Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
60 user(s) are online (56 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 60

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Bamb00zle)




Re: Notice of violation & Order to correct - JCFD
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

tern wrote:
Seems that 1 and 2 family homes are not in scope under the laws posted above.

Has anyone in a 2 family been subject to this inspection and successfully (or unsuccessfully) had themselves exempted on this basis?

Robin.


Here you go:
SUBJECT: Fire Code Enforcement Jurisdiction in One- and Two-Family, Owner-Occupied Dwelling

https://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dfs/a ... etins/fce_juri_2010-2.pdf

Posted on: 2019/11/16 6:04
 Top 


Re: Notice of violation & Order to correct - JCFD
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

iGreg wrote:
JCFD will win.
The energy and time spent fighting with them would be better served complying.
Many buildings are in such fire code violations perhaps there is a method to their madness.


iGreg, no, they don?t always win. When JCFD attempted to apply a later edition of code to my building, saying I had a violation that I did not, I won. I went to Court 5 times (they try to bludgeon you into submission), showed them the correct edition of Code to apply to my building and they withdrew. Fact: I did not have any violations even though they maintained that I did. They were 100% wrong. It?s little more than extortion ? pay up in fines, fees, and work for their fire service companies, or give us your building on the cheap. It's a racket, pure and simple.

Posted on: 2019/11/16 5:59
 Top 


Re: Required in unit building inspection notices around 07302, what gives?
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

tern wrote:
So you didn't let them in initially, they sent you a list of generic violations such as "inspect smoke detectors", then what?

You paid an electrician to inspect the smoke detectors, and sent them that? Did you later have to let them in to inspect? At that point they did they hit you with a bunch of other violations?

Very interested to hear other folks experiences, in order to judge the best way to handle this.

Robin.


Here's the scoop. Press release from the NJ DCA. Note the professional presentation of the date...

https://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dfs/p ... arm%20press%20release.pdf

If you're at all interested in how the JC FD handles this stuff, read my posts about my interactions with them a few years ago. My old timer electrician - retired navy guy - explained it all for me when he said "you know it's your house they're after, don't you?" The FD was ratcheting up the fines for a violation that wasn't a violation in my circumstances, though it could have been under different conditions.

Posted on: 2019/9/29 18:37
 Top 


Re: Required in unit building inspection notices around 07302, what gives?
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
Except if someone has seen a more recent ordinance, here is the ordinance that clearly states that 1 and 2 family houses are exempted as per $3-88.4 https://jerseycity.hosted.civiclive.co ... d%20%20No%20%2014-117.pdf


Oh, I wish.... True, only if the building is owner occupied. Here's a link to the detailed guidance Bulletin from the NJ Division of Fire Safety: https://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dfs/a ... etins/fce_juri_2010-2.pdf

Posted on: 2019/9/29 18:29
 Top 


Re: Required in unit building inspection notices around 07302, what gives?
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

tern wrote:
I just had a fire inspector knock on my door and ask to inspect inside my house, my wife refused and said we had received no notification, he said we should have received a letter, he will resend it and return some point in the future.

This is not the state DCA inspection for 3 units and above, this is something different that I have not heard of in my 13 years of owning and living in Jersey City.

Here is the leaflet he gave us:

Resized Image



Resized Image



Robin.


This is what gives - from a prior post of mine. Search my other posts for additional information. In my humble opinion, it amounts to little more than a shakedown for fees and fines, work for the local "fire safety contractors", and if you are unlucky, your property, all carefully disguised as a "Public Safety initiative." You can thank our asleep at the switch Council for the changes to the Ordinances that allowed this to happen.

"You might want to look at City Ordinance 14.117, passed September 2014, establishing the JC Fire Prevention Bureau. And also the New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 5, Chapters 70, 71, and the sub-chapters. These are the various regulations of the Uniform Fire Code the JC FPB will enforce."

Posted on: 2019/9/26 17:57
 Top 


Re: Port Authority announces plan to increase PATH capacity, reduce delays
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Thanks for posting that link ? it has some interesting info.

Page / slide 18 describes how they plan to ?enhance? the customer experience:

?Limit Passengers Passing Thru Turnstiles When Numerical Limit Reached Until Next Train Has Loaded to Ensure Platforms Remain Safe?

Wonder when this enhancement to the customer experience starts and how it?s going to be enforced? How do they stop people entering through the turnstiles, and where are those people going to wait ? line up outside on the sidewalks and streets? How do they stop people jumping the line? If they crowd around the turnstiles, how do people exit the stations??

I'm all for safety, but this doesn't sound like the kind of enhanced experience I want.


Here?s PATH?s incomplete answer to the issue of platform over-crowding. You?ll have to forgive me, but frankly PATH?s assertion they will alert riders by text and email "before" they get to the station is simply not credible.

?PATH will also implement a plan to handle station platform overcrowding, which may result in limiting the number passengers admitted, if police and officials decide it is reaching a dangerous condition. Riders will be alerted by text and email advisories before they get to the station and if crowding continues, they would be advised to use options such as NJ Transit bus and light rail.?

