One of the even sillier governmental restrictions on bare feet comes from east coast towns.
Many have ordinances prohibiting bare feet on their boardwalks.
Really? Right there on the beach?
Yes.
Here is what the Ocean City, NJ ordinance says:
CHAPTER XVIII BEACHES, BOARDWALKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS
18-3 BOARDWALK REGULATIONS.
18-3.2 Wearing of Shoes, Sandals or Protective Devices Required.
It is unlawful to walk on the public boardwalk or on the steps or approaches thereto without shoes, sandals or other protective devices adequate to prevent injuries to the general public. (Ord. #1021, § 2; Ord. #87-24, § 1)
They’ve had the ordinance for quite a while. Here’s an article about it from The Press of Atlantic City from 1993:
BAREFOOTIN’ ON O.C. BOARDWALK HAS PRICEY CONSEQUENCE
The shoeless on O.C.’s Boardwalk could be barefootin’ to the tune of $25, if authorities choose to enforce a little-known law.
To go barefoot or not to go barefoot? That is the question.
Is it nobler to run afoul of the law in personal comfort or to obey it, tied to one’s footwear?
OK, OK, so Hamlet never said that. But then again, Hamlet was never on the Ocean City Boardwalk .
Believe it or not, residents and visitors here have somewhat of a moral dilemma to deal with when walking on the boards.
For years now, there has been an ordinance on the books that prohibits bare feet on the Boardwalk .
According to city code 18-3.2, “It is unlawful to walk on the public Boardwalk or on the steps or approaches thereto without shoes, sandals, or other protective devices adequate to prevent injuries to the general public.”
And watch out would-be perpetrators of barefootedness. You could be cited with a $25 fine.
Then again, chances are you won’t.
Strolling down the Boardwalk on Saturday it seemed nearly every other person was walking barefoot.
And fortunately for them, the summer officers who patrol the Boardwalk ignored them.
Many of the barefoot people didn’t realize there was an ordinance governing such activity.
Colleen DeSalme of Philadelphia didn’t know she was breaking the law as she walked barefoot with her 8-year-old daughter Shannon.
“I think it’s terrible. You’re at the beach. You’re supposed to be in bare feet. People are always going from the beach to the Boardwalk ,” she said.
DeSalme called the ordinance a “violation of rights.”
Roger Zanowic of North Plainfield took DeSalme’s violation-of-rights argument a step further into the philosophical realm.
Standing with a full beard and looking like a modern-day Socrates in neon swimming trunks, Zanowic pondered the effects of the ordinance on individual choice.
“As an individual who believes that the earth is my gymnasium, I shall continue to defy this ridiculous law of Ocean City,” Zanowic said.
“It should be left up to the individual to decide whether or not to wear footwear,” he said.
Zanowic said in passing that he’d “paid the price” of freedom once and actually hurt himself by stepping on a big, sharp object.
It is for this reason that the ordinance was enacted, said a summer police officer on patrol.
“It’s there to protect the city from getting sued,” said the officer, who did not want to be identified.
He said the law is meant to protect people from getting nasty splinters or slicing their feet on glass.
The officer said he didn’t know of any officer who’d written a ticket for barefooters this summer and the ordinance is “very, very rarely used.”
However, he did say that threat of a citation for no shoes is sometimes used to force rowdy youths off the Boardwalk at night.
Several youths sitting along the Boardwalk railing thought maybe the ordinance had something to do with personal appearance.
“Why can’t a kid not wear shoes on the Boardwalk ? What’s it bothering?” asked Mike Vitali of Ambler, Pa.
His friend, Len Vinci, then looked down at his bare feet.
“With feet like that, I can see why they’re enforcing it,” he said.
Tim Sirhal and his two friends, Jason Mascherino and Nathan Schwab, of West Chester, Pa., were all hanging out by Jilly’s Arcade without shoes.
Rebels that they were, the three had no shame in admitting their crime.
Sirhal said he’d been staying in the city for two weeks and he hadn’t worn shoes once.
Unlike others, however, Sirhal did not claim ignorance as an excuse.
“We knew you weren’t supposed to,” he said.
The three laughed about the ordinance and tried to grasp the reason behind it.
“It’s actually pretty funny,” said Schwab. “I mean, why do they (have) a law like that?”
For Andrew Dodson, the city ordinance didn’t end up being so funny.
Dodson, a former resident of Ocean City who now lives in Philadelphia, was surfing around 14th Street last summer when he drifted several blocks with the current.
Because the city’s beach replenishment project had closed off parts of the beach from 10th to 13th streets, Dodson figured the only way to get back to where his car was parked was to walk on the Boardwalk .
