Skip to content

My Letter In Yesterday’s Coast Star

Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 6.29.27 AM


  1. belmarguy wrote:

    What’s your rebuttal to this Matt & Claire!?! Common sense tax payers will vote no!

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 7:41 am | Permalink
  2. Katrina wrote:

    Thank you Dave. Your letter clearly states your reasons and the history of concerns on your position on the 5th ave pavilion bond. With all the infrastructure problems in town and projects needed to secure our safety and property one would think that a building in the V zone would be the last thing on our minds. Also it gets me to wondering how concerned about possibly replacing 13th and 8th ave pavilions everyone is. What makes 5th ave any more important than the others? Maybe a nice gazebo or shade structures would be possible in all those sites if we didn’t spend so much money and use all of our FEMA resources to fund one building that is used occasionally.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 7:58 am | Permalink
  3. South Side wrote:

    KATRINA – I wonder – once the 5th Ave Pavilion is a done deal – can plans for those other Pavilions be far behind?

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 8:26 am | Permalink
  4. Just Passing Through wrote:

    Hopefully you will win and tell the people the real truth, they still have the majority but they don’t have the truth.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 8:52 am | Permalink
  5. Tom Dilberger wrote:

    Well said Dave.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 9:11 am | Permalink
  6. linlee wrote:

    As we’re winding down from this summer’s beach season, and reflect back to last year, it’s clear that Belmar has not suffered from the absence of a pavilion on 5th Avenue. Tourists arrived in droves, Main Street merchants benefited from the crowds, and bar patrons .. well I won’t go there. If we’re talking about beach aesthetics the “beach” is our jewel. Legacy buildings built on a beach do have sentimental value but are doomed to loss as demonstrated by the number of times Belmar has rebuilt these structures. Shouldn’t we learn from this history? Spending an absurd amount of money because its what we’ve done in the past doesn’t justify or rationally explain why it needs to be done again .. and again. My vote will be No on pavilion construction, and Yes to Dave becoming part of our town’s Council.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 9:13 am | Permalink
  7. claire deicke wrote:

    No worries, Belmar Guy-there wil be a public response to this letter-since you brought this up to me-just thought I’d give you a head’s up-Thanks for asking me!

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 9:33 am | Permalink
  8. admin wrote:

    A response by a public official at a public meeting would be improper, as would any response paid for by the taxpayers.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 9:57 am | Permalink
  9. nice day wrote:

    Bully pulpits… the rants are now part of our entertainment.

    Rather see another ACDC concert but the swan song from the Dias is what we can expect. I have a log that I use to see if the predictable rhetorical points are hit at the meeting s. It’s like watching John Stewart demonizing anybody but STEPPRORD WIVES residents.

    HILDABEAST READ her speech writer’s text THAT labelled Republicans as TERRORISTS too. Could it be MaTT’S PLAYBOOK shes using or is this SUGGESTED SCRIPT usage to inflame the opposition without substance.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 11:03 am | Permalink
  10. claire deicke wrote:

    #8-No worries-Dave-neither of those ways will be used to express differences of opinions..seems like you’re trying to stiffle “freedom of speech” which you strongly support-and as is demonstrated on this blog-why would taxpayers’ monies be used? There are people (individually) who don’t agree with what you wrote-they have a right to express their thoughts, don’t they? Just curious-not that this would happen-but why would it be “improper” for a public official to respond? Freedom of speech belongs to them, as well…there are many ways to put out a public response other than those cited by you..

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 12:28 pm | Permalink
  11. Cathi wrote:

    Building or re-building structures on the ocean —Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    If the residents voted NO last time, why would they vote YES this time??

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
  12. Anonymous wrote:

    #10 ‘there are many ways to put out a public response other than those cited by you’

    That’s literally all you had to respond with, everything else is just nonsense.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
  13. MS.Sarcastic wrote:

    If there are so many people that disagree with this site, where is the site that agrees with the present council???? I count 6 people that love the council, that is not a lot of people.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
  14. claire deicke wrote:

    #12-Not sure your message was meant for me……I didn’t cite any ways of responding-did you mean your remarks for the administrator-since your statements doesn’t seem to apply to me? Perhaps I made this remark on another site-

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
  15. claire deicke wrote:

    #13-Your circle of acquaintances must be limited-let me ask you this question-did you circulate through town and take a survey? You only know 6 people who like the council-I know many, many people who like the council and are happy with the direction of how the town is moving….that’s an objective statement..

