.
Feedback

'State Should Patrol Boardwalk After Midnight,' says Point Beach Mayor

Barrella says state should send troopers since it won't let the town close bars at midnight

Point Beach Mayor Vincent Barrella says he will ask Gov. Chris Christie to send state troopers to patrol the boardwalk after midnight because the state is allowing bars to serve alcohol past that time.

Barrella says he'll ask the Borough Council to support a request he'll make for state troopers to police "the center of the boardwalk from midnight to 2 or 3 a.m." since the state Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control has temporarily blocked the town from enforcing an ordinance for bars to stop serving alcohol by midnight.

"I'll write to the governor, in light of the state interference, to send in 18 state troopers a night, so I can pull our officers off the boardwalk and put them into residential neighborhoods," Barrella said.

Since the state won't allow the town to do what's needed to help improve quality of life for residents, "it should fall upon the state to pay for this," Barrella said.

He said if the state won't send troopers, "the town will not put public safety at risk, obviously."

Since towns are allowed to regulate bars' hours of operation, Barrella says he is questioning

ABC has acknowledged that municipalities are allowed to regulate the hours that bars can serve alcohol.

However, in a decision released last Friday night, ABC Director Michael Halfacre temporarily blocked the town from doing that by granting "a stay" to a local ordinance that would have compelled bars to stop serving alcohol by midnight instead of the current 2 a.m. cut-off, starting this past Sunday night.

Halfacre, in his five-page decision released at about 7:15 p.m. Friday, notes that the town had considered a second ordinance for the bars to "pay a surcharge to remain open until 2 a.m."

"Although the second ordinance was ultimately not passed by the governing body, the substantial factual history dating back at least a year, including various public comments made by elected officials, combined with the surcharge ordinance in its various iterations, gives rise to a legitimate inquiry into the motivations behind an otherwise valid exercise of municipal authority," Halfacre wrote.

Barrella says he doesn't understand Halfacre's legal reasoning. For example, he says, the very case that Halfacre later cites in his decision, A&P v. Mayor and Council of Point Pleasant Beach, 1987, says that the "motivations of the governing body are irrelevant to the validity of the ordinance, absent a showing of fraud, personal interest or corruption," according to a copy of the A&P decision.

"Does the director think that the Point Pleasant Beach governing body acted in bad faith?" Barrella asked at a meeting with reporters on Thursday.

"I'll ask for an emergency hearing to appeal this," Barrella said. "But, on a practical basis, I don't think this will be decided by the end of the summer. So what he's effectively done is mandate 2 a.m. bar closings for the summer."

Validity of bar ordinance still to be decided

Last Friday's decision was the first of two expected from ABC. Jenkinson's and Martell's appealed the local ordinance, adopted on May 15, that would have compelled bars to stop serving alcohol by midnight.

The two boardwalk companies asked the state ABC to grant a stay, which it has now done, and to invalidate the ordinance, which is yet to be decided.

The wording of Halfacre's decision granting the stay seems to suggests that he agrees with the legal argument used by boardwalk attorneys.

That argument is that because the town had come close to adopting a second ordinance offering bars the option to pay a fee to stay open past midnight, the first ordinance, for the midnight cut-off, is tainted and should be invalidated.

The question of whether the state should invalidate the ordinance will be the subject of a hearing before an administrative law judge and then go back to Halfacre, who can approve it or reject it, said Zach Hosseini, an ABC spokesperson.

A town appeal of the stay would go before the state Appellate Division, Hosseini said.

The Parker House has a "more onerous" arrangement that what Point Beach asked of its boardwalk businesses, says mayor

Barrella questioned how ABC can put the brakes on Point Beach's effort to curtail alcohol sales, especially when The Parker House has an arrangement in Sea Girt that is "more onerous."

The Parker House, 8-12 Beacon Blvd., Sea Girt, pays the town $60,000 per year for police coverage, beyond the basic cost of the license itself, to be permitted to renew its seasonal liquor license to serve alcohol until 11:30 p.m. outside on its porch, according to the resolution. Barrella said the bar must stop serving alcohol inside by midnight.

The Sea Girt resolution says that The Parker House, which is in a single-famiy, residential zone, had been required to comply with conditions on its license starting in 1980. Those conditions had been lifted and then imposed again "because some of the abuses had recurred," the resolution says.

The conditions include the 11:30 p.m. cut-off for alcohol "service and consumption" on the porch and a payment schedule for the $60,000 for police costs, the resolution says.

Hosseini said the Sea Girt arrangement was agreed to by the Parker House owners and the town and the ABC merely approved it. It's not as though ABC conjured up the terms to be imposed on Parker House and mandated them as a condition of license renewal, he said.