What a total, complete mess.... Definitely NOT the customer experience I want.

https://www.nj.com/traffic/2019/06/pat ... mess-up-your-commute.html

Posted on: 2019/6/29 18:18
 Top 


Re: Port Authority announces plan to increase PATH capacity, reduce delays
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Thanks for posting that link ? it has some interesting info.

Page / slide 18 describes how they plan to ?enhance? the customer experience:

?Limit Passengers Passing Thru Turnstiles When Numerical Limit Reached Until Next Train Has Loaded to Ensure Platforms Remain Safe?

Wonder when this enhancement to the customer experience starts and how it?s going to be enforced? How do they stop people entering through the turnstiles, and where are those people going to wait ? line up outside on the sidewalks and streets? How do they stop people jumping the line? If they crowd around the turnstiles, how do people exit the stations??

I'm all for safety, but this doesn't sound like the kind of enhanced experience I want.

Posted on: 2019/6/21 12:33
 Top 


Re: Jersey City Councilperson Reports Rent-Control Crisis Downtown
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCBORN wrote:
You can only convert to condos if the building is empty?

I believe you can convert it with tenants, and even sell the unit, though you won't get the same price with a rent controlled tenant as you would vacant.

Quote:

MDM wrote:
If she is in Zone R-1 (most of the Heights is R-1), she could only build a Bayonne Box 2 family. Better off rebuilding the 4 family.

Get the right builder and it will be a new building. I've seen it several times now that they leave a stick or 2 of the original standing as a "grandfathered zoning fig leaf" and basically build a completely new building. One 4 family, they even raised the ceiling height of every floor and doubled the lot coverage.
her building is 4 family....no rent control...bayonne boxes are fugly but i guess they make money...how much to build a bayonne box?


You don't understand, what we're saying is she's better off rebuilding the 4 family completely and give lip service to the zoning.
gotcha. how much does it costs to build a 4 family?


A friendly word of warning - be extremely careful ?rebuilding? an existing 4-family building. You WILL trigger a requirement to upgrade the fire protection systems in the property.

Carefully, carefully read both the rehab code, and the fire code, and do NOT believe anyone (including the city building department fire inspectors) who tells you you don?t need to worry. At the end of the job, if you don?t meet the code, they won?t give you a C of O. At that point, you are s**t out of luck and money. You?ll have to tear your beautifully rehabbed building apart to install the mandatory sprinkler system if you want to get a C of O, so that you can sell or rent the property.

For a newly constructed, or newly rehabbed 4-family building, the current fire code requires a centrally monitored sprinkler system throughout the entire structure. Running those lines is no small job in an existing old building that wasn?t designed for it. The sprinkler system needs sufficient water pressure, has to be tested to show the pressure is sufficient, there has to be a sufficiently large supply line (new, big pipes...) into the building, you may need a pump system if the pressure isn?t enough, and on and on it goes.

The Fire department and the fire protection companies aren?t playing. They?re after your money, and in some cases your property.

Posted on: 2019/5/9 17:18
 Top 


Re: Notice of violation & Order to correct - JCFD
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:

Me too and I've been here over 20. This is gonna get nasty, no doubt. My experience with FDJC fire inspectors, as I've said upthread, is that they're extremely poorly trained.


Applying the Fire Code correctly has become a bit complex over the years as it has been updated several times since the introduction of the UCC, January 1, 1977. You MUST know which edition of the Fire Code is the correct edition to apply to your particular building because the requirements have changed over time.

To do that you refer to the edition in effect at the time the building was constructed, or updated, or the particular equipment installed. If the work was inspected and approved upon completion, then that?s it they can?t make you update just because a new version of Code is approved. Watch for that because they WON?T tell you which specific edition of Code to use, and nor does the violation notice. You just have to ?know?. If you?re not sure, get a copy of the original permit and approval and look at the date. Then go to the ?Table of Model Codes? on the NJ DCA website and see which Code was in effect at that particular time. Here?s the link:

https://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/ ... _Model_Code_Adoptions.pdf

If you want, read my other posts about this for a little more information, and my own sorry, though ultimately successful, tale about the JCFD Inspectors. It left a very sour taste in my mouth about the m.o. of JCFD Inspectors. More stand-over con than empowered professional.

BTW, regarding that Ordinance, aside the required public notice posting in the Jersey Journal ? you know those fine print public notice ads that no one reads ? there was no other notification to JC property owners even though new fees and charges were introduced as a result. Mr Mayor, how about something in the propaganda telling us how great you are sent out yearly with the tax information? No, it was as though they were quietly setting a trap?. Why would we inform property owners about a new public safety measure and fees to give them time to make sure they meet the requirements?? They can even fine you for not having paid the fees they never told you about. You can?t make this stuff up.

Yup, it?s JC, where they?ve truly earned their reputations.

