Skip to content

The Case For “NO”

Pringle 2015 letter 1Pringle 2015 letter 2Pringle 2015 letter 3Pringle 2015 letter 4Pringle 2015 letter 5


  1. Love the Beach wrote:

    Just the facts. Well done Mr. Pringle. Hope residents take the time to read it.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:16 am | Permalink
  2. Honesty is Best wrote:

    Matt is off the rails and lost sense of what it means to be Mayor. Too many times he has been caught up in his own lies and double speak. It is very clear that there is strong united opposition to his borrow and spending ways and conservative spending and development plans are supported by Democrats, Independents and Republicans in town.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:17 am | Permalink
  3. A Voter 2 wrote:

    First l want thank Mr. Pringle from the bottom of my heart for what he has done.

    Second the mail in and assisted ballots are in we know they all are for Nicolay and Yes.
    Please please dont think your vote doesnt matter because your neighbors said they are voting NO and for Dave.

    Please make sure you vote NO and for Dave to send a message to this bunch of untrustworthy individuals that think THEY own Belmar.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:47 am | Permalink
  4. Tired Resident wrote:

    Thank you Ken Pringle you provided clear information based on facts. What is happening here in Belmar is shameful and the mayor and council have themselves to blame. The mayor has breached all boundaries of decency with his self serving agenda. The remaining council members should hang their heads in humiliation for their lack of insight and concern for out town and its financial health. I am voting No and voting for Dave Schneck.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 9:03 am | Permalink
  5. Just Passing Through wrote:

    #4 Tired Resident

    The sad fact is they don’t think they are doing anything wrong.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 9:14 am | Permalink
  6. OLD MAN wrote:

    Tuesday will be V B day. Victory for Belmar

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 9:42 am | Permalink
  7. ms.perspicacity wrote:

    A “nice” (kind, polite, friendly) person should not win the council seat. Nice is not good enough. A WISE person should win the council position. That is Dave, although he is also pretty nice and reads a lot. Yes, reading is important, something the present council members hardly excel at.

    Mr. Pringle is the hero. But the element (I love being one of them – I choose uranium) must influence this election.

    Replace Nicolay with Schneck and vote NO on the pavilion referendum. Be elemental, be platinum. Turn this town around before it turns into a bad joke.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 10:09 am | Permalink
  8. madame.snark wrote:

    #7 My dear, if you are uranium, I am plutonium (Pu) Vote for Schneck and NO on the referendum, (bleep) it.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 10:28 am | Permalink
  9. Better for Belmar wrote:

    Matt’s legacy as Mayor won’t be anything he may have accomplished to restore the town after Sandy, it will be how he fostered division among a small town’s people. Vote NO and elect Schneck.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:15 am | Permalink
  10. Ruthie wrote:

    RU is my new handle. Combined with other sophisticated elements we are referred to as the Platinum Group.

    Refined, but sturdy.

    Pleased to help all taxpayers see the light by voting NO

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:23 am | Permalink
  11. elemental wrote:

    Very good, RU. I shall be cesium Cs as a code name.

    Vote for DAVE!
    Vote NO!

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
  12. Judy wrote:

    Letter was very informative and hopeful will answer people questions.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 1:44 pm | Permalink
  13. An Observation wrote:

    Here is an excellent resource for the Mayor, Council and members of the Belmar Democratic Party.

    Going to confession at St. Rose will not stop you from Lying. Stop it for your own good.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
  14. Michael Force wrote:

    As a resident, owner or taxpayer for the past 70 plus years I want to commend Ken Pringle for both his efforts and his successes in bringing some fiscal discipline to a borrowing binge that is unprecedented. I can only hope my fellow residents/voters realize that what is borrowed will both require repayment and reduce financial flexibility all of which will translate into higher taxes. No the tax rate has not gone up yet,future administrations will be dealing with the problem and of course will blame it on their predecessors when it is too late for the taxpayers who are stuck.
    As an aside, since the scorecard reads 0-7,is the Mayor getting bad legal advice or failing to listen to the advice he is getting? I would also note that in either case the legal costs to the Boro are very substantial. And does anyone else believe , as I do, that the way to stop Ken from filing further lawsuits is to act lawfully and in the best interest of all residents and taxpayers?
    Might I also say I concur with Ken’s opinion that an affordable sensible replacement such as Avon opted for and as Belmar chose in the 80’s is the right way to proceed.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
  15. Anonymous wrote:

    Sorry for some reason the right link was pasted.

    They help anyone with a problem. Stop saying we are terrorists etc its ok to disagree not ok to lie you are only hurting yourselves,

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
  16. Tulips wrote:

    #3- Having worked for the election board I do not believe the votes are all yes votes. I do not listen to what any one says but I can tell you whoever told you that does not know what they are talking about. If they are all yes someone is going to tell me who changed my vote. This is how I know someone is lying. Then you will hear it’s over. Do you think the mayor is out pounding the concrete with the boro engineer because all those votes are Yes. I hope the engineer is not on the clock.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
  17. Just Passing Through wrote:

    14 I fully agree. We are NOT paying higher taxes to support Unions GOT IT Mayor !!

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
  18. Voter wrote:

    Mr Force eloquently stated sir.

    Thank you for your insight.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
  19. The Truth wrote:

    Well said Mike !!!!

