Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
65 user(s) are online (44 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 65

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (JC_User)




Re: We need your help in the village!
#1
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:

You know, when the reval eventually happens, anyone downtown who advocates limiting the supply of new housing in hopes of increased property values is very short sighted because they're in for a nasty surprise when they get their tax bill. The only way forward is aggressive growth of the tax ratable base.


This is disingenuous at best. A reval is a zero-sum game. Had property prices/values increased uniformly across the city, the tax bill of each property would have remained the same before/after the reval. A reval would/will hit downtown so hard because property prices/values in downtown has increased much more than other areas of the city since the last reval took place. Those are simple facts.

But allowing developers to knock down the existing housing stock in the village and replace it with 4 story buildings with increased foot print (building coverage) will not lead to lower tax bills for downtown home owners.

What will actually have a noticeable impact on property taxes downtown is to encourage development and revitalization in those areas where property values have lagged since the last reval – e.g. the towers that are finally being built at journal square and other larger scale revitalization projects outside of downtown. This is an area that I personally think Fulup has so far followed through on campaign promises – focusing the city’s efforts and tools, e.g. abatements, to encourage development in other areas than downtown –in the areas where revitalization is needed.

But downtown does not need the City to give hand-outs to developers in the form of abatements, gratuitous zoning-variances or large scale zoning changes in the village for development to continue or the community to thrive.

And before bringing out the big NIMBY label/stamp (that you have used on several occasions on people expressing an opinion that differs from yours) you should known that I personally would not mind taller buildings than R1 being built as infills on already empty lots or in place of the commercial properties west of Brunswick.

But as it’s been said already, if developers want to knock down the existing 100 year old housing stock and build new 4 story or higher buildings inside the village, they should provide some tangible benefit/ give-back to the community in return for the privilege to do so.

Posted on: 2016/3/31 1:41
Top


Re: We need your help in the village!
#2
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

pacoYtaco wrote:
If it's BGT who is building them, they just built a gigantic buliding on 3rd St that is pressed fresh along the sides of both buildings it's sandwiched between.
....
Big boxes built with ticky tacky and they all look just the same.


It's not BGT, http://bgtenterprises.com/

But the developer >seems< to have several other properties in Jersey City, registered to same address:
http://njparcels.com/owner/0906_9901_5


Posted on: 2016/3/24 14:01
Top


Re: We need your help in the village!
#3
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

JCActivist wrote:
The rear yard requirement in R1 is not 35 FT if the lot is not 100 FT deep. 375 5th is only 50-60 ft deep and following those guidelines, they should be leaving at least a 15 set back.


I can understand that a strict implementation of the requirement of 35ft rear yard setback would render a shallow lot difficult to build on.

But could you please point to the guideline that you are referring to?

I can't find any such exceptions in the zoning code. All that I can find is that if the lot is deeper than 100ft, then the total setback (front + rear) requirements increase to more than 35ft.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... VZODEST_S345-40ONTWFAHODI

§ 345-40

6. Minimum Rear Yard:
a. The rear yard setback shall be added to the front yard setback (as determined above) to produce a total of not less than thirty-five (35) feet, provided however, that in no case shall a rear yard be less than twenty (20) feet. The mathematical formula for this calculation is as follows.
X = required front yard setback
Y = required rear yard setback
X plus Y = at least 35 feet

b.) Where lot depth exceeds one hundred (100) feet, the minimum rear yard as determined by the above standard shall be increased by fifty percent (50%) of the portion of the lot depth in excess of one hundred (100) feet.

Based on that 375 Fifth has 0 front setback, the above suggests that it would need to have a 35ft rear yard, no? What other rules would apply?

Posted on: 2016/3/23 14:04
Top


Re: We need your help in the village!
#4
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Erobinsonh wrote:
the variances the developer is going for are both height (5 stories where 3 is allowed) and building coverage (90+% rather than the 65% allowed) - it is currently an R1, and will still be an R1 on April 7th.

