|
Re: Window Repair - Replace Spiral Balances on Tilt Window
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
jimmysglass.com
+1 201-941-4401 137 Palisade Ave, Cliffside Park, NJ 07010 I don't know if these guys still do that kind of work, but they did an excellent job for me some years ago, replacing broken glass and spiral balances in a long parlor-level window. They aren't exactly local, and I know a lot of businesses who previously came to JC won't now, because of traffic congestion and impossible parking, complete with fines and tow-aways. If you want to go the DIY route ? it's not difficult to replace window balances, I've done dozens over the years after learning how ? SWISCO ( www.swisco.com ) in Camden, NJ has all the replacement pieces, excellent service, and helpful ?how-to? videos and information on their website. You'll also need to buy a ?charging tool? ? around $15 ? so you can wind the balance springs to the correct tension as you install.
Posted on: 2017/7/11 14:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Front fence Hamilton Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Just wanted to give everyone a little more information about the Historic Preservation requirements. So, jc_dweller, who previously claimed the historic ordinance wasn't part of the Zoning Code and the MLUL didn't apply, now wants us to believe a snippet of some ?legal interpretation? tells us how the historic preservation requirements are to be read and interpreted. Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not persuaded by an out of context, incomplete quote, with no attribution or citation. jc_dweller, I invite you to provide the citation for your quote, so we can read it fully, and determine what it actually says. Selective quotation without a citation is a red flag for me ? it is impossible to confirm any assertions made. Reminds me of the HPO and HPC's selective, out of context use of ordinance text, and in the process butchering the meaning. Their use of ?345-71 G. 3., the ?Standards for Reconstruction?, is a prime example. A single clause such as G.3., can't be read in isolation. The correct interpretation of that requirement is made by looking at ALL of the ?reconstruction? requirements at ?345-71 G. You have to take the section in it's entirety, just as you do any law, regulation or code. Even without a citation, jc_dweller's quote does not support the contention that the HPO and HPC have authority to compel anything beyond ?preservation?. Certainly not ?re-creation?, ?restoration? or ?reconstruction?, which are never even mentioned. The quote addresses something different and limited ? the need for ?proposed alteration or new construction? to "blend aesthetically", in order to retain the character. The quote is silent about the means by which that is achieved. As JoeGee pointed out in the first post in this string, it is patently evident from even a cursory look at the neighborhood that the ordinance permits new, modern construction ? it is all over the place. All this new construction surrounded as it is by historic buildings must have met the criteria for ?blending aesthetically?, otherwise it would not, could not, have been approved by the HPO and HPC. Back now to original question about a new fence. If a historic front fence does not exist on a property, then a new front fence, aesthetically sympathetic, blending in with the neighborhood character, can meet the criteria ? exactly as those new buildings do. Moreover, since section ?345-71 G.1-5. of the JC Code severely limits the reconstruction of ?fake originals?, a new, ?non-fake? fence is preferable. Listers, one thing you can be sure of is that Dan and the HPC try to bully home owners into installing expensive, fake, ?historic-looking? fences and features. Unfortunately, they have the power to just deny your application ? even if the grounds used are bogus, and the demands beyond their authority. That's how it goes down in JC, and always has.... There are ways to fight City Hall on this, but that's for another, much longer post.
Posted on: 2017/7/5 11:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The discussion in another string about fences and historic preservation requirements made me think of that guy from the recently created historic district on the West Side and the City's effort to dismiss his law suit. Turns out there's an initial ruling, although the case still has a long way to go: http://cases.justia.com/federal/distr ... 97/10/0.pdf?ts=1498739790
In short, the City was NOT successful in getting the case dismissed, so the Judge hearing the matter must think it possible that Fernandez's complaints have some merit. Certain complaints were dismissed but it seems the Judge invited Fernandez to re-file with more information. If Fernandez plans to re-file, his attorney might take a good look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling that disparate impact can apply in certain housing cases. Fernandez might go to the State Courts, although that's difficult for procedural reasons. First, he'd apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness permit, and likely be denied by the HPC. Next, he appeals to the Zoning Board, and likely be denied again. Then, if he has followed all the required rules and met all the deadlines, he can appeal to the Superior Court. There he'd argue the denial by the City is ultra vires ? provided that house did NOT have original historic wood siding torn off by the contractor. If the siding was original, it's a different story. The HPO and HPC often use section 345-71 G. 3. of the JC Code to deny requested work, saying the proposed materials are inappropriate. They'd probably cite that sub-section in their denial of his application. However, that would be a misreading of the section, taking it out of context completely. I'm shocked they get away with it, since they are supposed to be competent to undertake their duties as HPC commissioners. And that means correctly applying the code. Like any code (or law, or regulation...), 345-71 G. must be read fully and in context, to be properly applied. Looking at 345-71 G. 1-5. as a whole, it is clear that G. 3., about materials, only applies when ?reconstruction? is proposed. Moreover, 345-71 G. 1-5., is explicit that reconstruction is only permitted under limited, strictly defined conditions. But you have to read all of 345-71 G., and the associated definitions to know. The HPO and HPC either don't know their own code, or they deliberately ignore it, and all to frequently apply that clause (G. 3.) incorrectly. Taking a sub-section of code and incorrectly applying it to a different set of circumstances than those defined in the code makes the HPC's denial an error and is beyond their authority. The HPC doesn't write the rules ? they must follow the code ? just like everybody else. As he's in a historic district, Fernandez needs to use siding that is aesthetically sympathetic with the neighboring houses. However, although he can't just use any type of cheap siding he might want, he also can't be compelled to ?reconstruct? replica wood siding, if the original historic wood siding was removed before the HD designation came into effect. If original historic siding was removed only after the HD designation went into effect, then he's out of luck and the situation is more complicated. I haven't seen that house in a while, and don't know what it looks like at the present. I might go by sometime this weekend. Has anyone else here been by there recently...?.
