Thursday, July 10, 2008

Take my Mission. PLEASE!


The Asbury Park Press continued their never ending Bataan Death March on Redevelopment today citing an appellate court ruling that the city was still within its rights to take 162 Broadway through eminent domain. 162 Broadway, for those of you who haven't had cause to do business there in the last 35 years or so, is the home of the world reknowned Lighthouse Mission run by Long Branch's own religious icon, the Reverend Kevin Brown.


Rev. Brown and his cathedral of chaos on Lower Broadway BOTH need to leave Long Branch. A look at this photograph would lead any sane person to the conclusion that this property meets the standard of "an area in need of redevelopment"--unless of course steel roll up doors on "churches" are now a religious symbol of some sort.


As the LBA has said in the past, we do not have a problem with redevelopment and eminent domain if it is being used for legitimate purposes. And clearly, any area of Lower Broadway is an area of in need of redevelopment.


We also are dubious that the Broadway Arts Center is a well conceived idea, but what the hell? Red Bank seems to thrive on the Count Basie Theater. Maybe we are missing something here.

6 comments:

Long Branch Advocate said...

NJCitizen -

While we agree with your assessment of the Brown matter and persona, your comments violate our blog policy of not allowing unwarranted personal attacks on individuals.

If you can rephrase, we will include your comments.

Anonymous said...

I've never met Rev. Brown, and have no factual basis for evaluating his activities. Yet, what I read from his adversaries arouses my concern.

"[T]he home of the world reknowned Lighthouse Mission run by Long Branch's own religious icon, the Reverend Kevin Brown. Rev. Brown and his cathedral of chaos on Lower Broadway BOTH need to leave Long Branch."

Oh, my.

It would appear that the "policy" of "not allowing unwarranted personal attacks on individuals" applies only to the comments of others.

In an attempt to advance reasoned discourse: is the opinion of a majority of the City Council a valid basis for deciding whom to run out of town? If your objection is to the physical appearance of Rev. Brown's premises, then why not aid in its improvement? If the point is that "we don't want your kind in our town," then the issue isn't recevelopment but, rather, something far more problematic, and sinister.

I know of a guy who used to be a carpenter, down the Shore on a different sea. He sought out criminals, prostitutes, drunks, crazy people -- all sorts of undesirables. I mean, they flocked to him. He got run out of nicer towns than Long Branch -- but that wasn't the worst thing people did to him. Or should I say, Him.

Again, I don't know Rev. Brown, but what I read arouses my concern.

Long Branch Advocate said...

Anonymous, our cited comments about Rev. Brown and his so-called church are not unwarranted nor are they personal attacks.

Having said that, you are welcome to your opinions of our comments and, as you can see, we have posted them for all to read.

As for your comparison of Rev. Brown to, who we assume to Jesus Christ, we think it a stretch but you are clearly free to worship him or Him or b/Both as you wish.

Rumor has it there is a church at 162 Broadway where you can worship Brown.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Advocate, (re)consider:

"Anonymous, our cited comments about Rev. Brown and his so-called church are not unwarranted nor are they personal attacks."

Don't you think it's a tad much to call it a "so-called church" and to ridicule the man as an "icon" and "world reknowned" [sic: that's renowned ... sorry, too personal]? And while we're being ungrammatical, what's with the royal plural?

I respectfully call the question: is condemnation a means for excluding individuals from our town? Is it the appearance of the structure that troubles you (however many of you there be), or the individual who lives there?

You need not post this, as long as you read it. You need not answer me, as long as you answer to yourself (or yourselves).

Long Branch Advocate said...

We will gladly post your comment and gladly answer your inquiries:

1. It IS a so-called church whether you want to agree with us or not. For it to be an OBVIOUS church it would be in its own consecrated building, presumably associated with an OBVIOUS religion. To be something other than that makes it a so-called church.

2. The man is an icon of his own making. If you doubt this, please google his name and see what he says about himself.`

3. No, condemnation should not be a means of clearing out people but I respectfully suggest that the only people making that claim are the people directly impacted by the condemnation. It is coincidence that in THIS specific case, the condemnation also impacts on a known naysayer to everything but that which promotes him. If you don't believe us, just ask all those citizens of the city that not only roundly rejected him for elected office but also failed to find ONE scrap of evidence of ballot tampering, despite claims to the contrary.

4. It is not the appearance of the buildings at question, although it is likely a component. We are talking about an AREA in need of redevelopment, not a building. The AREA needs redevelopment, unless of course abandoned buildings, bodegas, abandonded lots, brown-bag liquor stores and illegal immigrant muster zones are your idea of an area NOT in need of redevelopment.

5. We apologize for our poor typing and grammar skills. We take your criticism in the kind, proactive manner in which it was offered. No, we don't take it personally. We will try to learn from our mistakes--we can only answer to ourselves, though.

6. Royal "we". Funny! As we have said before, there are a number of us who are contributors and we have also invited guest commentators to contribute. So while we may not be royal, we appreciate the sentiment.

Anonymous said...

It is clearly en eyesore.