a correction or clarification so your viewers understand that the public does not have the legal right to move between the two easements by crossing private property.
I look forward to your response and, more importantly, to your correction.
Sincerely,
Anthony Montalbano
