Point Beach Votes Against Referendum to Close Bars at Midnight
Non-binding referendum would have been to close bars two hours earlier than current 2 a.m. closing time
Point Beach Council voted narrowly against a non-binding referendum on whether bars should close at midnight instead of the current 2 a.m. closing time.
After much discussion from local business owners, residents, the mayor and council members, the council voted three to two against placing the non-binding referendum on the November general election ballot.
Council members Sean Hennessy, Tim Lurie and Frank Rizzo voted against it and Council members Kristine Tooker and Michael Corbally voted for it.
Rizzo, who has had health problems for the past several months, attended via telecommuting. Councilman Jeff Dyer was absent.
Corbally said he was proposing it as a way to cut down on the drinking and crime that has made this summer the worst one in many years.
Police have been saying that it's been the most problem-plagued summer in the past 17 years.
Later in the meeting, Police Chief Kevin O'Hara said that on the weekends between July 25 and Aug. 1, there were 94 violations of municipal ordinances and 18 criminal arrests of adults.
Corbally, who had asked that the measure be included on the agenda, said that if council voted against the placement of the referendum on the November ballot, it would lose its chance.
That's because, according to state law, the deadline to vote to place a referendum on the November ballot is Aug. 19. The council does not have a meeting until after that.
"I'd like to see what people have to say," Corbally said. "It doesn't mean we're going to do this."
Hennessy said it is not fair to local business owners to meet with them on July 19 to start working out solutions to the recent spike in criminal mischief and disorderly conduct and then propose shutting the bars two hours earlier only two weeks after that meeting.
That meeting was held between Hennessy, Corbally, Mayor Vincent Barrella and numerous business owners and representatives, following a public comment portion where residents voiced their concerns about recent incidents.
Hennessy also said he objected to the placement on the agenda without some council discussion.
"I didn't find out about this until Friday," he said.
Barrella only votes if there is a tie in the Borough Council form of government. So he did not get a vote.
However, he had said during the meeting that he had mixed feelings about the referendum because he favored a police department recommendation to make the bars' "last call" earlier, but leave the bars open until 2 a.m.
"If last call was 30 or 45 minutes earlier, that would be progress," he said. "Keep the place open, serve food, let these kids sober up."
O'Hara said later in an interview that there is no mandate for all bars to have last call at a certain time. He said they have discretion, but that many have last call around 1:15 or 1:30 a.m.
Resident Stephen Reid had said early in the meeting that he opposes earlier bar closings.
Reid, a Republican, and Lurie, a Democrat, are running against Barrella in November. Barrella is a registered Republican running as an Independent.
Attorneys of Jenkinson's and Martell's and the owner of Frankie's Bar and Grill and other local businesses spoke against the referendum.
However, some residents, including Dave Cavagnaro and Ben Dispoto, spoke in favor of it to get a sense of how residents would feel about earlier closings.
Frank Kinneavy, owner of Frankie's Bar and Grill in Point Beach and Rod's in Sea Girt, spoke against the referendum. He said when Sea Girt began the midnight closings there in 1984, his revenues went down about 35 percent.
Barrella said, "But Rod's is still there."
"But it wasn't easy," Kinneavy said.
Kinneavy said he would not mind if there was state-mandated closing for all bars and restaurants, but that having earlier closing times in some towns and not others presents a danger of people in bars closing at midnight getting into their cars and driving to another town where closings are later.
Resident Ann Lightburn said, "I don't think this should be on the ballot because it raises the expectation that this council will make the closings earlier.
"The residents will think this is something you are going to do," she said. "I think it would be very devastating for the businesses. If you can't solve the problem by next year, close the bars early, but I don't think the referendum should be done now. I would work with these bar owners, slap them hard if you have to when their licenses are up."
Barrella said, "But how do we continue on this way? There needs to be some significant changes made. What is your suggestion? How do we deal with our obligation to our residents and taxpayers?"
Lightburn said, "Clearly, you have a plan from the police, you have a lot of residents interested in seeing the results. Have police work when most needed. It's a cost issue to get that enforcement. That may be an issue to have those businesses pay for that.
"If you want to survey the public, you can do an informal survey on the (municipal) website, not just about midnight closings, but other questions too," she said.
Barrella said, "And my concern is that there's an expectation that these discussions are going to produce something. If three months go by and it's all forgotten and no one does anything, that's not acceptable."
