Common Sense For Belmar Liberty Begins At Home

August 31, 2013

No, Congressman. Read The Constitution.

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 6:02 pm

From the Wall Street Journal

“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents,” said Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.). “The president doesn’t need 535 members of Congress to enforce his own red line.”

Obama is doing exactly the right thing by seeking congressional approval to attack Syria.  Only the Congress has the authority to commit the nation to war.  It is Peter King that is abdicating his responsibility.

 

August 30, 2013

We Did It!

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 7:22 pm

ORDINANCE 2013-16

BOND ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN LINE FOR SILVER LAKE IN AND BY THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR, IN THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY, APPROPRIATING $1,860,000 THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,767,000 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE BOROUGH TO FINANCE PART OF THE COST THEREOF.

One question though:  Why $1.8 million?  The job was estimated at $1.1 million.

Maybe It Didn’t Rain In Asbury Park

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:08 pm

Or Spring Lake.

Below: Monmouth County portion of a graphic from a story in today’s APP.

noname

Flashback

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:58 am

Some of my ads from the 2010 race.
image001
i don't care
i want
traditional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.outof wejust

 

 

 

.No more screwy

August 29, 2013

It Was 24 Years Today,

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 7:23 am

The State Told Us That We Couldn’t Play.

To Beach Visitors We Couldn’t Sock-it,

And Put The Money In Our Own Pocket.

.

ALFRED A. SLOCUM PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Monmouth County.
Decided August 29, 1989.

 

IV.

REASONABLE FEES UNDER N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20.

N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20 sets forth the statutory authority to charge beach user fees. The Public Advocate claims that the statute only includes costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the beachfront. Belmar contends that beach related expenses include all those expenditures which the municipality would not incur if it was not a beachfront community.

The avenue this court must take in resolving this issue is one of statutory interpretation. The primary aim in interpretinga statute is to determine the fundamental purpose for which the legislation was enacted, and where a literal reading will lead to a result not in accordance with the essential goals of the act, the spirit of the law will control the letter. New Jersey Builders, Owners & Managers Ass’n v. Blair,60 N.J. 330288 A.2d 855(1972). Where there is no explicit indication of a special meaning, statutory words are given their ordinary and well understood meaning. Matter of Schedule of Rules for Barnert Memorial Hospital,92 N.J. 31455 A.2d 469 (1983); Levin v. Parsippany-Troy Hills,82 N.J. 174411 A.2d 704 (1980). In this case, the phrase “reasonable fees” requires statutory interpretation.

It is clear that N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20 was enacted for the purpose of authorizing shore municipalities to charge beach user fees in order to reimburse the municipality for its costs associated with the beachfront. The determination of what costs may be reasonably allocated to the beach badge purchaser is the thrust of this case.

The Court in Avon acknowledged the burdens placed upon oceanfront municipalities and discussed the rationale behind the statute. The Court found that in determining a reasonable fee, municipalities “may consider all additional costs legitimately attributable to the operation and maintenance of the beachfront, including direct beach operational expenses, additional personnel and services required in the entire community, debt service of outstanding obligations incurred for beach improvements and preservation, and a reasonable annual reserve designed to meet expected future capital expenses.” Avon, supra, 61 N.J. at 311, 294 A.2d 47; emphasis supplied.

It is clear that the statute directs its “reasonable fee” standard to the municipality, however, this fee must be reasonable in relation to the municipality’s expenses incurred as a result of the beachfront. That is not to say that Belmar can “fantasize” that it is an inland community and allocate any additional costsabove and beyond its imaginary expenses as an inland community.3

Belmar, as a beachfront municipality, benefits overall from the shore attraction. This is an added benefit, or in some cases, a burden to the municipality that comes with the territory. See Van Ness, supra, 78 N.J.at 174, 393 A.2d 571Avon, supra, 61 N.J. at 299, 294 A.2d 47. The collection of reasonable fees directly related to the beachfront was designed to offset these community burdens. The Legislature understood that there would be an enormous impact on the community spirit, as well as the community finances. Thus, the statute is designed to subsidize the costs related directly to the beachfront.

It is this court’s obligation to determine what constitutes reasonable expenditures in light of N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20 for the benefit of both the beachgoer and the Belmar community.

Michelle Bowman, an expert in the field of accounting, with a special emphasis on trust accounting, financial reporting and cost allocation, testified on behalf of the Public Advocate. This witness, who supported her testimony with a written report, examined 30 separate items of expenditure relating to beachfront activities and recommended how each of these items should be allocated to the operation of Belmar’s beachfront facility. In support of Belmar’s position, Robert Hulsart, a certified public accountant, registered municipal accountant, and expert auditor in municipal finance, testified that the allocations of beach related expenses devised by the Borough Clerk, Charles Ormsbee, were reasonable under N.J.S.A.40:61-22.20. This court finds Bowman’s allocations to be more credible and reasonable than Belmar’s, and accordingly adopts a majority of the Bowman findings relating to legitimate beachfront expenditures.Additionally, this court finds that Belmar’s allocations are mere speculations, unsupported by any explanation or records. Belmar’s allocations are arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory against the beach badge purchaser; the revenues derived are more than are needed to defray the operational costs permitted under the statute.

