The origin of Sea Bright’s now-called "redevelopment" planning effort was to create a safety net to prevent further ad hoc development in the downtown retail area and on the municipal-owned property in particular. I know this because I was largely instrumental in starting the planning discussion.

In the absence of a vision and plan to get there, ad hoc development will occur that does not pass the test of "how is this good for the residents of Sea Bright?" It is already happening. One example is the new Exxon station which, in my opinion, is the wrong use for that site, even though current zoning permits it. Why do we need another gas station and one that is so high it blocks the view of 15 housing units behind it? It would have been a great spot for a tennis court or the library, anything but what we have there now. Having a plan in place could have redirected this effort. Another favorite of mine is the world’s only waterfront recycling center — Hollywood has nothing on Sea Bright!

At this moment, we also have a study under way to look at the feasibility of a pool club to be operated by the borough. This would use up a big portion of the old Peninsula House lot, plus. I expect the economics of such a club will require parking for 400 cars or more. Such individual projects need to pass the "is it good for most of the people of Sea Bright?" test.

More importantly, devoting space to a pool club or other singular initiative can negate opportunities for using all the borough’s overall property more effectively. We need to study the whole opportunity and look at our options before carving it up into pieces. That is what our plan will examine.

The latest idea for 232 cabana-condos on the Tradewinds property is one more example of why we need a different process to review the impact of such well-intended development. A development plan will do this.

The reality is Sea Bright residents own significant oceanfront property in the form of the old Peninsula House lot, the borough hall complex, and the area housing the library and the police station. Soon, we will probably also own the old Allied lumber yard. These invaluable assets need to be viewed as a whole, and their development closely guided and protected in the best interest of the people who live here — not outsiders.

Our retail section needs help, and unfortunately, painting the buildings and adding street signs and lights won’t do the job. It is not that easy. Experts say we need parking solutions for existing stores, wider sidewalks and a few additional retail "draws." The fact that we have large parking areas across the street from where we need them is another reason for an overall plan.

Finally, many downtown residents have been vocal about their distaste for redevelopment, although no one, including me, knows what it is at this point. I fully understand the concern and so does every member of the governing body. The easy way out is to exclude the residential area from study, and that can easily be done. However, residents should know planning efforts allow different analyses to take place in different parts of a designated study area.

Accordingly, I would recommend downtown residents petition the council to have the study examine current zoning requirements with an eye toward the special realities of their parking issues, 50-foot lots, flooding, and building heights. I would also want to hear ideas about how to encourage private owners of both homes and large properties to invest in revitalization and development compatible with the existing residential feel. Finally, let’s get some cost estimates and funding ideas for bulk heading both private and public areas.

The study can do this too, and we should let it. If we don’t like the recommendations, then oppose them. Don’t oppose the study — which is an exploration of our options — until we can see what our options are.

Charles Galloway is a Sea Bright councilman.