Tooker says Mayer Never Brought Her a Boardwalk Offer
Ordinances calling for earlier bar closings or payments are on Tuesday night Point Beach Council agenda
Photos
Pdfs
Point Beach Council member Kristine Tooker says Councilman William Mayer never came to her with a financial offer from the boardwalk and that he should not be saying she "rejected" one.
Mayer says Tooker is wrong, that he did ask her whether she approves of a boardwalk offer of $140,000 that he describes as the boardwalk's "alternative" to ordinances calling for either earlier bar closings or payments to stay open later, as well as the removal of a separate ordinance restricting parking in the boardwalk bars' District 4.
And so goes just one of many disagreements regarding the failed "negotiations" between the town and Jenkinson's Boardwalk and Martell's Tiki Bar.
There is not even agreement that they were "negotiations."
"They were not 'negotiations,' they were only 'discussions,' " insists Councilman Bret Gordon, who had met with Mayer and boardwalk bar owners. He said the talks never evolved into true "negotiations" with both sides going back and forth in a productive way, to come up with a fee and a set of circumstances that would be acceptable to both sides.
Gordon said the discussions fell apart when the boardwalk owners insisted that they would only pay the $140,000 if the council removed, from the April 17 agenda, a separate ordinance restricting overnight parking in District 4, which includes the section of boardwalk where Martell's and Jenkinson's are located and the nearby streets used by patrons for parking.
The parking plan was approved at the April 17 meeting.
The breakdown in "discussions" weeks ago has led to the municipality moving forward with two ordinances regarding bar closings on the agenda for the Tuesday night council meeting.
According to the agenda posted on the the municipal website on Friday night, the two ordinances include one that mandates that bars close at midnight. The second is offering bars the option to pay a fee to stay open past midnight (see both ordinances attached as PDFs.)
The state Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control confirmed that municipalities have the authority to mandate hours of operation for bars and restaurants with liquor licenses. However, a spokesman for the division did not want to comment on the municipality offering the payment of fees to stay open past mandated hours.
It's expected both ordinances will be adopted on second reading with yes votes from Corbally, Gordon, Tooker and Mayor Vincent Barrella, based on how the first vote went two weeks ago.
The public portion of the meeting at Borough Hall is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m.
'He's lying'
Mayer said he asked the mayor and council, individually, if they would accept the offer of $140,000 as "an alternative" to the parking ordinance.
However, Tooker has quite a different memory of her own conversation with Mayer.
She said in a telephone interview that Mayer called her the week after Easter (April 8) to update her on the ongoing "discussions."
"He told me the amount of money the boardwalk owners were offering wasn't enough and there were too many strings attached," Tooker said. "It is not true that there was an offer of $140,000 that we rejected. I was never asked to vote on that or even consider it."
"He never asked me if I would approve it, because he didn't seem in favor of it himself," she said.
"No, that's not what I said, she must have me confused with someone else," Mayer replied, when asked to respond to Tooker's version of events.
"Bret told the boardwalk the money wasn't enough, but that's as high as they were willing to go," Mayer said. "I didn't tell Kris that strings were attached or that it wasn't enough. I thought it was a good deal. The way I understood it, she didn't want the $140,000.
"I told her it was an alternative to bars closings, the parking plan and the special event fees," Mayer said.
The morning after Patch interviewed Mayer, he called Tooker and they talked. That resolved nothing.
"Bill called me, I told him he's lying," Tooker said after their telephone exchange.
On Tuesday morning, after reading that Tooker said "he's lying," Mayer said, "I'm steaming. I am not a liar. I did not lie to Kris Tooker or anyone. If she misunderstood the conversation, that's one thing. But to call me a liar is over the line."
'Sincere offer' of $140K
Mayer said boardwalk owners told him that they have a business model with their current hours and on-street parking not restricted to a schedule.
But, they indicated to him, he said, that "if you change the business model, by changing the parking or the closing, then that number ($140,000) isn't fair. But they agree with the idea of zero tolerance."
As for the ordinance calling for earlier bar closings, or payment to stay open later, Gordon said it was his understanding that if the payment of $140,000 had been made, the town simply would not have needed to consider ordinances calling for earlier bar closings or for payments for bars to stay open later.
"If the payment had been made, I think that bar ordinance would have died and withered on the vine," he said.
Mayer uses different words to describe the nature of the boardwalk offer. He said the offer of $140,000 from boardwalk bar owners was offered as "an alternative" to the town passing measures calling for earlier bar closings and restricted parking in District 4, all of which Mayer voted against.
Mayer said his efforts to continue talking to boardwalk bar owners ended when he, the mayor and other council members received a lawyer's letter telling them not to talk to the owners.
The April 16 letter was from attorney John Livelli (see attached PDF) to the mayor and council directing them to no longer speak to his clients, the owners of Jenkinson's and Martell's, unless the bar and parking ordinances were pulled from the April 17 agenda.
Scott Bassinder, owner and president of Martell's Tiki Bar Inc., and Marilou Halvorsen, Jenkinson's Boardwalk director of marketing, said in separate phone interviews that the offer had no conditions.
Bassinder said the offer was for Martell's to pay $40,000 and for Jenkinson's to pay $100,000. He and Halvorsen said that they had told Gordon and Mayer they were willing to commit to pay that every year.
Gordon said, "We talked a bit about it being a recurring payment, but they tied it to the parking ordinance coming off the table and that's when discussions came to a standstill."
"I told them that the parking plan is a pilot program and that if there are problems, we'll re-evaluate it," Gordon said.
Halvorsen said, "We made a hard offer of $140,000. It was a sincere offer. We wanted it used for quality of life, mostly police, with some for garbage and litter control."
She said she did not call it "a donation," as Gordon remembers.
"We hoped for a mechanism" to pay year after year, she said.
When asked if she or Jenkinson's owners imposed any conditions, such as removal of the parking ordinance, on the payment of $140,000, she said, "No, but obviously we did talk about it. It will hurt business significantly and on top of the midnight closing, it will be devastating."
However, she did say, ""We last met on March 31 and they (Gordon and Mayer) were going to go back to see what they could work out. We thought that maybe if the money we were offering were enough for police, we wouldn't need these ordinances."
Like Bassinder, Halvorsen said she never heard back from the councilmen. But, she says, she heard about the new ordinance the Friday or Monday before the April 17 council meeting.