Lightburn said "No, it's not acceptable."
Regarding the July 19, closed meeting with business owners, Barrella said the meeting was brief and resulted in agreement that a few different committees would be established to try to resolve the current problems.
"We now have focus groups to look at each of the industry segments," Barrella said. "Each of the committees dealing with bars and hotels and realtors have two residents on there.
"There are borough employees involved as well. I intend to sit in on as many of those meetings as I can. I'm sure Councilmen Hennessy and Corbally would like to sit in too.
"We cannot have another summer like 2011," he said. "We need to have answers during the winter months to do ordinances or whatever we have to do."
SoylentGreen
4:01 am on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Kudos to the council for not making a knee jerk reaction that would do nothing but hurt business in town. Remember business pays taxes too.
Mike Corbally
7:02 am on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I guess the public will not get to give us their opinion.
pointman
7:53 am on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The public can let you know how they feel anytime. They can call you,you can walk around and ask,they can go to Council meetings, they can E Mail. This was done just to fan the flames and keep the public and politicians arguing among themselves and continue the policy of dividing the town. Purely a political move to pit the public against the businesses.
Spooner
11:46 am on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I would agree with 'pointman': considering how many times local officials have published their personal phone numbers and emails here. . . Now I know they will deny it. . .but there is political posturing going as well, by candidates and their supporters, as 'pointman' said: "to pit the public against the businesses"
It's not in total businesses responsibility to control behavior of their patrons out side of their establishments. . .the article does make mention of last drink call. But the bars are at one end of town and their patrons park from East of the tracks on residential streets as close as they can get to the bars. . .that causes a problem to the residents at closing time. . .Will closing the bars earlier stop or reduce the problem. . .according to Mr Kinneavy, business will fall off meaning less patrons. . .
Kristin Hennessy
1:02 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Councilman Corbally,
As I stated publicly at last night's Council Meeting:
"Generally, I favor hearing from the public on all issues that affect us as residents and taxpayers, and attempts to gauge the public's sentiment are a good thing. However, the 2 referendums that you proposed last night will exclude the voices of 42% of Point Pleasant Beach's residential population!"
Approximately 58% of the homes in PPB are inhabited by full-time residents. The other 42% of homes in PPB are owned by part-time residents who are registered to vote elsewhere. Those 42% pay equivalent taxes here too, and they would be directly affected by the outcome of your parking plan and early bar closing proposals. But yet, they will not be given the opportunity to "officially" give you their opinion. So, are you only interested in the opinions of those who vote here? That hardly seems like a fair and balanced process of democracy.
I was quite surprised that Mr. Dave Cavagnaro -- the long-time vocal champion for ALL residential (full-time and part-time) taxpayers' rights -- supported the concept of placing these 2 referendums on the November ballot. Suddenly, he went mum in his advocacy for treating ALL taxpayers fairly and equally with regard to giving them the ability to vote on these 2 issues. I cannot understand how exclusion of THEIR voices now suddenly seems acceptable? Sadly, that surely smells of "Taxation Without Representation" and political gamesmanship.
PPB Resident
1:16 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Kristin Hennessy,
Thank you for supporting the Non Voting Tax Payers of PPB, maybe the Mayor and Council will follow in the path of Bay Head and start letting our voices be heard
(see below)
The special non-voting taxpayer meeting of the Mayor and Council of
the Borough of Bay Head was held on August 16, 2010 at 7:30 PM in the
Council Chambers of the Borough Hall.
Mayor Curtis called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone to the
Third Annual Non-Voter Taxpayer Meeting.
John Wayne
2:30 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@pointman, it does not matter, you can talk, send e-mails everything seems to fall on deaf ears and most council members ignore the residents both full time and part time. They do exactly what the BUSINESSES want.
John Wayne
2:42 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@Kristen, I was not their but I heard all about it and with what you are stating here, I have to disagree. The part-time resident can't have their cake and eat it too!! You get to choose and pick which residence that you want to be considered full-time. They get to vote in that town, if they don't like what is happening here and they feel it is going to effect them so much, have them change PPB as their full-time residency then they can vote. Maybe they are claiming another state to save themselves in other ways. I am not saying they should not be included in some other way. It seems that the council has a short term memory and have no problem when it selectively does not matter on a percentage when it is in their favor. As far as political, lets get real, everything seems to end up to be political and all sides are playing that game. Lets get real!!
