Skip to content

Busy Schedule!


Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 5.04.09 AM

“Failed” redevelopment chief

to be given new chance,

now to control entire downtown.

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 5.12.19 AM

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 5.38.12 AM


Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 5.51.47 AM



Pay to Play petitions to be certified, ignored.

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 6.10.48 AM


Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 6.13.00 AM


Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 6.46.24 AM




  1. Belmar Independent wrote:

    The new “amended “redevelopment plan was a contrived and forced outcome. The committee was guided and influenced to push the original plan encompassing only 7 blocks ( 1997 ) all the way to South Belmar. Usually when failure occurs, intelligent people learn from the mistakes not drive to repeat them. The biggest error and soon to be exposed, is the liberal interpretation of the Redevelopment law. Belmar has lost two big lawsuits related to redevelopment for redevelopment sake. The courts since 1997 have returned to the need to establish “blight”. The fact that the new area is already legally designated as an area for rehabilitation ( Feb. 2013 ) does not bode well legally for a redevelopment rationale beyond the original 7 blocks in the north.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 7:32 am | Permalink
  2. niccolo' wrote:

    New Jersey Tax Abatement practices: no grant poaching. Segregate school and county portion of tax abatements. Thus, the municipal services provided during the tax holiday are borne by that abatement issusing municipalities taxpayers only, NOT the school or other county taxpayers.

    Why make other towns suffer? Charity begins at home, IN the developers pocket, NO?

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:15 am | Permalink
  3. dizzy wrote:

    The Taylor Pavilion is still free, right? That promise was never retracted, as I recall. Are only Democrats invited to this grand event? Why is it not renamed the Doherty Pavilion? I hope there is not a big hurricane that hits here this year. More wasted time and someone’s money, but, if it is free, it does not matter. Heck, if the obstructionists did not slow down the construction, the mayor could have had his big fundraiser there on Wednesday. Is Christie coming?

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink
  4. joe goofinoff wrote:

    #3 – Sir, with all due respect, we’re not “obstructionists”, we’re “terrorists.”

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:02 am | Permalink
  5. dizzy wrote:

    #4 Better yet. Maybe Christie heard that Belmar does not have permits and approval to begin construction and that his boy Matt is acting illegally. After all, the photo op and bragging right is more important. Word should get out that there will be a demonstration and civil disobedience and a show of the guys in blue will spoil the pic. Not that that will happen…just wishful thinking.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:12 am | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    Still no groundbreaking on the new Lake Como outfall pipe. Glad to see the mayor has his priorities straight.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 10:36 am | Permalink
  7. flower power wrote:

    A loud chorus of “boos” should prevail at the event when Doherty steps up to the microphone. And “where is the Lake Como pipe” should be a chant. Southenders, show up, please! Expect to be corralled, like the Shark River dredge group (I think it was them) who showed up on Ocean Avenue at 22nd St. when Christie was here last year.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 10:53 am | Permalink
  8. flower power wrote:

    For the record, Mayor, I know you read this blog, there is no “inciting to riot” being encouraged or “conspiracy” action going on. The Chicago Seven days are over, alas, passion has dwindled but not the overuse or abuse of power. And kindly do not take any of this or other comment out of context and twist it for publicity. I am outraged about the disregard of the law and deception by those in power here.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink
  9. Love the Beach wrote:

    It just bugs me that so many write on here that this governing body is not forthcoming regarding how projects are being paid for when asked (grants) and actually, even being secretive about most things. Found this online. Perhaps this is done but it appears not correctly.

    5:30-5.4 Procedure
    (a) The following procedure shall be utilized for the certification of funds when a contract is to be awarded by the governing body of the local unit:
    1. The chief financial officer or certifying finance officer, as ppropriate, charged with the responsibility of maintaining the financial records of the contracting unit shall certify in writing to the governing body the availability or lack thereof of adequate funds for each contract which is pending approval by the governing body. Said certification shall designate specifically the line item
    appropriation(s) of the official budget to which the contract will be properly
    charged, ensuring that the same funds shall not be certified as available for
    more than one pending contract. Said officer shall be solely responsible for the
    accuracy of the certification.
    2. No resolution authorizing the entering into of any contract pursuant to N.J.S.A.
    40A:11-1 et seq. or any other law for the expenditure of public funds to a vendor shall be enacted unless it shall recite that such a certificate showing
    availability of funds has been provided. The resolution shall specify the exact
    line item appropriation(s) or ordinance which shall be charged.
    3. The certification of availability of funds shall be attached to the original copy of the resolution or ordinance and kept in the files of the municipal clerk, clerk of the board of chosen freeholders or secretary to the governing body.
    4. Before a governing body approves a resolution or ordinance authorizing the
    entering into of a contract, the local unit’s attorney shall be satisfied that a
    certificate of availability of funds has been provided.
    5. A local unit’s governing body shall not enter into or execute a contract unless it
    has been presented with a written certification from its chief financial officer or certifying finance officer, as appropriate, stating the availability of sufficient funds for the contract(s) pending approval by the governing body.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Permalink
  10. Planet Belmar wrote:

    #9. The only way we will ever know (since Colleen has made it a no no to speak to taxpayers in Belmar) is to go to exiled Robbin D. Kirk CFO in her Spring Lake Borough office and ask. Would that be considered ” civil disobedience” these days? Anyone up for a field trip? I can promise you it would be more entertaining than Jersey Boys.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
  11. flower power wrote:

    #10 Civil disobedience is asking the mayor questions at a Mayor and Council meeting, a Punch and Judy show, if it were only that funny.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
  12. Love the Beach wrote:

    #10, No award if certification of funds is not properly in resolution. Attorney is responsible for legal language. Who is writing resolutions? I feel bad for this CFO if she has been exiled by Belmar.

    Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
  13. Planet Belmar wrote:

    #12. Maybe because she was also the business
    administrator! It happened 3 years ago. You just found out?

    Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
  14. SCAM wrote:

    1. It is time for Matt Doherty, Dave Roberts, Bill Northgrave , Ed Wyndas and Doug Kovacs to man up and issue a specific report that explains why the 1997 Seaport Redevelopment Plan “failed”.

    2. There is only one reason Matt wants to more than double the redevelopment, when not using “condemnation” and already has the area for rehabilitation. We all know what that is.

    Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 7:30 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.