Mayer said he asked most council members if they would accept the $140,000 in exchange for removing the parking ordinance from the agenda.
"I knew I could probably count on Tim and Steve," Mayer said, referring to Council members Tim Lurie and Stephen Reid, who, along with Mayer, voted against the bar and parking ordinances. "But four people rejected the offer."
The "four" he referred to are Tooker, Gordon, Corbally and Barrella.
Gordon said he formed his own opinion that he could not agree to that, based on what he heard when he met with Mayer and boardwalk representatives.
Corbally and Barrella said Mayer talked to them about that type of offer, which was not in writing, and that, like Gordon, they could not agree to the condition of forgoing the parking ordinance.
"We can't have businesses paying us to not pass things," Barrella said. "That's just not the way it works."
No strings or conditional offer?
Bassinder wrote in an email last week, "At the last meeting with Brett and Bill on March 31st, Martells and Jenk's made the $140K offer knowing that Brett was still supporting the parking ordinance and that it was probably going through on its final reading. After that offer was made, as far as I know, there was no response from anyone on council as to accepting or denying it.
"Before the last council meeting on the 17th, we got word of another ordinance pertaining to early bar closings," Bassinder said. "Then we got a copy of the new ordinance, on Friday, April 13th. That's when I knew the offer was rejected.
"Martells and Jenk's were willing to make a yearly payment to the town with no strings attached to help cover costs with policing districts 3 and 4. We've always tried to be good neighbors and a positive influence in the community and will continue to do so," Bassinder wrote.
When told of Bassinder's assertion that the offer was made on March 31 and they never heard back from any town officials, Barrella said, "If they got an offer on March 31, what was Bill doing with it? We tabled the bar closing ordinance at the April 3 meeting so they could continue discussions and they (boardwalk owners and attorneys) were all there."
Mayer, who voted on April 17 against the ordinances calling for earlier bar closings and the parking plan, said in a telephone interview, "The boardwalk owners said they would make the payment based on their current business model, but that if we passed the parking ordinance and the bar ordinance, that would change their business model and it would not be fair for them to pay that money."
When asked why both Mayer and Gordon walked away from discussions believing there would be no payment of $140,000, or any other significant amount, if the parking plan was passed, Bassinder wrote:
"All I can say is the offer was made in light of us knowing Brett was still in favor of the parking ordinance. Obviously, we were clearly not in favor of it, but the offer was still made. Obviously, there would be no payment if there was an early bar closing with a fee to stay open til 2, the town would have more than the 140K from us."
Corbally, also interviewed separately, said, "If there were no conditions, why didn't they just write a check? What were they waiting for? Why don't they write one now?"
The ordinance offers bar owners an option to pay a fee of $60 per person for two hours (midnight to 2 a.m.), based on the maximum occupancy of each bar, compared to the first ordinance, which had different rates.
That would mean Jenkinson's and Martell's would pay a combined total of $186,000, or less if they limit the area they use after midnight, as allowed by the ordinance, Barrella said.
For example, he said, Jenkinson's could decide to only serve alcohol in the front section (closest to the boardwalk) of their pavilion after midnight, which would reduce their maximum occupancy and, therefore, their fee.
Barrella denied rumors that he wanted the boardwalk owners to pay $500,000 per year or anything approaching that.
"I thought $140,000 was a little low, but I felt we were pretty close," he said, noting that the payment of $140,000 is only $46,000 less than the payment of $186,000 that the two businesses would be making to stay open past midnight, as per the new ordinance.
When asked if it might be worth it to attempt further discussions, Bassinder wrote, "I don't know. Its hard for me to understand how anything can be settled when the mayor has such a deep rooted dislike for us."
"That's bul----." Barrella retorted. "I'll sit down and talk to anyone. I do not dislike them. But I dislike people on the boardwalk behaving badly. And I dislike that politicians in the past who let the boardwalk do whatever they wanted."
The Point Pleasant Patch
Valentine's Shopping Guide
See the full guide!
Patch Picks
In This article
-
-
Jenkinson's Boardwalk
300 Ocean Ave, Pt Pleasant, NJ -
-
-
Point Pleasant Beach Borough Hall and Police Department
416 New Jersey Ave, Point Pleasant Beach, NJ -
Danny
7:28 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I use to like going to the Tiki Bar a few times each year. Guess I will have to find a new place to go. I will not spend my money in a town that clearly does not want outsiders there. I am sure a lot of people will go elsewhere. Because the Mayor has in in for the Boardwalk owners, everyone else is going to suffer. What a shame.
A Resident
8:24 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Danny, you do realize that the majority of the money you are spending in the Town is actually money you are paying Martells. The Town gets very little of your money.
Joe
6:06 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
To "A Resident", you're right the boardwalk does not hire local kids to work or anything. The boardwalk also does not draw tourist into town where LOCAL business owners prosper as well. Not to mention all the LOCAL kids they hire as well. Move to a town without a tourist industry and see all the employmen opportunities those kids are getting.
A Resident
6:48 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Joe, talk to many of the people working on the boardwalk. Ask them where they live...you will find some PPB residents. You will also find many that are not PPB residents. And you will find many from overseas. Jenks runs a great program for kids from overseas to experience the USA. It really is a great program. Many of the businesses in town do well all year...not just the weekends of the summer.
Nice try though.
common sense
7:36 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I have one thing to say. WHOS ON FIRST
RPM
7:43 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
RPM
This proposed ordinance is ridiculous & is nothing more than extortion. The town wants more money for more police. I have a better suggestion - have the 6, 8 or however many officers assigned to the boardwalk at any one time, split up & actually patrol the boardwalk, not just stand around together in a group talking to each other.
june bug
8:02 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
RPM, you are referring to the "specials" not the full time officers. At NO time is their 6-8 full time officers on the boardwalk...
RPM
9:03 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I didn't say "full-time" officers in my post. Doesn't matter if they're "specials", full time officers or whatever their classification or title is. If they're assigned to patrol the boardwalk then that is what they should be doing - patroling the boardwalk & surrounding area. Should we allow the town to extort more money from the boardwalk business's so they can hire more police officers - whether they be "specials", full-time or whatever?
