Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
52 user(s) are online (38 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 52

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (light12v)




Re: Organic vegetable garden plants
#1
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

linky wrote:
Does anyone know where I might buy organic tomato, cucumber, and pepper plants?


If your concern is purely health, the amount of chemical residue that would be in a mature fruit from a commercial start would be undetectable. Think of the mass of that tiny start compared to a mature plant and it's fruit. I also believe most of the health benefit of organic comes from no pesticides rather than the type of fertilization used. If you just want everything you touch to be organic, whatever.

I grow organically from either seeds or commercial starts, usually from Hudson Market on JFK. Are they still there? There was talk of them being sold.

Hudson Market sold their property awhile ago & were asked to remain for the 2017 season by the new owners who will be putting up yet more *Luxury Condos* in it's place.
They were giving out 20% off coupons all summer for their new place, which will be quite a drive away from JC.

Posted on: Today 11:13
Top


Re: Is Senate run in Fulop's future?
#2
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
fresh face in the senate is welcome. Menendez is damaged goods anyway.


Fulop is a fresh face? Booker is a fresh face?


Fulop has never represented us in Washington so yes he is a fresh face. Booker had never represented us in Washington before he won so yes he was also a fresh face.


AAAHHHH what an accomplishment ::: Advancing From a Cesspool to a Swamp
... maybe a Calendar is in order> *The Fresh Faces of Corruption*

Posted on: 9/21 8:59
Top


Re: Jersey City Town Hall Policy Forums
#3
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Well would you look at that. Never left is indeed good ol Soundmachine from JC list.

For those don't know, Bruce "sound machine" Tretheway is actually a cherry hill resident who trolls all the message boards pining for Fulop. He's a sad man, with a mail order bride wife, who spends every waking minute obsessing over steves every move.

As the election gets closer, expect to see his non stop copy and pasted drivel.

Pay no mind though; he's mentally unstable and the definition of a boot licker.


Thanks for clarifying that which is Already Obvious.

Anyone who has an INVESTED Interest, & makes their home here, experiences the *Pain* of divisiveness that has become JC daily.

Unfortunately, Too many are Too other-wised engaged to take pause === identify the source of the pain=== and instead get caught up in masking the symptoms instead of addressing the root causes when seeking their solutions.

Posted on: 9/21 7:52
Top


Re: Gerry McCann!! Criminal Mastermind!!
#4
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


You should probably use a more current photo like the one superimposed on the photo in NJ.com article so that all JC minions can Recognize the Beast easily.....

Posted on: 9/19 18:37
Top


Re: what we really get with our local elected leaders
#5
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


SCREWED

Posted on: 9/19 18:30
Top


Re: Jersey City 2017 Mayor’s Race
#6
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Yun foots the bill to keep his office open and readily accessible to his constituents - he gets props for that.

Don't think Kinberg is gonna fare so well in this election, perhaps she can move back to Ohio.

Quote:
Kinberg, 37, called Yun a hypocrite, noting that the councilman provides constituent services out of a Central Avenue office that doubles as his campaign headquarters.

"That's very questionable," she said.







Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City pulls political promotion of Fulop ally off city website

Jersey City pulled an item off the city website yesterday that promoted a political meet-and-greet intended to boost the chances of one of Mayor Steve Fulop's council candidates.

The event was listed on the taxpayer-funded cultural affairs calendar as a community barbecue hosted from noon to six today by Mo Kinberg (the calendar entry spelled her name "Kingsberg").

On her Facebook page, Kinberg, who with Fulop's support is seeking to unseat Ward D Councilman Michael Yun in November, promoted the event as a meet-and-greet alongside ads for her candidacy and Fulop's.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... omotion_of_fulop_all.html



Mo's *Hypocracy* statement about Yun is Soo Stupid & Lame that it makes me glad to live elsewhere, where I don't have to suffer this foolishness in a community activist or Ward candidate !!!

The Ultimate Idiocy however is Jennifer Morrill's, as she is Jersey City's WebMaster, therefore blaming herself.

Posted on: 8/14 11:37
Top


Re: Meeting set for input on future of Casino in the Park
#7
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Anyone know what the annual rent is for this place is currently ???
Triple net ??
Permitted uses ???