Posted on: 2017/6/30 18:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Front fence Hamilton Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Since your attempt at obfuscation was 100% wrong last time, I have every reason to doubt your opinion now. Thanks for the opportunity to provide additional clarity. The MLUL permits the City to compel preservation, but only in designated historic districts, and only to clearly articulated standards. It is plainly apparent only those things that exist presently can be preserved. Conversely, something that does not presently exist cannot be preserved. It might be ?recreated?, or ?reproduced? or "replicated", but those activities are NOT preservation. You'll find clear definitions in the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines you were prepared to rely on previously. So, it is the present character and appearance of a historic district that must be preserved. If something was legally destroyed or removed before historic district designation then the HPO and HPC DO NOT have the legal authority to compel replacement. Therein is the reason that modern infill buildings which not replicas of old buildings are permitted. By the same reasoning, a front fence does not need to be an exact ?recreation? of a late 19th century original, if the original fence doesn't still exist. In fact, the Ordinance explicitly discourages ?recreating? fake replicas. Such work should be undertaken only under certain narrowly defined conditions. The language in the JC Code at 345-71, G. 1. is abundantly clear in stating: ?G. Standards for Reconstruction. 1. Reconstruction of a part or all of a property shall be undertaken only when such work is essential to reproduce a significant missing feature in a historic district or site, and when a contemporary design solution is not acceptable.? Yes, things need to be sympathetic with the scale and appearance of the neighborhood, but the MLUL does not allow the HPO or HPC to compel anything other than historic preservation. If a neighborhood already has non-historic items, that is the present state and character, not some non-existent 19th Century dream-world. People don't have to rebuild outhouses in historic districts, so deviations from the original historic appearance are clearly permissible. In respect of Historic Preservation activities the City must regulate in a manner that is compliant with the powers allowed it under the MLUL. Demands by the HPO and HPC for the ?recreation? or "reconstruction? or ?replication? of features that were legally removed or destroyed in the past prior to historic designation go way beyond their limited legal authority to regulate "preservation". Perhaps the candidates for Mayor, and the other candidate up for election this November would undertake to ensure that the HPO and HPC adhere to state law. I'm sure it will enhance their chances for success as Mr. Gadsen's election victory last year against Steve Fulop's hand-picked, city attorney candidate showed. The good folk of Jersey City are over the heavy-handed abuse of these regulations. And they need to be on the look out - last I heard the City was trying to turn Astor Place into another Historic District.
Posted on: 2017/6/28 22:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Front fence Hamilton Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This is 100% incorrect. For those who may not be aware the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance is part of the Zoning Code. The City's Historic preservation ordinance (345-71) is a section of the City's zoning and development code ? aka the JCLDO ? ?Jersey City Land Development Ordinance?. It is found at Chapter 345 ?Zoning? in the Jersey City Code of Ordinances. The NJ MLUL is the enabling legislation that permits the HPC to regulate ?preservation.? The HPC draws ALL of it's authority to regulate from the relevant provisions of the MLUL. In respect of preservation, the intent and purposes of MLUL provisions, as stated in the legislation are: ?j. To promote the conservation of historic sites and districts,...? NJSA 40:55D-2. Other sections of the MLUL provide details of how this must be accomplished in order to be compliant with state law. Both make for interesting reads given the abuse of power by the HPO and HPC.
Posted on: 2017/6/28 14:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Front fence Hamilton Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Of course Dan doesn't follow the City Ordinance ? he and the HPC never have, issuing demands that go way beyond the authority granted them by the enabling NJ MLUL.
