Skip to content



Screen Shot 2014-08-19 at 9.25.05 PM

“Small group” indeed!


  1. Cathi De Genova wrote:

    As it should be. Thanks for all you did to spread the word.

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 9:10 pm | Permalink
  2. Dave Carlson wrote:

    hope and change arrives in Belmar – now on to November for some real change.

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
  3. The tea tea party wrote:

    I did not think it was going to go this way. I’m glad signs can’t vote. We should have a tea tea party cause I like tea teas.
    I suppose Christy being the spokes model didn’t help.

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
  4. Anonymous wrote:

    It’s time to take our town back and think about the residents. For too long only the tourist were important, how about the families of Belmar? Especially since they have proven themselves tonite.

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 9:50 pm | Permalink
  5. VITO CORLEONE wrote:

    So now whatever Christie says do the oposite

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    has anyone been following facebook since the decision was announced? seems like freedom of speech doesn’t apply there anymore. our mayor should have taken more advice from our governor when it comes to social media snafus…

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 10:08 pm | Permalink
  7. Mark wrote:

    So let’s see the plans for The $4Mill pavilions a you have been saying we can build. After all “this isn’t about weather we should build the pavilions or not” You won now prove you can live up to all the hype and build them for less.

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
  8. Anonymous wrote:

    Man, I feel like we just took three in a row from the Yankees.

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 10:11 pm | Permalink
  9. anonymous wrote:

    I am so happy that the people have now taken a stand and said enough. This is just the first step to making a better Belmar! Today also goes to show that there are still people here that refuse to sell out, be bought out or be afraid to speak out. Now let’s look to November to really make a positive change.

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
  10. Tulip wrote:

    The facts are: To much info I can’t imagine the cost of all the mailings.
    We already know the wasteful action of the special election. It would have been free in November instead it was 20,000.00 in August. What’s
    wrong with this? More debt that’s all.
    And finally the people spoke
    I am glad for all of us. Tulip

    Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 10:56 pm | Permalink
  11. Anonymous wrote:


    You’re right, but only to a certain extent. I voted no, but I voted no because I’m happy the way the boardwalk is. I don’t want either pavilion. There are many more people like me as well. The ocean view is magnificent as it is. No pavilions at any cost. Thank the Lord this scam went down.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 12:08 am | Permalink
  12. Mark wrote:

    I would imagine that most people don’t agree with you on that one. You ran the no campaign saying you will build for less. That’s a lot of people you scammed into makings them believe you can actually do it. Let’s see how they react when the realize that it can’t and won’t be done. Great job standing up for your ocean view glad the rest of the town can suffer so you don’t have to see a pavilion from your patio Joy

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 7:11 am | Permalink
  13. VITO CORLEONE wrote:

    Yo Mark……Are u really serious about what u say?

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 7:42 am | Permalink
  14. Anonymous wrote:

    Mark, go ahead and eat your sour grapes, we understand. And your people spent so much money.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 7:47 am | Permalink
  15. Mark wrote:

    I am serious. I’m not sour. I didn’t spend any money. But I wanted to see pavilions built. If they can be built for 4 million I challenge you to deliver on what you say or what you convinced the people of Belmar. If they can be built for 4 mill I would support that but now it’s time to put your money where your mouth is

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 8:15 am | Permalink
  16. admin wrote:

    Elect Jim and he’ll “git her done”!

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 8:45 am | Permalink
  17. Guest wrote:

    Oh the suffering I am starting to feel that I don’t have a pavilion, a grand pavilion at that, to go to. Oh the humanity!

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 8:40 am | Permalink
  18. Mark Fitzgerald wrote:

    Not sure who “Mark” is on these comments, but to be sure, it is not me. The fate of the pavilions is certainly in question as the plan to move forward and build them for less is not clear yet and has to be figured out. Hopefully rebuilding them is one point almost everyone agrees on (at least that was what was said) so let’s figure out how to make that a reality. They will not be “free”.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 9:13 am | Permalink
  19. admin wrote:

    Yeah, it knew it wasn’t you and I made sure to point that out to the first person to respond to the other Mark.
    I also want to point out that while most people want pavilions, not wanting them is also legitimate position and it doesn’t mean you’re “anti-Belmar”.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 9:37 am | Permalink
  20. Robert wrote:

    I too am fine with out the buildings on the boardwalk. And I want the town to focus on the permanent residents that live year round. I want the town to focus on moving toward owner-occupied homes (too many year round over crowded rentals that that look like garbage and detract from the neighborhood – especially 12th south / B West). May reduce the school system burden – and be an area for cost / tax savings? Or property value increases on sales leading to higher tax assessed values.