Posted on: 8/8 23:50
Top


Re: Jersey City taps Downtown woman to be city planner
#8
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Do you know where one can view her CV?


here


Thank You

Posted on: 8/8 10:30
Top


Re: window replacement - historic district
#9
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
light12v, I've left a lengthy PM for you. I'd have posted it, since I think everyone should know how the HPO and HPC operate and what might done, but the post was just too long. The situation is difficult, but I think there are several possible approaches to improving things. No guarantees though....

Thank You.
Please take a look at my reply to Papadage in the other HD thread here.
Sent you PM response also.

Posted on: 8/8 10:05
Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#10
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

papadage wrote:
It was issued months after the passage of the Historic District. All the bold fonts in the world won't change that fact, nor the fact that he did not use the appeals process in any way, but instead decided to be a crank and just complain and state conspiracy theories.

It's all in the decision for the case to proceed. The judge tossed the due process claims for being inadequate.


You can believe what you like, but your statement is belied by the documents that show otherwise.

My home is within the *District*.

When my contractor applied for the proper Building Permit to do my Roof in Autumn of 2016 & was directed to the 14th floor Planning Dept., I simply challenged the HD/HPO process BWO of a one page Letter from my attorney.
JC Officials/Directors immediately backed off, issued the permit & work proceeded without further interruption.

Don't know where you reside or what your experience[s] is in this Historic District 4 Jersey City's Westside, but MY Personal Experience clearly demonstrates, that while there may be a lot of huffing & puffing surrounding the issue [from both sides], that there is NO Enforceable Historic District Overlay in place at this time & there was none at that time.

Posted on: 8/6 13:30
Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#11
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

papadage wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.



This 100% wrong. See the Zoning Code at 345-71. l. 9. There is no explicit prohibition on vinyl siding in the Historic design standards.

Here's the link, scroll down to L. 9. for the applicable section.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-71HIDEST



He would still need a certificate of appropriateness to install vinyl siding.


Not AFTER a Permit was Paid for & ISSUED!

Posted on: 8/4 18:05
Top


Re: window replacement - historic district
#12
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
I've bolded the critical clause they ignore:

If historic windows have deteriorated to a point precluding repair, rehabilitation or restoration, based on documentation submitted by the applicant, or a field inspection by the Historic Preservation Officer, replacement windows may be approved under a Certificate of No Effect if they match the historic windows....

This clause specifically refers ONLY to historic windows that have deteriorated. Everything following in that sub-section of the code is exclusively about deteriorated historic windows. The code is totally silent about replacing existing NON-historic windows in historic buildings. Replacing NON-historic windows with fake, “historic looking” windows isn't “preservation”. You can't preserve something, here a historic window, that doesn't exist.

So what is that section of JC code about? It describes what you must do when you have a deteriorated, existing historic window. You retain (preserve) as much of the original, historic window as possible. Everything of the existing historic window that can be saved must be “preserved”. Parts that are beyond repair must be “restored.” It means that if part of an original, historic window can't be repaired, you can't tear out the entire window. You must “restore” the beyond repair part and keep all the rest of the window.

For example, consider an existing historic window with a sash so badly deteriorated it can't be repaired. The sash holds the windowpane and moves when you open the window. The code allows you to make a new sash (or part of it), essentially identical to the historic sash, and use that “restored” sash to repair the existing, historic window. Only the “beyond repair” part, the sash, is “restored.” The rest of the window must stay and be preserved. That's “historic preservation.” As it is custom work, it can be (is) very costly, and you should carefully consider that before you buy a house in a historic district.


When HPO and HPC demands go further than “preservation” activities they are misapplying the code and acting outside their lawful authority. And when they leave critical clauses off sections of code they are supposed to know and correctly administer, thereby changing the meaning of the code, that is plain, willful abuse. It is damaging to property owners, it ignores the State MLUL, and it raises serious legal risks for the City with Federal Housing Law. The City should put a stop to it.


*A note about definitions of “restoration” and “reconstruction”:
Although similar, the words “restoration” and “reconstruction” have particular meanings when used in Historic Preservation Codes and Guidelines. The best definitions (clearest, most precise, easiest to understand) are found in the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Historic Preservation. Updated guidelines were released earlier this year. The JC Historic Code specifies the Secretary's Guidelines as the standard the JC HPC shall follow.
See: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf

In the JC Historic Zoning Code, the definition for “reconstruction” (§345-6. - Definitions) is so badly expressed it doesn't make sense. It seems a typographical error was made repeating part of the wording from the definition for “restoration.” That's a problem because when wording in a law, regulations or code is poorly expressed and not “understandable by a person of common intelligence”, the law or regulation (or part of it) is invalid.


