Anonymous wrote:
The thread isn't a joke. Some of the posts are. But it appears to me that for property owners, this is serious, deal-breaking stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, SUE ME! Please! But let me be on the phone when you call, crying and shivering. I could use a good laugh.

Another Anonymous wrote:

... and they knew his address (95 Wayne Street) and his quirky hours.

Uh, did you call the police? , duh

Anonymous wrote:
I actually overheard a conversation yesterday at the Pink Flamingo (or whatever that place is called across from 30 Montgomery Street) about Dan Wrieden and a bounty being on his head. At first I thought it was a joke with all the hype going on, but these three guys were as serious as a heart attack, and they knew his address (95 Wayne Street) and his quirky hours. It actually made me very uncomfortable and concerned.

Do we still whack people in Jersey City?

Warren and the others in this thread deserve to have their asses hauled into court and sued for defamation.

Anonymous wrote:
Quote:

Anonymous wrote:
In reply to the individual who stated that Dan Wrieden "isn't going by the book" . My question is which book, there are many opinions on historic preservation and have any one of you even read the book, so that you would personally know whether Dan is going by the "book." My guess is that not one of the critics of Dan or the HPC is a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation New Jersey or the Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy..or any other historic preservation organization. I am also guessing that to the "man" or woman that few have even read any major articles on historic preservation and know nothing of the process of restoring a home or building or of getting a design approved.
All the whinning and complaining about someone who is simply trying to do a good job to the best of his ability, sounds like "he's not doing it MY WAY." In life, we generally don't get OUR WAY, life is not fair or equitable, and as adult human beings we learn to live with it, cope with the inconsistencies and continue to live our lives to the best of our abilities. My advice to the entire complaint system is 'GET A LIFE." tHE STARVING CHILDREN OF THE WORLD ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER OR NOT DAN WRIEDEN IS APPROVING THE COLOR YOU WANT FOR YOUR HOUSE. COMPARED TO THE IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS NOT ONLY BORING IT IS MEANINGLESS.

You are a controlling class A idiot! Do you suppose you and your lot are the only few that know anything about historic preservation? I'm not learning to live with morons like YOU!

Wreiden does alot more damage than contolling the color of paint. On the job and off.

Anonymous wrote:
In reply to the individual who stated that Dan Wrieden "isn't going by the book" . My question is which book, there are many opinions on historic preservation and have any one of you even read the book, so that you would personally know whether Dan is going by the "book." My guess is that not one of the critics of Dan or the HPC is a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation New Jersey or the Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy..or any other historic preservation organization. I am also guessing that to the "man" or woman that few have even read any major articles on historic preservation and know nothing of the process of restoring a home or building or of getting a design approved.
All the whinning and complaining about someone who is simply trying to do a good job to the best of his ability, sounds like "he's not doing it MY WAY." In life, we generally don't get OUR WAY, life is not fair or equitable, and as adult human beings we learn to live with it, cope with the inconsistencies and continue to live our lives to the best of our abilities. My advice to the entire complaint system is 'GET A LIFE." tHE STARVING CHILDREN OF THE WORLD ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER OR NOT DAN WRIEDEN IS APPROVING THE COLOR YOU WANT FOR YOUR HOUSE. COMPARED TO THE IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS NOT ONLY BORING IT IS MEANINGLESS.

Anonymous wrote:
These comments are outrageous and hurtful and would not be said if the writers name was on the bottom of the comment. Dan Wrieden is a decent human being, who is warm, friendly helpful and a decent hardworking neighbor.
What is the matter with you people.
Maybe you should examine the center of this whirl wind, Warren Curtin. Warren is a neurotic that has undergone therapy for many years and is taking drugs to calm his nerves and hyper active behavior. Warren is hated in the real estate industry for his mean and nasty behavior and many will not even do business with him. Why people are following this contorted individual much less believing what he says is a mystery. Why don't you put the hate, where the hate belongs on Warren Curtin.

