Skip to content

Ridiculous Indeed

In today’s Star:

Mayor Matthew Doherty described the judge’s decision as “ridiculous.”

“This lawsuit was part of a referendum that occurred last November and the people of Belmar voted to pass the referendum and rebuild the Taylor Pavilion,” said Mayor Doherty.

“At the time we called on Ken Pringle to drop his lawsuit and clearly the reason why he did it was that he was looking for a big payday at the expense of taxpayers. $47,000 is an outrageous sum of money and we will absolutely appeal that amount and the judge’s decision as well,” he said.

“We completely plan on appealing this and you have to wonder what the judge was thinking in awarding that sum of money to someone on an issue that was solved by the voters November of last year. The voters have spoken, now they have to pay on top of it? It’s absolutely ridiculous.”


Hey Matt.  If you get caught cheating in an election and you win the election anyway (by 17 votes I might add) you still cheated.  It’s unfortunate that the taxpayers have to pay this, but it is part of the price of electing a cheat as their mayor.


  1. Katrina wrote:

    UNBELIEVABLE!!! The case wasn’t about who won or lost the Pavillon vote. It was about Doherty and Connolly trying to influence the vote with the wording on the ballot. And guess what? YOU LOST MAYOR!!! The fact that our illustrious mayor manipulates the facts is pathetic. Judge Gummer ruled on that BEFORE the election! The fact is that the administration was found to have violated OUR civil rights. Pringle and company deserve every dime.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:14 am | Permalink
  2. joe goofinoff wrote:

    While I agree that Matt was wrong and he stole that election in my opinion. But the price of victory was too much for the people of the town. I can only hope Matt has mercy on the taxpayers and gives up this idea of appeal. Somehow though, I don’t think he’s that merciful.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:32 am | Permalink
  3. joe goofinoff wrote:

    Just to make myself completely clear here. Yes, Matt stole the election as I just said, but worse than Matt was the quisling among us who sided with Matt and made it seem as if the opposition was supporting Matt. That knife in the back was the difference between our side winning and losing – let’s not forget what that man did.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink
  4. belmarguy wrote:

    Dave, can you shed some light on if the building of the pavilion can be frozen now? Being that the judge turned it down, can the building still take place?

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:55 am | Permalink
  5. admin wrote:

    Judge only declared his intended way to pay for it illegal. He’s allowed to build it and he is building it and will stick his successor with the tab.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:01 am | Permalink
  6. Guest wrote:

    Stop the insanity and stop spending OUR money on senseless appeals. The borough council lost so let’s now move on without any further costs.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:01 am | Permalink
  7. Katrina wrote:

    #4. The judge DID NOT turn down the Pavillon vote. The people of Belmar voted to spend over 5 million to build the building. They won the vote by 17 votes.
    Judge Gummer ruled that the wording on the ballet was trying to influence the outcome so the town was forced to change the wording.
    Just remember people. We lost that vote by 17. Don’t let that happen on September 27. VOTE NO on changing or pay to play law. PROTECT BELMAR!!!!!!!

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:07 am | Permalink
  8. Ms Sarcastic wrote:

    If Hillary wins i bet Matt will get a cabinet position, maybe in charge of Beaches.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:43 am | Permalink
  9. OLD MAN wrote:

    This is what happens when one party is in charge. There isn’t anyone on the council that has any knowledge of anything. The Mayor is all for himself and his cronies.
    Keep appealing and the end result will be our money down the toilet.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:57 am | Permalink
  10. belmarguy wrote:

    Dave.. So the building can be built, but he can still be charged on what the judge handed down, right?

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
  11. admin wrote:


    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
  12. Anonymous wrote:

    And this Belmar administration has hired and, against seasoned advice, spent how much on politically connected defense lawyers for the mismanagement of mcdirty’s administration?

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm | Permalink
  13. Katrina wrote:

    Belmar guy and Dave. Not sure what you mean can be charged.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
  14. Anonymous wrote:


    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:59 pm | Permalink
  15. admin wrote:

    The fine for trying to make the referendum unfair does not affect whether or not the building can be built. The election result stands.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
  16. elemental wrote:

    #12 Nicholas DeCotiis the Maser engineer and a lawyer with that last name from a firm in North Jersey that may have had dealings with Belmar? Small world, unusual name…

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
  17. flower power wrote:

    Matt, I am sure that Judge Gummer loves that her decisions are considered by you to be “ridiculous”. You know how to butter someone up. With glass chip paste.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
  18. Belle Marshen wrote:

    In just one day, FOUR friends of mine were asked by the Mayor and a council member speak to the press about the pay to play petition. Some were asked to say they were misinformed when they signed the petition. The signers are part of a community and group of friends that goes way beyond politics. They didn’t want the changes in our ordinance so they signed. They didn’t want to argue extensively with their friends (the mayor and council) about it either. “It’s about people, not politics”? I don’t think it is. They are being bullied.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
  19. HMM? wrote:

    How is it that the Referendum YES vote stands after this judgement and the NO vote doesn’t? How does one not impact the other??

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
  20. admin wrote:

    Because the ballots that were slanted towards a yes vote were replaced. The actual ballots did not have that language on them.

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
  21. HMM? wrote:

    Thank you for clearing that up. Still stinks!

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink
  22. Anonymous wrote:

    #20: what about the absentee ballots that were sent in that still cobrained the prejudicial interpretive statement? Were they thrown out by the Board of Election or what?

    Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:08 pm | Permalink
  23. Katrina wrote:

    The original mail in ballots were not counted. The board of elec sent the new ballot and only those were valid

    Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink
  24. flower power wrote:

    Matt: Judge Gummer is brilliant, fair, a real champion for the people. (Now maybe she won’t be so tough on me, I mean, Belmar…)

    Sorry, Mr. Mayor, it does not work that way. Straighten up and fly straight, and I am not referring to helicopters.

    Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.