Yo Dan how do you justify:

front doors on 38 Erie
front doors and parking at 27 Erie
vinyl windows installed on a Sunday at 230 1/2 4th

and then bust someone's chops about wanting double pane or thermapane glass in their front door?

For one I denounced the earlier poster's gay bashing.

My point is I don't think this matter has been given a genuine sense of consideration. Residents have been officially and unofficially complaining about this issue for several years, and the adminstration has gone deep into denial about it.

The purpose of my reference to the architect was to prop up the accuracy and validation of the claims and concerns and not let them sit in some evaluation period as your earlier posting suggests.

What concerns me your suggest people had some ill advised suggestions to dismember the Historic Preservation Ordinance. No one was moving for that nor the termination of their positions.

Residents have a right to voice their concerns, even if they seem emotional. The economic consequences are significant to these folks and their feeling a great deal of pressure.

So what's your point?

I would suggest that you re-read carefully what was written -- it's hardly a gross mis-characterization, but a careful validation and dispassionate distillation of the many things that were said last night; some ideas and issues with great merit and others... well ....some not so well thought out -- as the gay bashing posts on this thread, which remains a purely vicious, vindictive and unnecessary personal attack.

A careful read demonstrates a clear acknowledgement there is a need to look more closely at how the law has been implemented and the alleged actions of the Historic Preservation Officer. Warren's correspondence makes this abundantly clear. Somehow, you missed my references, twice stated in paragraphs 3 and 8 relating to the need to address how the Historic Preservation ordinance can be "implemented more efficiently, more consistently, more fairly and more economically."

As to the words "arbitrary and capricious;" those were not my words; they were the words of another resident. Further, note my use of the word "some" as opposed to "all" -- there is a distinction and there is a difference.

With reference to the contribution of the "architect" you must have been at some other meeting because not only did he make a great point regarding "preservation" vs. "restoration," it was acknowledged as a great observation by me. Further, he was only person present to suggest amendments and changes to the legislation that was NOT commensurate with ill-advised dismembering of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

The HPNA will craft a responsible and civil letter that will get to the core of the matter on the issues clearly identified last night and we will press for responsible change. You might not like what we say or how we say what it, but rest assured we are neither timid nor reluctant to deal with tough issues -- and there will be tangible change; but we will not become hyperbolic about the issue either.

A final note. Is there no one else here willing to come out from behind the veil of anonomity?

Your comments ignore the basic fact that the vast majority of the peole who spoke up last evening were simple home owners. One woman a condo owner, who is the throws of a frustrating experience now. One woman stood up and mentioned that during each of her meeting with Dan, he gave her authority to paint her cornice and trim a different color.

It's your motivations that should be subject to scrutiny.

Your comments seem to ignore the consistent claim by several of the attendees at last evening's meeting that the enforecement of the Historic Preservation "guidlines" as you referred to them last night has been arbitrary and capricious. Requirements for color choices, mortar types, window styles have all varied dramatically depending on the day of the week.

What's more interesting is that you now say you are not willing to validate the accuracy of the claims made by many of the residents in town, but you at least appeared to be willing to model a letter from the context of the vast pile of letters presented.

More compelling is how a walk down Pavonia Ave. demosntrates how one homeowner has strictly complied with the regulations while others have deviated dramatically. Such an observation does not take much examination.

It seems the expressed interest of the residents of Jersey City gets manipulated by a few people who have sat on civic boards for too long and have developed a distorted sense of authority.

Your comment that " [u]nfortunately, the remedies suggested by some of those frustrated with the process do not appear aimed at improvement or ensuring that the Historic Preservation Ordinance functions more effectively or fairly -- or even correcting perceived excesses. Instead, the real apparent focus is aimed at simply eliminating the position of the Historic Preservation Officer (not even replacing him) . . ." is another gross misrepresentation of the residents' comments. Most people don't want anyone fired. Still they want a better set of guidlines, that are more practicale and constitutional in enforcement.

Interestingly, a licensed architect spoke last evening, with a great deal of trained authority on the subject of historic restoration. Yet you ignore his contributions, as have city officials.

The City has ignored phone calls from distraught and frustrated JC residents. It is disengenuous of you to now say," it would be instructional to hear the City's response to each of the individual circumstances cited there." It is readily apparent the City has ignored the voice of the people. Bob Cottor's announcement of extending the historic district to the warehouse district only exacerbates the wounds felt by the tax payers.

I was a loud speaker last evening and am not a real estate developer. One very important fact to note is that during last month's HPNA meeting, those in attendance voted AGAINST extending historic designation to the warehouse district. Interestingly enough someone went to Bob Cottor and told him an out and out lie that we voted for it.

