Skip to content

Couple Of Quick Counterpoints

It will be a few more hours until the tape of last night’s meeting finishes loading to YouTube, and I don’t have a lot of time because I have to get ready for work in a few minutes, but a couple of quick observations if I may:

During his report to Council the mayor complained at some length about the lawsuit over the beach utility funds.  But I don’t believe he even mentioned the Partner’s settlement, the parking fees or the Buy a Board money.  Those are the three main complaints in the suit and are even reported as such in today’s Asbury Park Press story about it.  Instead he talked about using beach money to pay for some of the special police.  But he stated that he started that practice right after he became mayor.  He’s been doing it for years and neither Pringle nor anyone else ever sued him for it.  That was a straw man argument used to distract the listeners from the real issues that triggered the suit.

He also keeps giving me the impression that he wants people to think that Pringle lost an election to him and is doing this as some sort of payback.  (I don’t recall exactly how he put it.  I’ll have to watch that part of the tape when I get a chance.)  Pringle retired as mayor.  He never lost an election in Belmar.  And although Pringle did endorse the Republican candidates last year and the Republicans lost, the former mayor was involved in other suits against the Council in 2013 and 2014.  Were they to avenge Tom Burke’s loss in 2012, or mine and Tom’s in 2013?   I don’t think so.

Anyway I want to mention a couple of quick things about the Lake Como/Taylor Pavilion thing but I have to go.  I will continue this post when I get to the office.

To be continued……………………………


OK here I am, safely ensconced in my Newark fortress.


(The glass is bulletproof.)

About the new pavilion bonds:  One thing we learned last night is that the reason it’s $6.1 million now instead of $7 million is that some of the peripheral spending, like for the bathrooms, was taken from sources other than the defeated bond.  The plans for the buildings, and the amount we’re actually spending on the two buildings is essentially the same as what the voters rejected last year.  Pretty stinky.  Tying it to the appropriation for the Lake Como project….very stinky.

The mayor also suggested that some residents who don’t live near the lake might petition against the measly $200,000 that would be Belmar’s portion of the $6.4 million project.  He always ascribes the worst motives to anyone who might oppose him on anything.  Everybody wants the flooding fixed.  As a matter of fact is was Jim Bean and the Republicans who demanded in 2013 that there be no more delays in fixing Silver Lake and that the Council bond the money to get the job done.  Not a single objection was raised by anybody about its $1.8 million cost.

One more thing.  I often correct comments that contain factual errors.  Sometimes I don’t have time and approve the comment, hoping some other commenter will make the correction.  They often do.  Other times I’m not sure if the comment is true and ask the commenter to provide more information.  Still other times I don’t quite understand the comment but allow it because there is no reason not to.  But people can say what they want.  I don’t have to agree with it.  On the “About” page I clearly state:  Views and opinions of commenters are their own and I do not necessarily endorse their truth or accuracy.  But the mayor always seems to point to some anonymous comment or two made here as evidence that the opposition is being unfair to him.  It’s just another straw man tactic and it isn’t fooling anybody.

Anyway, I had no idea the blog was so influential that even views expressed by its anonymous commenters are fodder for political attacks.

I have to get to work before my boss catches me blogging.  Tape of the meeting should be up in two or three hours.


  1. Southie wrote:

    The comments the mayor stated were on the blog opposing the Lake Como outflow pipe were anonymous. Likely posted from his side so he could once again try to pit one side of town against the other. He also sent a letter to only the south side encouraging them to come out and support the bond for the lake. Again trying to confuse and divide our town.

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 8:30 am | Permalink
  2. Huh? wrote:

    How is it legal to vote down the pavilions and now they are proceeding to want to spend millions on them without another vote?

    Does the voice of the people count for nothing in this town?

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 9:41 am | Permalink
  3. everyones for sale wrote:


    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 11:11 am | Permalink
  4. Katrina wrote:

    Southie glad to be informed about that letter to only south enders. I live in the 4th district and did not receive any letter. Shouldn’t the entire town have received the propaganda? After all the special election vote was town wide, aren’t we ALL effected by this ordinance? Did the town pay for that partial information propaganda? As usual our Mayor manipulates information. What about the south enders who may have voted no on the 7 mill bond at the special election. Do you like the very important Lake Como GRANTED project being held hostage to the Taylor pavilion? As usual our mayor slices and dices with evasion dissension and his own ego.

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
  5. sweetiepieface wrote:

    You were warned by one of the shills that the way you voted would probably affect the Lake Como remediation. The other warnings were clear. It’s my way or the highway. Let the fact pattern tell the real stories

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    #2 unfortunately over 1000 people voted for the mayor and have not heard one objection from any of them. That says more about the voters than the mayor!

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
  7. Chris C. wrote:

    #6. I don’t agree. Many people that voted for the mayor voted no for the 7 million dollar bond during the special election.

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
  8. Frivolous wrote:

    Look at Matt bringing the town together just as promised after the election. Well done Matt and council you should be proud of yourselves. In the future if going to say it’s the fiscal thing to do you should at least have your numbers with you to back it up. would it have it been that hard to ask your bonding agent for a quote ? Here an idea why don’t you call your agent this week a say your going to get the account but to keep me happy could you send me two quotes one for everything and one if we were to split them up. I’m not even on the board or a gym/ music teacher pilot or a house wife but it does seem that hard to ask for two quotes. Then you can close the book on this and rebuild.

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
  9. wrote:

    #8 – can’t you see (I think you do) that the mayor cannot, I mean CANNOT give a straight, honest answer about nearly anything? It is against his nature as a politician, in fact, he is ready for D.C. – ya know, the pork thing whereby miscellaneous items are tacked onto bills and slipped through the vote as a unit so as not to be scrutinized individually. In this case in Belmar, he is counting on the blind, lazy, unthinking mice who trustingly voted for him, who have gotten freebies, like gift cards.

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
  10. sweetiepieface wrote:

    As many a short lived pol finds out, their opinions oftentimes slap when responding to those who differ. Trains of thought in a saloon or on the podium are nothing more than tactless rants. A dancing bear is a tool of the trainer, destined to be caught. They eventually become so offensive that no one cares for them.

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 9:51 am | Permalink
  11. Anonymous wrote:

    #7 They may have voted no but seem not to have a problem wasting $$$$ and the court’s time!!!!

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 10:21 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.