John Wayne
2:51 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@PPB RESIDENT, Can I vote in your town? Would they allow me if I owned another resident there. You can't have your cake and eat it too!! Give up your full time residency and switch and make PPB your full time and the other part-time and then you can vote. Obviously there is a reason why and which what town you claim, it is not like you don't have a choice. You just can't have both. Do I have a problem with them having a council meeting for all the part-time residents to hear their concerns, No I don't. Good luck with that being most of the council does not even care to listen to the full time residents.
PPB Resident
3:21 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@ John Wayne,
Not looking to vote, just looking to have my opinions and concerns heard. I also feel that with having 42% of homes and taxes being paid by part time residents this mayor and council as well as full timers should listen to what we have to say.
Remember this, as a realestate investor I know first hand that when a town or city is tanking a turn for the worse, the first people to sell are the owners of 2nd and 3rd homes. And when this happens who do you think the will pay for the shortfall in taxes.
you will...
PPB Resident
3:54 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@Spooner, I have to disagree with the bar owners about how there revenue will drop if there is a 12:00 close. Look at Long Branch with 4 star restaurants lining the boardwalk with a small part of there revenue coming from alcohol. If Jenkinsons becomes a food establishment maybe the residents of PPB and the surrounding towns will start to come back to the boardwalk and they will make just as much if not more revenue then they do currently.
beachmom46
5:33 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@pbresident- You should take a ride down to Pier Village and visit The Avenue and Tiki Bar. It is definitely a party town. Also The Avenue is now hosting "mondays"
PPB Resident
8:54 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Kristin Hennessy, As a Non Resident Tax Payer of PPB for more than 10 years now I would love nothing more than to stand by your side if you are willing to fight for the rights of the OTHER 42%
John Wayne
9:54 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@PPB Resident, I never said part-time residents should not have a say, or that the council nor the town full time residents should not listen to everyone's opinion on issues that will surly effect their property and taxes, however some council members both past and present don't listen to full time residents never mind part time residents. Don't fall for that, they flip flop along with some residents, employees and who ever else is going to benefit for themselves, wether it's a financial gain, personal gain or political gain, they could care less about any of the property owners here. Like David said, and what I heard Mike also said, this was only allowed to be voted on from the full time residents, but a survey or something could have been sent out with the taxes for an opinion but once again everyone puts a political spin on all issues here, that is the way the town is and guess who is losing. If the 2nd and 3rd owners sell first, you have to be selling to someone and new suckers will be sucked in.
Ken Hildebrandt
7:14 am on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I worked at a Point bar several summers and I just can't imagine a bar in Point closing at 12:00. That'll make a ghosttown fast. Take a look at how many bars this town supports. Is not this town largely based in alcohol?
John Wayne
2:55 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Very true, that is the problem. They condone and promote alcohol. Then society wonders why there is so many problems and why the town will lose their reputation and go down the drain.
David Cavagnaro
4:19 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Dear Kristin,
I thank you for your support of the non resident second home owner. Referendums are non binding and therefore only informational. By law, only residents can vote. Since many of us are concerned about “costs”, the referendum is free to the town. No action on parking or bar hours can be done before next spring Once the results are in, when or if the Council makes a decision, there could be a mailing to the non residents.
What does currently effect the non residents NOW is the “RESIDENT” PARKING PASS. It excludes all those 42% yet forces them to subsidize it (Taxation without benefits). Republican Mayoral candidate Steven Reed has advocated a FREE RESIDENT PARKING PASS. I have in the past always objected to the exclusion of those 42% non residents, which Mr., Reed’s plan continues to do. Will you publicly stand up for them on the parking pass program and insist that the Republicans offer any program to all taxpayers?
Dave Cavagnaro
Beach_N8iv
8:26 am on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Just another opportunity for the "BENNY Come Lately" crowd to express their discontent. I guess they couldn't find property next to an airport or NASCAR track to move to and complain about the noise. If you don't like this town: 1. Why did you move here? Did your Realtor cover a LARGE entertainment complex with a sheet or something? 2. Why not just move somewhere else?
PPB Resident
11:53 am on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Benny come lately pays $8,000 a year in taxes, I think I have a say in any matter that goes on in this town.