This is facist. GET RID OF GUCCIARDI

some of the loudest complainers last night were hard core real estate developer/speculators... including one who appears to be very upset with the city council decision to extend historic designation to property owned in the new historic warehouse district. Millions of dollars at stake... makes you wonder about personal motivations beyond alleged issues with Dan Wrieden.

To be factually accurate - and speaking individually on my own behalf as one who was present at last night's meeting - the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association passed out nothing related to Mr. Wrieden.

1. Mr. Warren Curtin distributed copies of various correspondence from himself and other residents of the Hamilton Park community.

2. The HPNA is not in a position to validate the accuracy of the claims and allegations contained in Mr. Curtin's correspondence, nor is it our reponsibility to do so -- and, as with all issues, there is always more than one side to the story. That being said, much of the content, assuming it is reasonably accurate, does raise issues which appear worthy of further review and discussion.

3. It is, however, inappropriate and unacceptable to overshadow otherwise valid comments and feedback on how to have our Historic Preservation Ordinance implemented more effectively, more consistently, more fairly and more economically with an unncessary and uncalled for exercise in gay bashing and witch hunting. (That's what this thread sounds like to me.)

4. Independent of Mr. Curtin's correspondence, other residents have raised similar concerns, which need to be heard at the top level of HEDC (Mr. Cotter) and with the members of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).

5. Further, some comments were made about the various HPC commissioners and its operations, but when asked publicly during the meeting, none of the individuals present making these comments indicated that they have ever attended or appeared before the HPC itself.

6. From last night's comments, there appears to be much room for needed feedback and improvement in how the Historic Preservation Ordinance is applied and implemented. The City does need to hear this. Unfortunately, the remedies suggested by some of those frustrated with the process do not appear aimed at improvement or ensuring that the Historic Preservation Ordinance functions more effectively or fairly -- or even correcting perceived excesses. Instead, the real apparent focus is aimed at simply eliminating the position of the Historic Preservation Officer (not even replacing him), eliminating the HPC and gutting the oversight process. I don't believe this to be a constructive approach.

7. If there are valid issues raised in Mr. Curtin's correspondence as to how the Historic Preservation Officer might be implementing the law, these should be addressed and discussed publicly, fully and transparently in a venue where a complete picture can be assessed. As for the specific individual cases raised in Mr. Curtin's correspondence, it would be instructional to hear the City's response to each of the individual circumstances cited there.

8. A rational discussion resulting in recommendations for an improved all-around process, and an Historic Preservation Ordinance which can be implemented more efficiently, more consistently, more fairly and more economically would be a constructive approach to problem solving -- anonymous witchhunts and gay bashing is not.

I agree, comments on someone's sexuality is not appropriate in this forum.

Working with Mr. Wrieden on our house was extremely difficult. He actually is INCONSISTENT in what he approves. My husband and I were perfectly willing to put in historically accurate Marvin 2 over 2 windows. That was not the problem. Our problem was that we wanted double-paned windows, since they were more energy efficient.

Please understand that when you're paying for $900 per window (and are being required to do the entire facade at once), you're going to want it to be more energy efficient than the old windows you just took out. At the same time, Mr. Wrieden approved at least three other houses in my neighborhood with double paned windows, but was giving us a hard time on ours. This was our frustration. When finally called on it, he backed down and approved the double paned windows.

I agree that we need historic preservation in downtown JC. It's extremely important. However, when we bought our house in the mid-90s, there were no riders on the contract that stated we were going to abide by certain rules made up by a historic preservation commission. However, my husband and I have gone by the rules, and I have been desperate to have good advice on how to appropriately restore my house. And, from my understanding from other 20+ year residents of my neighborhood, that's what the historic commission was originally supposed to do--advise homeowners.

I'd like the historic commission to stay. I'd also like someone who will inspire people to properly restore their houses, and NOT someone who frustrates people so they end up installing white vinyl windows into their homes at 2:00 am. I'd like someone who is not condescending to their constituents, and who will properly educate homeowners on how to approach historic preservation and their houses. And, speaking of education, I would like someone who is properly educated for this advisory position.

Quote:

I posted the above, but I wanted to add, we could all do without the homophobic comments. For one it destroys your credibility. Furthermore it evidences your hate towards others. Finally, it won't be tolerated.

A significant number of the well spoken folks at last evening's meeting were gay.

Unfortunately, the enforcement of the Historic regulations have been applied abritrarily, inconsistenty and capriciously. Once that happens the rules are pretty much unenforceable, rending the entire ordinance null and void.
The people at last evening's meeting are willing to adopt the rules, but that have to be reasonable and consistent. Guciardi and Bob Cottor should be the ones to go, not Wreiden.