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
  20. OLD MAN wrote:

    I know Ken and he is a wonderful kind person. Best of all he really cares about the town. BYE BYE JEN………………….

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:35 pm | Permalink
  21. Just Passing Through wrote:

    #20 Looks like we wont need much aspirin.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
  22. anonymous wrote:

    Ms Nicolay ,I do not know you but I did see you quoted as saying Ken Pringle hates the Mayor. That may or may not be true,I do not know , however that is not relevant to my question for you which is…Do all the Judges who have ruled in the cases the borough has lost hate the mayor too? If that is your position for all the mayor’s losses then it would seem he is not a very well liked fellow. Why would that be?

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
  23. A Voter 2 wrote:

    22 Anonymous. She is not terribly bright as she can’t see how wrong things are being done by the Mayor. She has to be told what to say.

    Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:55 pm | Permalink
  24. Tom Dilberger wrote:

    Good letter, but much too long for the general public – Brevity is extremely important when addressing the public, verbally or otherwise.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:30 am | Permalink
  25. admin wrote:

    Hard to be brief when discussing what’s wrong with the pavilion plan.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:53 am | Permalink
  26. lemonade wrote:

    Oracle of Delphi: Far reaching ramifications from voting anything but a NO.

    Short and simple: Vote NO.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:42 am | Permalink
  27. Anonymous wrote:

    You guys are hilarious. You don’t want this pavilion because it will “cost us too much money”… yet you’re cheering on Kenny, who has continuously fought to put the cost burden of ANY building squarely on Belmar taxpayers’ shoulders.

    Regardless of what the court has stipulated now, without any of the lawsuits it would have been free. I don’t know about you, but I’d definitely rather have something put together by the DPW that still costs us money instead of something built by professionals for free. Thanks Kenny!

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:42 pm | Permalink
  28. Katrina wrote:

    #27 So as long as its free it doesn’t matter if its illegal? And what does that even mean free? There is NO FREE some one pays. So if these same officials who try and skirt the law do something that effects YOUR pocketbook, will you have the same attitude? What your saying is its ok to steal as long as you don’t get caught.. As for me and mine I like honesty all the time, not just when convenient.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
  29. admin wrote:

    We would have gotten caught eventually.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
  30. linlee wrote:

    #24 Mr. Dilberger, nothing about the past year and a half’s efforts to address the issue of the pavilions has been simple. Your suggestion that Mr. Pringle’s letter is too long for “the general public” is insulting and reminiscent of our current administration’s approach of selective communications. To enable Belmar’s residents to make well considered, enlightened, individual decisions regarding tomorrow’s elections, Mr. Pringle’s letter helps to assure votes are grounded in the history and facts that are part of the legal decision handed down by a Supreme Court Justice last week. I sincerely appreciated Mr. Pringle making the effort and assuming the expense of sending this letter to my home.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
  31. anonymous wrote:

    I have been waiting for the #27 position to show up, blame Ken for the law that has existed for many years. As admin says we would have been caught. #27 You cannot really believe that a FOUR MILLION DOLLAR charge to the beach utility would go unnoticed by some agency of the state charged with responsibility for watching out for the public trust or some media goof looking to make a splash and a name? if that is what you think and are prepared to take the risk I wonder if you pay taxes here at all. We are not talking chicken feed here. Worst case would be voters approving and THEN getting caught and stuck with the bill with no recourse against the baloney peddlers[I am trying to be nice].

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
  32. Tom Dilberger wrote:

    #30 – I didn’t mean to be insulting. I just stated what I believe. Very few people in my opinion will read two full pages, front and back all the way through. We always should attempt to be brief when explaining anything.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
  33. Heard Enough wrote:

    Mayor Doherty could not even save money on his mailing that arrived today by double siding the letters.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
  34. Tulips wrote:

    #27 Please read the court room testimony and the judges decision that she handed down. Then you might reconsider your state-ment.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
  35. Just Passing Through wrote:

    It is quite revealing that the people that support not obeying the judge as to how the money is spent hence you have to increase the tax attack people’s thoughts because they cant justify or come to terms what the Judge said.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
  36. Teddy Ehmann wrote:

    It was a very factual and informative letter by the former mayor and it was too long Linlee.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
  37. A Voter 2 wrote:

    If anyone has any video of any municipal employee handing out letters get it to the Prosecutors.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
  38. Anonymous wrote:

    Just like Djais, private clubs can video drinkers/bartenders for security.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
  39. anonymous wrote:

    #32 and #36, although sadly you may be right[and I second Linlee’s assessment of the letter] I suspect that those who won’t pay attention long enough to read the whole letter are probably yes votes who pay no or minimal taxes in the boro or are part of the town payroll and obligated.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
  40. Katrina wrote:

    A lot of folks I spoke to about Mr Pringles letter told me they finally felt like they understand what has been going on for the last 3 years. With all the changing spin that comes out of borough hall it’s no wonder people are confused. Thank you Ken and company.

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:58 pm | Permalink
  41. Katrina wrote:

    Oh!!! And please VOTE NO and vote for Dave Schneck. Transparency at its best Hard work to bring us all documented accurate information. Though honest to goodness why he would want to voluntarily enter that viper pit is beyond comprehension

    Monday, November 2, 2015 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.