Common Sense For New Hampshire

13 Comments

1. guest wrote:

   NO!

   Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:49 am | Permalink
2. Noreen Dean wrote:

   Received and mailed my ballot yesterday. Good luck to Dave and all my other selections.

   I voted NO. I’m not in favor of spending 4.3 million on one pavilion nor was I when the bundling ordinance was promoted or the year before that. Two pavilions could be constructed for the price of this one.

   Remember Vote NO on November 3rd.

   Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:38 am | Permalink
3. Ugh wrote:

   No! Ridiculous costs need to be voted out.

   Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
4. Resident wrote:

   The explanatory statement is wrong, the entire debt will not be paid off within 24 to 36 months. Look closely at the wording is say “is expected” also it says the financing will be “while” waiting for FEMA reimbursement. There may be millions in long term debt. The statement says the short term debt will be paid off what about the long term debt. This is misleading. FEMA is obligated to pay 2.9 million and that amount going all to the 5th Ave pavilion is in court. No one knows yet what taxpayers will be responsible to pay.

   Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
5. Fed Up wrote:

   Absolutely NO!

   Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
6. anibody wrote:

   Did the stalking horse make his position known to the voters? If so, your answer to the ballot question will be crystal clear.

   Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:00 pm | Permalink
7. Katrina wrote:

   As a committee member of the petition to get this question on the ballet I find the wording the words ” expected to be repaid in 24 to 36 months” very misleading.

   Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:24 am | Permalink
8. admin wrote:

   Obviously they were not to be trusted to write the interpretive statement.

   Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:30 am | Permalink
9. Anonymous wrote:

   By Law shouldn’t the interpretive statement be included on the Resolution/Ordinance adopted authorizing the question to be placed on the ballot???? Apparently it wasn’t. Was it added after adoption? Is that legal?

   Friday, September 25, 2015 at 9:11 am | Permalink
10. admin wrote:

    I think the County Board of Elections should write it, but apparently what the Council did was legal. Was it fair? Obviously not!

    Friday, September 25, 2015 at 9:16 am | Permalink
11. Anonymous wrote:

    Looked at Belmar website and saw resolution that was adopted. No interpretive statement on it. Either language was added to it after the fact or a separate letter was given to county elections giving statement. How is that appropriate/legal if it is not voted on by Belmar officials? Does anyone have a copy of what was given to county election people? Not sure of my vote yet but in any event, I believe it should have been done in a proper manner. Misleading statement. Implies that FEMA will be funding the project, yet no dollar amounts are mentioned. That is something I wanted to know about. Shame on you Belmar officials.

    Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:08 am | Permalink
12. admin wrote:

    Also no mention of Buy a Board or insurance $$ that they plan to use. FEMA only promised so far $2.9 million and some of that may have to go to the beach utility.
    The statement also fails to mention that it is a 20 year bond with the taxpayers being the only liable party. They can wish it will be paid off sooner but there is no guarantee.

    Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:12 am | Permalink
13. crazy wrote:

    Maybe the ”Buy a Board” money went to the ”Home By Summer” campaign since nobody knows where the money went and nobody knows how Home By Summer got so much money. Sounds funny to me.

    Friday, September 25, 2015 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment