Skip to content

Rules For Granting Free Or Reduced Access

To answer some questions from last night



  1. admin wrote:

    May 20, 2014, 1:10:35 Jim Bean knows the law, votes against breaking it, suffers emotional outburst from Matt-hack Brendan Read.

    Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:21 am | Permalink
  2. Guest wrote:

    The good old days when Doherty cronies were encouraged to berate any individual who opposed the King.

    Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 8:04 am | Permalink
  3. As I read the statute,two class of veterans may be eligible for reduced or free beach access:
    1. those who served at least 90 days in active duty and were discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable, and,
    2. those who were release from active duty by reason of an actual service-incurred injury or disability.

    In addition the rules of the Adjutant General are set forth in NJAC 5A:11 along with acceptable forms of verification.

    So I believe an ordinance can be created now consistent with the statute, however, the statute requires the town ” track, in a manner deemed appropriate by the governing body of the municipality, the number of persons who qualify under the provisions of those paragraphs.”

    Town counsel should be able to verify this.

    If I have not addressed the issue at last night’s meeting or misread the statute or adminstrative code rule, my apologies.

    Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 8:05 am | Permalink
  4. Political Playbook wrote:

    Reposting under this post because it makes more sense…

    The “Who’s On First” episode of Russo trying to understand the State Statute vs. Belmar’s ordinance regarding Veteran beach access….. Based on the fact that 3 people approached with planned comments on this topic/complaint, it’s clearly a political tactic to make the new administration look bad, and has nothing to do with actually honoring our Vets. The tug at the heart strings issue is right out of Doherty’s playbook.

    I’d like to highlight that Tom Brennan tried almost unsuccessfully to make her understand that she must appeal to the state about this. I hope Mr. Hutchinsen doesn’t chastise Tom for this. For Tom is in violation of the rules in his playbook.

    Let’s see if Ms. Russo makes this her cause and actually follows up with the state.

    Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 8:11 am | Permalink
  5. Guest wrote:

    Mike Campbell should have been fired for his personal use of borough employees, borough vehicles, and borough property for their use in the moving and storage of his furniture which was moved from his home and then later back to his home. These acts are what he was CAUGHT doing, one must ask what else may have happened that could have flown under the radar? The Mayor & Council are all ignoring this in public and anyone who DOES NOT speak out will not get my family or neighbors votes.

    Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
  6. Cash wrote:

    #5 Cops don’t fire cops,there is nothing more important to them than the thin blue line.Never forget it.

    Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
  7. Anonymous wrote:

    Alert, alert, alert: Employees and their employment status cannot legally be discussed in public. End of Campbell thread.

    Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
  8. Guest wrote:

    7, stinks like a coverup anyway.

    Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
  9. Guest wrote:

    Thanks 7 – Us brainless needed that clarification.

    Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:22 am | Permalink
  10. Anonymous wrote:

    Handsome is as handsome does, too.

    Friday, June 7, 2019 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.