The lot coverage that is the biggest problem for the balconies.


Thanks for providing info.

So this is the 375 Fifth Street developer that original wanted variances to build a 7-story, 19 unit building on the lot:
http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=34038


I see some level of irony here in that the developer behind Fifth Oaks Condominiums (with the balconies) must have got a variance to build a building that covers 100% of the lot and 4 stories high in an R1 zone (be it because the building that was torn down to make place for the development was already covering the full lot).

The residents of that development is now asking the zoning board to stop the developer of the neighboring lot from getting a similar height and coverage variance because it would block their balconies that abut the side property line. I am not saying that I support granting this new variance - but there is some level of irony in there.

Still, even the proposed new R5 zoning standard for the village requires a 30ft rear setback (see 3b) and to build a light well in the new development, in case a building with a window already exists on neighboring lot (see 3c).

http://hpnajc.org/resources/Documents ... %20R-5%20PB%20Version.pdf

So even under this proposed new zoning standard would the 375 Fifth Street developer need a variance to brick up the balconies of Fifth Oaks Condominiums.

Posted on: 2016/3/23 3:01
Top


Re: We need your help in the village!
#5
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

oreoz wrote:

Your Google view is actually better for understanding the balconies that are going to be blocked - and unfortunately it seems everyone here is correct. The existing building is already 3 stories high and would block 2/3 floors of balconies if extended backwards. So it seems like the best option is to try and come up with some deal where the owner would build taller on the far end of the block in exchange for some space on that side. Otherwise, I guess you can attempt to obstruct as long as possible, but this would seem to be a losing battle - under the new proposed R-5 zone, this lot would be allowed to be 4 Stories as of right, already blocking all balconies.



It may not be the height requirement that a variance is sought from, but rear yard requirements or lot/building coverage percentage.

IF the lot next door is zoned as R1, then it seems as if a 35 feet rear yard is required.

See § 345-40 E.6

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-34ZODI#!

If 35 feet rear yard is required and was respected, then the rear three balconies in the google street view would NOT be bricked up. The balconies and french doors that are closer to the street are built into a well, and the window and french door openings seem to be more than 3ft away from side property line, so seems to conform to zoning from that perspective. But light would of course be reduced if building next door was built upon.

As said in previous post, it would be interesting to know from the horses mouth what variance is sought, and how it is specifically related to balconies.

Posted on: 2016/3/22 20:14
Top


Re: We need your help in the village!
#6
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

khansenslp wrote:
Developers of the property next to us are asking for a variance that would allow them to build a 5-story directly next to our balconies. This leave us without natural light or air and creates a safety hazard in the event of a fire. The law says this is not allowed but the developers are asking for permission (i.e. variance) to adjust this law just so they can cram a lot of tiny apartments into one small lot.


This conversation seems to deal with similar issue - window close to property line:

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35408


You have my sympathies: having a wall built right next to your balconies would reduce the light, usefulness and monetary value .

But out of curiosity, what is the zoning requirement that they are seeking variance from, that is related to your balconies?

Hope it works out.

Posted on: 2016/3/22 19:29
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#7
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Governor elections won't take place until November 2017. I bet Fulop will do everything humanly possible to delay this "sticker shock" until after that date.


I believe that openly/actively delaying the reval would be used against him by his political opponents (i.e. those that hate him) if and when he runs for governor. In the governors race it would be more important to appeal to all of NJ, as opposed to a portion of of Jersey City.

To neutralize the potential argument against him while avoiding putting off local JC voters, would he not restart the reval process before the primary/election, but ensure that the results are not available/posted until after it? But maybe that's what you were saying all long.

Given that it will take a year to ramp up and then execute a reval it should not be difficult to cause such a timing.


Posted on: 2016/2/4 4:50
Top


Re: Serious accident on Newark Ave near 4th/5th Streets
#8
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:
Enforcement is a joke, and people know it.