Thank you for clarifying these points about windows for ALL Jersey City properties contained within the municipality's designated Historic Districts.

Regarding your words of caution when considering property purchases in a Historic District [Highlighted Above]:

What advice do you have for those of us already residing on the Westside who purchased Homes prior to having this Municipal HDO Ordinance [devoid of appropriate guidelines] imposed upon us, without our permission, BWO a myriad of blatant Illegal Procedures [including but not limited to eradication of our property rights] employed by this current Administration in their unrelenting Quest for Gentrification on a grand scale?

When a Municipality simply eliminates key elements [property owner permissions] from the Federal & State Historic Preservation program guidelines that they then defer to, [gutting the State MLUL/ Federal Law & simply ignoring the mandate of an updated MasterPlan] they create an untenable situation of the Perfect Storm for AMPLIFIED Abuses!

Should Jersey City Taxpayers be bled out completely to shoulder additional Multi-Million$ costs associated with the resultant litany of Budget-Busting Lawsuits coming down the pike ???
[as the Direct consequence of This Mayor's Bad decisions plus his Administration's sloppy Work-Product and Improper Handling of their Fiduciary/Legislative responsibilities.]



Posted on: 8/4 17:55
Top


Re: Couple seeks $18M from Jersey City in lawsuit over historic district guidelines
#13
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

penumbra wrote:
I personally don't understand the hatred of vinyl. It isn't as pretty as other options. But, for a long lasting, easy to install, inexpensive product, vinyl's hard to beat.

Compared to the old asphalt shingle or fake stone block around town, I'll take vinyl any day.

Precisely. I've seen some decent jobs, particularly the one that use contrasting trim like white.


Bayonne has some Outstanding Vinyl Siding Installations with Contrasting Trim & Fypon type Architectural details!!!

Posted on: 8/3 21:26
Top


Re: Jersey City taps Downtown woman to be city planner
#14
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

DanL wrote:
yes, outstanding choice. she is a brilliant planner and has been engaged with the community for a long time. really good news. she need to have a thick skin and be able to push back with politicians and developers.


Do you know where one can view her CV?

Posted on: 8/3 21:13
Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#15
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Pebble wrote:
There are some very important things that a lot of people are overlooking here...

1. The city is NOT driving up and down the streets looking for people doing work on their homes. They aren't checking for permits.

2. This individual was turned in by his neighbors. I don't know which neighbors, but I know that several neighbors called the city to complain about the type of work this person was doing.

3. The individual explicitly stated that the entire purpose for the vinyl siding was so that he could rent the house out and move to Portugal.

4. The individual's permits did not state what the material of the new siding was which is why the permit passed.

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.

Lastly, having listened to Fernandes speak about this, my take-away was that he's a guy that had no interest in restoration. He purchased a home and was looking for a cheap fix. He's also very dishonest in his explanation on the series of events and he's simply looking for a pay day from the city.

He could have complied with the city's rules and regulations for the area rather quickly and for a lot less money than the lawsuit along with the wear and tear on the building along with the wasted money on the vinyl siding he purchased. Instead of that, he played "victim" and got lawsuit happy.

I have zero pity for the man.


People are Overlooking these things BECAUSE Your statements are WRONG, UNTRUE &/or simply stated : UR Ill-Informed POV!!

Posted on: 8/3 21:06
Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#16
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
All this talk of lawsuits made me think of the harassment suit Dan Wrieden, the City Historic Preservation Officer (HPO), bought against the City. He claimed somethings about his boss harassing him. I wonder what the City's defense was/is? Maybe it's all settled by this point?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ey_city_cruz_lawsuit.html
http://hudsoncountyview.com/wp-conten ... /anthony-cruz-lawsuit.pdf

In my experience, observing things over the years, Dan has abused the historic preservation code for a long, long time. If I were his boss, I would have said some choice words to him out of frustration at what he, and the HPC, have done....

Anyone know anything about the status of that suit? I haven't seen anything reported since that initial filing.

