Skip to content

They Really Don’t Want A P2P Referendum!

Borough applies for permission to file emergent motion.

Doesn’t want to publish public notice of special election,

which would have had to have been done today.

See paragraphs 5 and 6 of the document below:a1

Appellate Court will hear them tomorrow

but gives no relief from notice requirement:


It’s possible this is what the special meeting Friday is about.


  1. Resident wrote:

    Lawless Matt will do anything to keep all his contributions and continue to give favors to his friends that residents ultimately pay.

    Belmar residents you are crazy to allow this mayor to spend your money to defend lawsuits that he has repeatedly lost. Now he is at the appellate division using high-priced attorneys that he handpicked so he can try to battle for a law he created that benefits only himself.

    Monday, August 1, 2016 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
  2. OLD MAN wrote:

    We all knew what he was going to do. No surprise here. Pass the aspirins please.

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:43 am | Permalink
  3. joe goofinoff wrote:

    This is about as frivolous a motion that can be made. There is zero emergency. The only one who benefits here is the lawyer/liar who talked Matt into filing this.

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:57 am | Permalink
  4. Anonymous wrote:

    Stall tactic. Doherty wants this referendum vote to be held in November, thus rendering the point moot. He’ll keep all the contributions and spend them on his campaign. Then, win or lose, he’s outta here.

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 6:16 am | Permalink
  5. Real special wrote:

    Why do we have to pay for Matt Doherty’s lawyers?

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 7:45 am | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    The irony of the self serving “Doherty PAY TO PLAY ORDINANCE CHANGE” in Belmar is that the contributions are, essentially, an untaxable salary. You’re paying his attorney to protect his self serving PAY TO PLAY ORDINANCE change to allow him a SALARY.

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:52 am | Permalink
  7. Anonymous wrote:

    Is it of any interest to you, the Residents, that your employees at the Monmouth County Board of Election are doing their jobs by posting the Notice?

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 9:08 am | Permalink
  8. elemental wrote:

    The Borough (Matt Doherty) is fighting really hard to keep his contributors’ money. Must be a lot. Now if he fought that hard to save the resident taxpayers money, I would be impressed. Be careful if you walk past his house, you might slip and fall on the slime…then sue him.

    Is the two-way arrow sign by his house new? Is that there so drunks do not drive straight up 4th Avenue into his house?

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
  9. Anonymous wrote:

    The oaks hide the oncoming traffic. Site of past serious dram shop cases

    They need a traffic light especially when mcdirty give la dolce a year round license. HA. HA all the way to the Banco Reale.

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
  10. Force,michael wrote:

    Yes,crazy residents, but do we not have supposed checks to these actions of the Mayor called councilmen and women? Where are the voices and the votes of those elected to prevent these power moves by the Mayor to spend our money for his self aggrandizement? Why do we not hear a peep from any of them while our tax money is being thrown away on appeals filed by high price counsel? S o yes #1 #5 & #6, you are quite correct but at least in theory there are checks to the Mayor however I guess they have been steamrolled into allowing this profligacy to run uncontrolled.

    Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink
  11. Concerned wrote:

    Would like to know:

    What happens should the legacy (Pringle) P2P Law is upheld by the court? Does Doherty have to return and report the monies donated to his Freeholder campaign by those contributors deemed illegal under the current P2P such as an ABC license owners – more?

    Additionally should come the decision to uphold the (Pringle) P2P Law from the court and Doherty chooses to recuse himself as Mayor, can he keep the historic donations from those that today are out of compliance? If not does he have to report the dollar amount he will give back and from whom?

    Finally if Doherty decides to recuse his duties as Mayor and the courts uphold the current P2P, can Doherty simply start fresh, return the illegal contributions and in fact go back to the well to ask ABC license owners, etc to contribute again as he would no longer hold a political position in the Borough of Belmar?

    Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
  12. OLD MAN wrote:

    Why doesn’t he just move out of state?

    Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 6:32 pm | Permalink
  13. Voter wrote:

    Oh he’s going out of state they usually don’t keep the criminal in the same state where they live.

    Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
  14. Anonymous wrote:

    11, Doherty can keep all the contributions now. He would just be in conflict and thus not be allowed to vote on specific things for 3 years (I think it’s 3). Or, he can give back all the donations and be compliant, able to go about his normal duties as mayor. Lastly, he can resign as mayor and go about his merry way. If he doesn’t get his way in court or in the referendum vote and doesn’t give back the money, maybe he will resign. However, if not, what good is a mayor who can not vote on a plethora of items ? My guess is that we all may hear the word “recall” very fast.

    Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
  15. excuse me wrote:

    #14 Until he is recalled, moves on to freeholder or resigns, he can still make his deals with developers, construction companies, liquor license holders and other entities, he can still direct the council members to rubber stamp what he wants. Who will rid us of this meddlesome mayor? Who will rid us of the gutless wonders who “serve” on the council? Vote them out.

    Friday, August 5, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
  16. Confused wrote:

    Has there been any comment from the court regarding this appeal?

    Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:01 pm | Permalink
  17. admin wrote:

    Haven’t heard. I’ll try to find out tomorrow.

    Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:08 pm | Permalink
  18. Anonymous wrote:

    Thanks Dave for all your help and sacrifice in producing this blog for Belmar. It is extremely time consuming and costly in terms of your efforts on our behalf.

    Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.