Posted on: 2019/3/11 3:43
 Top 


Re: Notice of violation & Order to correct - JCFD
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:

Sounds like someone in the dept is trying to generate easy money for their electrician buddies. I wonder if they'll start in with the 3+ unit places even though we get inspected for all that by the state?


Their buddies, Brewster?.? No, it?s work for themselves for their ?off-duty? days. A lot of them have contracting businesses. And as you'd know it?s not legal to sell a property with an open fire code violation in NJ. Try getting a mortgage in that situation.

Issue enough of these violations, ratchet up the pressure with a few fines and bingo you?ll score a property or two on the cheap, cash only. What a racket. Where?s the FBI and DOJ?

But why now...? Well, our ?enlightened? City Council passed Ordinance 14.117, late 2014 to allow the JCFD Inspectors to inspect smaller buildings. Prior to that only the State was legally empowered to conduct those inspections in JC. That?s why you?re seeing more of these abuses of power by the JCFD. Expect them on your doorstep sometime soon.

Posted on: 2019/3/10 20:43
 Top 


Re: window replacement - historic district
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
One day someone will stop Dan. However, it?s going to take a State Court lawsuit.


For most people the lawsuit would cost more than the windows, but I find it hard to believe that there weren't any lawyers among the many people who have dealt with this. Surely one of them would have escalated this fight to daylight?


You know the saying ? you can?t fight City Hall?. Dan plays that to his advantage.

The law is straightforward, the procedure for getting to a judgment far, far less so. The appeal process is time consuming, bureaucratic and tedious. And you absolutely must follow the ?rules? without any deviation. Knowing that the opportunity cost, time, effort, etc., makes an appeal uneconomic, attorneys either give in or sell their properties when they encounter this kind of nonsense from the City.

The actual appeal process is very similar to that for a zoning appeal. First you appeal from the JC Historic Preservation Commission to the JC Zoning Board of Appeals, and then to the NJ State Courts ? Superior, Appellate and Supreme Courts, if you get that far. Make any procedural errors along the way, and it?s grounds for the case to be dismissed on a technicality ? no matter how ?minor.? All the neighbors within 200 feet have to be notified ? by certified mail so you have proof ? within so many days, and on and on it goes?. The timeline, everything has to be followed exactly. All the ?T?s? crossed and the ?I?s? dotted. If you miss a deadline, anything, you?re out of luck.

There is also the potential for a Federal Housing Law suit. These restrictive zoning codes have a ?disparate impact? on certain defined groups ? but that?s a much more complicated, uncertain approach.

One day someone with the time and interest will take the City on over the non-historic window replacement issue. And if they follow the rules exactly, they will win for sure. Dan's authority to regulate, based in the enabling provisions of NJ Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), is clearly limited to ?historic preservation.? And it?s impossible to "preserve" something that doesn?t exist ? in MDM?s situation long ago removed historic windows.

Posted on: 2018/11/6 15:24
 Top 


Re: window replacement - historic district
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
Bumping this thread:

Anyone here with property in the historic district replaced non-historic windows? Found out my building is in one now. I want to replace the crappy vinyl windows installed by the previous owner.

If this project going to take hiring a lawyer to prevent being forced to install "historic" windows that cost a fortune to buy and need lots of maintenance... then I am keeping the crappy vinyl windows.

Trying to gauge how much of a bureaucratic pain the in ass this is going to be.


MDM, it's a huge pain, and I speak from direct experience with this exact issue - replacement of non-historic windows.

Fake, new, ?historic? windows may look ?nice?, but are beyond Dan?s limited, legal authority to demand as the only permitted replacement for non-historic windows in old houses in the City?s historic districts. And when government employees operate outside the limits of their legal authority, it makes me concerned, regardless of the aesthetic appeal of the outcome.

In actions that are ultra vires - beyond what is legally authorized by the enabling provisions of the State Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) - the JC HPO arbitrarily refuses to give the necessary ?Certificate of no effect? for replacement of non-historic windows with essentially identical non-historic windows. He will not provide the required permit until you give in to his demands for fake ?historic? windows. It?s a shakedown, pure and simple.

Below, in italics, I?ve copied parts of a paragraph about non-historic windows that is from a long post I wrote previously about the matter of window replacements. The original post is #3, dated 2017/7/12, at the beginning of this same string. I?ve also posted in other strings about various abuses of the historic preservation code, so search those posts as well if you?re interested.

Here?s what I previously posted, in post #3: ?It is notable that the Code is completely silent on the situation of replacement of a non-historic window in an old building. There isn't a word about it. But there is no mystery in that, it is exactly as you'd expect. City Codes can't include wording that is inconsistent with the City's limited power to regulate. The City does not have the legal authority to order or require the replacement of non-historic windows by historic windows in an old building, so words to that effect aren't in the Code. Recall the City can only regulate ?preservation.? Ordering someone to replace a non-historic window with a fake-historic looking window would not be ?preservation?, it would be ?restoration? or ?reconstruction? ? and is therefore outside the City's authority to require.?