Their regulatory powers are limited by law to ?preservation? - that's the language in the legislation. However, Dan and the HPC operate by withholding permits until owners give into their demands for extensive, expensive, ?restoration? and ?reconstruction? work. The enabling law does NOT give the HPO or HPC authority to demand restoration or reconstruction of things that were removed or destroyed years ago. If a historic feature was removed ? it's gone, and there is nothing to preserve. You can't preserve something that doesn't exist. Go and carefully read the statue and the City Ordinance. You'll find that neither contains any language that compels owners to undertake ?restoration? or ?reconstruction.? The complete absence of such language is significant, as it indicates the law or ordinance was not written to compel these particular activities. If an owner wants voluntarily to do that type of work they can do so after permits are issued, and in doing that work they must follow the Ordinance. But it is beyond the City's authority to force any owner to undertake any activity other than ?preservation?, if the owner doesn't want. Bottom line: if you have a historic fence, you'll need to proceed with preservation. However, if your fence is NOT historic, then Dan is beyond his authority in demanding you ?recreate? a historic fence. Some other requirements come into play ? chain link fences aren't allowed, but those requirements aren't for historic purposes. Unfortunately, as I've noted before, it will take a law suit run by a smart, knowledgeable attorney to stop the arbitrary, and ?ultra vires? abuse by Dan and the HPC.
Posted on: 2017/6/27 22:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City school officials fret over plan to cut $8.5M in state aid
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The state shovels about $450 million every year to the JC BOE. You'd need some forensic accountant to find that shortfall if it all disappears.... So you're absolutely correct ProdigalSon. And it's the reason the state ordered JC to do the reval. They couldn't reduce aid to the JC BOE knowing the local tax system was so inequitable. It's sad to see the level of denial here about this issue. After the State reduces aid to the JC BOE, property taxes will increase as an inevitable consequence. Some people are going to be badly caught out because they've drunk the ?but the reval is revenue neutral? Kool-Aid..... The real story is what comes AFTER the reval.
Posted on: 2017/6/23 8:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Police Pursuit ends in fiery crash in Jersey City Heights
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Stamping out a fire on a person?! Seems a bit odd to me jerseymom... No need to be curious, the answer is right there in that video. Think about it for a moment.... It's one of those situations where you ask: but why didn't the dog bark? Surely police cruisers (especially the brand new SUV variety, with all the bells and whistles) carry fire extinguishers and those fire blankets used to smother flames? How many police vehicles and officers were there? Didn't somebody, anybody, think of using the standard issue safety equipment supplied for exactly these kinds of hazardous situations? Don't JC police have training and SOP's so they're ready and know how to deploy and use relatively simple safety measures that save lives....? Or were they really just kicking, oops, stamping, out of the fire, believing that was the thing to do...?
Posted on: 2017/6/8 3:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Returning to few previous issues, more likely to effect my situation than a diversionary argument with Yvonne about abated properties....
Quote:
Tictaktoe, let's complete the circle. That $4,000 from the appeal (along with hundreds of other successful appeals) becomes a tax shortfall for the City. So to close the budget gap the City increases the tax rate. Around and around in circles it goes. Presto! Soon enough your $4,000 is gone again, into the insatiable, gaping maw of The City of Jersey City. And for what, the level of services delivered here...? Quote:
Dolomiti, I made sure to rent in an abated building - LOL. There wont be any tax increase for my landlord, at least not in my lifetime. And no, it won't be possible for the owner of the building I sold to pass along the tax increase post reval by way of increased rents. The increase would be more than 25%. The market won't bear it, particularly with all the tax abated apartments becoming available over the next few years. Put more succinctly, it's going to be the proverbial s**t show, and I've made sure it's not going to have any effect on me. Quote:
Brewster, yes, if I sit tight eventually I might make up the loss. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. IMO, it will be a long, long time before 1-4 family buildings DT like the one I sold make up the significant capital loss caused by the reval. If I'm wrong and things aren't as bad as I expect I could buy again. Nevertheless, the heightened risk of significant capital loss was enough to make me to cash out. And I know several people who have done exactly the same as me. There are other issues I've factored in as well: school costs being shifted back to JC (bye bye Vinnie Prieto); dysfunctional and unaccountable City government; poor / absent planning and over development DT; overwhelmed, failing mass transit (PATH and NJT); the State's perilous fiscal situation; increasing interest rates; and the risk of climate change effects on DT JC; among others. For the present, I'm more than content to watch from the sidelines, paying rent in an abated development.