Michael Ramos
8:10 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The time to talk is NOW - The Council and the Boardwalk need to close the gap with regard to the $140K payment and resolve this before the point of no return - which is the passing of the bar closing ordinance TONIGHT!! There seems to be too many assumptions on BOTH sides regarding what the other is thinking or proposing. SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE Boardwalk Pay $160K to town on an annual basis - Council remove the bar closing ordinaces form the meeting agenda, and the parking plan is tried as a pilot program for this summer and is revamped as needed! TWO Council members walked awy from talks witht he same impression that the $140K was contingent upon the parking plan going away - so if there are truely no strings attached I implore Mr. Storino and Mr. Basinder to get the deal done and let's move forward!
A Resident
8:25 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Hey Mike, how about imploring the Mayor and Council? Sounds like they are the ones screwing the pooch.
Michael Ramos
8:38 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
A Resident: I implore BOTH SIDES to get this done! The boardwalk ASSUMED the offer was rejected, and the Council ASSUMED there was not an actual offer made. Mr Mayer and Mr. Gordon are two very intellignet individuals who BOTH walked awy with the understanding that the potential funding was contingent on the parking plan going away.....Jenks and Martells now say that there were "no strings attached" and "not tied to parking plan"....This is not the first story ever run regarding this matter ...APP, Ocean Star, NJN...etc and not once was it stated by the boardwalk that the offer was made with no strings attached. Now on the eve of this potentially becoming an ordinance this comes out? Seems like a constant game is being played here - if the offer is a true offer then get it done!
Been here before
8:26 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Looks like the gang of four are all trying to run from these failed negotiations. How is it every council person heard Mayer say there was an offer of $140K from the BW except Tooker? Ms. Kelly I think it is time for your self appointed role as truth police please.
Cathy Kelly
8:39 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Wow,EVERYONE involved has a different story. . Not sure anyone is going to change their story of what happened but I absolutely agree with Mike Ramos. Let's move forward. Can the bar ordinance be tabled tonight and can negotiations resume? With all this he said/she said the residents are the ones left holding the bag....if so,if there is any offer,it should be accepted or rejected by a vote.
bayboat
8:58 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The reports of these "negotiations" make the council look like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off. What? Who said that? I never said that! They said this, No we didnt! Yes you did!
The three stooges would look less comical.
june bug
9:29 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
RPM...those "specials" are a poor representation of the "full time" officers...be specific as to what officers are"standing around", Blanket statement like yours is why the cops in the Beach take too much Crap from foolish residents. If the "specials" are standing around and doing nothing, remember that the next time the Mayor and Council want to replace the "highly paid full time officers" with the "stand around doing nothing specials"....
RPM
11:27 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
If they're such poor representations, then why do we have them? Someone on the "full time" force must be in charge of what they should be doing - or do they just put on a uniform, show up to work & do whatever they want with no supervision or guidance? If you need more specifics - I frequent the boardwalk & patronize the business's there. And I have "specifically" seen full-time & specials hanging together in groups instead of patroling. I can start keeping a list with dates, times, names & badge numbers if you'd like - it shouldn't take long to have a few pages to post here. If you think that a tax paying resident that expects a township employee to do the job they're being paid for is an example of foolish residents giving our overworked & underpaid cops crap - then that says it all!
june bug
9:36 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
If the council would just, promote the needed amount of officers and hire back the numbers they lost due to retirement, the bars can stay open the boardwalk can be left alone, and the rest of the town can stop hearing about how NOONE in the Beach Political Arena can ever get along...Maybe the council could "find" the money needed to fix the town once and for all....
No Reason No Recall
9:39 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
humina humina humina !! Kelly and Ramos - Can you people read ? This thing is beyond negotiating unless the parking plan ordinance is vetoed by the mayor, which ain't happening. These four council members have dug themselves into a hole they can't get out of. Not only are they going to cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits but they are going to find themselves in federal court over this ! They have taken it upon themselves to go against the taxpayers will, in which they voted NO for any kind of a parking plan last November and they are playing a game of cat and mouse with the BW at the taxpayers expense. They are also violating the BW owners civil rights to conduct a business that has been there for decades, they are isolating these extra fees upon them and that is not legal. What a bunch of morons ! This article shows just how competent Barrella, Tooker, Corbally, and Gordon really are. Didn't Gordon say this week that if the BW gave more money that the bar ordince would go away. THAT IS EXTORTION MR CAPT GORDON !!!
Cathy Kelly
9:51 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
No reason, I can read and what I read is that EVERYONE has different stories. the BW says the offer was made knowing Gordon was in favor of the parking and the money was offered anyway,no strings. Both Mayer and Gordon both said the parking had to be dropped... At this point,it doesnt matter. Getting back into pointing fingers,placing blame,insults etc. is counter-productive and does not help anyone.. We should be trying to move forward and working on getting something figured out...
Amy A.
10:05 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Ms. Kelly, how can you say that "we should be trying to move forward and working on getting something figured out" in light of today's article? I heard that it was you who suggested that the Council send Mayer and Gordon to meet with the BW to discuss a solution. And, honestly, I thought that was a good idea. But, look what's happened. Councilwoman Tooker is now calling Councilman Mayer a LIAR!!! That's unbelievable to me. Councilman Mayer is a well-respected attorney and member of this community. He is one of the founders of the PPB Education Foundation. I agree with Councilman Mayer...Tooker crossed the line when she made that comment. How are we supposed to "move on" from public statements like that? How can anyone be willing to put themselves out to sit down with the BW businesses, or any group for that matter, if when certain Council members find their backs up against the wall, they come out and call someone else a liar?
Michael Ramos
10:07 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
NoR NoR: I can read fine......the BW stated that they did not attach anything to this "offer of $140K".....so why would the parking plan have to be vetoed?
outofthebeach4now
9:41 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Sounds to me like the current council members cannot use the basic skill of "good communication". God help PPB. God help us all!!!!!!
Cathy Kelly
10:45 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Amy,you state"how can you say that "we should be trying to move forward and working on getting something figured out" in light of today's article? I heard that it was you who suggested that the Council send Mayer and Gordon to meet with the BW to discuss a solution... I was not present when Mr.Mayer and Ms. Tooker spoke,I don't know what was said and what wasn't nor do I care at this point....I would rather work something out instead of the hundreds of comments that are going to be posted taking sides. Yes,I did suggest Gordon and Mayer talk to the BW..what does that have to do with anything????You want to blame me now,ok thats fine.....can we move forward now?
Amy A.