    How about we spend some quality money on real town infrastructure – why is the Belmar Library not part of the county system? My kids can’t take books out of Wall or any other Monmouth County library – since Belmar doesn’t want to pay the cost to join the county system. I’d rather pay that.

    PS – I vote no more since I don’t think the governing body is only interested in themselves – what higher level office will Matt try for next, after he leaves Belmar holding the check?

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 9:18 am | Permalink
  21. Mike S wrote:

    Never underestimate people’s ability to understand the truth, especially the fine residents of Belmar.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 10:57 am | Permalink
  22. Teddy Ehmann wrote:


    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 11:42 am | Permalink
  23. Anonymous wrote:

    Robert, you are so right re: the Library 2% of our budget is spent on it. In this day of computers etc few people use the library, what about the school library for children who have no computer? We should at least think about downsizing it.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
  24. Is It Legal wrote:

    Dear Mark Fitzgerald:
    If you are not part of the solution, then… Please know that there is the rule of law. When you accepted the appointment by our mayor to the Belmar Board of Adjustment, you became a public official. I say this because you are currently in violation of NJSA 40A:9-22.1. Your financial disclosure was due at the very latest 6/30/2014. When you and others on the Board comply, I will be happy to listen to what you have to say.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
  25. guest wrote:

    “Is it Legal” – Check this website:

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
  26. Is It Legal wrote:

    Got it. Thank you. I apologize. My link failed me. So Sorry Mark.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
  27. Mark wrote:

    That’s what I get for volunteering, getting my certificate, and serving countless hours to the town to make it better. Thanks for the apology but your comment is malicious rude and insulting. Please tell us about how you serve the community as actions speak louder than words.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 5:25 pm | Permalink
  28. Mark Fitzgerald wrote:

    Is it Legal – why don’t you identify yourself instead of remaining anonymous? Please come forward otherwise request your original misguided post be taken down by the administrator. It’s too easy to make anonymous comments about those that are doing their best to help….at least be identified, if not, it is you whose comments should be disregarded…And Mark, whoever you are, please disclose your full name too so people don’t attribute your opinions to me.

    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 5:53 pm | Permalink
  29. Mark Fitzgerald wrote:

    “Is It Legal”…you stated that “When you and others on the Board comply, I will be happy to listen to what you have to say.” Please be a person of your word, come forward and say who you are so we can openly discuss…Mr. Schneck, may I and others be allowed to use pseudonyms on this site and go after certain members of your readership anonymously? Is this Common Sense to you?

    Thursday, August 21, 2014 at 5:41 pm | Permalink
  30. admin wrote:

    Mark, most commenters don’t say who they are and also don’t leave their email so I don’t know who they are either. I think that’s pretty standard in most comments sections of other on-line forums.

    Thursday, August 21, 2014 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
  31. Mark Fitzgerald wrote:

    At minimum you should not accept posts that are not identified by email. There are many reasons, but the primary being the ability to make illegal threats without fear of recourse. If you don’t change the policy, then people will always use pseudonyms, especially if the moderator pretty much protects their anonymity. “pretty standard” is a weak reason not to require an email address.

    Friday, August 22, 2014 at 7:05 am | Permalink
  32. admin wrote:

    Mark, if any commenter ever illegally threatened anyone, and it’s never happened, I have their IP address and would immediately turn it over to the authorities. Now that contaminated syringe that I found sticking out of the side of my car right near the door handle, it didn’t come with an IP address.

    Friday, August 22, 2014 at 8:10 am | Permalink
  33. Who is watching you? wrote:

    Sorry Dave but people who voice opinions confident in their anonymity are cowards. U have to own enabling this behavior. Not requiring at minimum an email address is negligent and very naive on your part. It’s your blog and it’s irresponsible and absolutely not “pretty standard”…standard is email required.

    Friday, August 22, 2014 at 7:58 pm | Permalink
  34. admin wrote:

    Maybe these “cowards” believe they have something to be afraid of.