The ABUSES at the hand of HPO Wrieden & now HPO Blazak are NeverEnding.
I have personally witnessed Wrieden Dumpster Diving on Jewett Ave. & caught Blazak *informing* constituents about their HPS [Historic Preservation Specialist] hire, when he had Advertised for & RETAINED a Part Time minimum wage Intern short term, who was brought to tears when presenting long awaited HD GuideLines last September !
[BTW> Wreiden was the HPO that I was referring to in my previous communication]

Regarding your inquiry about Wrieden's suit, I was told by a close Cruz family friend awhile ago that claims against Cruz [individually]were dropped, but no mention about claims against JC.

Posted on: 8/3 13:47

Edited by light12v on 2017/8/3 14:09:03
Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#17
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:

What I do have an opinion about is the abusive use of the Historic Preservation rules. The HPO and HPC routinely exceed their lawful authority in the application of these restrictive Zoning rules. The ultra vires actions of the HPO and HPC have prevented many people from repairing and maintaining their houses because of the cost of the work demanded. It has caused a huge amount of damage to many people and particularly to individuals and families of limited means, and of color, for many years. The current City Administration has done nothing to stop this abuse.

The powers granted to the City under the MLUL to enable regulation of historic preservation are limited to just that: “historic preservation.” An example of the application of these limits is seen in the provisions in the MLUL regarding “demolition by neglect.” The lawful power of a municipality is limited only to requiring an owner undertake “stabilization” of the deteriorating historic structure, to preserve it from slow destruction. That is all the law permits. It does not authorize a municipality to compel or order any other kind of work on the historic structure.

Those same limits apply to all Historic structures, whether they are in danger of “demolition by neglect” or not. The City does not have the lawful authority to require anything more of an owner than “preservation.” And you can't preserve something that doesn't exist. Attempts by the City to make owners re-create “fake historic” features such as wood windows, cedar siding, iron fences, anything that does not still exist in some form, are not “historic preservation” and are therefore outside the City's lawful authority.

AGREE ++++++++

It is REALLY Scary when one speaks to a HPO in JC Planning Dept. & they do not know what NPS or National Parks Service is, or how it applies to their job function.

Posted on: 8/2 13:17
Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#18
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Thank you for expounding on the matter & the research link.
So, JC Corporation Counsel is pretty much just covering all bases in the *Immunity* dept. here in their affirmative defenses.

It appears that Judge McNultey clearly addressed "Qualified Immunity" in his 06/27/17 Opinion & allowed the matter to proceed against MF & AL individually, that gives rise to a conflict[s] between an individual's interests & a public entity's interests
[and whether both can/should be represented by the same legal counsel],
however,
I did not catch anything about Absolute Statutory Immunity.

AAHHH... the Nuances of our Legal System !!! LOL


Posted on: 8/2 13:07
Top


Re: Couple seeks $18M from Jersey City in lawsuit over historic district guidelines
#19
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Dinger wrote:
Hardi is the cat's meow. Get the hardi without the fake cedar grain pattern and you can't tell the difference between painted cedar.


But is the price difference worth it if it's on a 3' alley that doesn't even open on the street? I can't imagine the fireproofness would matter in a 100 year old timber stud and sheath house. All that would be left is a pile of Hardiplank!

Biggest selling point of Hardi + Azek is that it is maintenance free & termites don't feed on it. [those annual exterminator fees do add up]
In the end, it's really up to the individual's preferences & wallet.
BUT it does not provide Insulation that the plaintiff in this case desperately needed, which is why he contracted for 60K worth of this specialty vinyl product that emulated historic wood types.

Posted on: 8/2 10:36
Top


Re: Couple seeks $18M from Jersey City in lawsuit over historic district guidelines
#20
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

What would you use if it was the alley sides seen by no one but the next door neighbors? Is vinyl just ugly or does it have a functional flaw too? Siding is on my to-do list.


I have been using this material called Viroc more and more. At first I used it to rebuild the frames around windows that rotted out due to exposure to horizontal rain (the building gets blasted during Nor'Easters).

I then started using it as siding. The manufacturer intended it to be used as commercial paneling that is mechanically fasted to the building. I found out (at least for me) it works pretty well bolted on to the building, but with a moisture barrier / weep path underneath.