9:48 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Folks, read Barrella's quote:"We can't have businesses paying us to not pass things," Barrella said. "That's just not the way it works." So, really, who was it who wasn't being genuine about the negotiations? I see that Mr. Ramos and Ms. Kelly think that the bar closing ordinances should be tabled tonight. Let's review. The BW's attorney asked that these ordinances be removed from the April 17 agenda. Did they do that? No. Did they even table them? No. If the Council wants to redeem itself and restore faith in its ability to come up with a solution, they should vote "no" on those ordinances tonight. Show the residents that you can be trusted to do what's right for the town and that you really can work with people to find solutions. But, it doesn't look like Barrella's really interested in that, by his quote. Then again, he seems to suggest that he really wants more money when he says: ""I thought $140,000 was a little low, but I felt we were pretty close." So, which is it: If we get enough money, then we won't pass these ordinances, or no matter how much money we're offered, we're going to pass them because we think they're needed for quality of life? You're right, Ms. Kelly, it's the residents left holding the bag. Personally, I think the Council should've tabled the ordinances on April 17, taken the $140K, hired the specials, and then if that didn't solve the problem, go down this road. The Barrella bloc will all still be there next year, anyway.
Michael Ramos
10:32 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Amy A.- Unfortunately for the sake of the town things HAVE to "move forward". Politics is a brutal sport (although I feel it shouldn't have to be)! I am very dissapointed that Councilperson Tooker used the term "LIAR" to a reporter regarding a fellow Council member. To me, it ABSOLUTELY crosses the line! Bill Mayer is a very respected lawyer and upstanding citizen who absolutely has the right to defend his character from this type of attack. I also know that he has the character to rise above baseless attacks and do what he feels is right for PPB and the residents who elected him into office. Working together is the only way to get things done.....nasty attacks and bickering do nothing but break down the process of communication - and stop things from getting done. This Council was off to a good start at the beginning of this year - lets not run off track after only a few months! Perhaps in the future, coolerheads should prevail when talking to reporters (or anyone for that matter).
Peg Born
10:00 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I agree with Mike Ramos -- close the deal, accept the $140K, remove the bar closing, put a pilot program in for a parking plan and lets get on with the summer.
This is a disgrace that (5) Council Members can't all agree on what they each said and are now publically insulting each other. Shame on all of you. You are all very smart people, grown adults and you all need to start working together and stop the "he said/she said". Teamwork people -- if anything is going to get accomplished, you all need to put your personal feelings/agenda's aside and respectfully work as a team. My God, a Girlsout troop of (5) 10 year olds would work better together than what's been transpiring in the past few months.
Quaghogdigger
10:09 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Less than 3 weeks to get those signs up and permits distributed.....There is about 17,500 feet (3.3miles) of roadway in Dist. 4 that are gonna need to be signed to meet the May 21st. start to the parking plan. Anyone think that is gonna be completed by then?....I have my doubts....also lets not forget the pay station signs must be redone also to reflect operation hours of 6 am to midnite, with parking by permit only from midnite to 6 am.....Boy, the inlet is going to be a deserted place after midnite.
Ruth Schneider
10:49 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Council members...towns people.... let’s look at the big picture and put personal opinions to the side! It's time to concentrate on Point Pleasant Beach.
I am not politically active, but as a life-long resident (with family roots dating pre-1800’s), I am concerned and well aware of the turn our town has taken. Where is the dignity, respect and unity that should be the corner stone of our governing body? Stop the nonsense! Get down to business and work together.
As a personal side note, I take offense to the behavior of any elected council-person who would stoop so low as to call a fellow council member a “liar”. A line has been crossed. I have never know Bill Mayer, no need to research, yes, he is my brother (in-law), to mince words. Always a straight forward, intelligent man who speaks the truth at any cost. I am insulted, as surely my entire family, Bill’s friends and professional acquaintances are as well. Shame on you Council Woman Tooker. I believe an apology is in order.
Joseph Woolston Brick
10:57 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
There's no problem here, just let the powers that be that will vote on this, that if they pass it, the next election they will be looking inside town hall from the outside wondering how their offices have been redecorated by the new officials that got their jobs!
Spooner
11:29 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
...according to the posts of 'been here before' . . .you have no political mandate to enact this parking ordinance. He said on another thread(parking ordinance passed) that 200 voters in District 4 voted against the parking referendum. . . just less then half of District 4 voters. Town wide. . .the referendum was defeated. . .So I don't understand why a Council goes ahead and votes for what is going to be a strong issue of contention. . .as witnessed here already. . . when there's no town wide support for it. . .
...it defies common sense, to think that imposing a midnight parking ordinance is not going to have a great impact on the BW business model . . .and then expect them emphatically. . .to run over to town hall with a check?
sick of arrogance
11:58 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Kristine Tooker should resign immediately. This is a disgrace to Bill Mayer by calling him a liar. We should all call for her resignation !
A Resident
12:29 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Even if it's true?
2 people, and only 2 people know the truth about this. Mayer and Tooker. I don't know if she said it....I don't know if it's true.
With how badly this "discussion/negotiation" (whatever) with the boardwalk appears to have been handled....I think they all should be embarrassed.
Part Timer
12:54 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
sick of arrogance,
Be careful how you use the word WE...
I for one think Bill Mayer is in with the BW owners.
Stephen Schneider
1:14 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
If you are anonymously stating that Councilmen Mayer is “in with the BW owners” for helping to lead a discussion focused on resolution without the issuance of harmful ordinances, please keep in mind that he is also “in with” the majority of the residents of PPB.
Part Timer
1:43 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Stephen Schneider,
i'am sorry but how did Mr Mayer become a councilman anyway?
Cathy Kelly
2:06 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The councilperson that sent a "confidential"letter from the boro attorney to the BW should resign immediately...While I would have no problem if that councilperson went to the whole council and stated that they felt the BW should see it,I don't believe that happened. So with that being said,there is someone on Council playing both sides and engaged in sneaky back door politics and that absolutely cannot help anyone. Why is noone complaining about that.....
Stephen Schneider
2:41 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Part Timer, as was the case with his participation in the recent discussions, he received majority support from the registered voters of PPB in November in order to gain a seat on council.
JohnnyT
11:40 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Many council members have been caught lying. If we asked for resignation of council members there would no one standing up and representing on the dais.