Posted on: 2017/5/26 17:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
All this makes me even happier that I recently sold and moved to a rental. A tax rate of 2.1% on my former property would triple my taxes, and the impact on the property value would be severe, much more than the capital gains tax I'll pay.
Property taxes need to be adjusted to be fair. However, because of irresponsible actions by successive JC Administrations in avoiding a reval for 28 years it will be very painful. And when the State shifts more school costs to JC it will be worse. Even if that takes a couple of years, people will see it coming so it will hit property values. The idea of a reverse mortgage to pay more tax to this dysfunctional City, particularly in view of a likely substantial hit to property values in the near future, has no appeal to me. The way I see it I've taken my gains and will wait. Other factors are important to me as well. Transportation woes on NJT and PATH are only going to get a lot worse when all the over-development is completed. And with all those apartments becoming available and a softening NYC rental market the DT JC property market is going to look a whole lot different when those new assessment notices go out in about 12 months IMHO.
Posted on: 2017/5/21 17:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Completely agree, and therein is the reason the State forced JC to move forward with this long overdue reval. The State wants to shift as much spending as it can back to JC (and a few other municipalities). Obviously they can't proceed until the reval is completed. Doing otherwise would inflict undue economic harm and probably be illegal (disparate impact), if the present wide variations in tax rates across neighborhoods isn't fixed first. Yes, the reval will be overall revenue neutral for JC, but the actions of the State shortly thereafter wont be. Think for a minute what happens if the State shifts even 10% of the roughly $500 million they provide, about $50 million, for schools back to the JC taxpayer.... And all those arguments about fairness and equity across JC neighborhoods, those arguments sound just as compelling when applied across other school districts and towns as well. Of course it should be fair and that means JC is going to pay more of it's own bills. No doubt you'll remember the tax hike Fulop implemented when he was elected mayor, well get ready for another one following the next mayoral election. This time it won't be Healy getting the blame, it will be the State.
Posted on: 2017/5/19 14:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
PATH should look at this, but be careful what you wish for... increasing the number of people in a car can have the opposite to intended effect. With more passengers ?loading and dwell? times increase, causing trains to stop longer at stations. This can ripple through the entire system limiting overall train movement, resulting in a net decrease in passenger capacity. It would be reassuring to know that PATH officials have already carefully considered all this. I don't any see any harm from making such information available if they have. One downside might be developers can't push the canard that JC will remain easily ?accessible? to NYC during rush hour. But since money talks, I'm not expecting we will learn anything from the PA about this any time soon.
Posted on: 2017/4/7 14:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, please spare us.... Unfortunately, the only thing hysterical is denying the serious PATH overcrowding that won't be fixed anytime soon. But you don't need to take my word for it, it's obvious to just about everyone, including the PA spokesman, PA Chairman and JC Mayor, all on the public record acknowledging the problem. Here's what that PA spokesman was reported to say at that 2015 Hoboken meeting: ?According to Coleman, the severity of the overcrowding at the Journal Square PATH station in particular was such that it had become a potential public safety problem...,? And here's what the PA Chairman, John Degnan, himself says (from the WSJ June 5th, 2016): ?Port Authority Chairman John Degnan said Jersey City shouldn?t approve new developments along the PATH?s route without making sure the system can handle the expected growth in riders. 'It?s irresponsible for a city to allow indiscriminate growth that?s going to tax public infrastructure beyond its capability,' Mr. Degnan said.? JC Mayor Steve Fulop concurred a serious problem exists and blamed inadequate planning by the PA. Here's what Fulop said in that same WSJ article: ?Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop faulted the Port Authority, which is jointly controlled by New Jersey and New York governors, for failing to properly plan. 'At the end of the day it?s Port Authority?s responsibility,' Mr. Fulop said. 'They should stop putting blame elsewhere. Every surrounding municipality has grown.' ? Serious injuries resulting from over-crowding on narrow PATH station platforms are foreseeable and avoidable. The kind of problem any reasonably competent transit agency should anticipate and prevent. Consequently, I fully expect to see PA Police implementing access restrictions during rush hour in the near future. They certainly know how ? they done it many times in the past, and do it today as needed. But what I really want to know is where are the credible detailed projections, plans, timelines and $$'s from all the responsible parties to fix this mess....? There's nothing hysterical about it, it's a serious problem for residents of Jersey City and all the towns serviced by PATH.
