Skip to content

You Have To Reject The Bond To Stop The Lawsuits

Press story updated with Doherty reaction

Here’s the link.

Mayor Matthew Doherty vowed to appeal.

“We are absolutely going to appeal this terrible decision by the judge. Now, more than ever, it’s important for the residents of Belmar to vote yes on the Taylor Pavilion referendum question,” he said on Monday. “Our appeal will be stronger in the courts if the residents vote yes.”

And there’s more:

Doherty said he thinks borough has to appeal the decision to protect borough taxpayers and surrounding communities.
“If we don’t appeal, then we can’t use FEMA money that we are entitled to. Every town from Sea Bright to Cape May that is in the same position we are…this sets a terrible precedent,” he said.
Doherty said the plaintiffs used incorrect FEMA numbers as evidence in the court case, and he will make that part of the borough’s appeal.
“They told the judge that FEMA obligated $2.9 million. Our obligation for FEMA for rebuilding the Taylor Pavilion is $5.4 million,” he said.
The borough argued in court that the funding couldn’t be ruled on because the pavilion wasn’t built yet, but now they will lay out a different pattern of facts pertaining to the usage of the pavilion. “Its functions assist the beach a lot more than 4 percent,” Doherty said.


  1. Katrina wrote:

    “Now we will lay out a different pattern of facts”. Really? Isn’t that just like Dorety. If you don’t like the facts just make them “different”. And “FEMA obligated 5.4 million”. That’s a nice big new number. The decision is about appropriation of FEMA not the amount. But of course he knows better than 90 documents of evidence the plaintiffs presented and a superior court judge ruling.
    The Public Trust Doctrine is there to protect against exactly what we have been seeing here in Belmar. Officials using money that does NOT BELONG TO THEM.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 7:51 am | Permalink
  2. OLD MAN wrote:

    Again a waste of taxpayer money. This ruling will not be overturned. And since when does he care about other towns that are not of his political liking?

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 8:10 am | Permalink
  3. Anonymous wrote:

    Appeals are based on the transcripts of a case NOT new testimony. What a jerk, he’s still spinning the public to screw themselves. No conscious just greed.
    How about the media asking questions about his culpability in using the BUF as his cash register?

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 8:22 am | Permalink
  4. The Truth wrote:

    Let’s see I can bet on Matt (0-7) or I can bet on the plantifs (7-0) I think I’ll bet with smart money Plantifs. Vote no Vote Dave

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 8:26 am | Permalink
  5. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    the regime has the confidence of attorneys, that bill taxpayers by the hour, behind them.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 8:35 am | Permalink
  6. Fed Up wrote:

    So this would be Doherty’s 7th funding plan for the pavilions. Appeal yea right.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 8:42 am | Permalink
  7. Really wrote:

    Does anyone believe him anymore? Can We send Matt Doherty back to Edison NJ!

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:10 am | Permalink
  8. Realistic voter wrote:

    What would the public do without you Dave. Just be careful because last year you were setup to be stabbed. Only because your security system recorded that nefarious scheme were you saved to tell our entire community.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:15 am | Permalink
  9. linlee wrote:

    After reading the Doherty’s response to the “terrible decision” by Judge Gummer, my mind conjured up the think-tank conversation Matt and Colleen shared that led up to this pathetic response to last week’s Court decision.
    Doherty: Colleen, we lost.
    Colleen: Don’t be ridicious and don’t you dare say that in public.
    Doherty: But we lost. Tell me what do you want me to do?
    Colleen: Give me a second and I’ll give you a spin. Got it. We up the FEMA entitlement so voters think the petitioners are responsible for losing a ton of free money.
    Doherty: Is it true?
    Colleen: Of course not, but we need to go big to get voters back on track before the elections.
    Belmar’s think-tank can’t change the fact that the Mayor and his administration have been caught in lies, financial mismanagement, abuse of power and civil rights violations. Judge Gummer made her decision based on facts, not personalities or political affiliations. Vote NO on the pavilion question and YES for Dave as our newest Councilman.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:20 am | Permalink
  10. Southie wrote:

    The mayor will promise anything just before an election. What happened to the Lake Como outflow pipe that was to start in the fall. Nothing is happening. He also said funding would disappear for pipe and then hid the 5th Ave bond in the bundled ordinance. What about the 10th safety pavilion we have had the 2 million bond in place for almost one year.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:40 am | Permalink
  11. DJais Drunkard wrote:

    I think Monmouth Court Superior Court Judges need to check out Belmar bars- you can’t pass the bar but you’re a Judge -gimmeaBREAK!!!