Totally agree that enforcement is a joke and needs to be improved .

Quote:
I have seen cars parked along the bump outs


But just because there are one or two a-holes that might park along a bump out does not mean that implementing the solution is pointless. It's a numbers game. If a bump out reduces these kinds of parking infractions by even a low 50%, and accidents caused by blocked line of sight by 50%, I would consider them worthwhile.

My vote goes to enforcement AND bump-outs.

Candice Osborne included a trial of bump outs in a presentation on parking (http://www.slideshare.net/candiceosbo ... y-parking-recommendations), does anyone know if there has been any movement on implementing the bump out trial?

Posted on: 2016/2/3 21:19
Top


Re: Ward E Meeting
#9
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The mayor speaks on redevelopment, casinos, reval, and parking.
https://vimeo.com/153295281


Thanks for filming and posting!

(For those that are used to a DVR, the Casino question starts at around 30:50, and Reveal question at about 38:00).

Posted on: 2016/1/28 3:23
Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#10
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%



Would either of you care to explain what the L.H. Brownstone Charge of $4060-ish that is semi-annual on the Grand Street Property, or the Pinnacle Tower charge that is on all the 20 2nd Street locations? Unsurprisingly you are trying to obfuscate the facts, no one is paying $700 a year to the government to live in a 1 million dollar home.




And the Zillow real-estate listing from which the numbers were allegedly taken state the "2014 taxes" for 305 Grand St, #303 at $11,789 - these are probably technically Pilot payments.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/305 ... -NJ-07302/108622747_zpid/

As some posters on this thread really likes percentages and rates: $11,789 is 21,711% of the $543 payment suggested above...



Posted on: 2015/11/20 20:46
Top


Re: 145-year-old JC church to become condo complex
#11
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Am glad the exterior of the church can be saved - this would be great.

Old Photo of church nearby buildings - the building to the left (school tied to church?) is not standing today:
Resized Image

Posted on: 2015/11/20 20:27
Top


Re: Engineer to inspect a house that's not plumb (leaning outside walls)
#12
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


144 Erie was seriously out of plum - it had a large bulge half way up the exterior brick wall (side wall). The new owner rebuilt top half of the exterior wall. And I have seen another on 7th st that did the same thing, but just the top 1/4 of wall.

257 Grove St is also visibly out of plum, and under renovation - not sure what they have done / are doing.

So even IF a structural engineer concludes that the wall is not sound, it can be dealt with. Not sure the cost, but if it is an issue, it should give you some room for price negotiation as many buyers will not go near it (assuming that other interested buyers' inspectors also point it out as an issue).

But as you say, you need that engineer assessment to determine IF it is an issue in first place. I do not have personal experience, but these may be worth checking out as they have been doing work in JC for a long time, though they now do larger projects, so it may be too small of a job:

http://www.inglese-ae.com/

Posted on: 2015/11/16 14:51
Top


Re: Jersey City writer hates new Shepard Fairey mural
#13
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

MattSchapiro wrote:
And I strongly support this mural project for providing visual diversion in our city and encouraging discussions such as this.


Also approve of most of the murals - it's just this one that I think is a bit ill conceived for JC.

Posted on: 2015/10/28 18:15
Top


Re: Jersey City writer hates new Shepard Fairey mural
#14
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Bike_Lane wrote:
Quote:

Annod wrote:
All it does is remind me of Hurricane Sandy.

http://imgick.nj.com/home/njo-media/w ... photo/16247706-mmmain.jpg



Same here. I thought it to be in poor taste ("too soon").


Sandy, yes.

And a wave engulfing buildings also reminds me of the 2004 tsunami, unfortunately.

With the Irene/Sandy flooding that affected so many people locally, what were they thinking when commissioning this?

Or is it intended as a daily reminder of the effects of climate change?