It troubles me when a government official who lacks legal authority attempts to compel me, or anyone, to spend thousands and thousands of dollars just because they ?like? things a certain way. We?re supposed have government by rule of law, not by whim of some government official. One day someone will stop Dan. However, it?s going to take a State Court lawsuit. It?s a simple, clear, open and shut case that is way, way overdue. There?s nothing ambiguous at all in the MLUL?s applicable enabling provisions that limit the City?s authority to regulate to ?historic preservation?.

Posted on: 2018/11/4 16:50
 Top 


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.


?Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.?

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here?s what ?Stateaidguy? said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it?s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don?t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You?ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come?.

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world?s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me?.

That said, in my view, it?s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.

Posted on: 2018/7/22 17:09
 Top 


Re: Jersey City Fire prevention Division violations
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Listers, in response to a post regarding violations written by the JCFD, I posted about the Uniform Construction Code (UCC) and different editions. However, I neglected to provide the link if you want to look up which specific code edition applies to your building, or work you?ve had done on your building. So here it is:

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/ ... _Model_Code_Adoptions.pdf

The table shows the dates when the particular edition of Code was ?in effect?. In general, any work undertaken must satisfy the requirements of the Code in effect at the time the work is performed. When a new edition of code comes into effect, there?s a 6 months ?grace? period, during which time on-going work, or work already approved can be finished using the ?old? code. If you don?t finish within the 6 months, then you are supposed to ?update? the work to the new code edition requirements.

The JC Building department should have copies of all of these codes ? but try getting anything out of that mess?. Many public libraries have copies of prior editions of the codes as well. And if you care for a trip to Trenton, DCA has them of course.

Posted on: 2018/6/4 5:30
 Top 


Re: Jersey City Fire prevention Division violations
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Montenegro wrote:
Could you please advise me what should I write on appeal letter?? I am planning to appeal but not sure, on what law to rely in order to get this thing done? You can reach me directly at : gjenashaj@icloud.com


I cant advise you what to say or do ? I don?t know the specifics of your situation and I am not an attorney. You should go hire one. But I can tell you what I did....

For my situation, what I told them was my house did not need any further work to meet code requirements. It had been upgraded to meet the requirements of the retrofit code, and the codes in effect at that time, so did not require any more work because of later Code updates. I referenced that NJR section I described here previously.

In my submission I included the applicable code sections from the 1984 and 1987 BOCA codes. I showed that my house was less than 5 stories, the use group R, the windowless basement was less than 3,000 sq feet, and I had an interconnected, automatic smoke alarm system installed in accordance with NJAC 5:70-4.9 (a) 3 i. Therefore, according to the applicable BOCA code requirements, I did not need suppression (sprinklers), nor did I need central monitoring to meet the requirements.

I had evidence for everything I said, including copies of the NJR, the NJAC, the UFC and the BOCA code sections, and few other things as well ? photographs of the house and basement, the green card, a sketch of the basement, the survey showing the dimensions?. Everything I needed to provide proof what I was arguing was true and correct. No one had to take my word alone for anything, there was evidence from other sources to support and corroborate everything I claimed.

That was basically it. I explained my position and without contesting my analysis, the Fire Department conceded and withdrew the violation and fines and I was free to go on my way.

The whole experience completely changed my view of JC Fire Department, as their tactics seemed to me more like those of stand-over thugs than professionals empowered by law to enforce the Code. I don't know for sure, but I ended up with the distinct impression what they were trying to do was force me to sell my house on the cheap.

I worked in a heavily regulated sector, so I knew how codes and regulations work. It was time-consuming but relatively straight forward for me to research and figure out.

I was left wondering if it?s a pattern? There were several incidents along the way, peripheral to the central matter of the correct use of the Codes, that led me to question if it isn't something they do repeatedly. It was so abusive, and seemed so ?pre-planned?. I honestly don?t know ? I don?t have any evidence, but it would be easy enough for the FBI / DOJ to investigate. All they?d need to do is examine the outcomes of every windowless basement violation issued by the JCFD, and subsequent sales of those properties? the patterns would become clear. It wouldn't be the first time corruption reared it's ugly head in Jersey City.... Perhaps it happens in other cities across the State as well - who knows?

Posted on: 2018/5/25 17:14
 Top 


Re: Notice of violation & Order to correct - JCFD
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Here?s the section of the NJR I cited yesterday. Older NJR (New Jersey Register) records can be difficult to search, so I thought it could be helpful to post. The citation is 24 N.J.R. 739, Monday, March 2, 1992. Old NJR?s are cited by page, so you need to read the entire page to find the section of interest. They are on the web ? in .pdf format ? with text that can?t be searched by computer. Challenging to find what you need.