Posted on: 2017/4/6 14:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Thanks, I see 50 new cars in the capital plan for the next 10 years. They have about 340 cars now, so 50 new cars is slightly under 15% increased capacity ? when all cars are in service at the end of 10 years. That seems insufficient to me, given past and anticipated growth in JC, and other towns along the line ? Harrison, Newark, Hoboken. Where does the 7 to 10 car increase come from? I don't see anything about that in the PA document. 10 car trains are not possible on the 33rd line due to the constraints previously mentioned. The WTC line 8-car trains could go to 10 cars AFTER the station upgrades complete. Last I looked nothing much was happening at Grove St.... I certainly agree about opacity and obfuscation at the PA. Where are their projections for service needs based on expected population and employment growth and commuting patterns? I didn't see any substantiating data with the capital plan. And what's the timeline? I haven't seen any announcements those 50 new cars are on order. I could have missed it, but I don't think so.... In the meantime, in my opinion and supported by remarks from the PA official quoted in the Hudson News report I cited, PATH is becoming overwhelmed. In the near future I expect to see PA police at station entrances during rush hour controlling the number of people entering. Why...? To prevent platform over-crowding and resulting serious public safety hazards, and to limit lengthening ?dwell-times? as people try to get off and on. As an aside, it was interesting to see the 78 million riders per year number in that PA document. PATH's overall annual deficit is over $400 million. Doing the math, that's about a $5 per ride deficit. Over 10 years, about $4 billion. Roughly the same amount as it cost to build the new WTC station the station Patrick Foye called ?a monument to waste?. Think how much bond money $400 million annually buys, and what a properly run Agency could do with that money to improve the system. What a mess...
Posted on: 2017/4/5 14:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Does anyone have a reliable source for the purported 29% increase in service after the signal system is complete? The most I recall seeing is 20% and ominously even that seems to have disappeared from the PATH website. Any more than a trivial increase will require more trains sets, and I haven't seen anything about new trains cars on order. Anyone seen that anyplace? When PATH finishes the Harrison and Grove upgrades to accommodate 10-car trains, in theory there could be a 25% capacity increase on the WTC line ? if they run the same number of trains with 10 cars in each train. That will also need more trains. So, again, anyone seen any orders for new train cars? Or even anything about that in the PATH capital budget plan....? I haven't. On the 33rd line, I've read conflicting reports ? some say 8 car trains are possible, others say 7 is the max because of the station lengths AND the clearances through the points ? especially the multiple crossing points immediately to the north of Newport. Anyone have any verifiable information about that? I've also read there's no feasible way stations on the 33rd line will ever be lengthened due to complex cost / engineering / environmental / safety concerns. If they want to extend the platforms, then one narrow egress isn't permitted on safety grounds, so they'd need to build additional entry/exit tunnels. Train cars don't come cheap or quick, and with the Gateway tunnel and Midtown bus terminal rebuild projects sucking up vast amounts of PA cash over the next decade or so, I'm not holding my breath for any improvement in PATH service. It is very difficult to find reliable, trustworthy information about PATH. Too many vested interests, with too much money at stake for folks to be telling the truth....
Posted on: 2017/4/4 22:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
My understanding is Federal regs preclude PATH trains running more frequently until the signal system has been updated. So it seems a fine point to say the signal upgrade is not mandated. But mandate or no, more reliable and frequent PATH service is badly needed. On other fine points, there was no net increase in overall service (total number of trains running) with the May 2015 timetable change increasing trains from JSQ. The increase in JSQ trains was matched by a reduction on the HOB line. I'm not aware of any increase in service in 2016 (last year). Here's what PATH was reported as saying at the time ? if you believe them: http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/fu ... rains-?instance=more_page There are a lot of vested interests at play in discussions about PATH. Which developer wants it known that the PATH is a mess now, let alone what it will be after thousands more apartments are finished - in JC, Harrison and Newark, not to mention the EWR extension...
Posted on: 2017/4/3 19:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hard-Wired Fire Detectors
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
ConstantReader, the confusion the Inspector created by mistakenly stating you have AC powered-alarms leads to exactly the kind of situation that SixthBoro raises. Think about it for a minute.... You don't correct the record about the alarms, and in 12 months when the JCFD gets their Bureau of Fire Prevention up and running, another Inspector arrives at your doorstep with the records and says ? look it has right here that you have AC connected smoke alarms, where are they? At that point you'll be tearing open walls to have electrical cable run so you can get the resulting violation abated..... Get that violation notice corrected to indicate you have battery-powered alarms and have the Inspector sign it.
Posted on: 2017/2/10 2:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hard-Wired Fire Detectors
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Sixthboro, the hypothetical situation you raise ? someone replaces their hardwired alarms with battery operated alarms ? would be a problem, if it happened. However, if an inspector believed that it had in fact happened, then it would not be appropriate to issue a violation using 5:70-3. The provisions at 5:70-3.1 (d), further highlighted in the DFS Bulletin 2010-4, are very clear in that regard. Your hypothetical example cannot be handled by issuing a violation under 5:70-3. Additionally, 5:70-3.1 (d) clearly states how such a violation must be cited. The fact that a trained, certified, empowered NJ state inspector used 5:70-3 is in and of itself clear evidence the Inspector did not conclude any problem such as raised in your hypothetical example exists in the OP's situation.