Anonymous wrote:
What a bunch of nonsense. Dan Wrieden and his partner both own their house on Wayne Street. His partner is not his "sugar daddy" but a well known professional in NYC.
Their relationship is a long term partnership which is a lot more successful than a lot of "marriages" I see in the world on a daily basis.
And
for the record their house on Wayne street is a perfect example of what a brownstone row house would have looked like in the late 19th Century, raised planter and miniature hedges and all. We may not like the way it looks but it is one of the more authentic houses in the neighborhood. We should all look carefully at the detail and follow this example of good taste.

Anonymous wrote:
Quote:

Did he learn this in History class at State ?

\

Good ol' New Jersey City University.

Gotta be honest with you.....most Ivies or other Top Tens have in their core curriculum an Art History class that includes enough rudimentary information about architecture in the 19th century, such that it rivals what he seems to have learned (based on his narrow-visioned implementation) in four years. By the way he walks around mandating such details, you'd think he had a Masters' from a top ten. Afraid not......try a 2001 undergrad from ol' 440 University.

Anonymous wrote:
You'd think this guy went to school for a long time but he just graduated in 2001. http://www.njcu.edu/dept/acp/coop_student_awards.html#dwrieden

If he doesn't ease up with all the rules I say we put up a collection to have him 'snatched up'. #OOPS# him and his Marvin Windows!

Anonymous wrote:
that's funny.........."Route 440 University!"

Did he learn this in History class at State ?

Anonymous wrote:
Quote:

Anonymous wrote:
The contractors are faced with even stiffer fines than us, and all they really say is they hate the man, for both the way he speaks to him (no respect), and the often stupid things he wants them to do.And ofcourse, the overbearing manner.

Dan had asked our contractor to mix the "recipe" while he was present so that he could be sure they were doing it correctly. He shouldn't be interfering with the professionals. He thinks he knows more than they do.

Anonymous wrote:
The contractors are faced with even stiffer fines than us, and all they really say is they hate the man, for both the way he speaks to him (no respect), and the often stupid things he wants them to do.And ofcourse, the overbearing manner.

Anonymous wrote:
Dan should have never bragged about it. Word got around,because you never know who he is going to turn on next. He befriends people, then betrays them.

Anonymous wrote:
A "commons" is any resource used as though it belongs to all. In other words, when anyone can use a shared resource simply because one wants or needs to use it, then one is using a commons. For example, all land is part of our commons because it is a component of our life support and social systems.

A commons is destroyed by uncontrolled use?neither intent of the user, nor ownership are important. An example of uncontrolled use is when one can use land (part of our commons) any way one wants.

Tragedy of the Commons

Visualize a pasture as a system that is open to everyone. The carrying capacity of this pasture is 10 animals. Ten herdsmen are each grazing an animal to fatten up for market. In other words, the 10 animals are now consuming all the grass that the pasture can produce.

Harry (one of the herdsmen) will add one more animal to the pasture if he can make a profit. He subtracts the original cost of the new animal from the expected sales price of the fattened animal and then considers the cost of the food. Adding one more animal will mean less food for each of the present animals, but since Harry only has only 1/10 of the herd, he has to pay only 1/10 of the cost. Harry decides to exploit the commons and the other herdsmen, so he adds an animal and takes a profit.

Shrinking profit margins force the other herdsmen either to go out of business or continue the exploitation by adding more animals. This process of mutual exploitation continues until overgrazing and erosion destroy the pasture system, and all the herdsmen are driven out of business.

Most importantly, this illustrates the critical flaw of freedom in the commons: all participants must agree to conserve the commons, but any one can force the destruction of the commons. Although the example describes exploitation by humans in an unregulated public pasture, this commons and "grass" principle fit our entire society, and Jersey City?s historic districts.

Private property is inextricably part of our commons because it affects our quality of life and the collective property values of all. Owners alter the properties of our quality of life and collective property values when they alter their land to "make a profit"?installing the least costly exterior rather than the historically appropriate.