The response below is from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to a comment from the New Jersey Builders Association (NJBA) about the impact of Code updates. I?ve added the bold to highlight the clear guidance from DCA in response to the NJBA comment. The ?retrofit? referred to are the requirements of the UFC, as the comment / response was in the context of proposed amendments to the UFC mandates. However, the guidance holds generally. If the work met current code requirements in effect at the time of construction or updating (rehab / installation) then you?re done ? often shorthanded as ?pre-existing condition.? If you do look it up, don?t be confused by the NJAC 5:18 reference. That section is the original UFC reference, subsequently renumbered to the current NJAC 5:70 reference in use today.

?RESPONSE: References to the Uniform Construction Code are made only for the purpose of establishing installation standards for required equipment and systems. These references avoid problems for construction officials, allow for advances in technology, and result in reduced confusion. Moreover, once a building has met the requirements of the retrofit and has received either a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of approval for the required systems, no further upgrading would be required because of a change in the Uniform Construction Code.?


Posted on: 2018/5/24 13:09
 Top 


Re: Notice of violation & Order to correct - JCFD
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Seems to me there's plenty of examples of code requirements being enforced that were non-existent at time of construction. Fire escapes, stairwell smoke detectors and emergency lighting come to mind, as well as the handrails I mentioned.


Correct, any 3 or more, multi-family building built before the UCC came into effect in 1977 was required by the introduction of the NJ UFC (aka ?retrofit? code, NJAC 5-70:1-4) in the mid/late 1980?s to be ?upgraded? with various fire safety features. There had been several tragic fires, with multiple fatalities, in older buildings and the State introduced the UFC to upgrade the safety of older housing stock. The Code in effect when the UFC was introduced was the BOCA code, 1984 and 1987 editions. The UFC was amended several times shortly after introduction, and in the meantime the BOCA code was also updated, thus, the two applicable editions. An owner had to do the work to keep their green card. If they didn?t, then the building became unregistered and illegal for renting.

So if we think of a hypothetical JC brownstone, typical construction and layout, originally constructed in 1890 and converted to a 4-family in 1925, that building was mandated to be ?retrofitted? by the UFC in the late 1980?s. Once that work was done on the building, inspected and passed, that was it ? it had met the requirements of the UFC. It wasn?t required to have further upgrades ? I gave you the citation to the NJR previously ? just because a new code edition was released subsequently. However, if ?rehabilitation? work is done on the building, that does trigger the need for updates to current codes ? I?m oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, but see the rehab code for details (NJAC 5:23-6, et seq.)

What is NOT supposed to happen to that 4 family brownstone that met the UFC requirements in the late 1980?s and hasn?t had any ?rehab? work since, is for an Inspector to come along and say, ?Oh, now we have a new code, the 2006 UCC, and you don?t meet the requirements, so you need to do X, Y and Z.? But lots of Inspectors do it, and the JCFD does it. No one understands the rules, and the Inspectors pick home owners off in small numbers over time, so they get away with it?. But it isn?t what the Regulations permit or require.

This is why it is essential to know the specific edition of code that applies to your building ? so you can push back if they ask for something crazy that comes from some later code edition. That said, for the simple, inexpensive, sensible stuff, I used to just do it anyway, even if it wasn?t actually ?required? according to a correct application of the correct code edition. For the sprinkler I drew the line because of the costs and heavy-handed, threatening and intimidating way the FD approached me. They acted more like thugs than professional law enforcement officers and all the while they were wrong.

Posted on: 2018/5/24 2:25
 Top 


Re: Jersey City Fire prevention Division violations
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
This ?Windowless basement? violation is a complete, total racket, and has been for 30 years. I?ve left you a lengthy pm with additional details.


I doubt anyone would object to your posting your lengthy pm here, I'm real interested in this subject! The state seems to have no qualms about citations on long existing conditions in Greencarded buildings, like suddenly requiring handrails on basement hatch steps or exterior backyard lighting. If the city is getting into the game, that's going to be a hassle. I think I've had one fire inspection in 20 years.


Brewster, thanks for the kind invitation but I am sure you'll understand if I politely decline.

The correct approach is as I outlined ? if a building or installation met code (was inspected and passed) at the time of construction / installation then that?s the end of it. The State, Fire Department, City can?t at some later point arbitrarily require you to meet the requirements of a newer Code version, just because it?s available - see 24 N.J.R. 739. You have to be doing rehab, or some work on the building, to trigger the application of new code requirements.

Nevertheless, I typically take a fairly pragmatic approach to simple ?violations.? For less expensive, easy to ?fix? things that make sense ? handrails on stairs, easily installed lights and so on I?ll just do it, but I always look the inspector directly in the eye and cordially ask which edition of the UCC (NOT NJAC section) is he or she using? In my experience, that?s been sufficient to politely signal you know the game and put an end to the nonsense.

The windowless basement ?violation? is a whole other matter?. The FD tried this on me a few years ago. There?s real money in it, sometimes even a building on the cheap. Sprinklers are expensive and can be destructive to install in an old building ? even if only in the basement, and can require periodic inspections ($), testing (more $) and on and on. Moreover the City and Fire Department also want you to install a centrally monitored alarm as well. More on-going, subscription costs ? every month, forever. Big bucks.