Posted on: 2017/2/10 1:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Up to 3" of Snow likely 2/8 (Wed night into Thursday)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
T-Bird, the National Weather Service posts totals from NJ locations. Hoboken is closest to JC that I see.
Here's the link: http://forecast.weather.gov/product.p ... &issuedby=OKX&product=PNS Scroll down and you'll see NJ, and a bunch of other places and observations.
Posted on: 2017/2/10 0:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hard-Wired Fire Detectors
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You're welcome Brewster. My thanks to the OP for posting the question and providing the code reference cited in the violation.
I've never asked NJ DCA about the Fire Code, so I'm not sure how they'd respond. What I do know is when I asked DFS, their response was so unprofessional it amounted to thinly veiled extortion in my humble opinion, basically telling me: ?Do what we say, or you'll pay....? One point I neglected to mention in my prior post might be important down the road. There is an error in the original citation ? if the OP's facts are accurate. It seems the Inspector mistakenly indicated there are already AC connected alarms inside the OP's apartment. Since this is not accurate (according to the post) OP needs to correct the record by noting the error. Leaving it stand could lead to difficulties later on: ?... the inspector wrote at the time, and you did not disagree, there is a hardwired alarm in your apartment....? My approach is to put everything in writing with these people. A simple statement now, along the lines, ?The apartment has existing, battery-operated smoke alarms? should do. There is also a very limited amount of time to ?appeal? an alleged violation ? 15 days from memory ? it's someplace on the back of the notice. So any objection needs to be filed promptly. And as an aside, whatever the OP does the one thing NOT to do is say anything like: ?Oh, I need some more time to sort this issue out.? Any request for an extension will be taken by the Inspector (and court...) as an admission that the original violation has merit, and you've agreed to it. If memory serves me, the back of the violation notice indicates this issue clearly enough ? at least that's my recollection.... If not, it's in the code.
Posted on: 2017/2/9 13:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hard-Wired Fire Detectors
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I wouldn't bother asking NJ DFS anything. I spoke to them a few years back about a ?fishy? issue arising from ?over-enthusiastic? interpretation of the fire code by JCFD officials. The response from NJ DFS was even more fishy than the JCFD's. It took me several trips to Municipal Court to educate the Fire folks and Court about the code they are responsible for enforcing, and have the violations and several thousand dollars in fines withdrawn. In retrospect, it seems to me they use the code to harass homeowners into undertaking expensive, unnecessary work in order to keep up a flow of income for their contracting businesses and buddies.
Posted on: 2017/2/9 2:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hard-Wired Fire Detectors
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Disclaimer ? the following is my opinion ? an informed opinion, but nevertheless an opinion. You need to do some work to determine your exact situation and requirements. My apologies in advance for the lengthy, detailed nature of this response. The devil is in the details. Unfortunately, there's no way around it.
Since the violation is cited under 5:70-3, it would appear all you need to do is repair something that isn't working as it should. 5:70-3 can't be used if something or other needs to be newly installed. (See below for link to NJAC 5:70-3) For example, if you have a battery operated alarm that isn't functional, then you'll need to make it functional. The additional 907.20.1 in the citation refers to a section of the 2006 International Fire Code ? you can find that code via the DCA website, Division of Fire Safety section. Here's the link to that 2006 IFC code: http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/con ... 0Protection%20Systems.pdf The language at 907.20.1 states: 907.20.1 Maintenance required. Whenever or wherever any device, equipment, system, condition, arrangement, level of protection or any other feature is required for compliance with the provisions of this code, such device, equipment, system, condition, arrangement, level of protection or other feature shall thereafter be continuously maintained in accordance with applicable NFPA requirements or as directed by the fire code official. BTW, if ever you need previous editions of code, you can find the old codes in the JC Public Library. See the following Bulletin from the Division of Fire Service for an explanation of NJAC 5:70-3: http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dfs/a ... etins/bulletin_2010-4.pdf\ Here is N.J.A.C. 5:70-3.1 (d) ? reproduced below with my added bold and italics. N.J.A.C. 5:70-3.1 (2017) ? 5:70-3.1 Code adopted, scope and applicability ? ?