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
  16. Ms.Sarcastic wrote:

    #13 Your are right, that explains the lost lawsuits and the impending defeat of the vote.

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
  17. An Observation wrote:

    What happened to all the sugestions on the Belmar Website asking for sugestions for the Pavillions?? Were any used??? Did the Mayor thank the people for the sugestions??

    Friday, August 28, 2015 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
  18. anonymous wrote:

    This is all a bit ridiculous A. do we have a NEED for a building of this size ,at this location? B. will any purpose this building would serve be sufficient to justify the cost that is being quoted to construct it? C. are we doing it just out of nostalgia or to honor John Taylor [which is a fine thing]? D. when insurance does not cover replacement costs and other funding remains at the very least questionable it is time to rethink the scope of your project even if you are doing the funding from ‘other peoples money’ have we done that?
    [I might also suggest 10th Ave be named the John Taylor Safety Pavilion with regard to C above.]
    Claire, you obviously monitor this blog, perhaps you would address these issues in a serious manner and any admin comment would be of interest as well.

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 10:22 am | Permalink
  19. admin wrote:

    #18 Does Howard Rowland have a widow?

    Honestly, with all the history here, with the redevelopment, and the rooftop golf, the responsible bidder, the bundling, the lawsuits, the million of dollars, etc etc I don’t think we’re ever going to be able to get it done with this mayor and we should probably just wait until we have a new one and then decide what we want to do.

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 11:35 am | Permalink
  20. Cathi wrote:

    A council member attended the St. Rose Parish picnic last Friday (8/21) with Janet Grosshandler. Advanced tickets were sold to get a head count. The council member did not have a ticket but was most welcome at the picnic. The council member and Janet made the rounds of the tables saying hello but also suggesting that everyone vote “yes” for the pavilions. As a member of St. Rose, I’m appalled that our picnic was used to garnish votes. When I asked the council member if he only attended the picnic for political purposes he said “of course not”. He was bringing Janet to the picnic to introduce her to the Parish, suggesting she may join our Church. I’m sorry sir. I do not believe you.

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 11:45 am | Permalink
  21. niccolo' wrote:

    Rather Machiavellian, no?

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
  22. Teddy Ehmann wrote:

    #20. Remember the Dems slogan last year, ” Its people, not Politics. For the first time, that I can remember the Belmar Democratic Committee is publically endorsing a candidate ( challenger) to incumbent Board of Education member. Oh, by the way, they are endorsing Janet Grosshandler ( the great unifier).

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
  23. belmarguy wrote:

    Looks like Claire doesn’t support anyone’s freedom of speech but her own. Sounds like a typical democratic, unionized and liberal person if you ask me.. If you don’t like freedom of speech Claire, then stop posting on this blog. Amazing how you finally wana have a say now after your term is up…

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:07 pm | Permalink
  24. claire deicke wrote:

    #23-Your post makes no sense-read what’s posted more carefully….it was the administrator who didn’t want responses to his letter-here’s my thinking-like it or not-people who use fake titles are too embarrassed to spew hate using their own names..the very happy parts of their personalities need to be exposed.they know they would be an embarrassment to their friends and loved ones-so they use assumed names…-you are really not savvy at all-I always had a say when I was on council..I think you misread comments-or spin them to what you want them to be….I LOVE being a liberal thinker-actually, it’s better than being a non-thinker, like yourself-Belmar guy, this last comment-#23-tops all of your other ridiculous thoughts-this one takes the prize!

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
  25. admin wrote:

    He can respond all he wants, just not with resources that belong to the people. The meetings are for the people’s business, as is taxpayer money.
    Let him write a letter to the paper.

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 11:42 pm | Permalink
  26. claire deicke wrote:

    correction for #23-very unhappy parts of their personalities need to be exposed….

    Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 9:42 pm | Permalink
  27. Tulip wrote:

    #20 Ms. Grosshandler is running for the Belmar Board of Education. Is that political enough at the moment? She was Treasurer for the last campaign and for the Dem. Com. That could be a little political too.

    Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
  28. Ms. Sarcastic wrote:

    #27 Tulip looks like a nice teachers contract next year so they can support the Democrats, very ethical!!

    Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.