When they tried to make me do this a few years ago, I refused and went to Court. Sounds they are still at it, attempting to intimidate people into retrofitting basement sprinklers, or worse?? Long and short of it, the FD withdrew the violation ? they knew they were wrong. My old building had been retro-fitted at the time to meet the requirements of the UFC when it was introduced (mid/late 80?s). Nothing had been done subsequently to the building to trigger the application of any newer Code edition that required sprinklers or a monitored alarm. If I had ?rehabbed? the building, then yes, the requirements of the Code in effect when the ?rehab? was undertaken would have to be met.

I finally had enough of the City and State's nonsense, and as you may recall - I posted here some time ago - when the reval became a done deal, I sold the building. And I'm not sorry about it at all.

Feel free to ask any questions and I?ll do my best to provide concise and accurate responses to the best of my knowledge.

Posted on: 2018/5/23 21:06
 Top 


Re: Notice of violation & Order to correct - JCFD
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
What is the deal with 'windowless basement'? Are the windows required as an alternative to escape a fire or something?

Newer buildings, yes. Older buildings it depends on several factors including the age of the building and the particular edition / version of code the building has met. It's not a simple black and white, yes or no, answer.

Posted on: 2018/5/23 20:53
 Top 


Re: Jersey City Fire prevention Division violations
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


This ?Windowless basement? violation is a complete, total racket, and has been for 30 years. I?ve left you a lengthy pm with additional details.

Many smaller, less than 5 stories, older (pre-1977) residential building with windowless basements less than 3,000 sq ft DO NOT requite either suppression or central monitoring. The reason is because they met the requirements of past Code editions in effect at the time that did not mandate these features (BOCA 1984 and 1987, sections 1718 and 1020, respectively). Those older, pre-1977 buildings had to be updated when the UFC came into effect in the mid and late 1980's. They used the BOCA code as the basis for what came to be known as the "retro-fit" requirements. Anything newly built or rehabbed after 1977 must have met the code requirement in effect at the time. You couldn't get a CO or a green card if the building didn't.

The general approach is that if a building or installation met the Code requirement in effect at the time the work was performed, then no updates are necessary just because a new version of the Code comes in effect. Often shorthanded as "pre-existing condition."

Posted on: 2018/5/23 16:13
 Top 


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
That's like saying the city should remove every single traffic light, and make it the responsibility of individual drivers to know when to safely proceed at intersections.

Oh please, spare us the ridiculous nonsense. Obviously, not appealing property taxes is absolutely 100% nothing like removing every single traffic light. That is an absurd proposition. Not appealing property taxes that are too high is simple inaction on the part of an individual causing self-induced harm. Stop whining if you did nothing to stop that.


Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
It is not the responsibility of tens of thousands of JC residents to fix a systemic refusal by the city to uphold its legal responsibilities.

No dispute about that. But it is up to an individual to appeal their taxes if they are unjust or unfair because they are too high. That?s why there?s an appeal system and that?s how it works. An individual brings an appeal ? get it??

Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Appealing one's property taxes is not the most difficult thing in the world. However, tens of thousands of property owners have no idea how it works, or that it's a viable option at all.

Yes, appealing taxes isn?t the most difficult thing. All the more reason that if someone didn?t appeal, it?s their problem now.

Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Individual appeals also does not fix the situation where tens of thousands of property owners, whose properties have increased in value and are underassessed, are underpaying their taxes.

Can?t disagree that Jersey City was wilfully negligent in neglecting to conduct revals for the past 30 or so years. Nevertheless an individual could have fixed their own problem all during that time with an appeal. It?s no secret and many people did appeal successfully. Stop crying now if you didn?t. I feel sorry for you, but you alone are responsible if you didn?t appeal.

Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Unfair imbalances in property tax assessments is not the fault of individuals who are issued incorrect assessments. This is the responsibility of the politicians who are refusing to uphold their legal responsibilities, along with the citizens who encourage them.

Couldn?t agree more. Steve Fulop was willfully and wantonly negligent when he stopped the reval after becoming mayor. His action revealed his cynicism about an injustice that impacted thousands of residents across many neighborhoods in Jersey City. And all during the past 30 years successive City Administrations and Officials who knew a reval was way overdue and did nothing are equally culpable. Nonetheless, individuals who didn?t appeal their unfair taxes for decades are responsible for their own inaction.

Oh, by the way, I think you?ll find that the road rules hold you responsible for safely proceeding at any time you?re driving on public roads ? whether or not a traffic control signal is installed. The presence, or absence, of a traffic light is secondary to your responsibility to be in control of your vehicle and drive safely. You don?t get to drive unsafely because a traffic signal is out of repair, or broken or ?...is removed...? You are still responsible.

Posted on: 2018/3/8 21:10
 Top 


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

HCResident wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

The issue here is, you have three decades where some residents were screwed. They were paying a tax rate double that of those living with much better means. The poor were subsidizing the wealthy. A reval one year later would mean that the poorer areas only receive one year relief to earn back the money they lost over those decades.