"In Point Pleasant Beach, it's a different situation, because there is no agreement between the owners and the town," Hosseini said. "We were not asked to approve an agreement.

"We were asked to do two things: rule on whether to grant a stay and on whether the ordinance should be invalidated," Hosseini said. "So far, we've only ruled on the first question.

"The town will have the opportunity to present all of their legal arguments before an administrative law judge and, if they appeal the stay, before the Appellate Division, should they agree to hear the case," Hosseini said.

Is politics afoot?

Barrella said he questions whether political connections had anything to do with Halfacre's decision to grant the stay.

"In light of his allegations of bad faith, did Halfacre use his position as ABC Director to improperly assist those who profit from late-night drinking and/or aid in the election of the pro-late-night drinking candidates Reid and Cortes?" Barrella asked, referring to Republican council candidates Stephen Reid, who was appointed to council late last year, and Andy Cortes.

"Has the director abused his office?" Barrella asked. "I believe it's a fair question."

When asked, "What's the answer?" Barrella replied, "I'm not making any accusations. I'm just laying out the facts and the connections and people can decide for themselves. In some towns, you have to connect the dots. In Point Pleasant Beach, the dots connect themselves."

Hosseini said he would not respond to questions about political motivations.

Barrella cited the following as examples of political connections between local and state Republicans and boardwalk businesses that, when viewed as a whole, make him question whether they had any connection to the stay being granted:

  • In 2009, David Bassinder, owner of Martell's, hosted a $500 or $1,000-a-plate fundraiser dinner for then-gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, who appointed Halfacre as ABC Director earlier this year.
  • Longtime Jenkinson's attorney Ed McGlynn was on that organizing committee.
  • Reid, before he was a councilman but while he was president of the local GOP club, invited Halfacre to an April 28, 2011, local GOP club meeting. At the time, Halfacre was Fair Haven mayor and had not yet been appointed director. Also, Barrella said, Reid had been a paid consultant for Jenkinson's regarding its development of a bar and restaurant on the north end.

Reid said that he invited Halfacre to the local Republican organization meeting because he felt he was an example of a Republican mayor who had done a great job in his town by cutting taxes for three years in a row.

"It sounds like Barrella is making allegations against me, and against Mike Halfacre, that sound a little slanderous," Reid said. "My next phone call will be to my lawyer. I never had a relationship with Mike Halfacre. He cut taxes as mayor, that's all I knew of the man. No one had a hand in this decision for the stay. It's made up.

"The mayor better keep his mouth shut," said Reid, clearly agitated. "The only thing I want to hear from the mayor is 'I'm sorry, Stephen Reid.' "

As for working for Jenkinson's, Reid said he did minimal "grass roots lobbying" work for Jenkinson's a few years ago, that it has not colored his political positions or votes on any boardwalk matters and that it has nothing to do with a decision made by a state official last week.

  • Barrella said that Councilman Tim Lurie, while he is a registered Democrat, has consistently been opposed to the earlier bar closing and had also done work for Jenkinson's regarding that same north end project.

When this has come up previously, Lurie has said he did a minor amount of consulting work for Jenkinson's, testifying about historical photographs of past use of the north end of the boardwalk. He has said that was a few years ago and has had no bearing on any of his votes regarding matters involving the boardwalk and that any accusations to the contrary are false and unfair.

  • The boardwalk business owners have strong ties to the Ocean County Republican organization, chaired by George Gilmore, who has ties to Gov. Christie and is also borough attorney for Seaside Heights.

Seaside, Barrella noted, has, for years, had a parking plan on its county roads, as well as its municipal roads, that is far more onerous than the new Point Beach District 4 parking plan. And yet, he said, the county will not allow Point Beach to implement that parking plan on its county roads.

Ocean County Administrator Carl Block has said Seaside will have to stop its program involving residents leasing spaces in front of their houses, prohibiting anyone else from parking there. The Point Beach plan restricts parking only from midnight until 6 a.m.

  • A lawsuit to block the parking plan was filed by John Jackson, current Republican Party President in Point Beach, but the brief was written and filed by Ron Gasiorowski, who also represents Jenkinson's and Martell's in their own lawsuit against the parking plan, as well as other matters.

"Negotiations" become "extortion"

Barrella notes that the boardwalk businesses had voluntarily entered into negotiations to discuss the  possibility of paying fees for police costs to help avert midnight bar closings.

That offer was ultimately rejected by a narrow majority of councilmembers who said the businesses would not agree to the town imposing any mechanism, such as a restriction on their liquor licenses, that would enable the town to enforce payment of the fees every year

In a May letter, Gasiorowski, attorney for the two boardwalk businesses, wrote that if the council passed the second ordinance giving bars option to pay fees to serve later than midnight, that his clients would pay those fees.