Kathleen
12:30 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The parking rule changes are going to hurt the weekly rental units. Many units have no driveways. When the passes disappear they have nothing inplace to replace them. are they numbered. will the police know they are valid. the town complains they do not have enough cops to make sure people are behaving them selves on the back to their cars. now you want them to be parking police too. the boardwalk amusements close after 11p. if families get back to their cars and see they have tickets they wont be back. they will go else where. you are driving off the people you want to visit. This summer will be a mess and in bad economic times you should be looking to attact visitors not find ways to tell them they are not wanted.
Part Timer
12:57 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
It is amazing how everyone on here knows that none of these plans will work.
I am not sure myself but at least i am willing to try with out sounding like the rest of you know-it-alls.
Central avenue
4:00 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Barrella and his gang don't want the boardwalk there anymore, or the tourists. That is thier clear agenda.
Part Timer
12:59 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
RPM
This proposed ordinance is ridiculous & is nothing more than extortion?
But it is ok for the owners to offer money in lieu of the town dropping the ordinances.
RPM
1:29 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Look up the definition of extortion. No it's not OK. But what choice do the boardwalk businesses have. Pay an outrageous fee to stay open past midnight, close at midnight & lose who knows how much money, spend tons of money on legal fees fighting the ordinance or pay a "settlement" fee to make it go away - for now. It's extortion any way you look at it.
Part Timer
1:39 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
If they drop the pay to stay open ordinance and put in place the 12:00 closing, yes there profits will most likely fall. Since when are we responsible for the profit and loss of a business in town.
I did not know I bought my house with strings attached saying that I have to contribute to the businesses in town.
JohnnyT
12:33 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
You are right. Most would not buy a house in this town if they new what was going on before they did.
Mr. Happy
1:48 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Bill Mayer said:
"I didn't tell Kris that strings were attached..."
Very next paragraph: "I told her it was an alternative to bar closings, the parking plan and special events fees." Lawyer-speak for strings attached.
"She must have me confused with someone else." Oh.
Sounds like Mr. Mayer was against the 140K before he was for it (John Kerry anyone?) He just didn't expect the blowback from the BWalk supporters. Welcome to politics...
Been here before
4:11 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Does anyone, except Mr.Happy, believe Mr. Mayer did not ask Ms. Tooker if she would take the 140K?
JohnnyT
11:42 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Usual lawyer talk. They dance around what was said and what wasn't. It was most likely said, it was worded differently. It is a technically.
Been here before
2:05 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The problem with Mr. Ramos idea is clear: What happens when you pay money you don't owe in response to a threat? You end up paying more and more year after year----unless you stand up to the treat. The Governing Body demanded money that the BW doesn't owe and then tried to force them to pay the money by threatening these ordinances that will hurt their business but will not help quality of life. Right answer is to get rid of these ordinances----then ask, not demand, some financial help. Problem is GB wants power it doesn't have. BW can't pay this GB----but if they are replaced with Council people who understand the limits of government's power BW would be foolish not to help such a GB.
Part Timer
2:11 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Been here before, Problem is GB wants power it doesn't have? Did you read the article
The state Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control confirmed that municipalities have the authority to mandate hours of operation for bars and restaurants with liquor licenses.
Why vote for our elected officials, just give full control to the BW owners...
Been here before
2:20 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Part timer: The power this governing body wants that it does not have is the power to tax the BW business more than they pay now. Who in their right mind would pay money they don't owe to bullies like Barrella and Gordon? Elected leaders need to understand the limits of their power. Sure they can close the bars early and institute a parking plan on municipal roads but that will not aide our quality of life issues. The answer to the quality of life issues is cops for enforcement. That takes money, and when you have no right to demand that money you need to cooperate to get that money. Had we elected Reid and Cortes, who along with Mayer wanted to cooperate with BW to address quality of life, instead of Barrella and Gordon, who like to tell people what to do, we would have the 140K and no bad ordinances.
Part Timer
2:36 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Been here before, I ask you like I ask everyone else. How do you the ordinances are bad for the town. what makes you right and everyone else wrong. Again, I myself do not know what will work or not, but I am willing to give it a try or else we will never know.
Been here before
3:11 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Part timer---I can't know---what I do know is that these ordinances were ill conceived, not well thought---and 200 people who live in District 4 voted against the parking plan. Why try things with little or no chance of success, that many don't want? So that a few can get elected? No thanks.
Part Timer
3:35 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Been here before,
Again you quote, with no chance of success?
Been here before
4:22 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Part Timer---Cops have a track record of success--what would you say---before their budget was cut the last two or three years-----50 plus years of success?
Part Timer
2:14 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Come on people...
A 12:00 close is NOT going to hurt these BW businesses.
There employees salary are usually fully funded from profits made by July 4th weekend.
Been here before
2:23 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
And it is not going to help quality of life--just move the issues up two hours---answer is cops
Part Timer
2:31 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Just what we need more cops making it look like Trenton, lights and sirens blarring all day. And lets not forget the cost...
Cathy Kelly
2:37 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Been here,ok so lets do process of elimination of who was play sneaky back door politics with the letter..You accuse Tooker,Gordan,Corbally and Barrella of being against the BW so it probably wasn't them. Mr.Mayer told me personally that it was definately not him. Mr.Lurie has not said anything at all and he is not running again so noone can vote for him. But ahhh Mr.Reid is running again so I wonder who it was....I guess he would be YOUR man....
Been here before
3:17 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
CK----What letter?---And why should anyone be critized for providing the public with information?----This article is about Tooker calling Mayer a liar. I understand you don't want to do your usual thing about who is telling the truth here----instead wanting to move forward---because you would have to adnmit Tooker---who you support----is not telling the truth. So instead you now want to accuse Reid-----but let's face facts----Reid, Mayer and Lurie have been on the right side of this issue. Barrella, Tooker, Corbally and Gordon have not. And now Tooker has been exposed as a liar. Why not stick to the topic?
A Resident
6:51 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
been here before....that letter mentioned would be the letter from town attorney to council members. Somehow, a copy of that letter made it's way to Jenks/Martell's attorney. That letter.
Charles W. Bogert
2:17 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Any time a private entity (person or business) offers any public entity (person or persons acting on behalf of a public entity) money, it should be done in the public's view, otherwise we the public will look with jaundiced eye at ANY DEALS made!!!
THAT is the "dumbivity" of the PPB governing body!!!