John Wayne
3:26 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Beach-N8iv, Why do you think there is so many for sale signs up? Many are fed up and now realize that the residents carry the businesses here. Many that moved here were willing to pay a higher price for a house because of the schools. If they go down, you can expect to get very little for your house. There is other towns that you can move close to the beach and pay less money for a house if that is all you want is to be close to if you are only using the town for a beach. Why should people that are here for years and generations move because the council members decide to let their town go down and just don't care about the full time residents any longer. When did that happen. This is not what many bargained for, if only you had a crystal ball that would tell you what is really going on before you bought. They did not anticipate for the town to go down like it is when they bought long ago. The councilmen are in place to protect the town and the residents that live here. Not the tourists and the businesses like they have been. Maybe all the full time residents should leave and sell and make it all part-time residents and everyone just can become landlords. Sounds like a plan to me, then know one has to care what happens, it could be one big party town with a bunch less desirable individuals. Oh, then who cares if all the property values go down. It will be a town of all part-timers and tourists.
sandinmytoes
10:37 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Mr. Wayne, I find it interesting that you should mention the schools in your post to an article regarding a referendum question. The school budget is a referendum question. When the voters of PPB turned out in 2010 to vote on the school budget, and voted against approving the school budget, many residents screamed out that the budget shouldn't be cut at all. That position was directly against the results of the vote on that referendum question. Sure, you can blame Christie's tactics for driving down the school budget that year, but the truth is that the voters that year voted "No." As we saw, that left the Council with a lot of options as to how to respond to the public. Some Councilmen thought that it meant a deeper cut than others did. I think Ms. Lightburn hit the nail on the head. When you put up a referendum question, residents will think this is something you are going to do. Why punish all of the bars in town if only a few are causing a problem? Also, since most businesses pay a lot more taxes than the average homeowner, and bring in tourists which create revenue for the town, I'm not sure that your characterization of the residents carrying the businesses is an accurate one.
John Wayne
11:27 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@sand, I will not argue on that issue and I agree with you, it was voted down. The budget should have been adjusted. Personally I don't have any children in the school system, but from my own experience and what I do know when a school loses its reputation, the town usually goes down with it. From what I have heard and I don't know what is actually true, being there is so many here in the beach that is not telling the truth. Many have told me the same story, that a council member agreed and then went back on his word and that started all the problems and commotion. If you go back and read some of my comments, I totally agree and don't feel all the bars are creating and causing the problems and should not be punished. Sorry, I don't buy that the businesses here pay more in taxes, you would have to prove that to me. The businesses here pay the same tax rate as the residents and I am not convinced that they are valued higher either. They might own more square footage in property in both the size lots and what is on the property, its all the same, if a resident owns the same lot size as a business in the same location which could be more depending on the location of the property is going to pay the same. I have asked many council members both past and present and mayors and they seem to dance around a lot of questions that they should be able to answer with ease, I would think they would know being they are representing the town.
Beach_N8iv
3:33 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
Yes, there ARE quite a few "FOR SALE" signs up in town . . . EVERY TOWN. Since I rather doubt that the owners are just going to abandon their properties someone else is going to buy them. Of course they will probably turn into another whiny BENNY come lately too. If you don't like noise and crowds don't move into an area that has a large entertainment section. Is that so hard to understand?
Denise Di Stephan
11:32 am on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Hey, PPB resident: I had to delete your comment because of the "grow up and shut up" statement. Please do not write that, or anything of the kind, in the future or I'll delete those comments. If you further persist, I will suspend your account. As I've said before, I'm asking all to be civil and respectful with each other or "take it outside." Thank you in advance for your cooperation and for reading Patch.
PPB Resident
12:14 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Denise, "grow up or shut up" (no fowl language)?
Also, could the patch please run a story on the facts:
1- Number of people arrested since Memorial day.
2- Number of summonses issued.
3- Number of Criminal arrests.
Now lets break down those numbers from where they come from:
1- Local
2- South Jersey
3- North Jersey
4- New York
Information can be be found at the Ocean Star.
PPB Resident
12:19 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Also, could you please run a report on how many full time residents are there east of the tracks vs how many part time tax paying residents there are. I would love to know what the amount of taxes are being payed by part timers and how much of an increase it would be to the taxes of full timers.