“I’ve been walking on the Boardwalk for years with bare feet,” said Dodson.
Clad only in a wet bathing suit and carrying a surfboard, he successfully walked three blocks, passing three police officers, before he was finally confronted by a fourth officer.
He was not just written a ticket for no shoes, but also one for carrying a surfboard on the Boardwalk .
Insult was added to injury when Dodson later scoffed at the tickets and decided not to pay them.
A warrant was issued and then his driving privileges were suspended by the Division of Motor Vehicles.
Need we ask what Dodson thinks of the ordinance?
“It’s used selectively by the police,” said Dodson. “I guarantee that on a hot summer night, over 35 percent of the people have no shoes on.”
From that, you can see that it was used by the police when they wanted to. If they pegged you as an undesirable, they would zap you with it.
That was in 1993. But by 2002, an article appeared asking where all the bare feet had gone:
LOOK AROUND. WHERE ARE ALL THE BARE FEET OF SUMMER?
Flaunting danger with reckless disregard, Samantha Damico, 22, and Jamie Horseman , 21, made a brash journey across the hot sand and splintery Boardwalk . Their only thought: “Mmm, pizza.” The dangers threatening their perilously exposed tootsies were ignored.
That’s right. The two Millville women were barefoot. Barefoot on a boardwalk ? C’mon. Happens all the time, right?
Not really. The next time you take a stroll on the boards, check the feet of the people passing by. What you’ll see is an amazing collection of flipflops, sandals, deck shoes and sneakers. But exposed bare feet, that’s getting pretty rare, something left to rebels like Damico and Horseman .
In fact, however, the women admitted they hadn’t even weighed possible consequences before they set out on their risky lunch mission.
“It didn’t really cross my mind,” Horseman said standing on the Ocean City Boardwalk . “I even have flipflops at my blanket, but, you know, it’s summer.”
* * *
It also seems to still be selectively enforced. I also found a 2004 article in which a man was featured for walking a Diabetes Marathon on the Ocean City boardwalk barefoot, with no mention of the ordinance.
I really do wonder if it is constitutional (but obviously, nobody has challenged it). Generally, precedent says that the police power does not extend to protecting us from ourselves, but only from protecting others from our actions. The old: your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. For instance, smoking bans are predicated on the idea, not of protecting the smoker, but of protecting those who have to smell and inhale the smoke.
In my barefoot library cases, the fiction was that it was protecting the library from any barefooted lawsuits. (Of course, they weren’t concerned about any high-heeled lawsuits; they also ignored the law that said the libraries were immune from such lawsuits.)
But there is something else there that is just outright offensive—the supposed reason for the ordinance:
. . . without shoes, sandals or other protective devices adequate to prevent injuries to the general public.
They are admitting to having a dangerous condition. And instead of fixing that condition, they are requiring mandatory safety equipment. After all, that is what shoes in that situation are.
It seems they can only get away with that with bare feet.
Suppose you instead went into your Bureau of Motor Vehicles and they said that, due to disrepair, chunks of ceiling kept falling on people’s heads, and that therefore they had passed an ordinance requiring all visitors to the BMV wear hard hats.
That would be ridiculous—they would be required to fix their ceiling.
Yet, somehow that never happens with bare feet.
The prejudice is strong in these people, grasshopper.
I am not surprised. I was there as a kid in 1945 and was shocked to find that they required men to wear tops when swimming!
I thought you would enjoy this pic because of the subject. It was taken in Melbourne, FL.
http://tinyurl.com/7c8j3do
[Added by Ahcuah: I’m going to try to edit in the photo.]
Sign in Melbourne, FL (photo contributed by barefootward)
Despite a forced change of internet account (I was hacked and yahoo sides with the hacker rather than me), I had no problem getting Ahcuah, and even getting a comment posted. However, I can’t see the picture. Any suggestions on how to get it?
Paul, you should be able to see it now.
Thanks Bob, I tried to put the pic in the comment but couldn’t do it.
Ward: Yeah, only the owner of the blog can do that. Happy to oblige.
By the way, I just checked the Melbourne ordinances. There is no ordinance requiring footwear on the boardwalk. So that was undoubtedly just put up there by some administrator.
Try Melbourne Beach township,FL maybe it might be there, cuz its separate from Melbourne.
The Melbourne Beach ordinances didn’t have a footwear ordinance either.
You figure that these signs would be a “turn-off” to local visitors or tourists. If I am walking by and see one of those “Shoes required” signs, it would make me not come back. I don’t think these city officials realize that their ordinances can drive away tourism.
Barefooter: I does me; I haven’t been to Ocean City NJ since! 🙂