Town-Wide Redevelopment Takeover
.
-
Pages
Recent Comments
-
No recent comment found.
Archives
- January 2022
- December 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
10 Comments
Notice of the proposed Redevelopment Amendment Ordinance No. 2016-10 was published in the Coast Star on August 25, 2016 …. the notice says the hearing date is August 16, 2016.
The wizard must have a time machine!
Gene for MAYOR…
Can anyone explain how the Pay to play ordinance vote affects Belmar tax payer. What is the jeopardy for an elected official(s) for taking money, etc., from Vendors in Belmar?
Is it really “only” that the elected official???, who receive monetary consideration (cool term), cannot vote for three years on anything that that specific Vendor paid into or gave to a candidate?
What happens to all that money, in kind donations that mcdirty collected in this supposed Freeholder race? Does mcdirty get to keep the $$$? Is the money then liken to a salary? If so Who pays taxes on that unearned income?
Al Capone?
#3 The main purpose is to reduce any suspicion of favoritism to any vendor in receiving a contract to do work or purchase material. Unfortunately, Municipal Governments are not covered under more stringent ethics rules that State and County governments must abide by.It does not mean that it is a violation if money changes hands that in itself is a felony if proven. For example if you are a board member of a College and you have information from a meeting that they are building a building, and you tell your friend who has a friend or relative that is a contractor, that contractor has an unfair advantage of the upcoming project. Many companies and govt agencies have signs that read ” What you hear here, stays here when you leave here!
A great example would be the SOX law for business, and Brookdale College Board of Directors ethics guidelines. It seems that the Democratic Party more so than the Republican Party do not follow ethics.
The caboose resolution at the end of the agenda awards a $300K contract for the curb, sidewalk and driveway apron replacements …. Ordinance No. 2016-09 would appropriate $500K to do the job.
The $200K difference seems like a lot of fluff.
Is it true that Belmar’s government wasn’t involved in the statewide “Birdsall Pay to Play scandal” primarily because our council, in its wisdom, limited contributions from vendors to candidates to $300? And, that the jeopardy for violating Belmar’s strong, protective Pay to Play Ordinance was to prohibit a council person from voting on those matters where such contributing Vendors PAID monies to such a council representative?
#6 — That’s correct. The 2005 amendment to Belmar’s P2P Ordinance provided that any member of the governing body (or candidate for such a position), who took ANY campaign contributions from a “professional vendor” (e.g., Borough Engineer, Borough Attorney, etc.), or any of their employees, would be deemed to have a conflict of interest and could not vote on or participate in matters involving that vendor for three years. Prior to the 2005 amendment, the limit had been $300.
So essentially mcdirty can’t vote on anything pertaining to any professional vendor (examples as referenced by #7 above) who donated to his campaign for Freeholder for a minimum of three years from the date of receiving those contributions over $300.
What a scheme to get a Salary. Living off a war chest and then having to persuade others to vote a certain way to satisfy the unsophisticated vendor? That’s not possible here in Belmar is it?
And still nothing about Salt? I noticed they started taking their stuff down. So sad that the town is so corrupt.
The canopies were taken down out of an ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION
Post a Comment