I like the stuff because unlike vinyl, Viroc is damn near fireproof. This was kind of important after a tenant accidentally set one of my buildings on fire via a dropped cigarette (small fire.... fire department did more damage putting it out then the fire itself). I used a water based colored sealer, which last years. Unfortunately, the company that made the sealer went out of business.

http://virocny.com/

I have used Viroc 4 exterior & interior projects. It's great material & has similar characteristics to Hardiplank [which is no surprise since they are both cement based.]


I am a huge fan of Hardiplank. 15 years after building a house in Texas, and the Hardiplank still looks as good as new, even after the ubiquitous intense summer sun of South Texas, and the many variations in weather and precipitation. It has withstood several hail storms, as well as torrential rains, and other weather phenomena, and it hasn't need any work or repainting.

ME TOO. I used it on the rear of my 137 year old house here in 2007 & added more to the side this past year & no one can tell the difference from 10 year old install & the 10 day old one.

Viroc is the same composition in panels with a poured concrete look.
It is GREAT for use in finishing basement walls , as it gives a very 21st century look to the surroundings & is super easy to maintain.

Posted on: 8/1 17:05
Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#21
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
I live down he block & have watched this property steadily deteriorate over the last 2 years.
It is SAD that what started out as an private propertyowner's attempt to lend new purpose to an aging structure in the area, ... have resulted in this property falling into additional disrepair.


Well put, light12v, I agree completely. HPC and HPO over-reach with the historic preservation rules makes it very difficult (or impossible) for owners to repair and rehabilitate these wonderful old houses where many have lived for decades. A reasonable, balanced and lawful application of the historic preservation rules would mostly be beneficial, helping people maintain their homes and preserve the character, diversity and soul of these special neighborhoods. The current heavy handed, over-zealous approach by the HPO and HPC, with it's ensuing disparate impact effects, runs counter to overall public good.

Regarding the West Side, many residents, including families who have owned their homes for several generations, expressed well-founded concern when the Historic District designation was rammed through by the City. During the Ordinance second reading City Council members promised to update and clarify the historic preservation rules. Well, no surprise, that never happened. At that same time, it was appalling to see Joyce Watterman vote in favor of the new district. Doesn't she know how these types of restrictive zoning rules have been abused over and again, for decades, to the detriment of minority families, and families with limited resources? She should be ashamed of that vote.

Since you live in that district, and with November's election coming up you might reach out to Councilman Chris Gadsen about all this – I don't live in that Ward. You'll recall he won handily last time, against Fulop's hand-picked, historic preservationist, City attorney candidate. In a community debate before that vote, Fulop's guy showed he was totally clueless, telling homeowners we need more Historic Preservation Officers to “help”! No one was fooled, and of course he lost. I've also heard the City is trying to introduce another historic district around Astor Place. Folks over there should be very concerned and get involved in the lead up to the elections. Ward E homeowners are also affected and should ask their candidates what they will do to stop the abuse of the historic rules.

Unless the City clarifies that the Historic Ordinance is limited to “Preservation” and can't be used to compel owners to undertake “restoration” or “reconstruction”, it will take a law suit to stop the abusive, aggressive, over-reach by the HPO and HPC. A thoughtful judge reading a well researched and argued brief, including all the applicable sections of State law (MLUL), City Zoning code, legislative and regulatory history, and the context in which it was all developed and is applied, will inevitably conclude there are limits, and HPO and HPC actions often overstep those limits. A suit bringing a disparate impact claim would rely on a relevant 2015 Supreme Court ruling and federal laws.

It will need a dedicated attorney, someone (or group) who has been aggrieved or suffered disparate impact, with the time, money and interest to bring a case. In my opinion, the outcome is clear. I've looked at several historic preservation matters and it is not a forgone conclusion that municipalities and HPC's prevail. I believe the court will find many actions of the JC HPO and HPC outside their limited authority to regulate “preservation” and would clarify the limits of their authority. In a disparate impact case in Federal Court, you'd have to wonder if the City isn't liable for damages given they've been so derelict in their oversight of the HPC's misuse of the Ordinance, and the resulting harms so serious.

I concur with much of what you have stated.

I attended the events noted & went on the record at the 2nd reading literally challenging Cotter-City Planning, Farrell-Corporation Counsel & all other city reps regarding their shady in-house methods of altering governing documents/backroom dealings and introduced copies of their handiwork [documents] into the official record that severely 'flustered' them.