Posted on: 2015/10/28 17:09
Top


Re: Proposed Recommendations to Downtown Parking
#15
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I believe it is currently out for review, and comments are sought.

But I wonder if anyone on this thread has actually opened the slide deck an looked through the slides...

a) Re-paint corners red, and enforce = improves line of sight and pedestrian / bicycle safety at intersections

b) Reduce street cleaning to twice per week = reassign traffic wardens to enforce actual dangerous parking (rather than people who don't get out in time to move car for unnecessary frequent street cleaning). And re-assign JCIA staff to empty overflowing trash cans, and maybe even clogged drains?

c) Bump out pilot

d) Etc

What's so bad with these suggestions?

These are changes that would be improvements for everyone - whether you have a vehicle or not!

Posted on: 2015/10/2 14:02
Top


Re: Vacant Buildings
#16
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Had she called the city and asked them about the properties or maybe obtained a proper list or maybe found out that the list she had was old as dirt, she'd have a leg to stand on. Instead, she received a piece of paper and thought she had some ability to attack the mayor for stealing land for developers.


I wouldn't bother calling The City about this, or anything for that matter. You're not going to get the truth.

That list was attached to City legislation (Ordinance 15.144), and was referred to as the “New Vacant Buildings Study Area Properties.” Obviously the City didn't think it so worthless or out of date.
http://www.jerseycitynj.gov/uploadedF ... Reading/Agenda%20Document(16).pdf



Yes, Pebble, I think the point is that the JC Redevelopment Agency's list is 'old as dirst' and 'bad information'...

Yvonne was clearly right to run with the story - though she does seem to have inflated the impact of the ordinance on any owners as the properties have been on the list for a decade...

But on the other hand JC redevelopment agency has had 8 years available to amend the list and remove these properties since it was last reviewed in 2007 - what have they been up to?

The ordinance itself seems to be a complete shambles as well - that no-one else has picked up on it makes me question my own reading comprehension, but look at the first page of the ordinance - page 26 of this pdf: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityofjerseycity.com%2FuploadedFiles%2FPublic_Notices%2FAgenda%2FCity_Council_Agenda%2F2015%2F2015_Ordinance_2nd_Reading%2FAgenda%20Document(16).pdf.

To download pdf go here: http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/citycouncilagenda/ and look for date "Sep 8" and click the link "2nd reading (pubic hearing)" to the right thereof.

"WHEREAS, a copy of the amendments to the Vacant Buildings Redevelopment Plan is attached hereto and made a part hereof [...]

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Municipal Council off the City of Jersey City that the attached Garfield Avenue Redevelopment Plan be, and hereby is, adopted as recommended by the Jersey City Planning Board".

In other words, when passing Ordinance 15.114 it seems as if the council has approved the "Garfield Avenue Redevelopment Plan", not the amended "Vacant Buildings Redevelopment Plan".

Does anyone read the ordinances before voting - or is my reading comprehension so off?

Posted on: 2015/9/16 2:01

Edited by JC_User on 2015/9/16 2:24:41
Reason: Fixed Link
Top


Re: JCIA Garbage Men Tried to Shake Down "Pint" Owner for Booze
#17
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
As per Wolf Sterling and Candice Osborn fb page the "shake-down" contractor was fired today. The corruption link between city (autonomous) agencies/department is no longer here. People should feel confortable recording and exposing the rooten apples still thinking they can strive here. We are all making it a better city. Have a good night everyone! #jcmakeityours.


Frinjc - great news - thanks for sharing. As far as the corruption link, don't you think the building department should also be investigated? If there was a relationship between JCIA and someone in the building department that had enough power to do harm to a city business (as per the threat issued when Wolf called JCIA), I think there's a wider net of corruption that should be cast here. Just my two cents.


jerseymom, I have to think you're onto something – as you usually are. I hope law enforcement gets to the bottom of this mess.