Charlie Bogert
Part Timer
2:28 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Why do you say "dumbivity" of the PPB GB and not on both parties.
Cathy Kelly
3:37 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Been here,again we go through this. The problem with people like you is that you are strictly in support of 1 side(BW) therefore you pick and choose what you want to. I am not on either side,I am on the side of the residents...Were'nt you screaming that the council wanted a half million dollars last week. That was not true.now why don't you have an issue with the BW saying that there was a monetary offer made regardless of the parking yet the two people,Mr.Gordon AND Mr.Mayer BOTH said it was in lieu of the parking. That is a discrepency also thats why I said EVERYONE has different stories, aka he said/she said. If you read my above post,you would know what letter. I understand your loyalty to the BW just as I understand people's loyalty to the council. What I don't understand is blindly stating something or purpously ommitting something from your statements simply because of your loyalty..
Been here before
3:52 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Ms. Kelly---I do and always have admitted my bias---it is not pro boardwalk---it is pro resident and anti Barrella. And because of Barrella’s actions against the BW---which I believe are not genuine, but are personally motivated-- ----I support the BW battle against Barrella’s attempt to exercise power he doesn’t have. I believe, in the long, the residents are better off working with the BW to control tourists than fighting a war based on pretending you have power you don’t. My problem with you is you have a clear pro Barrella bias you refuse to admit. Ps—Mayor said in Ocean star 396K plus special event fees---that is not $500k—what is it $450?
Spooner
2:27 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Part Timer...don't understand your statement...Since when are we responsible for the profits and loss of a town business...
The (we) you talk of . . .elects the Mayor and Council. . .indirectly you(the we) are responsible when that Council enacts this parking restriction and early bar closing. . .obviously effecting their profits. . .or causing losses?
...as for you buying your property...coming with "strings attached". . .(as you say) that contribute to town businesses. . .maybe you could go line by line on how that comes about. . .What "house" strings were/are attached that contribute to these town businesses?
Part Timer
2:44 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
My point is, if the BW owners cannot turn a profit being open till midnight then that is there problem not mine.
Spooner
3:14 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
...but indirectly thru the elected Council your responsible for their loses. . .Making a blanket statement:" that is there problem". . .well your the one causing the problem. . .You're their problem!. . .and a minority of you's at that? You(Council) does not have political support for this parking ordinance, since town residents voted it down on referendum. You have a Mayor who was elected by a minority of voters making politically unpopular decisions for all the residents...by breaking tie votes. . .probably now to include legation costs, in fighting to uphold these ordinances as a result?
who's foolin who
3:16 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
You have to love this guy Gordon. Is he honestly for real. He says in the OS this week that the bar ordinance would have went away if they offered more money, meanwhile he says there were no real negotiations started but just talking. Which is it Bret ? He also says he was on vacation when the monotony offer was made but says talks broke down weeks earlier when the boardwalk had strings to their monotony offer. Which is it Bret ?
who's foolin who
3:22 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Tooker calling Bill Mayer a liar. Tooker has had everyone fooled over the years and guess what Tooker, if you were pinocchio your nose would be so long it would go all the way to Fla.
Central avenue
4:08 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I voted for Tooker twice. Boy do I now regret it! Turns out that sweet persona was just an act. Calling an upstanidng gentleman like Bill Mayer a liar- that's despicable. I guess she was just waiting for Barrella to get his unfettered power to show her true colors.
who's foolin who
3:23 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Hey Corbally, how are the signs going ? What a mess you have caused.
Mike Corbally
3:43 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Signs and tags are ordered. Please come to the meeting tonight and explain the mess you "speak of" face to face. Debate is always good. Maybe you have something to say that makes sense. Constructive criticism is welcome.
outofthebeach4now
3:49 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
So who is going to eat the cost of the signs and tags once the parking ordinance is not implemented? Us the tax payers of course michael. Maybe u and your buddy dave cav. can sell them on ebay. What a mess!!!!!
Central avenue
4:12 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The only winner here is Barrellas hand-picked town attorney. He is going to make a ton whle the ordinances fail in court and we all eat the bills.
Andrew Thomas
3:53 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Ms. Kelly, so I see that you suggested that Mayer and Gordon be the ones to meet with the BW businesses. It does sound like it was a good idea. But, here's the part that I don't understand...if it was your idea for Gordon and Mayer to meet with the BW businesses, aren't you at least concerned about Tooker's comments to the reporter, specifically calling Mayer "a liar"? Mr. Ramos, who agrees with you that everyone needs to try to move forward, admits how disappointed he is with Councilwoman Tooker for her statements to the police. You, on the other hand, never seem to make any negative criticism of any person who is associated with the Barrella camp. Why is that? Are Tooker, Gordon, Corbally and Barrella perfect individuals, in your opinion? Don't they ever make mistakes? Why is it that you're always willing to say things like "well, I wasn't there, so I don't know what was said" when it comes to a problem with something that Tooker, Gordon, Corbally and Barrella might've done or said, but you're no where near as considerate or understanding when it comes to anyone else?
Cathy Kelly
4:05 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Have I said something negative about Mr.Mayer? I Have said negative things about Mr.Reid because I have had dealings with him in which he did not tell the truth. I have said from day one that I did not agree with the ordinances but SOMETHING had to be done. I have spoken to everyone involved and I have said that I could see BOTH sides...As for Tooker and Mayer, I believe as 2 councilmen/woman elected to represent us that they have to work it out themselves. The people that are close to Mayer are going to believe Mayer,the people that are close to Tooker are going to believe Tooker. Thats why I said" I was not present when Mr.Mayer and Ms. Tooker spoke,I don't know what was said and what wasn't nor do I care at this point' Do you really think that all of these comments are helping them to work it out? Everyone can blame me for everything,I will accept the blame,,,,can we please just figure out a solution to the problem........
Been here before
4:15 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
CK---I know, I'm biased---but why isn't the right thing to do take away the ordinances and see if they give the money? If they don't, no harm done, ordinances can be enacted in one month. If money does come problem solved---no?