John Wayne
9:33 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@PPB Resident, from the police break down of what I saw was not more locals, they were more North Jersey and New York. At least the one I saw from 7/30 thru 8/1, I don't even think the prior police report had more locals?
sandinmytoes
12:59 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
From what I heard, even the Chief of Police thought it was a bad idea to put these questions on the ballot. Wonder why Tooker and Corbally decided to ignore his advice. Apparently, Barrella has a November deadline for the businesses to make the types of progress he would like to see, which is why everyone rushed to try to put these questions on the November ballot. Hmm, is it really a coincidence that the Mayoral election is also in November? I'm glad that Kinneavy came to speak. Frankie's is a big asset to the town. Many locals love it, my family included. I can't imagine anyone being more qualified to explain what types of effects an early bar closing would have than someone who owns businesses in both PPB and Sea Girt. Thank you, Council members, for showing the good sense to allow the businesses to try to work with you to solve problems rather than placing them under the strong arm of a referendum question.
John Wayne
3:00 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I am sure it has more to do with his own pocketbook, everyone is playing every side and angle. This small town is very political and everyone is playing in to it including the police, everyone is only worrying about themselves, the businesses, the politicians, the landlords, the full time residents always seems to come last and they are not making any money, it seems the part-time residents even comes before the full time residents.
cap'n crunched
6:41 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Who doesn't like Frankie's? Shutting off the booze spigot a little early is certainly not going to shut that place down. We should ask the Sea Girt officials why they changed the hours and what effect did that have on their town. Could be interesting, no?
Old Guy
1:40 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Don't close the bars at midnight. Just stop serving alcohol at 12am and keep the music going. Then break out some food. Change 'em for it, if you like. They'll pay. It'll sober them up a bit and the bars will continue to make a bit more cash. Sorry OB, but you've had enough trouble to last a lifetime with the drunks that show up after closing anyhow.
Oh yeah. Start a one drink only per person at last call. No more doubling and tripling up. I saw one guy carry 5 mixed drinks back to the table at last call, and finished them in a half hour before getting kicked to the street. Sure hope he wasn't driving......
John Wayne
3:06 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@Old Guy, I agree and I have seen more than five, I have seen 10 lined up in front of one guy once, this should be against the law. Is this allowed? How can a bartender serve one person 10 drinks at last call, you better hope he is not driving, they should be able to have a DWI every night.
sandinmytoes
10:41 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Old Guy, that's what they're trying to work on. The police have recommended an earlier last call with the same closing time. I've seen this happen in college town bars. The bars move up their last calls, but bring out some food. The kids don't notice that the last call has been moved up, so long as it's handled discreetly. If it starts getting published in papers and on the news, though, then the people stop coming to those bars. Let the businesses work it out with the police, in a way that both sides can be happy with.
Stephen Reid
4:53 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Stephen Reid
Stephen Reid
5:06 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Mr. Cavagnaro, I whole heartedly agree with you. This is a copy of an ad that our team took out early in July:
"Several years ago, elected officials introduced a residential parking pass, with a minimal fee of $10. This pass was designed to allow residents to park for free during the months when the meters are operational. This residential parking pass fee was brought back at a fee of $30, which many believe is too expensive.
Reid, Mayer and Cortes believe that, if you own a residence and pay Point Pleasant Beach property taxes, then you deserve a break during the summer months.
David Cavagnaro
5:42 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Mr. Reid,
Thank you for the clarification. In bold print above the quote that you included stated , “FREE PARKING FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL TAXPAYERS”. The word residential excludes all second home owners. Since the ad went on to say “if you own a residence, (not a house)” … the implication would be for residents only. Thank you clearing up the misunderstanding and thank you for considering all home owners equally in your proposals.
Dave Cavagnaro
Beach_N8iv
3:44 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
$30.00 IS too expensive. I used to buy the $10.00 permit and frankly the town made out like bandits on me. I probably used no more than about $1.75 worth of parking with it. I got it for the convenience. At $30.00 I won't buy one and I won't go anywhere I have to pay to park.
Kenn
6:49 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The problem with the 12:00 closing is that it would penalize the responsible bar-restaurants in town. I think the solution would be that the boardwalk businesses have restrictions placed on thier licenses. Jenks inlet bar, the Wharfside Patio and the Shrimp box all have restrictions regarding music and hours of operation.