Accordingly, this court determines that the beach admission fees charged by Belmar under N.J.S.A.40:61-22.20 are unreasonable.

So how can Doherty, Magovern, Nicolay, Keown-Blackburn and Xxxxxx think that the state is going to allow us to build a community center/banquet hall financed with badge revenues?  And where’s lawyer Dupont?

Do I Have An Angel At The Press?

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:08 am

This is a little weird.  After my minor rant yesterday morning about the Bloomberg writer using the word “unsuccessful” to describe my 2011 Libertarian candidacy, I took a look at the print edition in the Press over dinner last night and noticed that an editor there had substituted the word “former” for “unsuccessful”.  Whoever it was obviously recognized that “unsuccessful” was a poor choice of words do describe the outcome of that race for me.  What really surprises me is that somebody over there bothered to fix it.

BTW, I complained about the same thing to Molly after my 2010 independent race for council and she stopped doing it.

Of course this year I would have no excuses.  If they call me an unsuccessful failed loser, I’ll have to keep my mouth shut.

But I don’t plan to let that happen.

 

August 28, 2013

Definition Of Insanity

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 12:55 pm

The civil war in Syria is basically between Sunnis allied with Al Qaeda and Alawites allied with Shiite Iran.  How on earth can it be in America’s national interest to get in the middle of that?

Like pretty much all of all our interventions over there, this will end with all parties hating us and wanting to kill us.  And the NSA will tell us how, in order to keep us safe, they need to read our emails and listen to our phone calls.

Schneck In The Press

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:14 am

I get the final word in a Bloomberg story, picked up on the front page of today’s Asbury Park Press:

The agency (FEMA) now considers such a project too vulnerable to storms, said Doherty, a Democrat. Next month, the borough council will vote on a $6.6 million bond issue to build larger, multistory pavilions with a banquet hall and other concessions. About 500 residents have petitioned against the project, saying the plans and the borrowing should go up for public vote.

Moody’s in December assigned a negative outlook to $9.4 million of Belmar debt rated Aa3, fourth-highest. The borough since has issued $26.2 million in notes.

“We have no idea how much money we’re going to get from FEMA,” David Schneck, a 56-year-old Belmar resident who was an unsuccessful Libertarian Party candidate for the state assembly in 2011, said by phone Aug. 7. He signed the petition, he said, and urged the borough to be mindful of its credit rating.

“We should take a deep breath and wait to see how the dust settles,” he said. “These pavilions are not essential.”

I don’t know why she didn’t mention that I am currently a Republican candidate for council.  I guess to Bloomberg “unsuccessful Libertarian” has a nicer ring to it.  The truth is that my Libertarian friends were quite pleased with my 2011 results.  I was supported by roughly 3% of the voters, and in some towns upward of 6%.  Typically, Libertarians get around 1%.  But when you run in the Libertarian Party you aren’t in it to win.  You’re in it to educate about the benefits of freedom and to offer alternatives to the conventional solutions being sold to us  by the major parties.   I think by that metric I was highly successful.  And I had a lot of fun doing it.

Also worth noting is that Belmar is one of 42 towns included in the study.  And it is a small town too.  But we borrowed over 6.5% of the total borrowed.  And our borrowing certainly didn’t double, like the average for all these towns.  I’ll have to check the exact figures when I get a chance, but I think it quadrupled.

 

 

August 27, 2013

If I Lived In Red Bank

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 7:17 pm

I would be seeing red.

Watchdog: Red Bank to vote on borrowing $326K to fund employee payouts

They better not try anything like that here.

Notes From The Road

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:56 pm

So I’ve started visiting with the people, getting them used to the idea that there will soon be another short, bald guy up on the dais.  I hope they’re ready for it.

All kidding aside (for the moment), it has been quite fun and educational.

For starters, I’ve developed a newfound respect for all the letter carriers of this great nation.  I’m sure the local guys are none too pleased at FEMA’s policy of forcing everybody’s houses up another five or ten feet into the air.

I also learned that nearly every household in town has at least one dog.  And on this occasion I would like to announce that all my policies will be strongly pro-dog.

One long time resident who lives on a one-way avenue in town told me the cars used to go a lot slower when her street was two-way.  One-way streets leave the roadway wide enough to speed.  When cars going both directions have to both use that roadway, they have to slow down.  I think it would make things much safer for our kids (and our dogs!)  To me this is a better solution to speeders on the one-way streets than using speed bumps, extra stop signs or more police patrols.  It would cost nothing and make it easier to get around town.  The one-way streets are such a pain anyway.   By getting rid of them we would increase freedom and safety at the same time.  Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?

Another resident asked about the bathhouse.  (I have to explain to everyone that contrary to the impression given by the mayor’s second letter, it was actually the mayor’s idea to have a bathhouse and not a vicious rumor spread by some unsavory element in town.)  I explained to her that the idea behind it was that people would be more likely to patronize a local restaurant if they had some place to shower and change clothes after being on the beach all day.  I’m sure it would help, but it’s not the town’s job to make people feel clean enough to go to restaurants.  This particular woman had a back round in the restaurant industry and suggested that some enterprising restauranteur should provide shower facilities for diners who like to be clean when they eat.  What an interesting idea!  Any takers?

On a related note, I am working on a plan to provide free dog grooming services to all the people of Belmar.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress