Skip to content


The pavilion fight is in the news again, this time featured on the front page of today’s Press.  In the story we learn that by allowing the mayor to declare the beachfront an area in need of redevelopment, the council has possibly stripped from the people the right to referendum guaranteed under the Faulkner act.  Thanks, council!

Here is the relevant passage:

“Our feelings continue to be that the citizens should be a part of this major decision for the town,” said Joy DeSanctis, 60, a spokeswoman for the group. “This is a decision that has far-reaching implications for citizens here.”

The group’s petition met all of the guidelines of the Faulkner Act, which allows borough residents to propose ordinances without government approval, said Jon Moran, a senior legislative analyst with the New Jersey League of Municipalities.

The law mandates that the borough act on the petition within 20 days of receiving it or the issue automatically goes on the ballot for a vote. If the government does not act on it, then the group can file a lawsuit based on violation of the law, he said. The group publicly presented and submitted the petition during the Aug. 7 mayor and council meeting, DeSanctis said.

However, the Faulkner Act comes with exceptions.

Those caveats include some redevelopment issues, said Michael DuPont, the borough attorney.

“I’m not entirely certain the group will prevail under the Faulkner Act,” DuPont said. “A lawsuit would incur unnecessary legal expenses. It’s better to sit down and talk about this.”

The borough earlier this year passed an ordinance that designated the pavilions as a redevelopment project, said Bill Northgrave, the borough redevelopment attorney.

If the group sues, then “the court will throw it out,” he said “The action they’re challenging is the redevelopment of the boardwalk, which is precluded from the referendum provisions in the Faulkner Act.”

I strong recommend watching the selling of the redevelopment resolution at the January 16 council meeting.  Please skip to the 44:00 mark of the tape below.



They didn’t say anything about the declaration disallowing any meaningful public input on the project. (In my opinion, being ignored for the allotted five minutes in the public session is not meaningful public input.)  I’m sure that if someone had the foresight to ask about it, the mayor would have denied that the resolution would be used against the public in this manner.  But nobody thought the mayor had plans to build Belmar’s own Taj Mahal.  So nobody asked.

Anyway, there you have it.  We’ve been sold down the river.  And our see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil council Democrat triumvirate again supports the mayor instead of supporting the people.


  1. claire deicke wrote:

    Wow!Another sweeping generalization and slap at my integrity-what do you know about what I think? I AGAIN support the mayor, and not the people? Did it cross your mind that I support the plans for the pavilions on a personal level, with the community in mind? I vote according to what I think is best for the people of Belmar…’s called representative government…it might surprise you to know that many residents support the plans for the boardwalk buildings.I hear this on a daily basis.I support the residents in all that I do…….and if it agrees with the mayor, so be it. You use your blog for insults , with no accountability…

    Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Permalink
  2. joegoofinoff wrote:

    Mrs. Deicke, I agree with you up to a point. I’m sure you know many residents who support the mayor. But the petition did get over 500 signatures. Isn’t that also many residents in our small town? What’s wrong with putting the issue to a vote? The mayor and yourself are very popular and there is a good chance that the people will vote for this new pavilion. Then the issue is closed once and for all. Especially now that there is a possibility of a lawsuit, which no one wants. Lastly, the election is very near now. What’s the rush in ramming this trough on just a council vote?


    Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
  3. claire deicke wrote:

    Joe (I think I know your identity) Thanks for your polite response.The idea for referendum, in my opinion, has become a dividing force in our community.Some who signed the petition were given misinformation.Others signed as favors to those going door-to-door with their message for referendum. Also, those who have problems with the pavilions have them for different reasons…some don’t want them at all, some don’t want them because they don’t want the second floor on Taylor, others don’t want the building on 10th because of the tower….the list goes on and on.The outcome of the referendum would not put an end to the debate.I question what the impetus was for starting the petition..

    Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 10:25 am | Permalink
  4. admin wrote:

    I just want to point out that the petition drive was started by Democrats and the petitioners include Democrats and Republicans. It has nothing to do with partisanship as the mayor would have us think.

    Also, if the plan was to simply replace what was lost there would have been no significant opposition.

    The mayor is trying to drag this town in a direction that many people don’t want to go. Using the “need of redevelopment” law to override the popular will would be a big mistake.

    Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 11:20 am | Permalink
  5. BelmarsFinest wrote:

    Ms. Deicke, Can you kindly list the exact past instances where you voted against the Mayor’s will? I think that I have enough fingers on 1 hand for the countdown.

    Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
  6. claire deicke wrote:

    Exactly twice….great sarcasm…..what is it that you don’t get? Why would I vote against ideas/plans/resolutions/ordinances I agree with? you missed the point of my formerly-posted comments on this blog….

    Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.