John Wayne
7:38 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
@John Kinnevy and Kenn, I totally agree with you, the businesses that are causing the problems are the ones who should pay and have all the restrictions on them.
PPB Resident
8:59 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
If you feel that this issue cannot be resolved with the business owners and our elected officials than call the number below to file a complaint and have the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control Investigate the over consumption of alcohol in these bars.
ABC Enforcement Bureau
About the Bureau I Forms & Publications I Contact
What Does the Enforcement Bureau Do?
The primary responsibility of the Enforcement Bureau is to institute disciplinary proceedings against licensees and permittees who violate ABC laws or regulations. In its capacity as the prosecutorial arm of the Division of ABC, the Bureau's objectives are to increase compliance with applicable laws, protect the collection of taxes and maintain trade stability in the industry.
The Bureau reviews reports of violations by licensees of the ABC laws and regulations. Upon a determination of a violation, the Bureau institutes disciplinary proceedings. The type of violation charged and penalty imposed is dependent upon the seriousness of the violation and the prior history of the violator. Serious and continuous violations by licensee/permittee can lead to suspension of license, monetary offers in lieu of suspension or revocation of license. Less serious infractions, especially when committed by first offenders, are dealt with by monetary penalties and warnings.
Call 866-713-8392 - to report illegal activity to the Investigative Unit.
John Wayne
11:53 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
What offends me the most is that there is so many council members and Mayors both current and past in the community that think the residents is not smart enough to figure it all out and what is going on in this the community. Sorry, but that is how I feel, so many are in denial, not being honest and everyone is out for themselves no matter what side you are on. It is all connected to and comes down to what personal interest you have. Like I said before, wether it is political, personal gain or financial interests and gains. It is really a no brainer. Just because we are considered to be a clam digger town does not mean we are not smart enough and can't figure it all out. Everyone will down play all issues at all costs and try to make anyone look bad who catches on to all of what is going on. The usual is to attack anyone who figures it all out by trying to discredit them in some way or anyway that they can to make them look bad and it works because many don't have a mind of their own.
blindbert
2:16 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
did the opine of the 42% matter when the garbage ord. was being crafted
blindbert
2:37 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
Back before in and before the seventies there was noTiki bar or Wharfside patio bar, Jenkinsons only served beer to go with your food purchase and Jenkinsons Marine Room served only a cocktail of the day with your Dinner. Jenkinson's inlet only served beer. Back then all those business made profit and did well.
The trouble bars back then were the Riptide and the Hoffman House. When the their crowds starting acting up council started restricting their closing time.
The floor area (thus patronage) of these bars and a lot of connected business' has increased dramatically with no consideration for additional parking. In most towns when expansion of use occurs the land use boards required additional parking to met the increased utilization of the property.
Spooner
4:42 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
I think they call that "good planning"
John Wayne
6:42 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
Again, It seems Point Pleasant Beach Government has done nothing right from the very beginning, way back. Or is it see no evil, hear no evil or speak no evil if I am going to benefit from all of it one way or another.
sandinmytoes
7:35 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
Mr. Wayne, if this is something that you truly believe, that PPB Govt has done nothing right from the very beginning, way back, then really, you should consider moving. PPB has the lowest taxes in Ocean County of towns with a K-12 public school. It's public school is the best in Ocean County. At least once that I can recall, PPB was listed as one of the top 10 towns to live in NJ. PPB has always had problems. All towns do. But, I don't see how you can make this type of statement. You must've found something you liked when you moved here, and if you've lived here more than 1 year, then you must've continued to find something that you liked. All towns have fallen on some hard times due to the economy, and at one point or another, our elected officials have made some poor decisions. It happens. But really, "nothing right from the very beginning"? To quote the real John Wayne: "My hope & prayer is that everyone know & love our country for what she really is & what she stands for."