So, Barrella says, how can the boardwalk businesses then accuse the town of "extortion" and, ultimately, the director say the council was "acting in bad faith" by discussing fees when the boardwalk businesses were part of those discussions on and off for months and went so far as to offer an amount to be paid and also said if an ordinance was passed mandating fees be paid to stay open until 2 a.m. they would pay the fees?

Barrella also questioned whether Halfacre is interjecting some political considerations into "what should be a legal argument."

When asked to explain that, Barrella said that in his decision, Halfacre says the town can address the late night problems through additional police, restrictions on the liquor licenses, or "violations to the appellants seeking suspensions of their licenses."

Barrella said by "political," he means the director is suggesting other ways for the town to address the problems officials feel are emanating from bar patrons, but that the director should not be suggesting those because those are local decisions for local officials.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Point Pleasant Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Mike Corbally July 15, 2012 at 02:18 pm
I didn't take the Fifth. I said I sent it out. Everything we do is public information. I thought everyone should know the BW would not accept any conditions on their liquor license. If i was to say that, you'd be the first to say I was spinning, and that we turned down more donations. You and your friends will spin that fact anyway. Write the book!
mailman July 15, 2012 at 02:47 pm
Councilman, on the topic of public record, care to share why you deleted the conditions from that email? That kinda looks spin from inception.
Nick Carraway July 15, 2012 at 03:15 pm
Ms. Kelly, at 10:43 pm, for the second time, I posted these questions to you: Why do you think the BW should still pay the money? (and I had referenced the fact that the BW offered to pay $160K per year and was willing to put that requirement in as a condition on their liquor license, as demonstrated from the quotes from the e-mails from the BW attorney, which I also posted at your request) and Do you think it's a good idea to have the State Police come to PPB to patrol the BW, as suggested by the Mayor in this article? At 10:57 pm, you posted a response that began "Oh, I don't know Nick..maybe this article...." Is your response to my two questions, why the BW should still pay the money and do you think it's a good idea for the State Police to come to PPB to patrol the BW "I don't know"?
Mike Corbally July 15, 2012 at 03:16 pm
The 18 conditions being considered became irrelevant when the "no conditions" e-mail was received. Some of the conditions being considered were an earlier last call, lowering of the music at a certain time, turning on the lights 15 minutes earlier, etc. We didn't create anything new that other establishments in various other towns already accept as conditions. When someone with vast resources promises to litigate any conditions you attempt to impose, your options become greatly limited.
Nick Carraway July 15, 2012 at 03:22 pm
Mailman, Ms. Kelly's response above seems to support my conclusion that it should be the Barrella supporters, like Ms. Kelly, who should be contributing money to the town to help offset the police expenses. She says that "he has the people behind him", meaning that these residents supported his decision to reject the money offered and just go forward and close the bars at midnight. According to Ms. Kelly, Barrella is doing the work that the people who supported him wanted. So, as far as I can see it, the Barrella minions the town $160K per year since it was ultimately Barrella who rejected that offer, and he was doing what "they" wanted. Oh, that Recall election...the petition was started by the Democrats, not the Republicans. Frank Rizzo and Stewart Fisher were Democratic candidates, and they were the primaries on the Recall Committee. The first signor of the Recall Petition was....Dave Cavagnaro. I know, crazy, right? Ms. Kelly is right though. Barrella deserves credit for doing things that no one thought possible. For example, no one would've ever expected that Gelson would work on Barrella's team. Those two had public arguments going back to the days of Little League. Even so, Barrella got Gelson on his team during the year of the Recall.
Nick Carraway July 15, 2012 at 03:28 pm
Councilman Corbally, the quotes I've posted from the e-mails from the BW atty which you kindly shared make it clear that the BW was willing to accept one condition on its liquor license. It was willing to include payment of the $160K per year for 5 years as a condition on its liquor licenses. Of course, the public has no idea what other conditions you and your fellow Bloc members wanted from the BW because you didn't care to send Ms. Kelly the response from Mr. Gertner. Ms. Kelly's quotes from those e-mails are pretty interesting, though, because they show how Mr. Gertner had failed to provide the BW attys with a memo that they had repeatedly requested from him: "I was advised by Ron that he has been requesting a proposed Memo from your office since the meeting last week and neither one of us has received a draft to date. I bring this up as I do not want to be surprised with the presentation of a memo at the hearing tonight as same would require extensive review which could not be completed or agreed upon on site. " What happened there? Barrella taking too long to write that memo?