During the entire time since the 1998 reval anybody who believed their property taxes were ?unfair? had the right to appeal. If someone didn?t, that was plain crazy, and you can cry me a river about their ?inequitatable? property taxes.

As a result of the City?s willful negligence not conducting a reval, DT property values have been inflated by low assessments over the past 30 years. Now, post reval, there?s little doubt DT values will fall, especially with the cap on SALT deductions. Another revaluation will mitigate the damage caused.

And yes, it was damaging for all the other areas over the past 30 years to pay too much in taxes. Those folks should have, but apparently didn?t, appeal. That?s their issue to deal with.

The blame for all this mess belongs with Jersey City politicians and administration employees, who knew all along what was going on and did NOTHING for 30 years. They should be held accountable.


We can blame all we want, but what?s fair is what?s fair. And you yourself said what needs to be said to anyone whose property value falls over the next year or so.

If you don?t recall, I bolded it for you. Also, just for clarity, the last reval was in 1988.


You are 100% correct! People who believe their property taxes are unfair should appeal. If they don't, they have only themselves to hold responsible.

Thanks for picking up my typo - 1988 not 1998. 1988 being 30 years ago.

Posted on: 2018/3/7 11:35
 Top 


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Pebble wrote:

The issue here is, you have three decades where some residents were screwed. They were paying a tax rate double that of those living with much better means. The poor were subsidizing the wealthy. A reval one year later would mean that the poorer areas only receive one year relief to earn back the money they lost over those decades.


During the entire time since the 1998 reval anybody who believed their property taxes were ?unfair? had the right to appeal. If someone didn?t, that was plain crazy, and you can cry me a river about their ?inequitatable? property taxes.

As a result of the City?s willful negligence not conducting a reval, DT property values have been inflated by low assessments over the past 30 years. Now, post reval, there?s little doubt DT values will fall, especially with the cap on SALT deductions. Another revaluation will mitigate the damage caused.

And yes, it was damaging for all the other areas over the past 30 years to pay too much in taxes. Those folks should have, but apparently didn?t, appeal. That?s their issue to deal with.

The blame for all this mess belongs with Jersey City politicians and administration employees, who knew all along what was going on and did NOTHING for 30 years. They should be held accountable.

Posted on: 2018/3/6 20:26
 Top 


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
All I know is that if land is now 60% of the value, and your neighbor's identical land is valued at half yours, making their taxes 30% lower, heads will roll. Downtowners will not accept the standard line: "your neighbors taxes are not relevant to your appeal". Land is land.

The "attorney density" DT is very high, they can't fudge this like they do regular appraisals. I've had appraisals where they groomed the numbers so that the comp, replacement, and income methods came out within a 1.3% range. You're more likely to golf 18 holes of "hole in one".


So, if you?re correct Brewster, the new reval company Fulop hired to replace the crooked, terrible, incompetent reval company he fired, has completely screwed up?. And the city is likely in for more law suits, and another reval in short order.

Given the City?s wanton disregard for the inequitable distribution of property taxes and the impact it had on different neighborhoods, I don?t understand why there isn?t some kind of disparate impact suit already?.

How much is all this incompetence, to put it kindly, going to cost us? How many of our neighbors had to sell their homes over the past 20 years because taxes were so inequitable. And who bought those homes? There?s some stinky stuff hidden behind the LLC?s that buy so much property around here. Who are the real owners?

In any event it seems we now know why Fulop already floated the idea of another reval ? he knows this one is an awful job. Won?t it be interesting if someone finds he?s connected in some way to the reval company he hired? I?m sure they?ve started looking.

Posted on: 2018/2/23 21:53
 Top 


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


My sign is going to read:

GROSSLY NEGLIGENT 30 YEAR REVAL DELAY ? HOLD JC POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE!!

Posted on: 2018/2/22 18:58
 Top 


Re: Reval - press request
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Nicole, A three judge panel of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of NJ did NOT agree that the original appraisal company was deficient in the performance of their duties. In fact, they ruled to the contrary, upholding a $1 million dollar breach of contract award to the Company made by the lower court. You can find the 38 page ruling here:

http://www.documentcloud.org/document ... html#document/p20/a357708

In part due to the gross under-taxing of many downtown properties that continued another 4 years after that reval was stopped, DT JC property values increased further. However, had that reval finished, then we would be just about due for another reval by end of this year ? assuming the City adhered to a 5-yr cycle of revals ? as it certainly should after this present debacle. Had property appraisals and taxes become unfairly distributed again over that time frame, the second reval would have taken care of that. Indeed, our fearless mayor himself has called for a second reval in short order ? a year or so from now ? so that appraisals and taxes can be adjusted again.

As you can readily appreciate Nicole, it?s an absolute mess, the kind only JC, NJ politicians could create.