Andrew Thomas
4:52 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Ms. Kelly, no, you haven't said something negative about Mr. Mayer. But, you haven't said anything positive about him either, have you? And you certainly haven't said anything negative about Councilwoman Tooker, just as you never say anything negative about Barrella, Corbally or Gordon. But, let's make our own determinations about Tooker's statements, okay? Title of article says "Tooker says Mayer never brought her a boardwalk offer." 2 weeks ago, there was a Council meeting. On the day before that meeting, Mayor & Council got letter from BW lawyer. For weeks, everyone in town knew "negotations" were being held. So, 2 weeks ago, they go into the back room before the Council meeting, and Tooker just sits there and never says "Oh, Bret, Bill, what happened with those negotiations?" I mean, assuming that she was in FL or somehow unreachable before April 17 at 6:30pm, it never occurred to her to ask whether there'd be an offer? Bologna. Mayer did the job right. He got an offer, and he tried to see if he could get it accepted by the majority. Really, the only place where he should've acted differently was to make them vote on it in public. Then, we wouldn't have gone through all of this, and Tooker wouldn't have been able to drag Mayer's name through the mud like she's done today.
Cathy Kelly
4:10 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
While I still think that Mayer and Gordon meeting with the BW was the right thing. I absolutely suggested it but I believe the Council already made the decision to have them negotiate. While everyone agrees it was a good idea,it was the councils decision,I only suggested it..
Been here before
4:18 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
CK---I hate to sound even handed, but you can't be blamed for this---discussions are always a good idea--and you are not an elected official, you only get to make suggestions
Andrew Thomas
4:33 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
For all of you sitting their, scratching your heads, and wondering how it is that the once lovely, quiet little town of PPB found itself in the mess that it is currently in, Part Timer has given you the answer at 12:54 pm today. It's the following words: "I for one think Bill Mayer is in with the BW owners" Actually, it's not Bill Mayer. It's generally anyone who is not Barrella or one of his annointed candidates who gets accused of being "in with the BW." And, because PPB voters are foolish enough to simply believe these lies, and think that they need someone who is not "in with the BW" in order to get a fair deal with the BW businesses, PPB voters keep putting people like Barrella and bloc into office. What does "in with the BW" even mean? Well, maybe people need to stop worrying about candidates being "in with the BW" and start worrying about how we're ever going to legally get the BW to contribute money to the town if we keep electing jerks who aren't willing to be reasonable and are more willing to prove to the public that they know how to "stand up" to the BW. Remember, we had $140K that we could've put towards Specials. Instead, now we have a parking plan, which many in District 4 don't want and the rest of the town voted down, and we might have early bar closings, with the various problems that's going to bring.
HW
4:48 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Andrew Thomas...I agree with you 100 percent. Some of these comments are absolutely pathetic. Those that were making an effort to find common ground are being criticized. I do have a question though...why were the "no parking" signs ordered already when the final reading of the new ordinance hasn't been read? Isn't that a bit premature?
Andrew Thomas
4:56 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
HW, they passed that parking plan ordinance at the last Council meeting. From what I've heard, the County still has to approve the plan, though. You're right. I think that ordering the signs is a little premature, considering it hasn't received County approval. But, if you really want to know what's going on, you should ask Mr. Cavagnaro. He apparently had one of the actual signs displayed in his window, so obviously he knows what's going on with the signs.
Part Timer
5:06 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Standing room only tonight...
Spooner
5:36 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
...with all this commotion. . .this is going too be better than Faux News(Fair & Balanced). . .Can't wait for the show to start. . .between Tooker and Mayer. . .so Ms Kelly: you going to be there tonight to put their feet to the fire?
Joe
6:09 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
So lets restrict parking and make people think about getting behind the wheel drunk. ABSURD.
Mr. Happy
7:45 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Thank God-finally someone here that I can match wits with...where have you been??
Cathy Kelly
9:08 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I just heard the bar ordinance was tabled...Good start,now lets see where this goes....Apparantly Mr.Gordon gave a speech that he wants to give Negotiations 2 more weeks to come to a mutual agreement.....
HW
9:40 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I'm pleased to hear the bar ordinance was tabled...funny that Mr. Gordon said in the above article...
They were not 'negotiations,' they were only 'discussions,' " insists Councilman Bret Gordon...
just making a point how many of these comments are nonsense and people involved - ALL people involved need to come together and work this out!!
peace...
JohnnyT
11:15 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I highly doubt it will all work out they way it has been going. All the false accusations! Apparently everyone side is lying is what I am getting out of it.
JohnnyT
11:16 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Apparently everyone and every side is lying.
George Loder
4:15 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
We are lucky to have such a dedicated public servant as Councilwomen Tooker. Her hard- work and dedication to PPB has been excellent. Ms. tooker has a proven track record of commitment to our residents and has always acted with a high degree of integrity. George Loder
Jonathan P
5:53 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Well, Mr. Loder, I guess we have different definitions of what "integrity" means. The definition I rely on is "adherence to moral and ethical principles." I don't think that calling a fellow Councilman a "liar" shows much integrity. But, then again, I also don't think that reporting to the Council that residents were consulted before moving cat trailers, when, in fact, you never checked with those residents, shows much integrity. And, I also don't think that spending most of the summer in Florida, when you're a PPB Councilwoman and the Police Dept. Liaison, and the town is experiencing one of its worst summers ever in terms of violations, shows much integrity either. So, again, I guess you and I simply use different definitions of the word "integrity."
Mr. Happy
6:32 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Thanks George-you stated what the great silent majority feels. Sadly, though, you have brought the haters to the forefront. Cat trailers? I'm pretty sure the entire council has agreed that the trailers are a success. And, I believe one conference call was made from Florida (most of the summer in Florida?). How about some integrity here on the Patch?
HW
6:42 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Mr. Happy, you lost all credibility with me and many others when we saw the comments you left here on the patch last night that Ms. DeStephan appropriately deleted.
Jonathan P
10:27 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Mr. Happy, you don't remember when they were going to move those trailers closer to the folks on Cooks Lane? You don't remember that those residents were supposed to have been asked about the move first, and then the Council got surprised by residents showing up and telling them how they were never asked? Didn't that end up in a lawsuit or almost in a lawsuit? Oh, and I never said that she missed all of the meetings that summer, although it was kind of you to point out that she did have to call in from FL for one. What I said was that she spent most of the summer in FL, and if you go through the minutes from last summer, you'll see how she flew in, went to meetings, and then turned around and flew back out. She even said it at one of the meetings, I think: how happy she was to be going back to FL. C'mon. You're a smarter man than that. Funny how you didn't make any comment about her calling Mayer a liar, though. Did you think that I was right at least about that one? That calling another Councilman a liar, one whose family she's known for many, many years, shows a lack of integrity? But, I'll be fair to her. She loves her cats and her trees, and if I were furry or green, I'd be happy to be around her.