(a) Pursuant to the authority of P.L. 1983, c. 383, the Commissioner hereby adopts the model code of the International Code Council, known as the "2006 International Fire Code." This code is hereby adopted by reference as the State Fire Prevention Code for New Jersey, subject to the modifications set forth in N.J.A.C. 5:70-3.2. (b) Copies of this code may be obtained from the Department of Community Affairs, Division of Fire Safety, 101 South Broad Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0809 or from the International Code Council at 4051 West Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, Illinois 60478-5795. (c) For purposes of this subchapter, the group definitions shall be those adopted under the Uniform Construction Code, N.J.A.C. 5:23. (d) This subchapter establishes fire prevention requirements governing the safe maintenance of all buildings and premises subject to this code. It is not the intent of this subchapter to require the installation or upgrading of any system, equipment or building component not already required by N.J.A.C. 5:70-4 or by the Uniform Construction Code in effect at the time of construction of the building or at the time of installation of any existing system, equipment or building component. This subchapter shall not be cited as the basis for any retrofit requirement. A lack of compliance with N.J.A.C. 5:70-4 shall be cited by the fire official under N.J.A.C. 5:70-4. A suspected lack of compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Construction Code in effect at the time of construction or installation shall be referred to the local construction official for appropriate action. (e) Violations of this subchapter shall be cited by giving the New Jersey Administrative Code citation for this subchapter, N.J.A.C. 5:70-3, followed by the section number of the 2006 International Fire Code, as amended by N.J.A.C. 5:70-3.2. 1. Violations of this subchapter shall be cited under the previously-adopted State Fire Prevention Code, the 1996 BOCA Fire Prevention Code, until February 1, 2009. Effective on that date, all violations shall be cited under the 2006 International Fire Code, as amended. Trust all this helps - Good luck.
Posted on: 2017/2/9 1:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Property Registration
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
JadedJC, things may have changed recently. Nice new revenue stream for the City and Fire Department.
The property registration form may arise from Ordinance 14-117 (new since 2015) establishing a Fire Prevention Bureau in the JCFD. Requirements include registration, annual fees and annual inspections of even small multi-family properties. See sub-section ?3-88.2, et seq., for details. ?3-88.2. Non-Life Hazard Use Registration. All premises not classified as "life hazard uses" pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code (with the exception of owner-occupied detached Use Group R-3 structures, used exclusively for dwelling purposes) shall be classified as "Non-Life Hazard Uses". Non-Life Hazard Uses shall be registered and have an annual registration fee with the Jersey City Fire Prevention Bureau, which will conduct annual periodic inspections. Here's the link to the Ordinance: https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... _ordinances?nodeId=688951 Use Group definitions (fyi): http://www.bridgewaternj.gov/wp-conte ... ads/pdf/other/Use-Occ.pdf
Posted on: 2017/1/27 0:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I wonder what the rate will be after the state cuts some (or all...?) of the $420 million or so it currently pays JC schools each year? 10% of that amount is roughly 20% of taxes raised ? PILOTS are out of the mix. Recall the state has a huge budget hole to fix - $140 billion (and counting) unfunded pension liabilities. A 20% increase would bring that 1.8% up to about 2.15% I suppose we 'll find out when a future legislature and governor agree on details. But it's clear a reduction is schools funding for JC is the long game. Won't happen till after the reval and JC property taxes are more equitably distributed, which conveniently is after the next election. http://observer.com/2017/01/nj-democr ... m=New%20Jersey%20Politics
Posted on: 2017/1/12 13:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How teachers unions drive Jersey’s pension crisis
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, I am still here for the moment. I'll stay as long as it suits me, and when it doesn't any more I'll leave. Raising taxes to pay absurd pension promises will change the calculus for me, and for a lot of other people as well I expect. Undertakings over the years from both sides ? successive governors and unions - regarding pensions were irresponsible. So yes there's plenty of blame to share for this mess. But please understand, at this point it is immaterial to me who is responsible. I've paid enough over the years and I am not going to pay even more to fix this mess ? my bags are packed. A graph showing the population has grown is correct, and is also irrelevant. The facts that the population increased as thousands moved away are not inconsistent. It is undeniable these can happen simultaneously. What is also undeniable is the fiscal and economic outlook for the state is dismal. Consequently, the bank of ?other people's money? (a chunk of which is mine) is just about out of cash. Do I feel bad for those who planned their lives around the unrealistic promises and irresponsible actions? Absolutely yes, of course I do. The situation and outlook for these folks is awful, there is no doubt about it. But no matter how dedicated they may have been, I am not paying even more to fund the irresponsible promises and actions that created this mess. I'm sure those who stay will find a way to address the problems without my continuing contributions. Be certain of this though, any solution is going to involve increased taxes and decreased benefits. It isn't going to be pretty, and it won't involve me.