Posted on: 2018/2/19 18:51
 Top 


Re: Reval - press request
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Focus your story on the wanton negligence and gross irresponsibility of successive JC Administrations in not conducting a reval for almost 30 years. Heck, about 4 years ago the current mayor, Steve Fulop, actually stopped a reval that was almost done. He then spent over $8 million of JC taxpayers money attempting to defend the indefensible. Unbelievable....

And please don?t forget to highlight the complicity of the State of New Jersey in allowing this egregious situation to continue so long.

If all that isn?t enough for your story, add in the fact that as this was all going on for decades, State taxpayers funded about 2/3rds of the JC BOE budget. This year that amount is almost $500 million dollars. And all the while, JC was handing out abatement after abatement to property developers?.

To round out the details of this disaster, contact our state representatives and ask them for comment on how present efforts to make school funding equitable across the state at long last will impact state aid for JC schools?.

Mix it all up and you have one giant mess, and substantial property tax increases in the works for all areas in JC.

As I tell my friends, JC, Hudson County, and NJ have worked hard to earn their reputations.

Posted on: 2018/2/18 15:33
 Top 


Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Well, don't tell too many people about it, then everyone will get the same idea and it won't work too well anymore.


Laugh?, it?s no secret at this point. When Grove is crazy in the morning, I?ll catch a train to JSQ to get the 33rd train. All my friends do the same. And friends at Newport do a similar shuffle to Hoboken for the 33rd train. The over-crowding is so bad I?m considered making that route my routine. I?m over trains arriving so full at Grove that I can?t get on. PATH is an over-crowded mess, getting worse by the day.

Posted on: 2018/1/3 9:59
 Top 


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Glad this topic keeps bubbling up to allow focus on the main event: The City letting this application slide by has the rancid stink of corruption.

There are statutory time frames that MUST be complied with once a submitted development application is considered ?complete? for review. The NJ Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) explicitly allows 45 days for review and disposition. The City knows this and also knows if they fail to act within the 45 days, the application is deemed approved by default under the MLUL provisions. It is absolutely clear in the MLUL and has been upheld repeatedly by NJ Courts. These provisions aren?t secret, and the process isn?t rocket science.

Very strangely, of all the development applications the City sees, for THIS particular application the City ?overlooked? the statutory timelines. Think about it for a second. Incompetent..? No, the City knows the rules. That leaves deliberate, which is about what I?d expect from Jersey City. Sure, I don?t have any evidence, however, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is isn?t a giraffe, it?s a duck.

Either way, incompetent or deliberate, the question that SHOULD be addressed is how did this happen? Who in the City was responsible, and whom did they know...? Did anyone notify the State or Feds what happened? And did the City appraise the Feds about the 45 day MLUL timeline? That?s an important detail they may not immediately be familiar with. I hope someone reads this and start asking a few questions.

All you City Operatives who hang out here, got any "intelligence" on this...? No, I didn't think so.

What a total mess Jersey City is?. Who gives a rats ass about NA?s and this application.?? Not me. That?s just a diversion from the real story.

Posted on: 2017/12/25 19:33
 Top 


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:

Of course, you should feel free to put your money where your mouth is, and if you personally own in DTJC you should sell now. Right?


I live in DTJC as a renter... I have chosen to to sit out the market until things are clearer. Or, if things go sideways, until the dust settles somewhat.

We should know more by mid to late 2019, after the impact of the upcoming tax changes have been fully experienced.


There are lot of moving parts to the Federal tax changes. Seems clear that for owner-occupiers in high tax locations the net effect of the changes ? limit of 10k for the combination of state, local, income/sales and property tax is negative, making the reval?s impact more severe by increasing overall cost of ownership. However, deductions for property taxes on rental properties might remain deductible (fully or partly) to landlords? businesses, as could the mortgage interest deduction ? being a business expense. Then there?s the matter of how pass-through income for Type S corporations (LLC?s) will be treated.

At this point I?m not certain what made it into the final bill regarding investment real estate? something did as there was some commentary about how it appears very favorable to the president. In any event, it appears now that the tax changes for property tax deductions will be much less significant for landlords. Consequently, the impact of the reval increase looks to be a good deal LESS for landlords than owner-occupiers.

Owner occupiers in high tax areas might respond by renting their houses, and living in a rental themselves. You and your neighbor could ?swap? houses, renting to each other, to obtain the favorable tax treatment accorded to landlords. Transfer ownership of your place to the ?My place is for rent, LLC.? That would free up the entire 10k to use for state and local income taxes, make the property taxes deductible and as a bonus make the mortgage interest deductible. Obviously, all depends on the actual numbers.

Now that would be some unintended consequence ? making the economics of changes for property tax deduction overall more favorable to ?high? cost states?. There would be no point in a low tax state to try and turn your owner-occupied property into a rental - it wouldn?t increase your deductions. Of course it all depends on the specifics of the final bill. The devil is in the details, as they say?.

Seems very tough to predict what the net, final impact will be on the JC housing market.

Posted on: 2017/12/18 6:00
 Top 



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 7 »






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