Common Sense For New Hampshire

10 Comments

1. Anonymous wrote:

   Thanks for posting! I wondered what format a petition like this would take. Seems easy enough. In another thread someone mentioned doing one of these to restrict the council’s power to approve large development projects or major usage changes without a referendum. I think that’s a good idea. Let the developers convince the community that a project is a good idea, not just the five people on the council.

   I’m thinking any project over 3.5 stories, anything that is a major change of usage, and anything with more than 4 new dwelling units would need community approval in addition to normal processes.

   Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 10:39 am | Permalink
2. admin wrote:

   This type of petition is very specifically under the Faulkner Act to challenge newly passed ordinances and put them to referendum. I would advise you to make sure you know the law before going through the tremendous amount of work it takes to collect hundreds of petition signatures.

   Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 10:48 am | Permalink
3. Let’s start ! wrote:

   Great info! Let’s talk to neighbors etc. and start the push for a referendum !!

   Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:48 am | Permalink
4. Ken Pringle wrote:

   Unfortunately, the Redevelopment Law expressly provides that municipal actions on redevelopment projects are not subject to the referendum provisions of the Faulkner Act or the bond law.

   That’s why, of the dozen suits my firm brought against the Borough during the Doherty years, the most important one to me was Grau v Belmar, in which we defeated Doherty’s attempt after Sandy to designate the entire boardwalk and beach as an area in need of redevelopment. If he had gotten that through, he would have been able sell and lease land along the boardwalk without public bidding, and we would not have been able to petition to challenge the bond ordinances the Borough adopted through the referendum process.

   Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:20 pm | Permalink
5. Anonymous wrote:

   Would you think a petition,no matter how futile it may be, may light a fire under the butts of these council people that they better start doing the job for the people of Belmar and not the pockets of these greedy developers? Again, vote these people out.

   Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 5:32 pm | Permalink
6. Anonymous wrote:

   #5 All Developers are not greedy. It’s America. You can buy property and develop it.

   Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 6:42 pm | Permalink
7. Katrina wrote:

   Let us remember the Seaport Redevelopment zone was passed under Ken’s administration. And Matt expanded it south down Main.
   All of the zone was set in place before the Walsifer administration. I may be wrong but i believe the pilots attached to those redevelopment projects already built were also negotiated before this administration.
   So, like it or not, redevelopment will happen. That is not to say interested public parties should not express interest or concerns. Go to planning and zoning meetings. Along with council meetings.
   And I am grateful Ken worked so hard along with many residents to prevent our boardwalk from being designated as in need of redevelopment. Especially when we see how difficult these decisions are. I shudder to think of what our beachfront would look like had Matt succeeded.

   Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
8. Noreen Dean wrote:

   Thank you Katrina for attempting to open eyes. Please be safe, we need you in Belmar.

   Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 9:50 am | Permalink
9. Anonymous wrote:

   #7, can you explain why the town is even involved with this redevelopment ? Is it just for a new municipal building ? Shouldn’t this deal have been made with the developer and the private land owners ?

   Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 10:26 am | Permalink
10. Katrina wrote:

    The borough has to be involved regardless if it’s private or public land. All plans have to be negotiated and approved by planning zoning and council. All redevelopment has contracts with the borough regarding ordinances density tax structures site plans etc.
    A private land owner has the right to develop but must follow procedures dictated by ordinances, master plan and governing body,
    It is my understanding the three private landowners want to redevelop and they abut the municipal land. The thought being ( this is me speaking now) it is a prudent and wise move to incorporate the municipal plots since all studies about infrastructure, parking land use etc effects the whole area. The whole town really.
    I would caution against thinking what everyone saw as first presented is a done deal. It’s along long way off with much negotiation to go.
    The “conditional resolution “ approved is NOT the final plan but structures and conditions both financial and time wise the things the redeveloper must do to show intent and allow Belmar to do studies at Dobco expense. Parking, traffic flow etc. NOT at the expense of the taxpayer. Belmar will do studies by our own professionals. That is very wise in my opinion.
    We have a long way to go. Come to meetings. Things are explained and you can ask questions directly. I’ve found our officials open to answering questions. And sometimes I don’t always quite get the answer so I pursue it a little more. It’s very tuff for me as a layperson to always comprehend the legalities and scope of a lot of this.
    I feel the amount of time and effort our board members put into all of this is to be commended. And I believe they come from a place of wanting to do what’s right for Belmar. Even if I don’t always agree with a particular decision.

    Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 11:51 am | Permalink

Post a Comment