You've made me wonder – in addition to this shakedown, recall the original issue with the JCIA was trash haulage, with construction debris mixed in. Where were those construction sites? Who owns them? Which contractors were involved? How did the JCIA “know” to show up at a particular construction site? And when? Where were the City's Building Inspectors? What did the building department know about these building sites? I can think of many questions and issues that deserve close scrutiny. All we've heard about is a few JCIA employees....

I wonder who is conducting that investigation, in addition to Jersey City Authorities? Come to think, were other law enforcement agencies (State and Federal) notified about the investigation? The JJ reported it was on-going for a year! Maybe I missed something but the only thing I remember seeing is that the investigation was undertaken by Jersey City Law Enforcement.


agree, jerseymom

At a minimum, the person within JCIA that issued the threat of building inspection retaliation should also be investigated - else the link between JCIA and corruption is definitely still there.

And how about the other haulers on the same truck -they can't have been unaware and should face some "follow-up".


Posted on: 2015/9/3 1:58
Top


Re: JCIA Garbage Men Tried to Shake Down "Pint" Owner for Booze
#18
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

EasyGibson wrote:
The kind of entitled behavior he exhibited is pervasive indeed, especially in JCIA, but there's no way this fat shit is going to call down the thunder on Pint via inspectors or the Head Trash Baron for not serving them drinks on their shift.


This is not only about the "fat shit" in the video.

Per the facebook post below, the reason Pint went public was that when trying to call up JCIA to report the complaint, he was told to back off, or the building inspectors would be called upon him.

When the office of JCIA threatens to call building inspectors in retaliation for pursuing a complaint about threats and extortion that a contractor staffer has committed/done, this clearly shows that JCIA themselves protect and condone this behavior and are also culpable.

Wish it was all in a TV series.

Posted on: 2015/9/2 19:16
Top


Re: JCIA Garbage Men Tried to Shake Down "Pint" Owner for Booze
#19
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Quote:

EasyGibson wrote:
Just by the by, beer at Christmas is still pretty standard for these guys, no?

Pretty much every business I've ever worked at has duked the trash guys at the holidays.

Did nobody tell Pint this?


Maybe Pint's the only bar who doesn't care if reporting these goons results in "building inspectors" showing up? I don't get the point of your post- that everyone should be cow towing to those morons because "derrr everyone does it- did they not get the memo?" ?? Personally, I love that they picked the wrong dude to fuck with.




+1

Don't understand what the point is EasyGibson? Are you suggesting that local business owners should accept extortion and threats from contractors employed by public entities as a "cost" of doing business in Jersey City?

And since when is Xmas in August, let alone at every trash pickup?

Posted on: 2015/9/2 15:27
Top


Re: JCIA Garbage Men Tried to Shake Down "Pint" Owner for Booze
#20
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


It's funny and sad at the same time.

Sad given the state of affairs of a) the public agencies, b) the contractors they deem appropriate to pay tax money to provide public services, and c) the oversight of them (not even taking steps to investigate when obvious infractions such as this are brought to their attention)


Anyhow, could you please provide a direct link to the second video or posting (can not get though it via facebook - may not be member of friend with original poster.)



Quote:

BeatrixKiddo wrote:
It happened a second time, how are people so stupid that they don't know pretty much everything is recorded now.


https://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/story.p ... id=1164753259&ref=m_notif¬if_t=feed_comment

Posted on: 2015/9/1 14:49
Top


Re: Roads torn up near VVP
#21
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
PSE&G will be milling paving once the work is done,

....

The "temporary" trench paving is being done incredibly poorly and they are leaving a huge mess of loose gravel and asphalt.

And if nobody else noticed, it seems that a lot of the trenching goes right down the middle of the recently-painted bikes lanes, making them seriously undesirable for bikers. As usual, brilliant planning all around...


According to Fulop PSE&G has not been planning to do anything to restore the streets - just leave them like they are now.