As you have probably concluded, I am an opponent of Municipal Historic District Overlay & find the Fulop Administration's performance to date FAILED on Every Level.

You seem well versed in the Legal Arena so perhaps you can enlighten us about Farrell's affirmative defenses contained in the document link below, particularly the one that states " City Defendants are entitled to ABSOLUTE STATUTORY IMMUNITY" & advise if you perceive Fulop's Individual Interests as in Concord or in Conflict with Jersey City's interests.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3903312-Show-Multidocs.html

Posted on: 8/1 15:58
Top


Re: Couple seeks $18M from Jersey City in lawsuit over historic district guidelines
#22
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

What would you use if it was the alley sides seen by no one but the next door neighbors? Is vinyl just ugly or does it have a functional flaw too? Siding is on my to-do list.


I have been using this material called Viroc more and more. At first I used it to rebuild the frames around windows that rotted out due to exposure to horizontal rain (the building gets blasted during Nor'Easters).

I then started using it as siding. The manufacturer intended it to be used as commercial paneling that is mechanically fasted to the building. I found out (at least for me) it works pretty well bolted on to the building, but with a moisture barrier / weep path underneath.

I like the stuff because unlike vinyl, Viroc is damn near fireproof. This was kind of important after a tenant accidentally set one of my buildings on fire via a dropped cigarette (small fire.... fire department did more damage putting it out then the fire itself). I used a water based colored sealer, which last years. Unfortunately, the company that made the sealer went out of business.

http://virocny.com/

I have used Viroc 4 exterior & interior projects. It's great material & has similar characteristics to Hardiplank [which is no surprise since they are both cement based.]

Posted on: 8/1 10:54
Top


Re: NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Fulop... So Who PAYS 4 his Legal Defense ?
#23
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30


Thank You for properly locating my post & providing a link to the Federal Judge's document that I was referencing.


Thanks light12v and jerseymom. This is all getting rather interesting, don't you think? Stay tuned, the next episode could be even more exciting.

"Interesting" would not be my word of choice...

Posted on: 8/1 10:44
Top


Re: NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Fulop... So Who PAYS 4 his Legal Defense ?
#24
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30


Thank You for properly locating my post & providing a link to the Federal Judge's document that I was referencing.

Posted on: 8/1 9:35
Top


NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Fulop... So Who PAYS 4 his Legal Defense ?
#25
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Can anyone shed some light on this latest circumstance for us ???
-JC Taxpayer Plebeians-

Posted on: 7/31 23:24
Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#26
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
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...?.

Your points are well stated & appear well researched. I live down he block & have watched this property steadily deteriorate over the last 2 years.
It is SAD that what started out as an private propertyowner's attempt to lend new purpose to an aging structure in the area, instead of tearing down & replacing w/ Bayonne Box Beauties similar to the one constructed next to the church on Bergen Ave, have resulted in this property falling into additional disrepair.
Not to mention, adding substancial litigation costs to JC budget to be bourne by property taxes & other JC municipal moneymakers ,,,,all at taxpayer expense!

Posted on: 7/25 15:25
Top


Re: Fulop foe loses tax appeal targeting mayor's home
#27
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

JerseyCityNj wrote:
"Fulop's home was last reassessed in 1991. In New Jersey, properties generally retain their assessments until a property revaluation or after renovations, which are supposed to trigger reassessments."



Below his own wife admits in another article last year that the home was renovated by them.

"Asked about her new home on Ogden Avenue, Jackie, as she is called, said the place has been reduced to bare studs. It is being completely renovated because of its age and yes, she has a lot of say about the job. No doubt this means a big kitchen, hardwood floors, cool lighting and a choice of gun turret colors (kidding)? I kind of like her honesty -- is that the word?"

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... op_and_his_local_sup.html

Let us not forget that the purchase price of 845K plus the 'gut renovation' was further embelished by the Special Zoning Variance that Fulop received where his lot coverage was Increased to an unprecidented % [that none of his neighbors or comps can claim]....ADDING Exponential VALUE to the property, which should have taken this appeal over the top easily!

However, taking into account the asses that occupy the seats on the Hudson County Tax Appeal Board, Fulop could be building the Taj Mahal & this HC Board would have turned a blind eye to this.