    Friday, August 22, 2014 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
  35. DR. ZAIUS wrote:

    Afraid of reprisals? Yes we have that on our planet.

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink
  36. Who is Watching you? wrote:

    How do you reconcile checking a poster’s IP address without violating your personal opinion on respecting their right to privacy? Seems hypocritical and worth responding to as site administrator. Defending anonymous attacks based on potential fear of reprisal, c’mon now.

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 10:29 am | Permalink
  37. admin wrote:

    I don’t “check” them. WordPress displays it with the comment in their comments inbox.

    You know no one is accusing anyone of murder here. And WordPress gives the option of requiring email or not requiring email so I don’t think I’m some kind of Internet gangster or anything.

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 10:42 am | Permalink
  38. Who is watching You? wrote:

    You would gain credibility for you and your posters by requiring email addresses. If not, then revel in your anonymous posts from the shadows. You ask for transparency but don’t expect it from your own site? Spin it again Sam.

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 12:39 pm | Permalink
  39. admin wrote:

    Transparency from a government that has the power to use force against people is necessary. But I have no legal or moral responsibility to force people to identify themselves just because they express an opinion on a blog. No one is using force here. And I can tell you that if I require an email address 90% of the commenters would disappear.

    You know there’s all sorts of blogs putting out stuff I don’t like. When I see a blog and I don’t like what they say I stop looking at it, that’s all.

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
  40. watchingmyback wrote:

    Perhaps “Who is Watching You” is a hacker who wants to identify posters. “Bring the needle, Watson.”

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
  41. Who is Watching you? wrote:

    “When I don’t like what they say I stop looking at it”. Isn’t that EXACTLY THE PROBLEM? ISNT THAT EXACTLY WHAT YOU DETEST? An unwillingness to even listen to opposing viewpoints… Read what you said and realize the hypocrisy. I read your site even though I disagree with most of the stuff to try to understand points of view other than my own. You should consider it and assess your own close-minded views.

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
  42. admin wrote:

    There must be 500,000 blogs out there. Do you read every one of them?

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
  43. Shrugged wrote:

    “Who is Watching you?” is trying to confuse people. They are trying to convince others that listening to opposing viewpoints are good on every level. This is like listening to ISIS in Iraq viewpoint of why they cut that poor guys head off. Some viewpoints I don’t need to listen to, to disagree with. “Who is watching” acts like there are no statistics and no historical information to compare different political structures. Every viewpoint doesn’t just start that exact second in a vacuum. A reasonable person knows when to listen to other viewpoints to reach the best desired solution. This is why some people are better leaders then others. They know the perfect balance. To try and guilt others to “listen to opposing viewpoints” is a political trick used by pushy people to force down the throat of others the ideas they disagree with.

    Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
  44. Who is Watching You? wrote:

    Shrugged, once again an extreme false equivalent put to use…You comparing my willingness to listen and understand your point of view and this blog is the same as listening to ISIS is crazy. Good luck, you are right, I should ignore you and your opinion.

    Admin, good dodge on addressing the question of your hypocrisy. Not talking about 500,000 blogs..only one. This one. Yours. I do give you credit for not filtering posts that counter however. Based on some of the responses, probably better to just ignore all of you. Seems that is the viewpoint and reality you prefer.

    Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 10:43 am | Permalink
  45. Shrugged wrote:

    “Who is watching you” – “You comparing my willingness to listen and understand your point of view and this blog is the same as listening to ISIS is crazy”

    Nobody did this. Nobody is comparing your willingness to listen to ISIS. POINT: Nobody cares that you “are willing to listen to other view points”. If you hold yourself higher because of this, good for you. I don’t care. Your misdirection is when YOU guilt other people into listening to your point of view. I will decide whether your worth my time or not. I am smart enough to decide if you are crazy or not. My suggestion to you is to start having better ideas and then maybe your point of view will be listened to more.

    I would bet money that everyone already understands your ideas already. We can tell what they are by how you push people that don’t agree with them.

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
  46. admin wrote:

    There’s a thousand different ways that they try to justify looting. And every one they come up with they think is some entirely new discovery that merits everybody’s attention. Sorry. looting is looting and it’s pretty easy to recognize and any society based on a foundation of looting runs out of productive people to loot fairly quickly.

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.