Bold start: A quiet Jersey Shore town sparked a loud debate about who pays for balance between public access and municipal budgets. And this is where it gets controversial…
When Allenhurst, New Jersey, gathered for a special meeting about beach fees on a Monday morning, nearly 50 residents and beachgoers arrived to find folding chairs set up in the parking lot. The meeting would happen outside because fire code limited the municipal building to 49 people, and there wasn’t enough time to arrange an alternative venue. It was freezing at 27 degrees.
Attendees braved the cold in coats, hats, and gloves (some in sweaters only), waiting to challenge a proposed 20% increase in beach fees for the 2026 summer season. One participant grabbed a rock to keep printouts of the meeting agenda from blowing away, while another stood near a four-foot snow bank and wondered what planners were thinking.
Even with the outdoor setup, the main anger centered on the beach hike ordinance passed in January. The mood among residents and beachgoers intensified, driving a petition that reached at least 15% of registered voters. The goal: force a special election to obtain taxpayer approval for the fee hikes.
To avoid a costly special election, the board of commissioners repealed the ordinance during Monday’s meeting. Instead, they proposed freezing beach fees at 2025 levels for the upcoming summer.
The vote, however, was not unanimous among the three-person board, consisting of Mayor Frieda Adjmi, Deputy Mayor Theresa Manziano-Santoro, and Commissioner Joseph Dweck. Tensions within the trio had grown prior to the meeting. Santoro had previously been removed as beach commissioner by her two colleagues, which she described as “unwarranted and pernicious,” a remark she later said meant something like “nasty.” She recused herself from the vote after signing the petition, leaving Adjmi and Dweck to decide. The borough attorney even asked Santoro to leave the makeshift dais set up on the building’s front porch during the vote.
Adjmi announced, from the improvised dais, that the controversial ordinance would be repealed. She explained that the fee hike was meant to fund a longer-term plan for improvements to the Beach Club, but that residents’ concerns about timing and affordability mattered, and a special election could cost about $20,000.
Audience members pressed for transparency. They questioned whether anyone had been hired to design the improvements or to price potential projects. They also highlighted the Beach Club’s revenue—about $2.1 million in 2024 and $2.9 million in 2025—and asked what those funds were being used for, noting that the borough budget had not yet been presented.
Some residents wondered whether the Beach Club, owned by the town and charging service fees, should be treated as a utility under state law. With the club already flush with cash, people questioned the rationale for the proposed increases and the large gap between resident and nonresident fees. For instance, in 2024 a seasonal cabana cost $3,360 for residents and $8,500 for nonresidents; in 2026 the proposed figures would have risen to $6,660 for residents and $13,320 for nonresidents if the ordinance had taken effect. Daily beach tags were not part of the ordinance, costing $12 on weekdays and $15 on weekends in 2025 and 2026.
“I’m not convinced,” said Tonie Dunn, 67, a longtime Beach Club attendee, echoing a common view that municipal user fees should reflect actual operating and maintenance costs rather than act as a disguised tax. Dunn cited New Jersey case law that supports this principle.
With the budget not yet introduced, residents remained in the dark about how tax dollars would be used. A longtime Allenhurst resident, who asked to remain unnamed, called the repeal a small victory but warned that deeper town issues go far beyond the Beach Club and its fees. “The Beach Club belongs to the taxpayers of the town, not the mayor,” they insisted.
But the controversy isn’t fully settled. The split within the board signals ongoing debate about governance, transparency, and the best path to sustain public amenities while protecting residents from burdensome costs. Would you support a fully transparent plan that links fees to actual costs and publicly outlines improvement projects, or do you favor maintaining the status quo to avoid immediate tax impacts? Share your thoughts in the comments.