Nick Carraway July 15, 2012 at 03:29 pm
Ms. Kelly, you say here that you did not agree with the ordinances, but you understand why they had to happen. Great! Can you explain to us why they had to happen???
Spooner July 15, 2012 at 03:44 pm
Councilman Corbally- public information you say: where was these emails posted on the 'patch'...printed or posted in the Ocean Star...or heaven forbid posted on the town's website. . .What you call "public information". . .are you referring to Ms. Kelly's e-mail chain. I didn't know she was the towns official scribe? Perhaps you can point to where on the town's website this e-mail chain can be accessed...
... and that book you keep referring too. . .thanks to your attorney: who did not advise yous at the April 17, 2012 regarding Ordinance 2012-13(Early Bar Closing) to table voting on it until the BW negotiations were concluded?. . .Now you got a problem with the ABC. . .you think you could play ping-pong with an ordinance of that magnitude affecting the lives and revenue of tens of thousands of people and various state entities, not to mention that other ordinance(2012-16). . .clearly an attempt to circumvent the states policing powers by using municipal authority...to enact a local options tax... ...and your "licensing conditions". . .I believe those conditions are imposed when licenses com up for renewal. . .So when did the BW bars licenses come up for renewals and what conditions(restrictions) did you impose on them? Could you have your clerk identity the meeting where these licensing conditions and restrictions were discussed and voted on. . .
mailman July 15, 2012 at 03:57 pm
As much as I appreciate the attempt at a comprehensive and complete answer, again, you are not providing all of the informaiton. I don't know about other residents, but as far as I am concerned, I do not want others deciding what portions of "public information" I should or should not receive. That is spin. You have just named three of the eighteen conditions. It seems that everytime you said jump, and they did, you continued to say higher, and now the residents are holding the bag. It was Mayor Barrella who insisted that the parking ordinance and 12 o'clock closings were distinctly seperate issues and were not to be negotiated upon together only weeks in advance of the mandate that the BW must drop the lawsuit on the parking in order for the deal to be made on the closings. That is more than spin. There are a lot of words to describe that, and none that I find comforting to describe a person running the government in the town that I live in.
Cathy Kelly July 15, 2012 at 04:04 pm
again,you are asking why the BW should still pay the money? Whether the BW likes the Council or visa versa,the residents are forced to pay the money for the Police needed so you see,they would be reimbursing the residents...Is that answer ok with you or would you like to spin that to your liking...I believe that having the state police patrol the BW would be a question for our local Police Dept and I haven't asked them yet so I cannot answer that question........now do your job and spin,spin,spin
Mike Corbally July 15, 2012 at 04:14 pm
The BW solution was to only throw money at the problem. My personal belief is that money alone would not fix the problem. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. We are not re-creating the wheel here. Other towns have tried and successfully put conditions/limitations in place that worked for their community.
mailman July 15, 2012 at 04:23 pm
. . . and at this time, we all have neither the money or the conditions that you support. The residents lose. Nearly everyone agreed that the reduction in cops in the summer of 2011 was the primary issue, and how to fund them in 2012 should have remained the primary focal point.
Nick Carraway July 15, 2012 at 04:59 pm
Ms. Kelly, thank you so much for answering my questions so directly. Now, maybe we can talk about your answers? You're right. The taxpayers (it's all taxpayers, after all, not just "residents") are paying for the police expenses. And, that municipal budget is done. When the money offer was being discussed, it was made clear that, even if accepted, the money wouldn't be issued as a refund to the taxpayers of PPB this year. Instead, the money would be held over until next year's budget. So, we weren't going to receive rebate checks or any type of reduction in our tax bill this year, even if they had taken the money. You've suggested that the BW contribute money to the police endowment fund. How does that work? If put into the police endowment fund, does that mean that the police put that money back into the muncipal budget next year? After all, the Chief already submitted his budget for this year, that got approved, and we're now paying for that. So, how does a contribution to the police endowment fund end up helping the taxpayers in a reduction on their taxes this year? I honestly don't know, so maybe you could explain that? As for the State Police patrolling, whatever the Chief's opinion on this matter is what works for you. Great! If the Chief says "bad idea," then you'd agree with him rather than the Mayor? Like you, I think it's the Chief's opinion that should matter, and I'd also trust the Chief's decision. I'd like to know what the Chief thinks, too.
Nick Carraway July 15, 2012 at 05:06 pm