Must say that I support him for taking them to task - the street have been left in terrible condition.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _cities.html#incart_river

Posted on: 2015/8/17 18:35
Top


Re: Roads torn up near VVP
#22
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
PSE&G will be milling paving once the work is done, but those trenches down the street are only the beginning.


It that actually happens, it would be good news, and an improvement over past digging by PSE&G.

JCMUA, different entity, are notoriously bad at restoring the holes that they open. They just jack hammer the street open and leave it in a real mess with temporary patches that fail the first winter, if not before.

Quote:

My foundation is about 13" of stone and brick and my bluestones in front are going to be trashed.

....


Would hate to see the blue stone sidewalks trashed across the city. The slabs are just about 2 inches thick, and the larger slabs can be lifted by 3 persons. Has anyone brought this up with PSE&G - i.e. asked them to temporarily lift them to the side?

It should be cheaper and easier for them too, rather than jack hammer open and then create a frame and pour concrete when restoring.

Would hate to see a one foot wide band of concrete across the side walk, where there used to be blue stone.




Posted on: 2015/6/24 23:50
Top


Re: Roads torn up near VVP
#23
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Greenface wrote:
PSEG is replacing all the old gas lines in the neighborhood. They're doing the work around VVP as well as low lying areas near Hamilton park and in Hoboken. It's part of their efforts to make the system less susceptible to flooding. When the work is done they will connect all the buildings in the area to the new mains and then repave the streets poorly.


Statement fixed, with some added emphasis.


So the patches put down by PSE&G are already settling, which is a real problem at intersections where PSE&G opened a trench across the flow of traffic. For example in the intersection outside Torico's where the cut has now settled several inches.

Does anyone know if the city and JC DPW is planning to use its rights obtained under the much touted ordinance enacted earlier this year below to require the the utility to do block-to-block milling & repavement of these streets (or at least the intersections) - many of which were completely repaved in the last few years?

(Or are we the residents and tax payers going to have to live with these settling trenches for another 15 years until the next time the streets are repaved by the city using tax generated funds?)

Ordinance Description:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... quire_contractors_to.html

Ordinance Approval, second half of article:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... measures_naming_jers.html

Posted on: 2015/6/24 17:25
Top


Re: Mosquitoes
#24
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


We have had success using a fan on our patio when dining. It makes it hard for mosquitoes to fly and also disperses the carbon dioxide that they use to locate their targets...

Posted on: 2015/6/24 16:57
Top


Re: What's going there?
#25
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Whatever happened with the Atomic Wings lawsuit?


Jersey City settled the case brought by Atomic Wings for $60,000.

The settlement was approved by the city council on July 18, 2012.

Page 464 in the resolutions document here has the details: http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... da%20Document%2813%29.pdf

The case file should be public - according to resolution above, the number is HUD L-2958-10.

Have not checked, but rumor mill has it that the case file contains several witness statements from a variety of JC business owners that have faced similar "obstructions" as well as "deals/concessions" some business owners had to make to pass inspections.

Am surprised that the settlement was not picked up by any news outlet.

Posted on: 2015/2/25 3:08
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor demands resignation of JCRA chief
#26
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I could not believe it when I saw that the City of Jersey City, presumably the JCRA, had torn down two historic buildings in the MLK Hub that were actually part of the HUB redevelopment plan.

The redevelopment plan stated :


"A cluster of civic facilities is proposed for the two blocks on the west side of MLK Drive, on either side of Ege Avenue. The public uses will include: an African-American Cultural Center/Museum, a Community Bazaar, a Credit Union, and a US Postal Service office. The museum and community bazaar would be developed within existing historic structures - the old Jackson Avenue Railroad Station would house the Museum, and the old Claremont Branch Bank building would house the community bazaar and Credit Union.


The concentration of public activities along MLK Drive will reinforce the street's traditional role as the neighborhood's main street."