Taking further action on the state level is the way to go April....but be sure to be armed with ALL of the documentation that demonstrates his clear abuse of Gov't. position for personal gain/enrichment.

Posted on: 7/22 11:24
Top


Re: HC proposes $538 million budget with tax increases for 6 towns
#28
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Hudson County proposes $538 million budget with tax increases for 6 towns

BY CAITLIN MOTA
The Jersey Journal

JERSEY CITY - Hudson County has proposed a $538 million budget that would raise taxes in six of its 12 municipalities this year.

The Hudson County Board of Freeholders is expected to make a final vote on the budget, which is $2 million less than it was in 2016, at the body's June 8 meeting.

Under the proposed budget, Jersey City residents would see the largest county tax increase, up roughly 9 percent from last year. West New York, Weehawken, and Hoboken could see about a 6 percent hike. East Newark would see about a 3 percent jump, and North Bergen would see just over a 1 percent increase.

While Jersey City hasn't seen a municipal tax increase in three years, it is the second year in a row the county's largest city will be hit hard by county tax hikes. In 2016, Jersey City saw a 10 percent increase.

Hoboken, too, saw a 4 percent hike 2016.


http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s.html#incart_river_index


Can someone please explain why & how different municipalities within HC are levied with such different percentages of increase ?
Thanks.

Posted on: 7/14 10:44
Top


Re: ESPYS - Hurley wins Best Coach Award
#29
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Annod wrote:
VIDEO: Bob Hurley, former St. Anthony basketball coach, honored at ESPY Awards

By
Nicholas Parco
New York Daily News
Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 10:09 PM

He isn’t coaching hoops anymore, but the accolades keep on coming for Bob Hurley.

The former head of the storied boys basketball program at St. Anthony High School in Jersey City, which closed earlier this year, won the Best Coach Award at the ESPYs Wednesday night.

Hurley, one of two Basketball Hall of Famers who only coached at the high school level, went 1,162-119 and won 28 state titles to go along with four national championships in his 45 seasons running the show at St. Anthony’s.

“It’s really a great honor to be here tonight,” Hurley said during in his acceptance speech. “Getting this award alongside all these iconic coaches, but even more specifically it’s a great honor to be representing all these great coaches.”

He then thanked his family, including his sons, URI head coach Dan Hurley and Arizona State’s Bobby Hurley, who were in attendance, for making what he has always referred to as “the miracle” of St. Anthony’s possible.

“It’s a great honor to be representing all these coaches in the high school ranks,” Bob Hurley said. “Because every athlete that has come up on this stage tonight, no matter what sport they play, each one of them had a coach in high school, junior college, or maybe even before who played a critical role in their development as an athlete and it’s the whole person part that I have always taken a lot of pride in.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/bas ... d-espys-article-1.3322143



BIG Congrats to Coach Hurley,,,, but the kid killed it !

Posted on: 7/13 18:23
Top


Re: window replacement - historic district
#30
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
You do need to follow the “rules”, which you can find in the JC code at 345-30 and 345-71. Since it's a part of “Zoning” other general provisions apply as well, found throughout the Code and State Laws. Although you must follow the rules, rest assured Dan and the HPC won't do the same. They'll ignore the bounds of their authority, which are limited to “historic preservation”. Instead they'll demand the sun, moon and stars and won't give you a permit till they get what they want. The devil in understanding all this is in the details, which are widely mis-understood and applied. Read on if you choose, and you might learn something about the way the HPC and HPO operate in Jersey City.

First, you need to understand a little about the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). The MLUL is the enabling legislation from which the City draws its limited authority to regulate “historic preservation.” “Preservation” is the key word used in the applicable sections of the MLUL . Why is the word “preservation” so important? Well, in matters of historic preservation the enabling MLUL limits the regulatory powers it grants municipalities to preservation and ONLY preservation. “Reconstruction”, “restoration” and other such activities are NOT mentioned in the MLUL, and are, therefore, EXCLUDED as activities the City has any authority to compel.

