Should you pay to sit on a red-flagged beach?
During my morning Dunkin Donuts run, I have the pleasure of seeing Adam Gordon’s parents – who customarily sit by the window enjoying their breakfast.
Today they just happen to mention visiting Point Pleasant, but not being able to go in the water because it was red-flagged – meaning no one is allowed in due to the undertow created by Hurricane Cristobal.
When I asked whether or not they were still charging people – she said they were and was quite surprised that they had been charging. She wondered aloud why not just give a discount.
To which I said, “they shouldn’t be charging anything! What else is there to do but sit there and watch the waves?”
And while we’ve debated the nonsense of having to pay to use the shore – does it not make sense to you that if the shore is red-flagged, the fee should at least be waived?
Oh yes, I know – lifeguards still have to be paid – blah, blah, blah.
But still, you’re not using all the amenities the beach has to offer – like the ocean!
"We've been red-flagged for a couple of days now. The ocean is actually getting bigger by the hour here. It's going to get worse before it gets better."
The head of lifeguards in Belmar, Ray Elms, also weighed in on the rough surf.
In that time, they've had nearly 60 rescues, he said.
"Some days we can go two days with one or two (rescues)," Elms said. "When it kicks up like this, that's when lifeguards are on their toes."
So the question is: why have to pay for something you can’t even use? Since we have to pay anyway to gain access to the beach, do you think it’s fair to pay when you can’t use all the beach has to offer – like the ocean?