John Wayne
8:42 am on Friday, August 5, 2011
@sandinmytoes, Why should I move? When I moved here there was not all these problems. I understood it and experienced it as being a family resort town. This town has changed and the council government allowed it to change because they did nothing, it fell on deaf ears even when so many complaints were made. All the complaints were down played that there is no problems. Sure depending where you live, you might not think that there is. But if you live in the direct BW area I can bet you that your tune would change. I was not here in the 80's but from what I hear the town had similar problems. Therefore I feel the council did not hear or think it was a problem then either. Sorry I don't feel the economy has anything to do with the council members doing or making the right choices. I feel the businesses that want to bring in the unruly crowds with there marketing style. With drinking advertisement nights, clubs, music bands, jersey shore cast etc.... Should be paying for the impact that you know it is going to have. They are the clubs that should be paying for the extra police and not just in there clubs out in to our streets too. They are the ones who are bringing them in. You know there is problems when other tourist that are coming are complaining that they will never go to Point again. I have been coming to this BW for 35 years and lived here for 15 years and I have never seen it so bad That is the attitude here, move if you don't like it, so the tourists must come first
clamdigger
9:18 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
back in my younger,heavy drinking days I remember being out w/ friends and we all ordered ordering 3 or 4 drinks before the 2am cut off and finishing them off as the crowd filtered out until we were also told "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here", which usually was probably around 2:30 or so. It seems as though a 1am cutoff would be an excellent compromise. People would still try to back themselves up but at least it would be over an hour earlier and residents would get a little relief.
Opinionated
11:29 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2011
I have two questions. One, there is a spike in criminal complaints, how many involve intoxicated people? Two, if someone wants to get really juiced, do you truly believe closing the bars two hours early will stop that? They could just go back to their house and continue. It is cheaper to do and noisier for their neighbors. It is one thing to make changes but another to think them through before acting. You could get some unwanted consequences.
John Wayne
11:13 am on Friday, August 5, 2011
@Opinionated, usually alcohol and drugs play a huge role in criminal complaints, I would say majority of them. I don't know if it would stop them if you close the bars earlier? Maybe if the places in which are serving drinks should pay more attention to their patrons and how intoxicated they are and stop serving them. I am not a server but I am sure I could figure this out quite easily. Have the bars servers stop lining up 6 drinks at last call. There is things the bar club owners can do if they wanted to. Don't worry the unruly tourists have that covered too, they are already doing that hanging on the porches drinking and noisy disturbing and have no regards for all the other tourists and residents. The Landlords should be hit with fines also if they can't control their tenants. If a police needs to come out more than twice on complaints for drinking, noise or fights made from other surrounding residents or tourists obviously there is a problem.
Opinionated
3:00 pm on Friday, August 5, 2011
I thought the landlords can be fined already. I am also under the impression that most leases give the landlord the right to toss the summer tenant(s) if they caused trouble with no return of rent. Am I wrong?
David Cavagnaro
3:18 pm on Friday, August 5, 2011
If a tenant in a seasonal rental receives two violations of town ordinances, after the season, the landlord is required to appear before a Council appointed magistrate for a hearing. The possible ramifications include a warning, a fine, and / or loss of rental license.
Many leases include the provision for tenants to vacate if they violate town ordinances. If they vacate voluntary, no problem. If they refuse, the landlord has to go to court to evict. Neither the landlord nor the town can take away due process rights from tenants. If the tenants pleads not guilty to a summons, then the judge at an eviction hearing will usually claim innocent until there is a trial or conviction and not evict the tenant.
sandinmytoes
6:59 pm on Friday, August 5, 2011
Mr. Cavagnaro, are you certain about the two violations? A friend of mine went down to Borough Hall to inquire about this issue and was told that the current ordinance says three violations, not two.
David Cavagnaro
8:58 am on Sunday, August 7, 2011
Sorry for the delay. I didn’t know there was a question for me. Yes, I am sure. Two violations of town ordinances require the owner to appear before a Council appointed magistrate. The exception to the two violations is if the owner initiates the complaints. The Council didn’t want to penalize owners for being proactive and involved for trying to protect their property and the quality of life of their neighbors.
You can confirm by going to the town web site at wwww.pointpleasantbeach.org. On the left side 5 down highlight Municipal Code Book. Then go to Revised General Ordinances, scroll down to XXVII, # 4 .
sandinmytoes
2:28 pm on Sunday, August 7, 2011
Thanks for your help, Mr. Cavagnaro. I followed your instructions, but couldn't fint it in #4. I did find it in 27-11(4), which may be what you meant. I called my friend to tell him that it was 2, not 3 and where to find the information. He said, though, that he was told to look in Chapter III. His computer is down, so I did some research on his behalf. Sue enough, Chapter III, specifically 3-33.3 says it's three, not two, complaints. What a mess!