    DJais shots for the judiciary!!! IF you like TRANSPARANCY you’ll love vodka – try dat Belmar summer favorite – Ciroc, baybay!!!

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:54 am | Permalink
  12. Bipartisan wrote:

    There is absolutely no question that this administration is corrupt. Follow the money and VOTE NO

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 10:03 am | Permalink
  13. Resident wrote:

    This mayor needs to go he is such a phony. He never speaks truthfully and it is the mayor who is costing us money. He will not give up on his ridiculous spending and giving work to special affiliations.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 10:28 am | Permalink
  14. Resident wrote:

    You dope Matt our appeal will be stronger if the residents vote Yes, are you crazy. That has nothing to do with an appeal that is your desperate attempt to continue the lies you spread about our town. I am sick of you.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 11:14 am | Permalink
  15. guest wrote:

    How about we vote NO until we see how your appeal turns out. I think they think we are stupid.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 11:22 am | Permalink
  16. Avon Resident wrote:

    Avon residents are continuing to battle with FEMA for the small reimbursement obligated by them. FEMA is carefully inspecting everything rebuilt by all municipalities after Sandy. By no means is anything guaranteed.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 11:42 am | Permalink
  17. DJais Drunkard wrote:

    You have to deny the ladies to take em home from DJais – Play hard to get if you wanna bring home the BACON, BAYBAY!!!!

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
  18. Anonymous wrote:

    If Pringle didn’t sue would the town have got away with the misappropriation of funds and no one would have been the wiser, or would we have been caught anyway and been unable to reverse course and owed all of the unreimbursed money?

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 1:28 pm | Permalink
  19. admin wrote:

    Good question and I don’t know the answer. Colleen’s testimony was that despite what the mayor was telling everybody that she planned on following the law. In any case, I don’t want our town to be cheating and stealing.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
  20. Anonymous wrote:

    #16 Avon resident, no matter what happens with fema Avon won’t be on the hook for an exorbitant amount of money due to their fiscal responsibility. Just curious,is Avon run by dems or repubs?

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
  21. Anonymous wrote:

    Me neither, that would be dishonest.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
  22. DJais Drunkard wrote:

    Huh??!! Avon-by-the-Sea has governed under the Walsh Act since 1919, by a three-member commission.[33][34] Members of the commission are elected at-large in nonpartisan elections to serve four-year terms of office on a concurrent basis.[5]

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
  23. Belmar Voter wrote:

    Dave Please do a blog article on the “Public Trust Doctrine”, seriously it would be helpful to both sides. Ken Pringle used it to argue Edelman, Grau v Belmar ( The Beachfront as an area for Redevelopment ) and again successively Susko v Belmar- Pavilions.
    Soon it will be used likewise to win in a civil rights suit regarding, The Marina, L-Street Beach and Maclearie Park.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
  24. Voter wrote:

    I have reread the mayor’s response which by the way he had ample to prepare. He sounds like a lunatic. Does he know anything about the law he really sounds simple minded.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
  25. Judge Bummer wrote:

    The Mayor’s talents and expertise are being wasted in this one horse town. He needs to bring his skills and experience to State or Federal Office.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 4:33 pm | Permalink
  26. Nothing's Free wrote:

    Mad Matt’s Hegemony is on its way, way out regardless of whether he wants to go or NOT.

    Appealing he is NOt. Another half baked scheme of his to GYP the people again is just “one too many” times my boy.

    NOrmal folks will vote NO.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
  27. Tulip wrote:

    The mayor isn’t an attorney so he doesn’t need to know the law. When you list your career as a money manager or consultant or financial planner or whatever that could explain why we have the mess going that we have. With your money you can do what you like it doesn’t work that way with others money.

    Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:30 pm | Permalink
  28. An Observation wrote:

    #27 Tulip If the Mayor did to Belmar if he were working for a publicly held company, indicted and found guilty he would be in jail. There are lots of books on the law Sarbanes Oxley aka SOX, Maybe I should drop off a copy of SOX for Dummies, nah.

    Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:36 am | Permalink
  29. Say what wrote:

    What I dont understand about the Lake Como outflow pipe is what does the town plan on doing with the pipe. Its already set up and it is already undergroung and working fine. As it was well before they even asked for money. I personally think that the money they got is just money to put into the purse.

    Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 11:40 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.