Posted on: 2016/12/11 2:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How teachers unions drive Jersey’s pension crisis
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
As I said, it's going to get ugly... Oh wait, it already did get ugly. Some taxes went down ? estate taxes are being reduced to align with the Federal exemptions. And I don't drive so the gas tax doesn't directly affect me. The miniscule reduction in sales tax, I'll take it. For the moment, I can stay put. But please understand, I'm not paying for someone's irresponsible promises. And I don't think you or any else should either. There's nothing the state of NJ can do to prevent people from leaving and escaping the onerous taxes here. Thousands have already. My bags are packed ready and waiting by the front door.... There are plenty of interesting, fun places to go other than NJ.
Posted on: 2016/12/6 23:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How teachers unions drive Jersey’s pension crisis
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Me...? Thanks for asking - I'm packed, ready to go. The minute my taxes go up any more I'm out. No need to be concerned for me. Sorry, I don't have any painless solutions to advance, nor have I seen any proposed here, or any place else for that matter. Any realistic proposal I've seen involves both raising taxes and cutting benefits. Neither of which will be fun. It's the raising taxes part that has me most concerned. I pay enough tax already and I need my money, so I'm all set to leave. But I understand thousands are stuck, waiting for a pension that is never going to come ? at least not in the promised amounts. I certainly feel their pain. As numerous Listers have noted in this thread, and elsewhere, it's a huge mess, with lots of blame to spread around.
Posted on: 2016/12/6 12:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How teachers unions drive Jersey’s pension crisis
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Interesting string about an intractable issue...
Dolomiti says the state is legally obligated to pay that money.... and that's right, but allow me to finish that sentence so it's abundantly clear: The state is legally obligated to pay that money BY FURTHER INCREASING TAXES ON THE TAXPAYERS OF NEW JERSEY. That's the only way the state can get money. And, just in case you haven't noticed, we already pay the highest property taxes, among the highest income and sales taxes, have the most under-funded pension, and second lowest credit rating of any state in the country. Now that we've established all this money is coming from NJ taxpayers recall the amount needed, $160 billion, is growing each day so we need to address a second, related issue. JCman8 says ?the state will eventually declare bankruptcy...? Well that's not quite correct. States can't ?legally? go bankrupt. ?Legally? all states can do to meet their obligations is raise taxes. What I think was meant is that there simply isn't enough money available to make good on the promises. What next then.... Perhaps NJ's long suffering tax-payers could turn to the Feds for a hand out.... Imagine that, red states propping up the pensions of blue states public workers. I don't give that much chance.... It just doesn't look good at all. My suggestion: leave the state ? thousands have already. If you must stay, and own a place, sell it NOW and rent instead. That way any value it has today is preserved. Ask yourself, how attractive is NJ real estate going to be in a few years time under any plausible scenario ? pensions paid or not. And don't worry about rents going up. With all those people leaving to escape the income, property and sales taxes, there will be plenty of apartments. You just need to accept that you'll pay punitive taxes as a NJ resident to fund somebody else's pension. Bottom line: start planning your escape strategies now people, because it's going to get very ugly before it's all over. No matter which way you look at it, or who is to blame, we're just about out of other people's money.
Posted on: 2016/12/5 17:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Battle against the "Bayonne Box" in The Heights
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Aside current zoning rules, don't overlook the impact of fire code requirements on new construction design. Installation costs for fire code requirements add up VERY quickly, with on-going expenses as well. Anything more than 2-family, and even certain 2-family buildings, need sprinkler systems. If mains pressure is insufficient a pump may be required, adding to costs.... The on going costs are for central monitoring, back-flow preventer inspections / certification, maintenance, yearly registration fees to JC Bureau of Fire Prevention, Fire Department inspections, and so on. The impact of these requirements is very substantial in money, time and headaches. For a small building, 3 or 4-family, the economics are marginal ? too few apartments to share the additional costs.... So even if zoning rules are changed I can't see 3- or 4-family buildings becoming the design of choice for those lots, replacing 2-family structures, anytime soon. Fire code requirements need to be simplified for new construction 3 and 4-family buildings to be economically viable. That is done at the State level, beyond direct control of the City. And it's the opposite of what the Fire Prevention industry thinks we need. They want sprinklers mandated for everything, including single family homes. There's a good deal of money at stake so expect a big fight before any changes.
Posted on: 2016/11/24 0:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote No for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Mr. Mayor, City Council,
WHAT THE....!! You want me to vote yes, so I can pay even more tax? Are you crazy...?! I'll definitely be voting NO. Why don't you ask me again after you collect this extra tax from all those developers with 25 and 30 year abatements you hand out. You said something about it being "pennies a week" and for "a good purpose." That being the case it won't be difficult for your developer friends to pay it as well. Check in with me again after you've made some progress in getting EVERYONE to pay.
Posted on: 2016/11/5 11:39
|
|||
|
||||