Residents press Long Branch council over Pier Village flag display; city attorney says flag area is private property

Multiple residents used the council’s public-comment period to press officials about a recent display of Israeli flags at Pier Village and the city’s public comment disclosure rules. Jeff Walstein, who identified himself as born in Long Branch and currently residing in Tinton Falls, said the city’s requirement that speakers state full home addresses on a live-streamed record creates safety risks and violates his First Amendment rights. "This rule is not required by federal or state law, and in my situation, it creates a very real safety risk," he said, and added he would state his name and municipality but would not disclose his private home address on a replayable stream.

Walstein argued the Pier Village site functions as a public forum in practice because city public works maintains portions of the property, police patrol it, the city collects parking revenue there, hosts events, and lifeguards for the beach are city employees. He cited legal precedent commonly invoked in forum-structure arguments (Marsh v. Alabama; Evans v. Newton; Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority) and asked the council to acknowledge the site’s public functions rather than rely on private-property labels.

Rich Siegel, a visitor from Teaneck, and other commenters expressed differing views about the flag display. Siegel said he is Jewish and opposes Israeli policy; he described the flags as a provocation and urged their removal. Vincent Lepore and others raised procedural concerns about the timing and public availability of ordinance materials and asked for more transparency on the proposed $2,000,000 fire-truck ordinance.

City legal counsel (referred to in the transcript as Mr. Reynone and speaking as the city's legal counsel) responded during the meeting, stressing legal constraints. He said "the property on which the flags are located is private property" and explained the practical limits on council authority: because the city does not own the flagpoles or that parcel, it cannot order removal and any content-based regulation of private property would likely face litigation. He also noted adjacent elements — public roads with parking meters, a public boardwalk and public beach — remain public rights-of-way and do not change the ownership of the private parcel where the flags stand.

The exchange left the constitutional and operational questions unresolved in the meeting: residents reiterated safety and public-forum concerns and requested the council consider options, while the city attorney cautioned that legal remedies are constrained by ownership and First Amendment protections. No city action to alter the display was recorded in the minutes; the public comment record will be part of the next steps as the council moves forward with scheduled hearings and related agenda items.