He's not going by the book. That's the point.

good point.

Thank you, previous poster. If Dan is going by the book and not making exceptions and giving exemptions then he is to be commended not scolded. Are people complaining because he is conscientious? Are these the same people who are complaining because other city workers are not conscientious?

#1 the homophobic comments are completely unnecessary. And #2, Dan is to be commended for enforcing the well-established rules of the historic districts. Don't buy in a historic district if you're looking to destroy the historic exterior of your building. End of story.

Cant he be booted out?

Uhhhhh....I've heard the guy is a royal pain in the ass, but are the gay comments 100% necessary?

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!

So, whats the deal with Daniel Wrieden aka 'Queer Eye For The Historic House Guy'? It seems this guy has a lot of enemies due to how he deals with the people who own historic homes in the area.

Last night he was the topic of discussion at the Hamiliton Park Neighhood Association Meeting. Seems like the 'flamer' has a lot of homeowners heated. They passed out a 20 page document of complaints on him.

I've been waiting to bring back my slaves! I can't wait for the downtown area to secede from the rest of Jersey City!

Way to go folks, looks like some of you have reached the moral and political maturity of a mid-nineteeth century southerner!

Regarding Tris' reference to Alan Karcher's piece... while it addresses the impact of fragmentation, it doesn't (nor was it intended to) address the underlying issues that caused the fragmentation.

I can see secession as the response to non-responsive governmental structures and frustration.

In the Jersey City context, I can point to stress fractures in governance and administration.

Jersey City's size also has an impact. With a distorted tax base (overly reliant on property taxes and gimicky tax abatements), we still manage to have an underfunded budget, which is barely able to meet reasonable demands for city services. Even the structure and organization of City Council is open to question. We have a city council, which is a part-time institution, and paid accordingly, and it too seems inadequate to meet the needs of a city with full-time, real city problems:

Short of secession, some questions for other future threads:

1. Should the very structure of Jersey City government be questioned. Has Jersey City, literally, outgrown the ability of its institutions to cope?

2. Does it serve the various diverse communities of Jersey City to have a 6 Ward system and 3 at large council people, or should city council be reorganized along some other lines provided by NY law?

3. Should there be something like a community board system instituted?

4. Are property taxes a fair way to finance the city's oeprations? Should we ditch property taxes in favor of some other approach to taxation -- e.g. a form of city income tax?

Quote:

Hoboken is one case out of 566.

It is not always to Hoboken's advantage to be so small. Ask anybody who works for that municipal government whether they'd like a little more territory. At this point, the only place for Hoboken to build is upward.

I love Hoboken, too. But Hoboken has a serious cramming problem.

Tris

Why are some of you convinced Hoboken is part of Jersey City?

Is it the same blinders that make some of the people in Newport believe they're really in New York?

....very puzzling

Well if "it's cost us dearly" then Why is Hoboken which really is part of JC doing so well? Maybe downtown can join in with Hoboken we can call this area Hudson City.

Hoboken & Hudson City has a nice ring to it all the waterfront from the turnpike east. We can share their services and pool our money! Then we'd get deat cops and safety!

Thanks for the suggestion - sounds like a very interesting read. I'll give that one a go...

Quote: I strongly encourage you to read New Jersey's Multiple Municipal Madness by Alan Karcher, the former Assembly Speaker. It's a terrific read, and it explains exactly why the fragmentation of New Jersey into many tiny municipalities has cost us terribly. It's one of the best books ever written about New Jersey, and one I think about almost every day.

Vote the bums out! We must vote!

Cash cow to exploit? If anyone's exploiting Downtown, it's the politicians - who are most certainly keeping the take for themselves. I live in Marion, and haven't seen improvements in years. The city services are a joke, and half the time I have a complaint to call in I'm made to feel like a total ass - left to take care of services that the city should be doing by myself.

Face it - Downtown is practically immaculate compared to so much else of JC - it's like a different world there. If you think your taxes are used to make any kind of change or improvement to the majority of JC, let me take you on a good walking tour.

It sure isn't that easy - it's nearly impossible to revise city political borders. Still, I don't see how secession translates to "getting rid" of the rest of JC. They would be their own city and our late mayor's race baiting would achieve its deserved result - first priority for the non-waterfront neighborhoods. Of course such a burg would not have the downtown cash cow to exploit. I suspect that this is a big part of why you find it offensive.

Quote:

...oversensitive people on bulletin boards who have no sense of sarcastic humor don't seem to be in short supply.