Skip to content

Tuesday’s Agenda

Town-Wide Redevelopment Takeover


Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 9.08.52 AMScreen Shot 2016-09-03 at 9.10.15 AM


  1. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    Notice of the proposed Redevelopment Amendment Ordinance No. 2016-10 was published in the Coast Star on August 25, 2016 …. the notice says the hearing date is August 16, 2016.

    The wizard must have a time machine!

    Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
  2. Anonymous wrote:

    Gene for MAYOR…

    Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 9:22 am | Permalink
  3. Anonymous wrote:

    Can anyone explain how the Pay to play ordinance vote affects Belmar tax payer. What is the jeopardy for an elected official(s) for taking money, etc., from Vendors in Belmar?

    Is it really “only” that the elected official???, who receive monetary consideration (cool term), cannot vote for three years on anything that that specific Vendor paid into or gave to a candidate?

    What happens to all that money, in kind donations that mcdirty collected in this supposed Freeholder race? Does mcdirty get to keep the $$$? Is the money then liken to a salary? If so Who pays taxes on that unearned income?

    Al Capone?

    Monday, September 5, 2016 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
  4. An Observation wrote:

    #3 The main purpose is to reduce any suspicion of favoritism to any vendor in receiving a contract to do work or purchase material. Unfortunately, Municipal Governments are not covered under more stringent ethics rules that State and County governments must abide by.It does not mean that it is a violation if money changes hands that in itself is a felony if proven. For example if you are a board member of a College and you have information from a meeting that they are building a building, and you tell your friend who has a friend or relative that is a contractor, that contractor has an unfair advantage of the upcoming project. Many companies and govt agencies have signs that read ” What you hear here, stays here when you leave here!
    A great example would be the SOX law for business, and Brookdale College Board of Directors ethics guidelines. It seems that the Democratic Party more so than the Republican Party do not follow ethics.

    Monday, September 5, 2016 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
  5. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    The caboose resolution at the end of the agenda awards a $300K contract for the curb, sidewalk and driveway apron replacements …. Ordinance No. 2016-09 would appropriate $500K to do the job.

    The $200K difference seems like a lot of fluff.

    Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    Is it true that Belmar’s government wasn’t involved in the statewide “Birdsall Pay to Play scandal” primarily because our council, in its wisdom, limited contributions from vendors to candidates to $300? And, that the jeopardy for violating Belmar’s strong, protective Pay to Play Ordinance was to prohibit a council person from voting on those matters where such contributing Vendors PAID monies to such a council representative?

    Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
  7. Ken Pringle wrote:

    #6 — That’s correct. The 2005 amendment to Belmar’s P2P Ordinance provided that any member of the governing body (or candidate for such a position), who took ANY campaign contributions from a “professional vendor” (e.g., Borough Engineer, Borough Attorney, etc.), or any of their employees, would be deemed to have a conflict of interest and could not vote on or participate in matters involving that vendor for three years. Prior to the 2005 amendment, the limit had been $300.

    Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
  8. Anonymous wrote:

    So essentially mcdirty can’t vote on anything pertaining to any professional vendor (examples as referenced by #7 above) who donated to his campaign for Freeholder for a minimum of three years from the date of receiving those contributions over $300.

    What a scheme to get a Salary. Living off a war chest and then having to persuade others to vote a certain way to satisfy the unsophisticated vendor? That’s not possible here in Belmar is it?

    Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 10:08 pm | Permalink
  9. BYOB wrote:

    And still nothing about Salt? I noticed they started taking their stuff down. So sad that the town is so corrupt.

    Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:26 am | Permalink
  10. Anonymous wrote:

    The canopies were taken down out of an ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION

    Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.