Mr. Shipers clarifies the Building Height for the Belmar Inn Project and
The Coast Star publishes its own Clarification and Correction
From Today’s Coast Star – August 11, 2022
Welcome to The Belmar Blog
Welcome to The Belmar Blog
Mr. Shipers clarifies the Building Height for the Belmar Inn Project and
The Coast Star publishes its own Clarification and Correction
I am very pleased to see this in the paper, the haters like Mr Bloom on this project have played a terrible game of telephone. They believe their own foolishness but now the truth is also out there
the ZBA granted a variance for a FLAT ROOF … perfect for unregulated structures like gazebos, tents and cabanas
#2 You are correct that a variance for a Flat roof was granted. However, you are assuming that a luxury condo complex homeowners association and their bilaws would not be regulated, which is not the case…….Ask anyone that lives within a community with a homeowners association and I am sure they will tell you how many rules there are and how strictly they are enforced.
Why do you try to create debate and problems where there isn’t even one?
# 1 and #3 Facts indeed do matter!
Thanks to ya both for your comments
The naysayers have lived with the likes of the dilapidated, dangerous BI + summer shenanigans for over 35 years and they are like children being raised in a ghetto with complacent parent, it’s what you know not any improvement! The JC Crowd moved out before it’s much need and crime ridden renaissance. Then they thought they died and went to heaven. Now when the brass ring is presented they’d rather move again than improve their hood and that’s the truth!
Wait and see (and listen). Let’s hope for the best.
#1 and #3 I read Mr Blooms letter. I think Mr Shipers is engaging in some gas lighting, preceding that he is appalled the the CS would print someone’s opinion. Is that no longer allowed?
Yes the building is only 42ft tall, it’s the elevator shafts that go up to 57 feet. That sentence alone should have been enough for the board to refuse this colossal, objectively hideous, eye sore. Save the speeches about it being better than what is there. That argument is as hollow is it is self serving. We should not allow the government to reward bad behavior and tip the scales to assist securing a larger profit for a private developer. That’s exactly what happened here. The government stepped in and, against the will of the people, made sure a bad actor (the BI owners) got as much money as possible, and that a private developer gets to secure a better profit for itself. They interfered with the machinations of the private market. If the developer couldn’t make a profit building a couple single family homes, then he was paying too much for the property. Period. Calling it anything else is a sales pitch.
#5 you just managed to insult an entire neighborhood full of Belmar folks that you don’t even know. Plus you managed to self own. If you don’t know what self owned means, it’s the attempt to insult someone but, instead, describing yourself. Childish. The people opposed to this thing are anything but childish. They have something called integrity. An unpopular characteristic these days I’m afraid.
#7- everyone can have an opinion. Mr. Bloom alleges in his letter or suggests there was illegal conduct by the applicant that is libel and the paper should not post stuff like that.
#8 It’s the opinion page. If you don’t think that people’s opinions, as outrageous as they are, should be in media, then just about every cable news channel would be off the air. In any event, I’ve read Mr Bloom’s letter, twice, please copy and paste the part that you call libel. The only part that that I can surmise you’re referring to is when he says “it seemed to me that the board members were going to say yes before the meeting started’ (paraphrase). That doesn’t come anywhere near ‘libel’. That is a clear opinion, and an observation, given the amount of meetings that have already taken place, that could be accurate. So, no that is not libel. ** ******* ***** ****. Well, he’s a lawyer so I hope he knows this. That letter is a concerned citizen expressing his feelings about what appears to be, given the facts, a local planning board ignoring the will of the people and allowing a developer to circumvent the law. The histrionics by the developer over the letter is the legal equivalent of a soccer player writhing flamboyantly on the ground after barely being touched.
Asteriska in #9 are mine.
#8 I’m still waiting for the part of the letter where Mr Bloom “suggests that there was illegal conduct by the applicant”. I’ve read it a few times now and I don’t see it.
I appreciate you taking a moment and pointing it out to me.
Thank you.
Should I, um, stand on my head and hold my breath? Or are you willing to save us all a lot of time and admit that there is nothing in that letter that suggests any such thing? Something tells me there will be no admission. We live in a world where truth has been sacrificed for ratings.
Thanks