The first of the two buildings were Jackson Avenue Station - this building was on JC Landmarks preservation list:

Resized Image


The second one was The Claremont Branch bank next to the station:

Resized Image


Now we are left with a missed opportunity and an empty lot.

Resized Image

Posted on: 2013/9/27 5:19
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#27
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

rasoszynski wrote:
If we use the example of 2 adjacent "identical" townhouses: One purchased and held since 1985 and the other in 2007, but both in the same condition - meaning there were no improvements in either property that triggered a reassessment via legal permitting - then their assessed value has stayed the same since the last reval, that's the whole problem.


What kind of construction permits triggers a revaluation of a property and how extensive is that revaluation?

I can see how a gut reno, or a completely new kitchen might trigger a revaluation. But for repairs of things that are broken it would seem a bit excessive.

E.g. if I get a permit for a new roof to stop an active leak, could that (in theory) trigger a revaluation? Does it actually? What construction permits would typically trigger a revaluation?

If some construction does trigger a revaluation, how extensive is the revaluation - i.e. is it only the impact of the improvement for which the permit was pulled that is considered in revaluation, or is it a complete revaluation of all aspect of the property?

Posted on: 2013/6/28 6:33
Top


Re: Jersey Journal endorses Steven Fulop for mayor of Jersey City
#28
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Quote:

EWT wrote:
As a newcomer/interloper, I thought you'd appreciate some thoughts of an outside observer on Healy v. Fulop. [...]

byebyesteve wrote:
Far from an outside observer, look at his past articles. He is another interloper


EWT declared himself as a newcomer/interloper in his first sentence, so I am not sure what the point you are trying to make is.

But anyways : so am I - a newcomer/interloper. And so were Jerramiah Healy's parents. That does not mean that any of us care less for JC than than those that feel more entitled.

I just think it would be such a shame to see JC not living up to its potential under another wasted (no pun intended) Healy term.

It's time for a change at the helm.

Posted on: 2013/5/12 9:24
Top


Re: Longtime Empty Lot on Newark Ave
#29
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


it's 141 Newark avenue, and on google maps they still show what the historic building looked like before it was burnt down:

141 Newark Ave, Google Street View

Here is an article about the fire, that was apparently set:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... y_city_blaze_was_set.html


141 Newark building being torn down, the day after:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yomYt9khI0

It's a sad sight to see a fundamentally beautiful building that have been standing for more than 100 years being demolished in a matter of minutes.

And article about the reasons why walkway plan was abandoned:
http://www.nj.com/jjournal/stories/in ... 22237846211860.xml&coll=3

Too expensive for city to buy the lot, and DelForno (the owner) would put up a fight.

It's been empty for more than 5 years now... A building that fits with the historic character of the buildings on the other side of Newark would make a big difference for the area.

Posted on: 2013/4/10 18:14
Top


Re: 'Unlivable' building in Downtown Jersey City has black mold, water damage, holes in ceilings; six fa
#30
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


This building is owned by Del Forno's investment company, Five Star Investment Group. This is what happened to another of their properties:

Five Star Investment Group own(ed) 141 Newark Avenue as well. That building was a commercial / store front brick building built in the 1880s that could have been beautifully restored, with not too much effort.

But in 2007, the real estate market in Jersey City had hit the (recent) bottom, and the building was unoccupied.

At that point the building 'happened' to burn down.

An investigation showed that the fire had been intentionally set:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... y_city_blaze_was_set.html

(The picture in the article show the back of the lot (facing Columbus Ave) covered in a mural, not the easily restored 141 Newark Ave store front.)

Could the same thing happen to the building on the corner of Wayne and Barrow? If I was living next door, I would make sure to have good fire insurance cover.

But you aint heard that from me...


A you tube video of the fire at 141 Newark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxe4e0f2mLc

141 Newark building being torn down, the day after:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yomYt9khI0

Posted on: 2013/2/7 5:27
Top



TopTop






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017