Holy cow!!!! Councilman Corbally, since "everything you do is public information," why don't you forward that response from Mr. Gertner to Ms. Kelly, so that she can send it out to everyone. It seems to be the missing piece of the puzzle and would probably help us all to better understand what went on. Right now, it appears that the lawyers met with the ABC, matters were discussed, the BW lawyer sent an e-mail to Gertner, to formalize what was discussed in front of the ABC, something was then written back from Gertner (apparently seeking to impose 18 conditions), and then the BW lawyer wrote back and said "No. We're not going to agree to that. We'll agree to what we said before the ABC, and the only condition we're willing to accept on the liquor license is that we pay the town the money." Right now, I have to agree with Mailman. Every time you asked the BW to jump, and they did, you kept raising the bar and expecting them to jump higher. But, again, that e-mail from Gertner seems to be the missing piece of the puzzle.
TK July 17, 2012 at 03:31 pm
I do not understand John Jacksons argument in his appeal on the parking plan. He is a town lawyer who is representing a few businesses and residents. There is be plenty of open parking right on the streets in the area at that time. I was under the impression the residents received several passes. The fishermen should be able to park on all the county roads surrounding the area. County roads is not included in this parking plan.
TK July 17, 2012 at 03:33 pm
"There is plenty of open parking right on the streets"
Mike Corbally July 17, 2012 at 04:26 pm
$300 to $500 an hour.
Spooner July 17, 2012 at 04:38 pm
Channel Drive, cross streets between Broadway and Channel Drive and the Manasquan River, that serves the fishing boating tourist industry. . .Those are the parking spaces that come under the Ordinance...which the lawsuit in part addresses? As for Broadway: the road has too much traffic...not a street you want to be on unloading or loading gear, buckets, coolers, what have you?
Mike Corbally July 17, 2012 at 04:41 pm
A race track between midnight and 6 am.
Beach_N8iv July 17, 2012 at 07:11 pm
Where are your highly paid police if that is REALLY true?
A Resident July 17, 2012 at 07:17 pm
Korbelly, if it's a race track between 12 and 6....what are you, as a Councilman, doing about it?
Closing bar at 12 has nothing to do with vehicle traffic at 6am. Parking restrictions? Have you informed the police chief about this hazard?
A Resident July 17, 2012 at 07:20 pm
You are correct...you don't understand. There is plenty of open spaces on the streets for people that have passes. Not too many of the people that come to the area to get on the fishing boats have those passes.
TommyG July 17, 2012 at 10:41 pm
A Resident, Like TK said, What about parking on the surrounding County roads that are not part of the towns parking plan... That by the way....Seaside Heights were selling their residents parking spots for the season that were on County roads for a decade. Who allowed that to happen? Seaside Heights should be giving every resident their money back. Should be interesting how this parking plan works out in the end. It is funny how the County stop the town of Point Pleasant Beach implementing the parking plan on the county roads in the town. Yet have been letting Seaside Height for a decade sell parking spots for a $250.00 a spot on County Roads....Something smell funny! Who exchanged a favors for this special treatment? I think this needs to be checked and looked in to. What are you thinking A Resident?
ariah moyer July 17, 2012 at 10:49 pm
i never laughed so loud reading this stuff.
ariah moyer July 17, 2012 at 10:52 pm
council meetings are probably pop corn worthy. they should sell tiks to watch this stuff.
TommyG July 17, 2012 at 10:56 pm
They should, it is just like a circus!!!! You never know what is going to happen next?
TommyG July 17, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Spooner, What is the county roads that are on the side streets that run right into Broadway? Is Chicago a County Road? I would think at that time of the morning there is a big selection of open parking spaces that these fishermen can park.
Spooner July 18, 2012 at 01:20 am
TommyG- St Louis Ave between Channel Drive and the river where one of the Plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit operates his business. . .Is that a County road?. . .and Channel Drive up by Spikes where two other Plaintiffs operate their businesses. . .Is that also a County road?
A Resident July 18, 2012 at 01:43 am
TommyG, don't know....I guess you'd have to ask the County why they were "allowing" it. Although, from what I have seen here and in APP, the County claimed to have been unaware and are now telling SS they have to stop it.
TommyG July 18, 2012 at 01:59 am
A Resident, The unaware excuse is getting old and tired. Our council members should be asking that question. Why were they "allowing" this to take place? What I thought I have seen on here and App, Someone on here posted the county clerk that signed off on this was Former Daniel Hennessy that was also PPB Mayor for years. Hmmmmm....Usual politics being played, jersey style!
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Kathleen Ann Hagel May 25, 2013 at 03:27 am
Way to go my peanut butter crunch!!!!
Joseph Cutrone May 25, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Dear Cass, This is Dads friend Joey In Florida. and i am SO proud of you! CONGRATS on this and ALLRead More your future "gigs" cant wait to see your name in broadway lights and I KNOW you will do it! Joey