JohnnyT
10:38 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
In all fairness to Tooker, Bill Mayer did say something to the effect of what she said he said, he just worded it a little different but means basically the same thing. He stated himself in one of the articles that I read. I also read a statement Marilou stated, the money which was offered in lieu of the ordinances.
JohnnyT
8:08 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Good Luck!!!!!!!!!
JohnnyT
6:33 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
There isn't many left that have integrity. It is a shame but that is fact.
Mr. Happy
6:45 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Lighten up Francis (Bill Murray-Caddyshack).
Andy
8:11 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
@ Mr. Happy, it was Bill Murray-Stripes
Mr. Happy
8:51 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Thank you..
mailman
9:06 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
@JohnnyT- Really, in fairness to Tooker? She did not understand the conversation w Mayer. She clearly did not discuss it further w Barella, Corbally and Gordon. And then she voted against more discussions! 0 for 3 in my book.
JohnnyT
9:24 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
mailman, I don't think so!
Lisa Muller
9:54 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Regarding the cat trailers: I was one of the people who went Door to door on cooks lane to speak with the residents. We only got positive response. We didn't speak with everyone as everyone was not home. The decision to not send a letter notifying the residents was the town's....not Kris's. And Florida.....people are allowed to travel for gosh sakes. She made the effort to fly back for the meetings. Someone who was on council during the same time frame missed 10 meetings in a row, I believe? The majority of that years meetings. People are entitled to their opinions, but let's stop the hating and discuss our towns issues in a constructive manner
Do We Have To Wait Unitl Nov 2013
5:50 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
LM ---- Perhaps you should discuss this suggestion with Ms. Tooker---seems she may need the help----isn't it Ms. Tooker who started the "hating" by calling Mr. Mayer a liar? Maybe a good start would be for Ms. Tooker to apoligize. publicly, for calling Mr. Mayer a liar just because she was unable to understand what he said.
JohnnyT
10:23 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
AMEN!
Mr. Happy
7:13 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Nov 2013 Indeed-
LM-thanks for bringing us all up to speed on the cat trailer issue. It's refreshing to get an actual/factual account from an eyewitness rather than fiction and misinformation from this site. As to the Florida issue---why would anyone chastise an elected official for interrupting their vacation... flying back at their own expense... with the sole reason to attend a council meeting? How about Kudos to the elected official...and another HUGE plurality in Nov. 2013...
A Resident
9:30 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
less and less time....if you don't count her full time job that is much more than 3 months of the year....
Do We Have To Wait Unitl Nov 2013
7:31 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
to A Resident ---- you don't mean Ms. Tooker is dong the Councilwoman's business while she is working for the School , do you? Or do you mean she spends some of her school time promoting her political agenda?
A Resident
8:37 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Do We Have To Wait Unitl Nov 2013, I couldn't tell you whether she is doing council work during her job time, nor the other way around.....I don't work with her. I would hope not...but I can't say either way.
What I meant was in regards to a post above about her spending less and less time in PPB....she has a full time job here so I don't see her in FL more...at least until she retires...
Do We Have To Wait Unitl Nov 2013
11:54 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
LM MR. Happy----Not so fast----Ms. Tooker could easily have asked the administrator or the clerk to send a letter, she didn’t---and to suggest no one objected is nonsense---some of the neighbors sued. And Ms. Tooker clearly was hurt by her absences in this situation---which were not in the summer
JohnnyT
10:44 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
What is the point? Most have a full time jobs, family life etc...? I would question those who don't.
A Resident
8:37 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
The point was...she is not spending more time in FL and less in PPB.
Michael Ramos
7:56 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
I must admit I find it incredible that some folks posting on this venue have a complaint about the fact that Councilwoman Tooker may have missed a meeting here or there - or participated via conference call - when another - Councilman Rizzo missed 90% of the meetings (granted some due to health reasons) THEN was granted full pay by the majority Bloc on the counil at the time - THEN was dragged to one of the last meetings of the year to be the DECIDING vote on matters that he never participated in and was obviously instructed on how to vote! These are FACTS that I can attest to since I attend EVERY Council meeting and saw it with my own eyes! I may not agree with everything that individual council members may do - but I respect the fact that they have put themselves out there (yes naysayers this includes appointed council members as well!) to serve in a thankless job and as a "bonus" have thier every move analyzed by nameless naysayers who feel they have all the answers as well as the magic crystal ball that tells them what will or won't work for they town but offer no solutions to help!
Do We Have To Wait Unitl Nov 2013
8:03 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Mr. Ramos---Rizzio is no better than Tooker for being an absentee Councilperson, but two wrongs don't make a right
A Resident
8:38 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
How long have you been attending every Council meeting?....cuz I know I have been to some and you were not there....
granted...I have not made many this year.
Michael Ramos
9:48 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
A Resident: Do i know you? If you know me - I am pretty hard to miss!
Mr. Happy
10:26 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Excellent points Michael Ramos. A simple check of attendance records will bring forth the truth." Wait until 2013" and the rest of the GOP should be concentrating on 2012; if you were at the last meeting, their appointed candidate is starting to sound like Bush the younger trying to ad-lib.
A Resident
12:17 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
Yes Michael Ramos, I know you are hard to miss. That's why I asked how long you have been attending every meeting....cuz I know I have not seen you at every meeting. And then added that I have not made many this year...
But I have made meetings for many years...
Denise Di Stephan
11:19 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Folks, I've gotten complaints about some of the comments, and, guess what? Those complaints have come from both of the two major "camps" in Point Beach. I did have to delete a few. Despite what some think, this is not "censorship" or "unconstitutional" since Patch Media is a private company, not the government, and we have no legal, moral or ethical obligation to even have a Comments section, much less any obligation to never touch the comments. We are absolutely free to have rules about Comments and to make deletions when appropriate. Let's stay away from making accusations or even raising suspicions without any information to substantiate them, such as how a council member voted, unless you have the minutes to back that up, or how they spend their time in their day job, or who is using which alias. We need to make Comments more respectful and civil, and please don't say you're waiting for someone else to start that. Thank you for reading Patch, thank you for listening and I am also thanking you in advance for your cooperation.