So what about the word “preservation” in particular? Here we turn to the ordinary, obvious meaning of the word. It is plainly apparent it is only possible to “preserve” something that currently exists. The term “historic preservation” itself makes reference to something that is from history – that is, something that exists from the past. Conversely, if something does not exist, there is nothing to “preserve”. Put another way, if a historic feature no longer exists, then it can't be preserved. A fake, historic-appearing, replication of some non-existant feature or aspect of a building might be made by “reconstruction” or “recreation”, but those activities are not “preservation.”

With all that as background now to the matter of window replacement. First, take a careful look at the wording of the City code. It's found at 345-71 L. 1. b. I'll reproduce here for ease of reference, and have added the bold for emphasis of a key clause:

L. Additional Regulations for Alterations and Additions to Buildings and New Construction.
1. Windows.
b. Replacement.
i. If historic windows have deteriorated to a point precluding repair, rehabilitation or restoration, based on documentation submitted by the applicant, or a field inspection by the Historic Preservation Officer, replacement windows may be approved under a Certificate of No Effect if they match the historic windows in terms of configuration, operation, details, material and finish. Variations in details will be permitted if such variations do not significantly affect the visual characteristics of the historic window, including the shadow effect of muntins and sash on the glazing. In evaluating "significant" effect, other factors to be considered shall be the age of the building and its architectural quality, as well as the extent of reduction in the total glazed area of the proposed sash compared to the existing sash. For narrow wood windows (less than fifteen (15) inches wide), the reduction shall be limited to ten percent (10%); for wood windows, fifteen (15) inches or wider, the reduction shall be limited to six percent; for metal double-hung windows (of any size), the reduction shall be limited to ten percent (10%).
ii. In buildings less than thirty (30) years old, the replacement windows need not match the historic window in terms of materials. The finish, however, must match the finish of the original windows. On secondary facades, windows which are visible from a public thoroughfare need only match the historic windows in terms of configuration and finish.
iii. Proposals for replacement windows which do not meet these conditions will require a Certificate of Appropriateness

You'll notice the words used are about historic windows that STILL EXIST, although perhaps in such a state of disrepair that it is no longer possible to make them serviceable through means of repair, rehabilitation or reconstruction. Please note that the word reconstruction is used here to in reference to something that still exists, and needs to be preserved. It is not referring to the construction of something completely new where nothing presently exists. This latter use of “reconstruction” has a technical definition found in the definitions section of the Code, and more clearly in the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Historic Preservation.

So, if your historic windows still exist, they must be preserved (by means of repair, rehabilitation or reconstruction). If your historic windows can't be preserved you're going to have to replace them with essentially identical, fake “historic” copies. And those copies don't come cheap. $3,500 a piece for long, parlor-level windows last time I checked, and that was a couple of years ago.

Now to “non-historic” windows in an old building. This situation is very frequent because many of the houses in the historic districts had the original wood windows removed and replaced, often by aluminum windows, at some past time. Obviously, the historic windows are no longer present, so they can't be preserved. 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.

Nevertheless, if your existing windows are not historic, then this is where the “demand the sun, moon and stars” hits you – Dan and the HPC will try to have you believe they have the authority to demand that you replace those non-historic windows with “fake historic” ones. And worse, if you are unlucky enough to have had your long parlor-level windows bricked up sometime in the past, well then they'll try to make you restore those long window openings as well. More expense.

These activities are not “preservation” of an existing historic feature. They are “restoration” of the building to its appearance from time time in the past. These kinds of demands by the HPC and HPO are beyond their legal authority to regulate “preservation.” All the definitions are in the Code. Again, better definitions are found in the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Historic preservation. The latter definitions are much clearer than the City's, particularly the one for '”restoration” which is so badly written in the JC Code as to fail the “understandable by a person of common intelligence” standard.

As I've noted previously, the HPC and HPO get away with this abuse of their authority because many homeowners simply give in to the demands. It's expensive, time consuming and a hassle to take the HPC and HPO on. And you can't count on ANY support from our esteemed council persons. They're too busy doing the bidding of the Mayor. You can fight, but you'd need to hire an attorney intimately familiar with all the detailed requirements of zoning law. That's expensive, often more that the cost of the work and so the City gets its way. For owners who can't afford the expensive, extensive work demanded, well they often just sell, driven out of their neighborhoods by the heavy handed and abusive use of these zoning codes. That's how it goes down in JC – always has, probably always will.....
So SAD, however TBT, keepin it REAL

Posted on: 7/13 13:37
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 »






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